The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for the responses given during his practical examination for licensure which was conducted during November, 1991, and for which Petitioner entered this challenge.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, David Sanders, is a candidate for chiropractic licensure. His candidate for licensure number is 200142, and he took the November, 1991, practical examination administered by the Department. Petitioner received a score of 64.0 on the practical examination. Petitioner's score fell below the minimum score for passing, 75.0. Petitioner timely challenged the examination results and claimed that the Department had incorrectly graded Petitioner's responses and performance during the examination. In this case, the practical examination was administered by two examiners who, independently of one another, scored the responses given by Petitioner when presented with two case studies. For Case 1, the scoring was divided into fourteen sections or subsections where the candidate was evaluated and given points based upon the responses given. For the orthopedics section of Case 1, the Petitioner was given a scenario of facts from which he was to determine the appropriate tests to be administered to the patient. Following selection of the tests to be given, Petitioner was required to perform the test. For an inappropriate test, no points were awarded, even if the candidate performed the test correctly. Of the nine tests listed, four were to be chosen and performed. One point was awarded for each appropriate test correctly performed. In response to the orthopedics section, Petitioner selected three appropriate tests to perform. Consequently, the maximum grade, per examiner, he could have received was a score of three. Petitioner received a score of two from one examiner, and a three from the other. The first examiner commented that the Yeomans test was wrong. Since Yeomans was an appropriate test to perform, and Petitioner correctly performed the test, Petitioner should have received a three on that section from that examiner. Under the neurological subsections of Case 1, Petitioner was required to identify, based upon the fact scenario given, four muscles which should be examined and tested. Petitioner only identified three relevant muscles. Consequently, he received a score of three from each examiner. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Under subsection 8 of the neurological portion Petitioner received no credit as he failed to select three appropriate tests and correctly interpret the responses. Accordingly, the scoring on this subsection was correct. The final subsection of the neurological portion was the diagnosis rendered based upon all the findings of the scenario and test results. Since Petitioner rendered an inappropriate diagnosis, no points were awarded. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Case 2 of the physical examination contained nine sections or subsections for which Petitioner could have received credit. The first section of Case 2 required Petitioner to obtain a history from the patient. To achieve a perfect score on this section, the candidate had to inquire into seven or more areas of relevant history. If so, the score for the section would be a four. In this case, Petitioner should have received a four from both examiners regarding the history taken. As it was, Petitioner only received a three from the examiners. In order to receive credit on the physical-selection portion of the test, Petitioner was required to auscultate the heart and lungs, and purcuss the chest. Since he failed to do so, the scoring on this subsection was correct. In connection with subsections 18 and 19 of Case 2, Petitioner failed to receive full credit because he did not indicate an appropriate laboratory test. Had Petitioner requested a SMAC test, full credit would have been given for both subsections. As it was, because Petitioner failed to request a SMAC test, he could not receive credit on either subsection. The scoring on these subsections was correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a final order changing Petitioner's score on the November, 1991, physical examination as noted above in order to recalculate and determine whether or not Petitioner failed the examination through no fault of his own. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2709 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: With regard to paragraph 1, with the deletion of the words "on physical diagnosis" in sentence 1, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraphs 5 through 9 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sanders 359 Glenwood Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine in Florida. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been a licensed physician, in the State of Florida, license number ME 0027088. Respondent is board certified in three areas of specialty: gastroenterology, radiology, and internal medicine. Respondent is on the staff of several hospitals in the Palm Beach County region. From March 28, 1986, until April 4, 1986, Respondent treated Goldie Marshak. At the time of such treatment, Mrs. Marshak was a seventy-one year old in good health. Mrs. Marshak had been referred to Respondent by Dr. Neil Katz. Dr. Katz was Mrs. Marshak's regular physician who had unsuccessfully treated her for persistent gas and burping. In accordance with Mrs. Marshak's health plan guidelines, Dr. Katz had referred her to Respondent, a specialist in similar disorders, for additional diagnosis. The referral form indicated Mrs. Marshak suffered from persistent stomach pain and gas. Attached to the referral were the results from a prior upper GI series which established there were no abnormalities of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Respondent first met with Mrs. Marshak on March 28, 1986. At the initial visit Mrs. Marshak completed a form which identified her current problem as "burping and rectal gas as soon as I eat. Some pain upper chest that has diminished." In addition, Mrs. Marshak supplied a social history, a past medical history, drug allergy, operations, injury, hospitalizations, family history, immunizations, and a general review of systems. No other records prepared on that date were retained. There are no records from which it can be determined what physical examination, if any, Respondent gave to Mrs. Marshak on March 28, 1986. Apparently, after reviewing the referral form and discussing her symptoms with Mrs. Marshak, Respondent elected to schedule her for a procedure called a flexible sigmoidoscopy. After conferring With Dr. Katz, whose consent was required for health plan purposes, the procedure was set to be performed April 3, 1986. Mrs. Marshak was given instructions regarding preparations required in order for the examination to be performed. When Mrs. Marshak returned to Respondent's office on April 3, 1986, she had successfully followed the instructions and was ready for the proposed procedure. Mrs. Marshak was given an authorization form which she signed in the presence of Marina Harmon. Mrs. Harmon was an unlicensed employee who assisted Respondent by escorting patients to the procedure room, having them sign the authorization form, and by explaining the procedure to be performed. The authorization form signed by Mrs. Marshak authorized Respondent to perform a flexible sigmoidoscopy. The form did not disclose risks or inherent dangers regarding the procedure but did provide the following: The motive and purpose of the diagnostic procedure, possible alternative methods, the risks and possible consequences involved, and the possibility of complications have been fully explained to me. I acknowledge that no guarantee or assurance has been made as the results that may be obtained. I also specifically authorize the physician, or his designee, to perform such additional procedures or render such treatment as he may, in his professional judgement deem necessary in the event any unforeseen condition arise during the course of the consented-to- diagnostic procedure that would put the patient's (my) well-being in jeopardy. A flexible sigmoidoscopy is a procedure whereby an instrument is inserted into the rectum and is then passed up the colon the desired distance. The length the instrument is extended specifies what the procedure is called. A flexible sigmoidoscopy involves looking into the rectum and the sigmoid colon only. A colonoscopy looks into the digestive tract beyond an anatomical portion of the colon called the splenic flexure. A left-sided colonoscopy involves looking into the lower digestive tract beyond the sigmoid colon but not beyond the splenic flexure. In terms of length, the flexible sigmoidoscopy would be the shortest procedure of the three described. On April 3, 1986, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Mrs. Marshak which resulted in a perforation of her colon. This perforation would have occurred regardless of the procedure performed since the tear was located approximately twenty centimeters into the