Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues involved in this hearing, the Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, having been licensed on September 1, 1967, by examination, with license number 41856-2. At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Gulf Coast Community Hospital (GCCH), Panama City, Florida. On August 4, 1983, Dr. David W. Scott, an orthopedic surgeon with practice privileges at GCCH, treated Arthur Collins in the emergency room of that hospital. After taking a history from the patient and examining him, he concluded that Mr. Collins was a drug addict who had the ability to manipulate physicians for the purpose of obtaining narcotics. As a part of his treatment of this individual, Dr. Scott prescribed 100 mg of Demerol four times a day which was obviously insufficient for Mr. Collins who had developed a drug tolerance. As a result, Dr. Scott added an additional drug, Vistoril, to augment the Demerol. Before leaving the hospital that night, and because Mr. Collins was obviously addicted to narcotics, Dr. Scott left an oral order with the nurse on duty at the nurses' station, subsequently identified as Ms. Habersham, not to increase the dosage prescribed for the patient, not to give additional narcotics, and not to call the on-call physician in the event Mr. Collins complained of pain. The reason for this last instruction concerning the physician was to prevent the on call physician, who might not know the patient's history and of his drug addiction, from prescribing additional narcotics. Ms. Habersham worked as a charge nurse on the day shift during this period and recalls patient Collins. When she was relieved by the Respondent at the end of her shift, she passed Dr. Scott's orders on to her. Consequently, it is clear that Respondent was aware of Dr. Scott's order not to increase Collins' dose and not to contact the on-duty physician in the event Collins asked for more medicine. Nonetheless, Respondent admits giving Mr. Collins an injection of 125 mg of Demerol even though the doctor's order called for a 100 mg dose. She justifies this on the basis that the patient had said he was in great pain and constantly kept coming to the nurses station begging for more medication. She observed him to be sweating and grabbing at his stomach. Based on her experience in the Army Nurse Corps and the Army Surgeon General's recommendation for a 125 mg dose of Demerol in situations such as this, and because she did not want to wake up Dr. Rohan, the on-call physician, she gave the additional dose on her own authority feeling she could get Dr. Rohan's approval later on. Dr. Rohan recalls only an incident in August of 1983 where he got a call from a nurse whose name he cannot remember for a "cover order" for a medication. As he recalls it, the nurse in question called to notify him that she had administered more of a drug than was called for in the doctor's order. It was his understanding, however, that the nurse had given too much by accident and was telling him about it after-the-fact, not in advance, to authorize a higher dose. It is clear from the above, therefore, that Respondent called Dr. Rohan after she had administered the higher dosage to Mr. Collins on her own authority. Respondent indicates, however, that Ms. Habersham had told her that if this particular patient needed more medication he was to get it and that the nurse should secure the authorization by phone. Respondent presented no evidence to support this, however, and though she contended she had a witness to this conversation, the witness was not presented. Respondent contends that she could change the amount of medication prescribed by the physician if it was necessary. She claims that nurse-practitioners can do this within the protocols set down by a physician. Respondent was not then nor is she now a nurse practitioner. During the month of February, 1984, Linda Marie Jones was unit coordinator for three units at GCCH, including Respondent's. Part of her job involved the monitoring of and investigation of drug discrepancies. During this time, Mr. Jones was conducting an audit of drug accountability in Respondent's unit. This audit, while not based on any suspicion of misconduct by any employee, resulted in a determination that one Nembutal tablet was missing from the unit. A check of the records reflected that this medicine had not been ordered for any patient on the unit that day. She then checked the patients' charts to see if a Demerol 100, a similar drug, had been used, and as a part of this procedure, she found that in the case of some patients, two different records dealing with a specific administration of medication did not agree. Her check of all records on the unit revealed that only the Respondent had any discrepancies. All other nurses' records were satisfactory. Her investigation included a comparison of the medication administration record (MAR) with the nurses notes on which the same administration was to be noted. In the course of her investigation, she checked six patient records, including those of patient Haire, patient Oakley, and patient Crosby. At the conclusion of her investigation, she prepared a summary of her findings which she presented to Ms. Flemister, the Director of Nursing. Ms. Flemister met with Respondent and showed her a copy of the report. At that point, Respondent denied having taken any of the medications and said that she could not figure out why the discrepancies existed. As to the Nembutal, which prompted the investigation initially, Respondent remembered cleaning out the narcotic box the first time, but did not identify a shortage at the time. As a result, the missing Nembutal was attributed to "wastage" and when that happens, the wastage must be recorded on the narcotics sheet. This Nembutal wastage was not recorded by Respondent or any other nurse. Ms. Jones admits, however, that there is no evidence to connect Respondent with the wastage of the Nembutal any more than any other nurse assigned to that floor. With regard to an administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire at 9:00 P.M., on February 6, 1984, the narcotics control sheet fails to show that morphine sulfate was administered to this patient on that occasion. With regard to the 8:30 P.M. administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire on February 5, 1984, the narcotics control sheet reflects that Respondent recorded the administration of this medicine but does not reflect the date in question. The entry made reflects the patient's room rather than the date. As a result, it is impossible to tell if the administration was done on February 4 or February 5. However, the Respondent did reflect this administration on the nurses' notes although in the wrong place. As to the issue of Respondent's signing out Morphine Sulfate for patient Haire at 7:00 A.M. on February 5, the evidence establishes that she did sign out both Morphine Sulfate 100 and Demerol 100 as alleged. The MAR reflects some entry but it is impossible to determine what the entry is or to what drug it refers and Respondent's nurse's notes for that date are silent. The medical records pertaining to patient Oakley for February 5, 1984, reflect that, as to the nurses' notes, the patient was given medication for pain but the notes fail to show what type of medication was administered. It could have been aspirin or tylenol and the note should have said what medicine was administered. This administration was not listed on either the narcotics control sheet or the MAR. If the substance given was not Demerol or Morphine Sulfate, it need not appear on the narcotics control sheet, but whatever it was, it should have been listed on the MAR and it was not. The records regarding patient Crosby reflect that on February 5, 1984, Respondent signed out 75 mg Demerol for the patient as alleged. The notes do not, however, reflect that she administered Demerol specifically. They reflect only that she administered some medication. As to the 9:30 P.M. dose of Demerol on February 5, 1984, Respondent did sign out Demerol at that time but the nurses' notes do not reflect what the substance administered was. Patient Haire's records reflect that on February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Morphine Sulfate for the patient. The nurses' notes reflect that at 8:00 P.M. on that date, she administered a "pain medication" to the patient without defining what that medication was. The record does not indicate that Morphine Sulfate was administered. The narcotics control sheet for this period is not dated so it is impossible to determine whether Morphine Sulfate was listed on its document or not. However, the MAR reflects that Respondent administered Morphine Sulfate to this patient at 6:00 A.M. On February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Demerol for patient Oakley and properly noted this on the narcotics control sheet but the nurses' notes fail to show that the substance was administered as required. Later on, at 8:30 P.M. the same day, Respondent again signed out Demerol for Patient Crosby listing on the narcotics control sheet the patient's room number but not the date. Other dates on the sheet lead to the conclusion that it was February 4, however Respondent thereafter failed to record the drug's administration on the nurses' notes. She also signed Demerol out for Patient Crosby at 7:30 P.M. on February 4 though the narcotics control sheet fails to reflect the date - only the room number. This administration is in the MAR at 8:30 P.M. rather than at 7:30 P.M. but is not in the nurses' notes at all. On February 3, 1984, Respondent recorded in her nurse's notes that she administered Demerol to patient Crosby at 8:00 P.M. The narcotics disposition record (narcotics control sheet) shows that she signed the medication out between 8:00 and 9:00 P.M., but it is impossible to tell with certainty the exact time. It is obvious that Respondent's handwriting is poor. This fact adds to the difficulties encountered from the way in which Respondent kept her records. In the opinion of Ms. Jones, who has been doing quality assurance checks for a number of years, Respondent's records are inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete and totally insufficient for a nurse on the next shift to know what medications have been given and what must be done. In this area alone, Ms. Jones was of the opinion that Respondent's charts are below the minimum standards for nursing practice in the area and even though her own report was erroneous in some respects, there are still enough verified errors by the Respondent to support her opinion that Respondent's performance is less than acceptable. Respondent admits that some but not all of the charges against her are true. Though she may have mischarted her administration of drugs she never took the drugs herself. The patient always got the drug that he or she was supposed to get and her errors were errors only as to the recordation of time. They were administrative errors, not substantive errors. She contends that in February, 1984, because the floor on which she had been charge nurse since December, 1981 had been closed, she was forced into a staff nurse position. This was not a good situation and as a result of the closing of that floor, several nurses quit. This loss of nurses resulted in more patients per nurse to the point where Respondent felt that patient safety was in danger. She contends she tried to tell Ms. Jones about this but Ms. Jones would not see her. All of a sudden, she found herself called in front of Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones and terminated based on the alleged inaccuracies in her records. Respondent contends she received no information about this other than that contained in Ms. Jones' summary and in that regard she says, Ms. Jones assured her that her summary was correct and in no way tried to explain the inaccuracy of the records. Respondent contends that she had frequently asked her supervisors for extra help but never got any. She contends she had as many as 18 patients to handle by herself and at the time involved in the records discrepancies here, she had 8 patients on the floor. She contends that the errors to which she admits were due to her hectic schedule. As a single parent, she was working, she says, between 60 to 80 hours per week on two jobs and had a sick child at home. Ms. Flemister, on the other hand, says that Respondent had plenty of help. At the time, Respondent was working the night shift from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The shift was staffed by 4 registered nurses, 2 licensed practical nurses, and a secretary, and in her opinion, this staff was well within the normal range of staff-patient ratio. Ms. Flemister contends that while Respondent was on duty, she had between 5 and 6 patients to take care of. She was the charge nurse for the shift and therefore had less patients than a regular floor nurse. She admits that Respondent did complain about being shorthanded, but these complaints were neither constant nor repeated and were never submitted through proper channels. Ms. Flemister contends that prior to this time Respondent had been counseled about her writing and documentation, but there has been no evidence of any discrepancies other than those involved in this case. There are certain procedures followed at GCCH and a part of Ms. Flemister's job is to oversee the standards of the hospital, the Board of Nursing, and the Joint Committee on Hospital Accreditation as they are applicable at this hospital. On the first day of duty, all new nurses are given an orientation which includes records management and how to use a medication cart. A medications test is given and a model cart is used in this training. On the cart, each patient has his or her own area. Narcotics and barbiturates are kept together. Medication administration records, including a page for every patient, are kept with the cart. Each administration of medication is supposed to be recorded and each use of narcotics is supposed to be listed on the narcotics sheet with the name of the patient, the date, the drug, and the nurse administering it. Medications are first called for in the doctor's orders and are checked by the secretary and the nurse who checks and signs it initially. The doctor's orders are then used to give medications. When a nurse gives a medication she checks the doctor's order against the medical records and then prepares the medicine, administers it, charts it and signs it off. The entry is recorded on the medical administration record and it and the charting register are both on the cart. The nurse goes back to the nurses' station to record the administration of the medicine in the nurses' notes which are kept in the patient record. This method of documentation is set out in the hospital policy and procedures which are given to all nurses. Accurate medication records are important so that nurses on subsequent shifts do not administer a drug too soon after the last dose was given and thereby create an overdose. Therefore, medications are logged in several different locations because state law requires it to promote agency oversight by the pharmacy and the Department of Nursing, and because the record is used at shift change to insure an accurate count of narcotics on hand on the medicine cart. Failure of employees to follow the hospital procedures results in the following sequence of events: reprimand; counseling; a written reprimand; and discharge; all depending, of course, on the seriousness of the offense. However, after the discussion with Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones Respondent was terminated because of the discrepancies between the narcotic record and the poor and illegible documentation in the nurses' records and elsewhere. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that though she has been licensed in the State of Florida since 1967 and has worked at GCCH since 1981, there has never been any prior disciplinary action taken against her nor has she received any prior complaints about her method of charting or administration of drugs and she was doing it as she usually does in February, 1984. Notwithstanding her protestations of no prior disciplinary action, however, the records reveal that Respondent was given a two-day suspension for the incident involving the over administration of Demerol to Mr. Collins and advised that a repeat discrepancy would result in her discharge. It is important to note that as a part of the investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct, she was requested to provide a urine sample for urinalysis. This routine drug screen revealed no use of controlled substances within the seven days prior to the test which was accomplished on February 20, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Martin Kasner was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0031141 on August 24, 1977. At all time pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent maintained an office at 1911 North Andrews Avenue, Wilton Manors, Florida 33311. There is no evidence that Petitioner has ever been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine ("the Board"). On June 7, 1988, Detective Robert Trawinski of the Broward County Sheriff's Office visited Respondent's office in an undercover capacity posing as a new patient identifying himself as Robert Conti. Detective Trawinski had never previously worked in an undercover capacity in a doctor's office. Prior to Detective Trawinski's June 7, 1988 visit to the Respondent's office, Detective Trawinski met with Sergeant Clukey of the narcotics division of the Broward County Sheriff's Office and Mel Waxman, an investigator for the Petitioner. Detective Trawinski was instructed to try to obtain a prescription for Valium from the Respondent without giving any valid medical purpose. Valium or Diazepam is a Schedule IV controlled substance that is not an analgesic, but is a potent tranquilizer and skeletal muscle relaxant which can have adverse effects on sensorium. It is indicated for the management of anxiety disorders or for the short-term relief of the symptoms of anxiety. Individual patients taking Valium can become dependent on the drug and withdrawal from addiction to the drug can lead to potentially life-threatening health problems. Detective Trawinski was not advised as to all of the potentially acceptable medical purposes for which Valium could be used. He understood his instructions to mean that he should not voice any complaint of pain. Prior to seeing the Respondent during this first visit, Detective Trawinski filled out a medical questionnaire in Respondent's office using the fictitious name Bob Conti. In filling out the questionnaire, Detective Trawinski did not state any specific medical complaints. The patient's blood pressure was taken by a nurse in the office and recorded at 150/84. That reading tends to confirm the patient's subsequent complaint of anxiety. During the June 7, 1988 visit, Detective Trawinski advised Respondent that he was having problems performing sexually and was experiencing some anxiety as a result of job and family problems. Detective Trawinski also advised the Respondent that he had previously obtained prescriptions for Valium from a doctor up north and the drug had helped calm him down. Detective Trawinski advised the Respondent that the Valium he had previously been taking relaxed him and alleviated many of the symptoms of which he was complaining. During this first visit, the Respondent took a limited medical history from the patient including questions regarding possible alternative sources of the patient's complaints such as diabetes and thyroid problems. The patient denied a history of any such possible alternative causes for his symptoms. During the first visit, the Respondent made preliminary overtures towards conducting a physical examination of the patient. However, the detective told the doctor he did not want a physical. Respondent advised the Petitioner that he should consider having a blood work-up, but the Respondent indicated that because the tests were so expensive, the patient could wait until he had the money. At the conclusion of the June 7, 1988 visit, the Respondent issued a prescription to Detective Trawinski for 30 ten milligram Valium tablets with the ability to refill the prescription three times. The patient was advised to take two Valium per day as needed and one at night as a sleeping pill. At the time of the first visit, Detective Trawinski did not know the therapeutic use for Valium and was not advised of the appropriate use for Valium by his superiors. In actuality, a prescription for Valium was not inappropriate for the patient given his high blood pressure, complaints of anxiety and minor sexual dysfunction which could have been related to anxiety. Detective Trawinski returned for a second visit to the Respondent's office seventeen days later on June 24, 1988 at which time the patient's blood pressure was recorded at 164/80 which could reflect anxiety on the part of the patient. During this second visit, the Respondent questioned the patient regarding his appetite and medical history. Detective Trawinski denied a history of thyroid trouble, hayfever, etc. The Respondent conducted a limited physical examination of the patient checking his lungs and his heart rate. During the June 24 visit, Detective Trawinski advised the doctor that, while he still had some anxious moments, the prescription for Valium was helping him. The Respondent asked the patient whether he had any Valium left. The patient responded that he did not have any and also advised the Respondent that he was taking the Valium as directed and was not sharing them with anyone else. At the conclusion of the second visit, the Respondent provided the patient with a prescription for 50 Valium tablets with two refills. While the medical records of Detective Trawinski's first and second visit are sketchy at best, the Valium prescriptions issued on these two occasions do not fall beneath the standard of a reasonably prudent physician under the circumstances. The third visit by Detective Trawinski to Respondent's office took place twelve days later on July 6, 1988. During that visit, the detective advised the Respondent that the reason the Valium were going so quickly was because he was sharing the prescription with his wife. Detective Trawinski attempted to obtain from Respondent a separate prescription for Valium for his wife. Detective Trawinski offered to pay Respondent the amount of an additional office visit if Respondent would issue a prescription in his wife's name. However, Respondent refused to accept the additional money or issue a prescription in the wife's name without seeing her. The Respondent stated that he would need to take a medical history and conduct a physical examination prior to prescribing anything for the patient's wife. The Respondent advised Detective Trawinski that his wife should not be taking prescription drugs without having seen a doctor and that, although the prescription seem to be working for him, it may not necessarily be good for his wife. The Respondent advised the patient that, while his wife could take a few of his Valium until she could make an appointment to see the doctor, an appointment should be made as soon as possible and that no one should take prescription medication without being seen by the doctor. Notwithstanding the cautionary statements to the patient regarding sharing the drug, at the conclusion of the third visit, Respondent increased the