colon. During and following the procedure, Mrs. Marshak complained of extreme pain. Respondent presumed the pain to be that typically experienced during the procedure. The pain which continued after the instrument was removed, Respondent attributed to trapped gas within the colon which would be passed naturally in the hours following the procedure. Respondent sent Mrs. Marshak home for rest and advised her that the procedure had not revealed any abnormal condition in the area examined. Once home, Mrs. Marshak continued to have pain and discomfort. Her husband, Kalman Marshak, telephoned Respondent's office to advise of his wife's continued suffering. Respondent did not speak with either of the Marshaks' but did telephone a prescription for Tylenol with Codeine to their pharmacy. Mr. Marshak picked up the drug and administered it to his wife as directed. Codeine is an improper drug to prescribe for a patient who may be retaining gas since it inhibits parastoltic activity of the bowel. Respondent should have discussed the patient's symptoms with her to ascertain whether or not the pain suffered warranted further examination or emergency treatment. Despite the drug, Mrs. Marshak's pain continued through the night. On the morning of April 4, 1986, Mr. Marshak again telephoned Respondent's office to advise them of his wife's discomfort. The Marshaks were given an appointment for three o'clock that afternoon. The delay in setting the appointment or referring the patient for emergency treatment was inappropriate. At the time of her revisit, Mrs. Marshak had a distended abdomen with some tenderness. Respondent took x-rays of the area and reinserted the colonoscope a very short distance in an effort to expel what Respondent believed to be trapped gas in the colon. The procedure did not relieve Mrs. Marshak's pain and she was advised to go to the hospital for further treatment. Subsequent to Mrs. Marshak leaving the office, Respondent read the x-rays and discovered the perforation. Respondent immediately telephoned the emergency room to advise the physician on duty of Mrs. Marshak's condition and her need for attention. The perforation required surgery which resulted in Mrs. Marshak having to wear a colostomy bag for several months. Afterwards, a second surgery restored her colon to allow normal elimination. At the time of the final hearing, Mrs. Marshak had completely recovered from the perforation. On April 8, 1986, Respondent prepared a letter to Dr. Katz which outlined the treatment given to Mrs. Marshak. Any notes or other records used to prepare the letter were destroyed. The x-rays taken at Respondent's office on April 4, 1986, were lost and were, therefore, unavailable. According to Respondent, the missing x-rays were very similar to the ones taken at the hospital when Mrs. Marshak arrived on April 4, 1986. The Respondent did not obtain a consent form or written authorization for the procedure performed on April 4, 1986. The reinsertion of the instrument into the rectum was inappropriate since the x-rays clearly showed the perforation. Other than the letter written to Dr. Katz, Respondent did not maintain any medical records for the treatment he gave to Mrs. Marshak on March 28, April 3, and April 4, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order which finds Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint, dismisses Counts II and III, imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $1000, places Respondent on probation for a period of two years, and requires Respondent to attend such continuing education courses as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3397 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. To the extent paragraph 11 describes a colonoscopy as "more invasive" the paragraph is accepted. However, as to all of the examinations performed (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy or left-sided colonoscopy) the basic description is similar. Consequently "more extensive explanation "is not required. Thus the balance of paragraph" is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted however it must be noted that such explanations given by Harmon are in supplement to those given by Rothenberg. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted, however, see note above re: paragraph 14. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as argument, irrelevant and immaterial. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 are accepted with the note that the communications addressed were with Respondent's office. There is no evidence that Respondent personally spoke with Mr. Marshak to determine the patient's condition. Paragraph 29 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. It was inappropriate to delay the revisit until 3 o'clock, but there is no evidence Respondent made that decision. Based upon the testimony, The more appropriate course would have had Respondent discuss the situation directly with the patient (or her husband) and to schedule the revisit as soon as possible or have the patient go to the hospital. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraphs 31, 32, and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. Paragraph 35 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant immaterial and assuming facts not in evidence. Paragraphs 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43 are accepted. Paragraphs 44, 45, 46, and 47, are rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 48 and 50 are rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 49 is accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12 the area of the perforation was between 15- 25 centimeters according to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 13 and 14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as to "reread." That paragraph with the word "read" for "reread" would be accepted. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, and 19 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Branson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles A. Nugent, Jr., Esquire Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth & Romano Servico Centre-Suite 300/400 1601 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darall J. Moore, graduated from the Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine in 1983 with a D.P.M. degree. T. 10. The Petitioner took the podiatry examination in July 1986, and did not receive a passing grade. On October 1, 1986, the Petitioner conducted a review of his examination. He arrived at 8:30 a.m. and left the review session at 1:30 p.m. R. Ex. 1. The review was conducted pursuant to the procedures outlined in P. Ex. 1, a copy of which was provided to the Petitioner by the Respondent before the review took place. The purpose of the review was to give the Petitioner an opportunity to examine the answer key and the questions asked on the examination, and to note in writing (on challenge sheets provided) his objections to the grading of particular questions by number. The procedure for examination review also provided that: Candidates may not copy any material provided for the review. No reference materials or electronic recording or photographic equipment may be brought into the review. No material may be taken out of the review. All reviews are subject to Departmental security requirements in order to insure the integrity of the examination. The review session on October 1, 1986, was conducted in a small room. The room was used by other people as well, and during the review there were conversations of people, phones ringing, and people coming in and out. Nonetheless, there does not appear to be any direct evidence that these distractions substantially impaired the Petitioner's ability to review his examination. During the review, the Petitioner submitted challenges to 20 examination questions by number. R. Ex. 1. Each of these written challenges identifies the examination question by number and provides a space for comments concerning the challenge. The procedure for examination review and challenge provides in part that "[a]ll objections must be submitted within sixty (60) days from the date of your request for a review. Objections will be analyzed by a committee of the Board of Podiatry and you will be notified of any decision." P. Ex. 1. (E.S. in original.) Before the review took place, the Petitioner was informed that he had a right "to appeal" from the "results" of his examination review. The "appeal" was to be initiated within thirty (30) days of his "receipt of . . . examination review results." The "appeal" was to contain specific reasons for the challenge, including why the Petitioner was "appealing," "what actions of the examiner(s) were unfair, and any objections made at your review." P. Ex. 1. (E.S. in original.) The Petitioner timely requested a formal administrative hearing. At the formal administrative hearing, the Petitioner presented evidence concerning five examination questions. T. 30. None of this evidence was by expert testimony, but the Petitioner referred to expert treatises in the field. The first question was to state the nerve located around the neck of head of the fibula. T. 30. Petitioner contends that his answer to the question, the common peroneal, is correct. Id. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The second question challenged at the hearing by the Petitioner was "what dorsal cutaneous nerve communicates with the sural nerve." T. 44, 45. The Petitioner contends that the correct answer to this question, his answer, is the lateral dorsal cutaneous nerve. Id. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The third question challenged by the Petitioner at the hearing was "what is the largest reservoir of blood in the body." T. 46. The Petitioner contends that his answer, the veins, is the correct answer. T. 47. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The fourth question challenged by the Petitioner at the hearing was what is the characteristic of metatarsus adductus. T. 48. The Petitioner contends that his answer, "styloid process, prominent styloid process, based on the concave in the concavity being reversed," is the correct answer. T. 49. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The fifth question challenged by the Petitioner at the hearing was never clearly stated by the Petitioner, but concerned "pathopneumonic of gouty arthritis." T. 49. The Petitioner never clearly identified the answer that he gave, but contended that his answer was partially right and that there was no other answer that he could have chosen. T. 49-50. It appears that this question was discussed and objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2, question 88. However, since the Petitioner never clearly demonstrated what the question was, or what the answer was, the testimony of the Petitioner was too unclear for there to be a finding that the answer he gave to the question was correct. The Petitioner admitted that during the review session (see R. Ex. 2) he did not provide the Respondent with all of the questions to which he had objections. T. 38. The Petitioner did not provide the Respondent with written objections to the first four questions discussed above within sixty (60) days of the review, and indeed, did not provide any such notice to the Respondent until the formal administrative hearing began. There is no evidence that the Petitioner would have passed the examination if the Respondent accepted his answer to the fifth question. The Petitioner testified that his ability to prepare for this hearing was impaired because he was not allowed to take anything into the review session and was not permitted to take anything out of the review session. He states that he could not adequately prepare for the hearing because he did not have references during the review session, and did not have a copy of the questions objected to in the review session or a copy of the examination for use at the hearing. The Petitioner represented himself without representation of a lawyer. There is no evidence that the Petitioner knew about the procedures for conducting discovery prior to a formal administrative hearing, and there is no evidence that prior to the hearing he sought any discovery of the written objections he made during the review session or of the examination questions.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Podiatry, enter its final order finding that the Petitioner, Darall Jerome Moore, has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his 1986 examination for licensure as a Podiatrist was improperly graded, that the procedures for review of his examination were unfair, or that he should be given a passing grade on the 1986 examination. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 87-1725 The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties, by number, which have been rejected. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 1. The record does not contain evidence (testimony or exhibits) to allow any conclusion as to the numerical grade received by the Petitioner. Thus, the finding proposed that the grade was 71.9 is rejected. There is insufficient evidence that the distractions during the review in fact substantially impaired the ability of the Petitioner to review the examination. The Petitioner did not testify that the noise or traffic caused him to be unable to concentrate or to fail to review the entire exam. See T. 28-29. The Petitioner completed twenty objections and left at 1:55 P.M., three hours before 5:00 P.M. The first sentence is rejected as not relevant. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to show how he was caused to be unable to prepare his case due to the scheduling of the hearing. It is officially recognized that the case was set for final hearing to commence August 10, 1987, by an order dated and entered May 1, 1987, and that the hearing date was changed to June 8, 1987, at the request of an attorney, Marc A. Tenney, received May 4, 1987. For these reasons, the second sentence is also rejected. Rejected for the reasons set forth in conclusions of law 2-4. The finding that it was very difficult to prepare for final hearing is rejected in finding of fact 19 and conclusion of law 6. Rejected in finding of fact 19 and conclusion of law 6. These findings are rejected in finding of fact 19 and conclusion of law 6. Rejected in findings of fact 11 through 14. Rejected in findings of fact 11 through 14. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 2. The second sentence is rejected for lack of evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Marcelle Flanagan Executive Director Board of Podiatry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darall Jerome Moore, D.P.M. 5455 27th Street South, Apt. 87 St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Frank Giampietro (Petitioner) should be awarded additional credit for answers given on the chiropractic physical diagnosis practical licensure examination administered in November, 1989, and based thereon, whether he should be licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Rhode Island since March, 1986. He took the diagnosis portion of the chiropractic practical examination administered by the Respondent on November 9, 1989, for purposes of being licensed in the State of Florida. Petitioner received a grade of 68.7% on this portion of the exam. The minimum passing grade on this practical exam was 75%. Thereafter, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he should be granted additional credit on this practical exam, and based thereon, whether he should have passed this examination. It was established that the physical diagnosis practical exam was properly administered, appropriate standardization procedures were followed, and each examiner independently graded Petitioner's exam and was qualified to serve as an examiner. At hearing, the Petitioner disputed the score he received in the areas of neurology, orthopedics, and differential diagnosis. A four point scoring system is used on the practical examination. A score of 4 means that the candidate demonstrated an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject area; a score of 3 represents an adequate understanding; a score of 2 indicates an inadequate knowledge of the subject area; and a score of 2 indicates that the candidate would be a danger to the public if allowed to practice in that particular subject area. If a grader feels that the candidate's answer demonstrates a degree of knowledge that is between two of these scores, a .5 credit can be given. This is a subjective, rather than an objective, scoring system that requires each examiner to use his own judgment in evaluating the completeness of a candidate's response; generally, there are no simple right or wrong answers to practical exam questions. In arriving at a candidate's overall percentage score, a score of 4 equals 100 points, a score of 3 equals 75 points, 2 equals 50 points, and 1 equals 25 points. A .5 score equals 12.5 points. For example, a score of 3.5 would equal 87.5 points. Each content area of the practical exam is weighted equally, and there were 4 content areas in the November, 1989 physical diagnosis practical exam. Two examiners are used to score each candidate's practical examination, and the scores given by each examiner are then averaged to give the candidate's overall grade. In this instance, one examiner gave Petitioner the grades of 2.5 in orthopedics and 3 in both neurology and differential diagnosis, while the other examiner gave him 2 in orthopedics, 2.5 in neurology and 3 in differential diagnosis. If Petitioner received two additional raw points on these three content areas which are under challenge, he would receive an overall passing score of 75%. Regarding the practical exam content area of orthopedics, the Petitioner improperly performed Apley's test, according to the expert testimony of Dr. Ordet, and incorrectly responded that the medial and lateral meniscus could not be differentiated using Apley's test. The Petitioner also improperly performed McMurray's test, as well as muscle testing of the hamstrings and quadriceps. The Petitioner's witness, Dr. Hoover, confirmed that he did not properly perform Apley's test, and did not make a determination as to the medial or lateral meniscus by rotating the patient's foot, as he could have. Regarding the neurology portion of the exam, Petitioner incorrectly identified the location of the upper motor neuron track, and according to Dr. Ordet, the Petitioner also incorrectly stated that pathologic reflexes which would actually be for a lower motor neuron lesion were the pathologic reflexes for an upper motor neuron lesion. This was a very significant error, according to Dr. Ordet, whose testimony is credited. Regarding the differential diagnosis portion of the exam, the Petitioner's response to the patient's bowel blockage was not precise or specific. Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had more than an adequate understanding of this subject area due to the nebulous answers he gave. Even the Petitioner's witness, Dr. Hoover, agreed with the grade of 3 which Petitioner received on this portion of the exam. Based on the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner was correctly graded on the orthopedics, neurology and differential diagnosis portions of the practical examination. It was not established that the grades given were contrary to fact or logic, and in fact, competent substantial evidence supports the grades which he received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to his grades on the orthopedics, neurology and differential diagnosis portions of the November, 1989, chiropractic examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX (D0AH CASE NO. 90-3399) The Petitioner did not file specific proposed findings of fact, but did file a letter dated September 28, 1990, on October 1, 1990, addressed to the undersigned. This letter does not evidence that a copy was provided to counsel for the Respondent, and therefore, it has not been considered. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-3. Rejected as unnecessary. 4. Adopted in Finding 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 7. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 8. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Giampietro 1704 Adair Road Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. Respondent holds an active license to practice medicine, license number ME 0030238 (Physician). Respondent's practice is limited to what he has described as "cosmetic" surgery, but which is considered plastic or reconstructive surgery. Typically, Respondent performs elective surgery for cosmetic purposes to breasts, abdomen, buttocks, face (eyes, lips, cheeks), or hips. In August, 1990, the patient, V.A., presented to the Respondent for a pre-operative consultation and examination. At the time, V.A. was interested in having liposuction, breast enlargement, and an abdominoplasty. Due to her medical history, V.A. was an extremely poor candidate for an abdominoplasty. The pre-operative history and physical examination performed by Respondent as reflected in the records maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., were inadequate. No records supporting a complete physical examination and history have been provided. The pre-operative medical records maintained for the patient, V.A., do not support the course of treatment proposed for the procedures to be performed. Respondent did not order a pre-operative lab work-up for the patient, V.A. Such lab order would normally consist of a complete blood count, a urinalysis, electrolytes, blood sugar, blood nitrogen test, and a mammogram or breast examination since the breasts were to be augmented. Respondent relied on lab test results for V.A. which were approximately three months old. Respondent believes that the reliance on tests up to six months old would be acceptable since he only performs surgery on healthy patients. Respondent performed no independent examination of V.A. to verify she was "healthy," prior to surgery. Failing to obtain current lab tests of the types described above before performing elective surgery of the nature sought by V.A. constitutes the practice of medicine below the standard of care, skill, and treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would find acceptable under similar circumstances and conditions. On or about August 30, 1990, Respondent performed the following procedures on V.A.: liposuction; breast enlargement; and an abdominoplasty. In order to perform the procedures noted, Respondent used general anesthesia so that V.A. was under anesthesia for six hours. During that time, Respondent opened V.A.'s abdomen, removed tissue, removed adipose tissue from various parts of the patient's body, injected fat tissue into the patient's breasts, cheeks and hands, and closed the abdominal wound with stitches. The surgical or operative notes maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., are inadequate to fully describe the procedures performed. The Respondent was released to go home approximately two hours after the surgery. The postoperative notes maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., are inadequate to fully describe how the patient was able to be discharged in so short a time after surgery. V.A. returned to Respondent's office numerous times following the surgery. V.A. sustained an infection and complications from the wound to her abdomen that took months to heal. Respondent treated the infection by scraping the wound and attempting to re-stitch it on at least two occasions. V.A. sustained necrosis which is the death of tissue and which complicated the healing of the abdomen wound. The loss of skin from necrosis is much more likely to occur when the patient has scarring. Given V.A.'s medical history (scarring throughout the areas), the necrosis was almost inevitable. Two procedures are available under the circumstances applicable to V.A.: allowing the wound to heal without stitches or to use a skin graft. The procedure used by Respondent (stitching the infected area) fell below the standard of care, skill, and treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would find acceptable under similar circumstances and conditions. Injecting fat tissue for breast augmentation is inappropriate. Since it is common for the fat tissue to die after injection, the injected tissue then appears on a mammograph as a mass of suspicious origin. That is, it is difficult to differentiate from a breast mass that is a medical problem from that of the dead fat tissue. As a result, biopsies may be required to verify the mass content. In fact, V.A. has already had to have such a procedure following the augmentation performed by Respondent. Respondent also conducted a pre-operative interview with a patient, P.T. P.T. was a radio talk show host at the time and suggested that the station, she and Respondent could all benefit from a campaign wherein she would have liposuction, the Respondent would receive her endorsement through advertising, and the station would have advertising paid for by the Respondent's clinic. In an attempt to negotiate the terms of the advertising campaign, P.T., an advertising executive with the radio station, Respondent's office manager, and Respondent met together to discuss the project. Respondent wanted a multifaceted campaign requiring P.T. to undergo more than just the liposuction she sought. Respondent's scope for the campaign included many of the surgeries his clinic offered. While discussions continued for the advertising campaign terms, P.T. underwent pre-operative testing which included a blood test, medical history forms, and photographs. During an office consultation in anticipation of surgery, Respondent requested that P.T. allow him to examine her. Unlike a previous examination which had occurred without incident with someone in the room, Respondent closed and locked his office door and requested that P.T., who was alone with Respondent, stand near his desk. When she complied, he leaned forward and raised her dress over her breasts. Next he unhooked her bra and pulled it over her breasts. Respondent proceeded to poke and prod P.T. across her breasts and abdomen during which time P.T. presumed it was for medical purposes. P.T. became uncomfortable when the prodding which continued became more like a caress. She attempted to presume Respondent was merely checking the texture of her skin but became increasingly uncomfortable with his touch. P.T.'s discomfort accelerated when she realized Respondent had placed his face in her vaginal area and was licking her. She immediately attempted to pull away. Respondent grabbed her on the breast and, as P.T. put it, "in the crotch." P.T. struggled with Respondent who made several sexually inappropriate comments to her. As P.T. attempted to regain her composure and close her clothes, the Respondent's office manager knocked on the door. On hearing the office manager, Respondent released P.T. and went to unlock the door. At the time of the foregoing incident, P.T. was the Respondent's patient. Respondent did not maintain appropriate medical records for the course of treatment proposed for the patient, P.T. Respondent's course of conduct with the patient, P.T., fell below the standard of care a reasonably prudent physician would pursue for treatment of this patient. Respondent attempted to engage a patient in a sexual activity. P.T. did not consent to the activity described above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(j), (m), and (t), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties in accordance with the guidelines set forth by rule: revocation of the license together with an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 16th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3609 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are accepted as accurate as to the facts but not necessarily the form for findings of fact. Typically, findings of fact should not recite testimony. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Kenneth J. Metzger Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration/Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Doyan, M.D. 2817 E. Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0020248. Respondent is a board- certified pathologist who completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in Venezuela and practiced in the field of obstetrics and gynecology in South America for almost five years before coming to the United States. On April 20, 1991, patient J. B., a 27-year-old female, came to A Woman's Care, where Respondent was then employed, for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy. She indicated on a patient history form that the date of her last menstrual period was January 30, 199l. According to the medical records from A Woman's Care, she did not express any uncertainty or equivocation with respect to that date. One method of determining gestational age is based on calculating from the last menstrual period, assuming that the patient's history is reasonably reliable. With a history of a last menstrual period on January 30, 1991, the gestational age of the fetus on April 20, 1991, based upon a calculation by dates, was seven weeks. After obtaining a history from the patient with respect to the date of the last menstrual period, the physician needs to perform a bi-manual examination of the patient in order to assess the size of the uterus and to confirm the history given by the patient. Although the bi-manual examination is a reasonably reliable method of assessing the stage of pregnancy, it is a subjective examination and can sometimes be difficult. There is an acknowledged inaccuracy with respect to that clinical evaluation. The most accurate method of determining the gestational age of a fetus is through ultrasound examination. An ultrasound is performed when there is uncertainty as to the gestational age, such as when the patient does not know the date of her last menstrual period or when there is inconsistency between the patient's disclosed date and the physician's bi-manual examination. There is a general correlation between the size of the uterus in centimeters on bi-manual examination and gestational age in weeks. It is important to determine the gestational age of the fetus before performing a termination of pregnancy because the gestational age is the determining factor in deciding the size of the instruments to be used in the procedure and the amount of tissue to be removed. Respondent performed a bi-manual examination of the patient and recorded that his examination revealed a uterus consistent with an approximately seven-week gestation. Because the gestational age by dates and the results of the bi-manual examination both indicated a seven-week pregnancy and were consistent, Respondent did not order an ultrasound examination for the purpose of determining gestational age. On April 20, 1991, Respondent performed a termination of pregnancy on patient J. B. after the patient was informed of the possible risks of the procedure and after the patient signed a Patient Informed Consent Form. That Form detailed the possible risks, including infection and incomplete termination. Based upon the patient's history and the bi-manual examination and his conclusion that the patient was approximately seven-weeks pregnant, Respondent used an 8 mm Vacurette to terminate patient J. B.'s pregnancy. An 8 mm Vacurette is an appropriately-sized device to terminate a seven-week pregnancy. After completing the procedure, Respondent submitted the tissue obtained to a pathologist who determined that three grams of tissue had been submitted, consisting of products of conception and chorionic villi. The pathology report revealed what would reasonably be expected as a result of the termination of a seven-week pregnancy. After the procedure, the patient was given written instructions for her care and was discharged from A Woman's Care at 10:35 a.m. On April 21, 1991, at approximately 6:30 a.m., the patient's grandmother telephoned A Woman's Care to advise that the patient was complaining of dizziness and pain. The patient was advised to take Tylenol and call back if she continued to feel sick. At approximately 7:30 a.m., the patient's grandmother called again to advise that the patient was going to go to the hospital. On April 21, 1991, at 1:25 p.m., patient J. B. arrived at the Emergency Room at North Shore Medical Center with a temperature of 104.3 degrees, an elevated white blood cell count, chills, lower abdominal pain, and spotting. The patient was seen during her North Shore admission by Dr. Ramon Hechavarria, a physician certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and by Dr. Tomas Lopez, a general surgeon. Dr. Lopez noted in his consultation report that a pelvic bi-manual examination that he performed on April 21 showed an enlarged uterus corresponding to approximately 11-12 weeks' gestation. An ultrasound examination done on April 21 revealed a uterus measuring 11.0 x 7.8 x 7.8 centimeters and a viable intra- uterine pregnancy which was estimated by the radiologist to be 13-14 weeks' gestational age. On April 22, the patient underwent termination of her pregnancy by Dr. Hechavarria who noted in his operative report that both the pelvic ultrasound and a bi-manual examination revealed an intra-uterine pregnancy of about 11 weeks with a live fetus. An ultrasound performed intra-operatively confirmed that all fetal tissue had been removed and that there were no perforations. Infection and an incomplete termination are two of the recognized complications resulting from terminations of pregnancy. The fact that a patient suffers an infection or an incomplete termination does not, per se, indicate any negligence on the part of the physician. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by failing to perform an ultrasound on patient J. B. His examination revealed a gestational age consistent with the date identified by the patient as the date of her last menstrual period. Accordingly, there was no need to perform an ultrasound. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by misjudging the gestational age of the fetus. It is not uncommon for a physician to misjudge the length of gestation by several weeks. For example, Drs. Lopez and Hechavarria concluded the fetus had a gestational age of 11 weeks; yet, the ultrasound reported 13-14 weeks. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by using the wrong size of equipment to perform the termination of pregnancy. He used the proper equipment consistent with his judgment as to the length of gestation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jonathon P. Lynn, Esquire Stephens, Lynn, Klein & McNicholas, P.A. Two Datran Center, Penthouse II 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license to practice medicine for violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner is the state department charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Chapter 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is Michael D. Fox, M.D. Respondent is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Respondent is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida having been issued license ME 66312. Respondent's address is 3627 University Boulevard, South, Suite 200, Jacksonville, Florida 32216-4211. At all times material to this complaint, Respondent provided professional services as an employee of North Florida Gynecologic Specialists in Jacksonville, Florida. On or about September 26, 2003, Patient T.D. presented to Respondent with a history of worsening pelvic pain and abnormal menstrual bleeding. On or about October 6, 2003, Respondent and Patient T.D. agreed that Patient T.D. would undergo a hysterectomy. On or about October 22, 2003, during a pre-operative examination, Respondent ordered pre-operative lab studies, including a urine pregnancy test, for Patient T.D. On or about October 27, 2003, Respondent performed a total abdominal hysterectomy on Patient T.D. During Patient T.D.'s hysterectomy, Respondent took a specimen from Patient T.D., which was sent to pathology for evaluation. On or about October 29, 2003, a microscopic examination of the surgical specimen was performed that revealed