patient's prescription for Valium from 50 tablets to 100 tablets with 1 refill. In fact, Respondent originally made out the prescription for 50 tablets. However, after being advised that the patient was sharing the pills with his wife, the prescription was increased to 100 tablets. By increasing the prescription in this manner, the Respondent was excessively prescribing a controlled substance and fell below the standard of care expected in this community of a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar circumstances. On July 13, 1988, Detective Trawinski returned to Respondent's office with Deputy Somerall of the Broward Sheriff's Office posing as his wife, Jeanette Conti. Upon arriving at the doctor's office, Deputy Somerall was weighed and her blood pressure was taken. In addition, the doctor performed a limited physical examination including listening to her heart and lungs with a stethoscope. The Respondent took a limited medical history from Deputy Somerall and she stated that she was suffering from stress and that Valium seemed to relieve it. Deputy Somerall advised the Respondent that she had been taking some of the Valium prescribed for her purported husband. In response to questioning by the Respondent, Deputy Somerall stated that she took the Valium on an as needed basis and it did not cause her to be drowsy and seemed to relieve the stress and anxiety she sometimes experienced towards the end of the visit, the Respondent indicated he would issue a separate prescription for Valium for Deputy Somerall and stated that he did not want her taking pills from her husband without her seeing a doctor first. The Respondent issued a prescription in the name of Jeanette Conti for 30 ten milligram Valium tablets with two refills permitted. During the July 13, 1988 visit, the Respondent inquired of Detective Trawinski whether his prescriptions were holding out. After Detective Trawinski indicated that he needed additional prescriptions, the Respondent issued a new prescription in the name of Bob Conti for 100 ten milligram Valium tablets. No refills were indicated. During this fourth visit, Detective Trawinski told the Respondent that he had tried some Percodan and had enjoyed it. He indicated that the drug had helped him to perform sexually and requested the doctor to issue him a prescription for that drug. Percodan is a Schedule II Controlled Substance which is used to relieve moderate to severe pain. It is an opiate narcotic and can be addictive. At the conclusion of this fourth visit, the Respondent issued a prescription to Detective Trawinski for 30 Percodan tablets. The prescription did not provide for any refills. No valid medical reason was provided for the issuance of the Percodan prescription. While Respondent contends that the patient had previously complained of back pain and a prescription for Percodan was issued for that reason, no competent evidence was presented to establish that Detective Trawinski had ever made a serious complaint about back pain. Therefore, the Respondent fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent physician in this community by issuing the Percodan prescription. Likewise, the issuance of additional prescriptions for Valium in the name of Bob Conti was excessive when considered together with the previous prescriptions issued. Pharmacists in Broward County will sometimes contact a physician to advise him if a patient is attempting to refill a prescription sooner than it should be refilled. The Respondent was never contacted by any pharmacist or advised that his patients were attempting to refill their prescriptions sooner than they should and there is no indication that the Respondent was ever advised that all of the refills allowed under the prescriptions were obtained by the patient. Patients often overlook the ability to refill a prescription and return to the doctor for a new prescription. The Respondent specifically advised Detective Trawinski during one of the visits that he could get the prescriptions refilled without returning to see the doctor. This statement indicates that the Respondent assumed that the patient had not sought all the refills of the earlier prescriptions. While the Respondent might have assumed that the patient had not sought all the refills provided, the Respondent should have been more cautious about issuing so many prescriptions with refills permitted within such a short period of time. However, at no time was the Respondent informed or led to believe that the patient was selling the drugs to others. Although both patients were seen by the doctor and issued prescriptions during the July 13 visit, they were only charged Respondent's typical rate for a single visit, $30.00. On July 19, 1988, both Detective Trawinski and Deputy Somerall returned to the Respondent's office. During this visit, Deputy Somerall advised Respondent she had taken some of the Percodan prescribed for her purported husband and requested a prescription of her own. Deputy Somerall told the Respondent that she was using the drug as an aphrodisiac. Detective Trawinski advised the doctor that he was taking four Percodan per day because it made him feel good. Detective Trawinski advised Respondent that he did not have any Percodan remaining because he had used it during a party with another couple. The Respondent lectured both patients about the dangers of Percodan and told them that the drug was habit forming and should not be taken for recreational purposes. Respondent expressed surprise that the drug was serving as an aphrodisiac for the patients. While Respondent indicated he was reluctant to issue a new prescription for Percodan, he stated that the drug seemed to be providing some benefits to the patients and ultimately issued a prescription in the name of Bob Conti for an additional 30 Percodan tablets. Respondent would not issue a prescription for Percodan in the name of Jeanette Conti. Furthermore, when Detective Trawinski inquired about making an appointment for his brother-in-law to see the Respondent, the Respondent replied that if the intention was to obtain Percodan, he did not want to see the patient. However, he indicated he would be willing to see the brother-in-law if he was simply seeking a prescription for Valium. At no time did the Respondent adequately inform the patients regarding the synergistic effects of the use of Percodan and Valium nor did he adequately explain the risks associated with combining these drugs with alcohol or other substances. Moreover, Respondent failed to explore the possibility that the prescriptions he issued were increasing or exacerbating existing dependency by these Patients on the drugs involved. On July 25, 1988, Detective Trawinski returned to Respondent's office and requested that his prescriptions be renewed. The patient denied any medical complaints and there is no indication that any physical examination was conducted by Respondent. In response to Respondent's inquiries, Detective Trawinski indicated that he was following the Respondent's previous advice and use of the Percodan was "under control." At the conclusion of the July 25 visit, Respondent issued a prescription in the name of Bob Conti for 30 Percodan "for pain" and 50 Valium tablets. One refill was provided for the Valium prescription. No refills were indicated for the Percodan prescription. No valid medical reasons were provided for the prescriptions that were issued following the July 25 visit. There is no evidence indicating any pecuniary gain by the Respondent for writing any of the prescriptions in question. The only remuneration received by Respondent was his typical $30.00 office charge per visit. The written medical records which the Respondent maintained fail to adequately justify the course of treatment of the patients known to Respondent as Bob and Jeanette Conti (collectively referred to as the "Patients"). The records do not reflect repeated evaluation of the persistent symptoms or adequate evaluation and follow-up of the results of medication, either as to effectiveness or possible side effects such as dependency. Respondent's record-keeping with regard to the Patients falls below the acceptable standard. The records fail to include an adequate patient history and initial assessment of the Patients. It is impossible to determine from these records what medicines the patients had taken in the past, what reactions they had to such medications, what medical procedures they had in the past or other important information regarding the Patient's background. In several instances, the Respondent's only notation of treatment is a listing of medications prescribed. His remaining notations are not acceptable to explain or justify the treatment program undertaken, especially with respect to the prescriptions for Percodan. The Respondent's medical records for patient Bob Conti contain a very limited patient history and general background information. For this patient's first two visits, there is a brief notation which includes the patient's blood pressure and weight. On the first three visits, there is a diagnosis of "chronic anxiety" without any further discussion. On the final three visits, only the medication prescribed is noted. The patient's records for these three last visits contain no statements of medical diagnosis, assessment or treatment plan. It is not possible to determine from Bob Conti's medical records the reason that Percodan was prescribed. The Respondent's medical records on the patient Jeanette Conti are similar to those previously described for patient Bob Conti. The office visit notes list no patient complaints or symptoms and no medical diagnosis or comprehensive assessments. While Respondent's counsel suggested that Respondent intended to supplement the medical records with additional information at a later date, no competent evidence was presented to support this claim. The Respondent was examined and tested by a psychiatric expert Dr. Klass. The results of the psychiatric examination indicate that the Respondent is not corrupt, but that he is corruptible, i.e., easily manipulated and overly compliant.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing 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 Count One, Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint, dismisses Counts Two and Five, imposes an administrative fine in the amount $5000.00 and suspends Respondent's license for a period of two years followed by a three (3) year term of probation during which time Respondent's prescribing practices should be closely monitored. DONE and ORDERED this 3 day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 3 day of May, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-33. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23, 24, 26, 29, 31 and 32. Rejected as constituting argument and a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as constituting argument and a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. This subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 34-37. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33. The second sentence is adopted in part in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 34-37. Rejected as irrelevant. No evidence was presented to establish that the Respondent intended to further supplement the medical records. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-7 and 12. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. This subject area is covered in Findings of Fact 6-10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. This subject area is addressed in Findings of Fact 27. Rejected as irrelevant and because it is merely a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as constituting argument and a summary of testimony rather than a Finding of Fact. This subject area is addressed in Findings of Fact 27. Rejected as constituting argument and a summary of testimony rather than a Finding of Fact. This subject area is addressed in Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13-15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 - 19. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. This subject area is addressed in Findings of Fact 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20-23, 25, 26, and 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30-33. Rejected as constituting argument and a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as constituting argument. Rejected as constituting argument. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 38. 30. (SIC) Rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Harrison, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 C. Craig Stella, Esquire Attorney at Law 200 S. Andrews Avenue Suite 300 Mercede City Center Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Kenneth E. Easely General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, Division of Quality Assurance, Board of Medicine, formerly Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, is the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty of regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 458, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Chapter 93-129, Laws of Florida. Respondent, Muhammad S. Mustafa, M.D., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0047360. Respondent was licensed by endorsement on October 7, 1985, but did not, ostensibly, actively engage in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida until September 14, 1988. 4/ Respondent's last known address, as of the date of hearing, was 8245 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33604. Respondent received his medical degree from the Oklahoma University School of Medicine in 1970, performed an internship from 1970 to 1971 at the Altoona Hospital, Altoona, Pennsylvania, did a four-year residency in general surgery from 1971 to 1975 at The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and started practice as a sole practitioner in Cleveland, Ohio, in November 1975. Respondent's practice consisted of general surgery and family medicine, and he practiced in a predominately blue collar neighborhood until his license to practice medicine was revoked by the State Medical Board of Ohio, as discussed infra. While practicing in Cleveland, respondent had staff privileges at St. Vincent Charity Hospital, Luthern Medical Center, St. John's Hospital, and St. John's Westshore Medical Center, but by May 1988 had restricted his practice to Luthern Medical Center and St. John's Hospital. Respondent resigned his staff privileges at Luthern Medical Center and St. Johns in December 1989. The Ohio charges On May 11, 1988, the State Medical Board of Ohio, the licensing authority for medicine in the State of Ohio, notified respondent that it proposed to take disciplinary action against his certificate to practice medicine and surgery in Ohio. The gravamen of the Board's charges were as follows: That respondent's prescribing practices with regard to approximately 83 difference patients, as well as his overall prescribing as reflected by a listing entitled "Total Drug Amounts by Drug, Year and Month," constituted: "Failure to use reasonable care discrimination in the administration of drugs" and "failure to employ acceptable scientific methods in the selection of drugs or other modalities for treatment of disease," as those clauses are used in Section 4731.22(B)(2), Ohio Revised Code; "Selling, prescribing, giving away, or administering drugs for other than legal and legitimate therapeutic purposes," as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(3), Ohio Revised Code; and "A departure from, or the failure to conform to, minimal standards of care of similar practitioners under the same or similar circumstances, whether