Patient T.D. was pregnant at the time Respondent performed the hysterectomy on Patient T.D. Respondent did not ascertain the correct results of Patient T.D.'s pre-operative pregnancy test prior to performing the October 27, 2003, hysterectomy on Patient T.D. Respondent's Care of Patient T.D. Respondent attended medical school at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. He did a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn) in Jackson, Mississippi, and a two-year sub-specialty fellowship in reproductive endochrinology in Lexington, Kentucky. He is board-certified in reproductive endochrinology and ob/gyn. At present his specialty is reproductive endochrinology. Respondent has experience in performing hysterectomies and the pre-operative evaluations associated with those surgeries. Respondent does 30 to 40 hysterectomies a year. That number represented his experience in 2003. The principal reason for performing hysterectomies in his practice, is associated with sub-specialty interests, surgery for endometriosis and adenomyosis, a co-disease with endometriosis. Respondent has privileges to practice in hospitals in the Jacksonville, Florida area. In particular, he has privileges at St. Vincent's, St. Luke's, Baptist, Baptist Beaches, Memorial and Shands hospitals. He performs surgeries in all those hospitals. The hospitals where Respondent practices have computer systems that allow access to laboratory records and other forms of information associated with patient care. Although he has access to the computer systems in the facilities, his routine is to obtain laboratory information in the hospital setting from other persons involved in the patient care. He asks those persons to find out the information for him and report the finding(s). Respondent would have access to the patient hospital record, as well as a source for obtaining laboratory information. Respondent routinely looks at the patient hospital record in preparing for surgery. Concerning Patient T.D., the subject of this proceeding, when seen by Respondent she was described as a young female, of child-bearing age who presented with chronic pain. She had pain with periods which Respondent found to be characteristic of adenomyosis. She had pre-cycle pain approximately a week prior to her menses, another characteristic of adenomyosis. The patient had irregular bleeding that is an indication of adenomyosis. The patient was found to have an enlarged uterus, the primary source of her pain on the examination. This visit with Respondent, that formed the basis for his impression, took place on September 26, 2003. On the initial visit Respondent also obtained a history consistent with endochrine disorder causing irregular cycles. In the patient's case, the cycles extended as much as 60 days in relation to her periods. Based upon his initial impression, Respondent did not find evidence that Patient T.D. was pregnant. The patient told Respondent that she had no desire for fertility. At that time, she did not report having a partner, nor did she indicate that she was sexually active. To further evaluate the Patient T.D.'s condition and complaints, Respondent ordered an ultrasound test. That study was performed on October 2, 2003, and a gynecological ultrasound report rendered. Based upon the report, Respondent held to the view that the report showed evidence of adenomyosis. There was a mild and moderate enlargement of the uterus, which Respondent found to be consistent with adenomyosis. The patient had had a prior pregnancy and delivery and Respondent found the depiction on the ultrasound of a mild enlargement of the uterus consistent with the prior pregnancy and delivery. On their next visit, Respondent discussed the choice of a hysterectomy or some other form of surgery that did not involve a hysterectomy, to treat the endometriosis and relieve her symptoms. That visit took place on October 6, 2003. On October 22, 2003, Respondent met the patient again. He reviewed the details of what he believed was the underlying disease and potential treatments in discussion with the patient. The patient indicated that she wanted to proceed with the hysterectomy. That choice having been made, the surgery was discussed between the patient and Respondent and the necessary paperwork was started to arrange for the surgery in the hospital. When preparing for surgery Respondent ordered a pregnancy test to verify whether the patient was pregnant or not. The nature of the test was a urine pregnancy test under Respondent's preoperative orders given October 22, 2003. The specimen was collected on October 22, 2003, and received by Memorial Hospital (Memorial), Jacksonville, Florida, where the hysterectomy was to be performed. The test result was positive for pregnancy. The point in time that the result was revealed to Respondent will be discussed beyond this reference to the result. On October 27, 2003, Respondent began his surgery cases at Memorial at 7:30 a.m. On that date there was no indication in the patient record or chart maintained in his office practice that reflected information concerning the pregnancy test result, nor was that information found in the hospital chart related to Patient T.D. Absent the information, Respondent testified that he asked the circulating nurse at Memorial about the result of the pregnancy test. That was Tracy Lloyd, R.N. According to Respondent, the nurse went away to check the result and as Respondent describes "subsequently told me it was negative." No further effort was made by Respondent to confirm the oral report that Respondent says was made by the nurse. Respondent did not document the results of Patient T.D.'s pre-operative pregnancy test in the medical record. It was not his habit to write that type of a pre-operative note. Respondent testified that Ms. Lloyd told him about the pregnancy test results while in the holding area in the presence of the patient. Respondent commented that his question to the nurse would have been "What are the results of the pregnancy test?"1/ Aside from the results of the pregnancy test, nothing in the patient's condition, known to Respondent, led him to believe that the patient was pregnant. When the laparoscopic surgery commenced, Respondent did not perform an examination of the patient under anesthesia, given his recent examination of the patient in his office and the results of the ultrasound. Moreover, Respondent does not believe that such an examination under anesthesia would reveal anything other than the adenomyosis and the endometriosis which conformed to his preoperative diagnosis. On that subject, the later examination of the specimen on October 29, 2003, revealed that Patient T.D. had an early pregnancy, estimated as 4 to 5 weeks. In Respondent's opinion, in a 4-to 5-week pregnancy, the uterus would not normally achieve the size of a uterus that was reported on the ultrasound as mildly enlarged, not pregnant. Mildly enlarged refers to a 6 to 8 weeks' pregnancy. Respondent expected to see an enlarged uterus because of the adenomyosis which could be anticipated to cause an inflammatory response in the wall of the uterus, softening the uterus and giving it an appearance that would be similar to an early pregnancy. The rounded globular description of the findings during surgery were consistent with the expectations in addressing cases involving adenomyosis, according to Respondent. Returning to the surgical specimen obtained in Patient T.D.'s case, it was examined through surgical pathology conducted by Robert E. Barnes, M.D. A report was rendered. The report explains that in the examination of the specimen, the endometrium, "gestational endometrium with products of conception" were present. This was the finding related to Patient T.D.'s pregnancy. Dr. Barnes, is a board-certified pathologist in anatomic and clinical pathology. He describes his findings pertaining to Patient T.D., the gestational endometrium with products of conception, as referring to an early embryo, the endometrium showing changes associated with pregnancy. In his opinion the pregnancy was between 10 and 16 days following conception. When Dr. Barnes contacted Respondent on October 29, 2003, to advise of his findings in the pathology. It was a brief conversation and he does not recall the details. After the revelation concerning the pathology, Respondent's office staff found the information concerning the results of the urine pregnancy test in the hospital chart retained in the computer at Memorial. This finding was made around November 4, 2003. In a section within the report on the pregnancy test it refers to the "Result" and underneath that, the word "POSITIVE" is entered referring to pregnancy. When it was discovered that the hysterectomy had been performed while the Patient T.D. was pregnant, at her post- surgery scheduled office visit, a discussion was held with the patient concerning the "checks and balances" in place to avoid the problem. That refers to the surgery at a time the patient was pregnant. Respondent talked to the patient about counseling, or something similar, given the outcome in