or not actual injury to a patient is established," as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. That as to Patient 152 respondent did between March 27, 1984 and December 12, 1985, and again between November 13, 1986 and April 1, 1987, prescribe controlled substance stimulants when the patient either gained weight or failed to lose weight, contrary to the provisions of Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code. The Board further charged that respondent's billing to Patient 152's insurance company for services rendered between March 27, 1984 and December 15, 1986, reflected a diagnosis of "hypertension, obesity, ingrown toenail, nerves, low back pain, and arthritis" when there was no indication in respondent's record that he had treated the patient for any condition other than obesity. Such conduct was alleged to constitute "publishing a false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading statement," as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(5), Ohio Revised Code, and the "obtaining of, or attempting to obtain money or anything of value by fraudulent misrepresentation in the course of practice," as that clause is defined in Section 4731.22(B)(8), Ohio Revised Code. That as to Patient 151 respondent did between February 21, 1979 and April 17, 1986, and again between November 13, 1986 and April 1, 1987, prescribe controlled substances and stimulants when the patient either gained weight or failed to lose weight, contrary to Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code. The Board further alleged that on respondent's billing to Patient 151's insurance company for services rendered between January 10, 1984 and November 13, 1986, the diagnosis of "menopause; arthritis; glossitis; bronchitis; hypertension; nerves; and chest wall pain" were entered when the majority of services rendered by respondent were for "obesity," a diagnosis not listed, and his records contain no indication that she was being treated for hypertension, nerves or arthritis. Moreover, an EKG and "comprehensive office exam" performed on November 13, 1986 and billed under a diagnosis of "chest wall pain" were in fact performed as part of the physical required prior to starting the diet program. Such conduct was alleged to violate Section 4731.22(B)(5) and (8), Ohio Revised Code. That respondent's reports and billing to two different attorneys with regard to Patient 140 (who had been involved in accidents in June and November 1985) reflected dates of service and patient complaints which were not reflected in the medical records. Such conduct was alleged to violate Section 4731.22(B)(5) and (8), Ohio Revised Code. That respondent prescribed controlled substances for Patient 241 in 1979, 1982 and 1983 through 1985 contrary to Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code, in that the patient had admitted to respondent in 1979 that he was addicted to Codeine and in 1985 that he was addicted to Percocet. Respondent was alleged to have first prescribed Percocet in 1983, upon the patient's complaint of back pain, without noting any physical exam or findings, and had continued prescribing it on a regular basis well into 1985. His prescribing of Codeine-based medications and Percocet continued after the patient's admission of addiction to those substances. Finally, citing 13 different patients as examples, the Board alleged that respondent routinely kept inadequate patient records which did not reflect examinations performed or physical findings made to justify the medications prescribed or dispensed; prescribed controlled substances and dangerous drugs based upon patient requests for medications or patient complaints, often without utilizing appropriate testing or other methods for evaluating the validity or etiology of the complaints; and routinely prescribed controlled substance stimulants for weight loss over extended periods of time without regard to whether or not the patient demonstrated weight loss. Such conduct was alleged to violate Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code. Moreover, respondent's acts or omissions with regard to certain prescriptions written on or after November 17, 1986, for patients 25, 34, 130, 166, 265, and 276, were alleged to constitute violations of Rules 4731-11-02 and/or 4731-11-04, Ohio Administrative Code, and therefore Section 4731.22(B)(20), Ohio Revised Code. The aforesaid notice of charges dated May 11, 1988, advised respondent of his right to request a hearing on the matter, his right to appear at such hearing in person or through his attorney, to present his position and argument, and to present evidence and examine witnesses appearing for or against him. Respondent timely requested such hearing, and was represented by counsel. The subject charges were heard before Wanita J. Sage, Esquire, Hearing Examiner for the State Medical Board of Ohio, on September 18, 1988. Thereafter, the Hearing Examiner rendered an extensive recommendation, which contained findings of fact, conclusions and an order. Such findings of fact sustained the charges filed against respondent, and are contained in petitioner's exhibit 2. The recommendation, which summarized the factual findings, concluded: The acts, conduct, and/or omissions of Muhammad S. Mustafa, M.D., as set forth in the above Findings of Fact, constitute: "Failure to use reasonable care discrimination in the administration of drugs" and "failure to employ acceptable scientific methods in the selection of drugs or other modalities for treatment of disease", as those clauses are used in Section 4731.22(B)(2), Ohio Revised Code; "Selling, prescribing, giving away, or administering drugs for other than legal and legitimate therapeutic purposes", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(3), Ohio Revised Code; and/or "A departure from, or the failure to conform to, minimal standards of care of similar practitioners under the same or similar circumstances, whether or not actual injury to a patient is established", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. The testimony and evidence presented in this Matter amply establish that Dr. Mustafa, in the routine course of his practice, prescribed controlled substances and dangerous drugs for patients for excessive periods of time, without establishing valid medical indication or diagnosis. He prescribed potentially addictive controlled substances, often in dangerous combinations, for patients for years without adequately evaluating their complaints or attempting alternative therapies. In the case of Patient 241, Dr. Mustafa admitted that he had prescribed Codeine for this patient for a period of over one month in 1979 as treatment for his admitted Codeine addiction. Several years later, Dr. Mustafa began prescribing Percocet upon this same patient's complaint of back pain, without any evidence of evaluation, and continued to do so over a two-year period. When Patient 241 then admitted that he was addicted to Percocet, Dr. Mustafa continued to prescribe it for three addi- tional months as treatment for his addiction. Such prescribing contravenes both federal and state laws, including each of those provisions listed above. Dr. Mustafa's claim that there was no adequate treatment program available in 1979 does not satisfactorily explain his prescribing for Patient 241's addiction in 1985. The patient records clearly demonstrate Dr. Mustafa's willingness to prescribe whatever patients requested, even when objective data indicated that there was no valid medical indication for such drugs and no medical basis for the patients' complaints. In the case of Patient 36, Dr. Mustafa liberally prescribed synthetic thyroid hormone at her request, despite the fact that he had obtained tests showing her thyroid levels to be normal. He provided this same patient with narcotic pain medications, even when her