the case. As a result of the error, steps were taken within Memorial to address this circumstance. The Respondent and the Memorial Department of OB/GYN made changes, by requiring a pre- operative pregnancy test as protocol, that established a urine pregnancy test within 72 hours of surgery. That test would be performed by the nurses in the holding area. Respondent now orders a blood pregnancy test which is a more sensitive test to determine pregnancy. Expert Opinion Jose Cortes, M.D., is board-certified in ob/gyn, licensed to practice in Florida. He was recognized as a expert in ob/gyn for purposes of expressing his opinion about the care Respondent provided Patient T.D. Dr. Cortes has done hysterectomies in his practice, as recent as June 2006. He was called upon to render an opinion concerning the care Respondent provided Patient T.D. involving her hysterectomy. He had access to material concerning her care involved with this case. Dr. Cortes' impression of Respondent's medical treatment of the patient in the beginning, was that it was adequate and correct, with the proper evaluation performed and an appropriate decision made for surgery. Dr. Cortes expressed the opinion that in performing a hysterectomy on a woman who is of child-bearing age, which Patient T.D. was, a physician should order a pre-operative pregnancy test. In reviewing Patient T.D.'s records Dr. Cortes did not find a record documenting that the pregnancy test was ascertained by Respondent, referring to the test results. In his experience the results of the preoperative tests would be reflected in the patient's medical records as a matter of custom. Respondent, according to Dr. Cortes, could have obtained the results of the pre-operative pregnancy test for Patient T.D. by a fax to his office, a copy obtained through a computer, laboratory printouts sent to Respondent's office, and a copy of the pre-operative laboratory results obtained by the hospital placed in its medical record. Dr. Cortes stated the position that an experienced ob/gyn, and Respondent fits that category, could reasonably be expected to rely upon an oral report from a nurse as to the results of the pregnancy test, before entering the operating room, in the area of the pre-operative alcove as the patient is being interviewed by the physician. Dr. Cortes goes on to explain that if the conversation with the nurse in the presence of the patient was in the operating room holding area, then the pregnancy test results would have to have been documented in the patient chart to find the oral report acceptable. Those test results as reported would have had to be entered by the physician in the patient chart to meet the standard of care upon the oral report.2/ Later on, Dr. Cortes in his testimony seems to subscribe to the view that an oral report by the nurse as to the pregnancy test results would meet the standard of care, assuming that the Respondent in this case was provided an oral report. In the testimony at hearing, Dr. Cortes also said that obtaining an oral report or verbal report on test results, in an emergency situation, would meet the standard of care. By contrast, in elective surgery, such as that being performed on Patient T.D., it would be such that there was ample time to review a chart and laboratory studies before the patient was brought into the surgical suite. Generally stated, Dr. Cortes accepts that physicians frequently rely upon oral information imparted by nurses in performing surgeries, be they elective or emergent, but without an oral report this concession is not important. Regardless of the pre-conditions for Respondent to receive and rely on an oral report of the results of the pregnancy test, without an oral report, there being no other basis for Respondent's knowledge of the pregnancy test results, it was below standards to proceed with the hysterectomy. This view is taken from Dr. Cortes' testimony. Dr. Cortes expressed the opinion that it was below the standard of care to not ascertain the results of the patient's pre-operative pregnancy test prior to performing a non-emergent hysterectomy, that is an elective hysterectomy. Dr. Cortes expressed the opinion that it was below the standard of care for Respondent to perform a hysterectomy on Patient T.D. while she was pregnant in an elective setting. In addition to the results of the pregnancy test, Dr. Cortes believes that Respondent had other opportunities to detect the pregnancy, including an examination of the patient while she was under anesthesia during the surgery, and would have allowed a comparison of the results at the time of surgery against previous examinations that Respondent had performed on the patient. In referring to the previous examinations compared to an examination under anesthesia, this included the results of the ultrasound performed on October 2, 2003. Dr. Cortes does agree that the underlying condition visualized under anesthesia could be associated with prior pregnancy or the pre-operative diagnosis of adenomyosis. Dr. Cortes believes that Respondent's medical records, in the context of what could have been found upon an examination under anesthesia during the surgery, could be consistent with a possible pregnancy. A change seen in the pelvic examination at surgery would create an opportunity to evaluate and raise in the Respondent's mind any doubt concerning pregnancy. A slight increase in the size of the uterus between September 26, 2003, and October 27, 2003, is what is being referred to, promoting clinical judgment about possible pregnancy. Bryan Cowen, M.D. specializes in ob/gyn and reproductive endochrinology. He practices at the University of Mississippi in Jackson, Mississippi. He is a professor and chair in the Department of OB/GYN and has been for five years. He has been affiliated with the University of Mississippi for 24 years. He did his undergraduate work at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado, and attended medical school in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Cowen is licensed to practice medicine in Mississippi and is board-certified. Dr. Cowen has performed a number of hysterectomies during his career. Dr. Cowen is familiar with the standard of care applicable for physicians such as Respondent, in the evaluation of patients suspected of endometriosis and adenomyosis and the considerations for treatment by hysterectomy. He is also familiar with the standard of care in relation to pre-operative testing and the associated duties of physicians when ordering such tests. In preparing to testify in this case, Dr. Cowen examined the Memorial medical records, Respondent's office records, and the depositions of Respondent, Dr. Freeman, Dr. Widrich, Dr. Barnes, and Dr. Cortes. With this information in mind, Dr. Cowen was able to provide an opinion concerning the standard of care in relation to the treatment provided by Respondent to Patient T.D. That opinion was that Respondent did not breach the standard of care in that he met due diligence in the process by the pre-operative laboratory-ordered, and pre- operative evaluation and assessment. Speaking to the September 26, 2003, office visit, Dr. Cowen saw nothing on the physical examination to indicate to him that Patient T.D. was pregnant. Concerning the ultrasound that was conducted on October 2, 2003, Dr. Cowen's opinion is that Respondent's assessment that Patient T.D. had adenomyosis based upon presentation, was confirmed by the ultrasound, the overall impression being that the Patient T.D. was not pregnant at that time. The further visit by the patient prior to the hysterectomy did not reveal anything in the history or physical examination that would suggest that Patient T.D. was pregnant, according to Dr. Cowen. On October 22, 2003, the pregnancy test was ordered by Respondent. The arrangement of ordering the test, sending the patient for pre-operative evaluation and laboratory tests is a common practice in Dr. Cowen's experience. In the instance where Respondent did not get a call from the pre-admission testing as to any abnormal results in the pregnancy test, and no report reflecting in the patient chart that the results were normal, Dr. Cowen commented on the need to check the laboratory results before taking the patient into the operating room. Based on Dr. Cowen's experience, there was no necessity to personally lay eyes on the test results to ascertain those results. He recognizes that his hospital may be different from Memorial in its expectations but he believes that Respondent followed Memorial's policy in accepting the report of a nurse as to the results of the pregnancy test. Dr. Cowen's opinion relies upon the factual predicate that Respondent was told by a nurse that the pregnancy test was negative, to the extent that is not true, and it has not been found as a fact, his opinion is without foundation. Further, Dr. Cowen believes that in the setting where surgery is being performed in other than an emergency, it is a sufficient practice to rely upon an oral report of a nurse concerning laboratory results, such as the outcome in the pregnancy test for