complaints of pain were apparently related to urinary tract infections, menstrual cramps, or other conditions which would not appear to justify the use of controlled substances. In the case of Patient 308, Dr. Mustafa prescribed combinations of controlled substances and dangerous drugs, including narcotic analgesics, tranquilizers, hypnotics, barbiturates, antipsychotics, tricyclic antidepressants, and stimulants, even though he was aware that her complaints generally [had] no physical cause, but rather stemmed from emotional problems. On one occasion, he actually telephoned in a prescription for Compazine for Patient 308 when she was in the hospital under the care of another physician for treatment of a drug overdose. Even though Dr. Mustafa was admittedly aware that she had been hospitalized on three occasions due to drug overdoses, he continued afterwards to prescribe dangerous combinations of drugs for her, including the substances on which she had overdosed. In the case of Patient 130, Dr. Mustafa regularly prescribed and administered large amounts of narcotic analgesics over an approximately four year period. Dr. Mustafa admitted that Patient 130 was chemically dependent on narcotics, but claimed they were necessary to control his back pain. Yet, the patient record clearly indicates that Dr. Mustafa made no effort to independently evaluate or diagnose, but rather relied solely upon this patient's representations as justi- fication for his inappropriate prescribing in response to this patient's requests for addictive drugs. Furthermore, the patient record indicates that Dr. Mustafa abruptly discontinued prescribing pain medications and tranquilizers for Patient 130 in early 1987. In general, the patient records demonstrate lack of independent evaluations by Dr. Mustafa of patients' complaints of pain, for treatment of which he prescribed large amounts of controlled medications for excessive periods of time. Such prescribing violates each of the above provisions of law. Further, the patient records of Patients 152, 151, 25, 26, 36, 218, 236 and 265 support the State's allegations that Dr. Mustafa routinely prescribed controlled substance stimulants for weight loss purposes over extended periods of time, whether or not a patient demonstrated weight loss. Dr. Mustafa admitted that it had been his standard practice to prescribe a controlled substance anorectic upon a diet patient's initial visit, without first attempting to achieve weight loss through other means, such as diet or nutritional counseling. In addition, Dr. Mustafa often prescribed Lasix, a diuretic, for weight control purposes. As indicated by the testimony of Dr. Junglas, there is no valid medical indication for the use of a diuretic for weight loss. Such pre- scribing of diet medications also violates each of the above provisions of law. Certainly, both the patient records and the testimony of Dr. Mustafa support the Board's allegations that Dr. Mustafa, in the routine course of his practice, kept inadequate patient records which did not reflect examinations performed or physical findings made to justify the medications he prescribed or dispensed to his patients. Although Dr. Mustafa appeared to claim that he had done examinations or made physical findings which justified the medications he prescribed, he stated that he simply didn't have time to write down everything he knew about his patients. The patient records generally reflect only patient requests for refills of medications, non-specific patient complaints, and lists of drugs prescribed or administered by Dr. Mustafa. They are generally devoid of evidence of appropriate diagnostic testing; documentation as to the nature or severity of the patient's reported pain, illness, or injury; evidence of investigation of alter- native therapies; thorough histories, physical examinations, and diagnoses; in short, infor- mation necessary to assure that the patient receives appropriate treatment. Such records evidence Dr. Mustafa's violations of each of the above provisions of law. As indicated by the testimony of Dr. Donald Junglas, Dr. Mustafa's treatment with regard to each of the 17 patients whose records were reviewed at hearing violates each of the above provisions of law. Further, the prescriptions identified as State's Exhibits #6A through #6H and summarized by the "Prescription List by Patient Number" and the listing of "Total Drug Amounts by Drug, Year, and Month" (State's Exhibit #1) indicate that Dr. Mustafa's inappropriate, long-term prescribing of controlled substances was not confined to those 17 patients, but rather was common in his practice. Dr. Mustafa's prescribing of controlled substances for weight reduction for Patients 152 and 151 after November 17, 1986, constitutes "violating . . ., directly or indirectly, . . . any provisions of this chapter or any rule promulgated by the Board", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(20), Ohio Revised Code, to wit: Rule 4731-11-04, Ohio Adminis- trative Code, as in effect on and after November 17, 1986. Rule 4731-11-04(B) requires that a physician's use of controlled substances for purposes of weight reduction in the treatment of obesity be only as an adjunct in a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction. It further requires the physician to determine, before instituting treatment with a controlled substance, that the patient has made a "substantial good-faith effort to lose weight in a treatment program utilizing a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction, nutritional counseling, behavior modification, and exercise, without the utilization of controlled substances, and that said treatment has been ineffective. Further, the physician must obtain a thorough history, perform a thorough physical examination, and rule out the existence of any recognized contradictions to the use of the controlled substance. Further, according to this rule, the physician may not initiate or must discontinue utilizing controlled substances immediately upon determin- ing that the patient has failed to lose weight while under treatment with a controlled substance over a period of 14 days, such determination to be made by weighing the patient at least every fourteenth day. Dr. Mustafa's prescribing of Schedule IV anorectics for Patients 152 and failed to meet these requirements. Patient testified that he had never tried dieting before seeing Dr. Mustafa. Dr. Mustafa's lecturing Patient 152 about snacking does not constitute the institution of a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction. The documentation in the patient records, parti- cularly in the case of Patient 151, fails even to establish that these patients' overweight constituted obesity which might have justified the use of a controlled substance in the event that other treatment methods had been proven ineffective. Further, Dr. Mustafa failed to discontinue prescribing Schedule IV anorectics for Patients 152 and 151 when they failed to lose weight, as required by Rule 4731-11-04(B). In fact, although Dr. Mustafa admittedly become aware of this Rule in December, 1986, he prescribed Schedule IV anorectics for Patient 152 when he demonstrated weight gains on February 5, March 5, and April 1, 1987, and he prescribed Schedule IV anorectics for Patient 151 when she demonstrated failure to lose weight on January 9, February 5, and March 5, 1987. Pursuant to Rule 4731-11-04(C), Ohio Adminis- trative Code, Dr. Mustafa's violations of Rule 4731-11-04(B) also violate Sections 4731.22(B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. Further, Dr. Mustafa's prescribing for Patients 25, 34, 130, 166, 265, and 276, on and after November 17, 1986, constitutes "violating . . ., directly or indirectly . . . any provisions of this chapter or any rule promulgated by the Board", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(20), Ohio