Patient T.D. In his experience he has relied upon nurses to report both in an emergent and non-emergent settings. He goes on to describe how those reports come back to the medical records and the physician signs off, which did not occur in this case. Dr. Cowen was asked to express his opinion about the value of an examination under anesthesia as an assist to understanding the underlying condition of the Patient T.D. Dr. Cowen does not believe that this would provide additional information. In his experience most physicians have abandoned examinations under anesthesia. If a better insight is needed an ultrasound is the best choice. To Dr. Cowen, an examination under anesthesia does not relate to standard of care, it is in relation to an individual practitioner's protocol. An ultrasound used in this case, a transvaginal ultrasound, may have shown the gestational sack at the time of the hysterectomy but proceeding on the basis that a negative pregnancy test had been established and other findings during the course of the operation, as well as the preoperative record, would not indicate the necessity for an ultrasound in this case, at that time, the place in time where the hysterectomy was being performed. Dr. Cowen did not find anything in the intra-operative findings that would suggest to Respondent that the Patient T.D. was pregnant. Overall Dr. Cowen believes that Respondent met the standard of care in addressing the case of Patient T.D., who probably had polycystic ovarian disease, irregular cycles, was without a sexual partner by history, used condoms for contraception, had an ultrasound that confirmed a slightly enlarged uterus and had symptoms compatible with adenomyosis or endometriosis. Respondent discussed the treatment options, made an appropriate pre-operative evaluation, learned that the lab results for pregnancy were negative (an erroneous assumption), and therefore, he met the standard of care, according to Dr. Cowen. Ultimately, Dr. Cowen believes that it is essential to determine whether a patient is pregnant prior to performing a non-emergent/elective hysterectomy, which was not done here. Wyatt McNeill, M.D., testified. He is an ob/gyn practicing in Jacksonville, Florida, who in the past has had privileges at Memorial. He has performed hysterectomies at that facility. Dr. McNeill graduated from Florida State University. He graduated from the University of Miami Medical School. He is licensed in the state of Florida and is board-certified in ob/gyn. Dr. McNeill is familiar with the standard of care in relation to preoperative laboratory work done before a hysterectomy. Dr. McNeill is familiar with the standard of care applicable to Respondent in the evaluation of Patient T.D. for hysterectomy, knowing after the fact that the patient was found to be pregnant. To familiarize himself with the facts of this case, Dr. McNeill examined the hospital records of Memorial, Respondent's office records, various depositions, to include that of Dr. Cortes and the anesthesiologist and pathologist, before providing testimony. He also examined the testimony of the nurses involved in the care before offering his opinions. Concerning the patient history, objective and subjective evidence available, Dr. McNeill did not believe that there was anything to suggest that Patient T.D. was pregnant. In particular, Dr. McNeill comments on the history and physical done by Respondent, counseling, laboratory evaluation, and the decision beyond that to proceed with the surgery. Dr. McNeill found the ultrasound results consistent with a patient, who by history had a previous child and had the complaints expressed in the report concerning the September 26, 2003, visit with Respondent. Nothing in the ultrasound results compared to the findings in the operative report indicated to Dr. McNeill that the patient needed to be examined under anesthesia. The use of the examination under anesthesia is a training regimne for residents and students, in his experience. It has no utility beyond that application, in Dr. McNeill's opinion. Dr. McNeill believes that an oral report of the results of the pregnancy test meets the standard of care. As with others, Dr. McNeill assumes that Respondent was told the test results, which is not found. There was no further duty by Respondent to investigate those results having been told. In Dr. McNeill's opinion, the test results are either positive or negative, they are highly accurate. A negative test result means that the patient is not pregnant. No further duty is established beyond that realization, according to Dr. McNeill. In summary, there is no disagreement among the experts that Respondent is expected to ascertain the results of the preoperative pregnancy test before performing the hysterectomy and it would be inappropriate to perform the hysterectomy without those results. Respondent does not disagree with that perception. Conceptually, having considered the testimony of Respondent and the experts, it would be acceptable to proceed on an oral report, if one had been made, a report that the pregnancy test was negative.3/ Otherwise, the physical examination of the patient prior to surgery, the results of the ultrasound, and the observations intra-operatively made by Respondent did not indicate that the patient was pregnant. There was no necessity to make an examination under anesthesia. Even if made, it would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the patient was pregnant, taking into account other information known by Respondent. Mitigation/Aggravation The outcome here was that the patient underwent a hysterectomy when she was pregnant, an adverse result. There is no indication that Respondent has ever been disciplined in Florida or other jurisdictions while practicing medicine.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts found and the conclusions, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), and imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00, requiring Respondent to take a course on Risk Management for physicians, and issuing a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 22nd day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Maria Milton (Milton), first took the lay midwifery examination on April 12 and 13, 1988. At that time, respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), advised her in writing that the "minimal passing score on the licensure exam is eighty (80) percent," and that the format for the examination was as follows: a written examination consisting of short objective questions (30% of grade) and essay questions on case management (50% of grade), and an oral examination (20% of grade). 1/ Regarding the examination of April 12 and 13, 1988, the proof demonstrates that Milton achieved a grade of 18.6 of a possible 20 percentage points (better than 80%) on the oral examination, but failed to achieve the minimum 80 percent required under the weighted score format established by the Department for the full examination. Accordingly, Milton failed her initial examination for licensure to practice midwifery. Following her initial failure, Milton applied to retake the midwifery examination at the next available opportunity, February 21 and 22, 1989. When she sat for the examination she was, however, only offered the opportunity to retake the written portions of the test since the Department found her performance on the previous oral examination to be satisfactory. On June 1, 1989, the Department wrote Milton and advised her that she had not achieved the required minimum score of 80 percent on the reexamination. Milton filed a timely protest to contest the Department's decision, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that in grading the reexamination the Department had, without any notice to Milton, abandoned the weighted standards previously established for determining a minimum passing score, and had refused to include the score from her prior oral examination in calculating her overall performance. In view of the Department's failure to accord Milton any notice prior to the examination that the weighted standards previously established would not be applied on reexamination, as well as its failure to offer any reasonable explanation for its decision to depart from such standards on reexamination, it is found that the Department's failure to apply the weighted standards to Milton's reexamination was arbitrary and capricious. Applying the established weighted grading standards, Milton's score on the reexamination was 25 for the short objective questions and 36.3 for the essay questions for a total score of 61.3 on the written examination. Adding to such written score the 18.6 she achieved on the prior oral examination evidences a total score of 79.9 percent on reexamination; a score that is, however close, still below the minimal passing score of 80 percent established by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Milton's petition for formal hearing. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of November 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 November, 1989.