Revised Code, to wit: Rules 4731-11-02 and/ or 4731-11-04, Ohio Administrative Code, as in effect on and after November 17, 1986. With respect to patient 25, Dr. Mustafa violated Rule 4731-11-04(B) by prescribing the Schedule IV controlled substance Fasin 30 mg. for purposes of weight reduction on both December 19, 1986, and February 13, 1987, without: instituting a regimen of weight reduction based upon caloric restriction, first determining the ineffectiveness of other methods of weight reduction, or determining whether or not she failed to lose weight by weighing her at least every fourteenth day. Further, Dr. Mustafa violated Rule 4731-11-02(D) by telephoning in a prescription for 30 Tranxene 7.5 mg., a Schedule IV anxiolytic, for Patient 25 on April 2, 1987, without documenting any exam- ination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose for this controlled substance. On seven occasions from November 19, 1986, through April 29, 1987, Dr. Mustafa prescribed Vicodin, a Schedule III narcotic analgesic, for Patient 34 without documenting any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose for his use of this addictive controlled substance. In fact, four of these prescriptions were issued after Dr. Mustafa had discussed with Patient 34 the addictiveness of Vicodin and the need for him to take less of it. Such acts and omissions violate both paragraph (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. Dr. Mustafa's acts and omissions with regard to Patient 130 also constitute violations of both paragraphs (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. Without documenting any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose other than the patient's requests for pain medication, Dr. Mustafa administered IM injections of Demorel 100 mg., a Schedule II narcotic analgesic, to Patient 130 on December 13, 1986, January 6, 1987, and April 7, 1987. In addition to the Demerol injection, he also prescribed 100 Tylenol #4, a Schedule III narcotic analgesic, for this patient on April 7, 1987, solely upon Patient 130's request for pain medications for vacation. Dr. Mustafa had previously notified this patient on January 12 that he would prescribe no more tranquilizers or pain medications for him. Dr. Mustafa admitted at hearing that this patient had been chemically dependent upon narcotics, though he claimed that he had needed them to control his pain. Upon Patient 166's request, without document- ing any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose, Dr. Mustafa prescribed for her 100 Vicodin, a Schedule III narcotic analgesic, on December 24, 1986, and 50 Vicodin on January 29 and again on April 23, 1987. Such acts violate Rule 4731-11-02(D). With respect to Patient 265, Dr. Mustafa initiated treatment with Adipex-P, a Schedule IV stimulant anorectic controlled substance, on December 9, 1986, without first determining the effectiveness of other methods of weight reduction, without instituting a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction, and without obtaining a thorough history or performing a thorough physical examination to rule out the existence of any contradiction. Dr. Mustafa continued to prescribe Apidex-P through April 31, 1987, without weighing Patient 265 at least every fourteenth day and without immediately discontinuing such treatment when this patient showed a weight gain on February 10, 1987. Such acts and omissions violate Rule 4731-11-04(B). Furthermore, from December 9, 1986, through May 11, 1987, Dr. Mustafa prescribed Valium for her on three occasions, two of which prescriptions he telephoned in. On five occasions during this period, he prescribed Darvon Compound 65 for her, including one occasion when Patient 265 indicated that she had 30 tablets left from a previous prescription, two occasions where Dr. Mustafa provided her with postdated prescriptions, and one occasion where he telephoned in a prescription. At no time did Dr. Mustafa document any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose other than the patient's stated complaint, for his prescribing of these controlled substances. Such acts and omissions constitute violation of both paragraphs (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. In an approximately five month period from November 17, 1986, through April 28, 1987, Dr. Mustafa prescribed for or administered to Patient 276 a total of 519 dosage units of controlled substances, including: 25 Demerol 50 mg., a Schedule II narcotic analgesic; 2 IM injections of Demerol 50 mg.; 2 IM injections of Demerol 75 mg.; 60 Fiorinal, a Schedule III barbiturate analgesic; and 430 Darvocet N-100, a Schedule IV narcotic analgesic. Of these, 230 dosage units were prescribed by telephone. Throughout this period, Dr. Mustafa failed to document examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose for this prescribing other than patient requests and complaints. On one occasion, he did note a physical finding of severe pain and tenderness in the back, radiating downward; however, no further evaluation was done and no diagnosis was indicated. On another occasion, Dr. Mustafa noted a diagnosis of severe migraine headache, but failed to state any information upon which that diagnosis was based. In view of the addictiveness and volume of the substances so prescribed, it is concluded that Dr. Mustafa's acts and omissions with regard to Patient 276 constitute violations of both paragraphs (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. Pursuant to Rule 4731-11-04(C), Ohio Administ- rative Code, Dr. Mustafa's violations of Rule 4731-11-04(B) also violate Sections 4731.22(B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. Pursuant to Rule 4731-11-02(F), Ohio Adminis- trative Code, Dr. Mustafa's violations of Rule 4731-11-02(C) and (D) also violate Sections 4731.22(B)(2) and (B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. Further, in view of the nature and/or amounts of the drugs prescribed and the circumstances with regard to such prescribing, Dr. Mustafa's acts and omissions with regard to Patients 130, 265, and 276 are found to constitute purposeful, knowing, or reckless violations of paragraph (C), and thus, pursuant to paragraph (F), also violate Section 4731.22(B)(3), Ohio Revised Code. Dr. Mustafa's acts, conduct, and/or omissions, as set forth in Findings of Fact #7 and #13, above, constitute: "Publishing a false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading statement", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(5), Ohio Revised Code; and "The obtaining of, or attempting to obtain, money or anything of value by fraudulent misrepresentations in the course of practice", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(8), Ohio Reviewed Code. Claim forms submitted by Dr. Mustafa or his office staff to insurers for reimbursement for Dr. Mustafa's services for both Patient 152 and Patient 151 reported diagnoses for which he had not treated those patients. The fact that diagnoses appeared on claim forms, but not in the patient records, cannot be attributed merely to Dr. Mustafa's poor documentation. Although Dr. Mustafa's patient records clearly indicate that the EKG's done in November, 1986, were part of physical examinations for initiation of diet programs, these EKG's were claimed under diagnoses of hypertension for Patient 152 and chest wall pain for Patient 151. In fact, the "Weight Reduction Program" form contained in Patient 152's file indicates that he had no history of hypertension or heart disease. It must be concluded that false diagnoses were reported for purposes of obtaining reimbursement from the insurer for performance of these routine tests. Although not included in the Board's allegations, it is noted that a similar billing was submitted on behalf of another patient reviewed in this Matter, Patient 25 (See Finding of Fact #19). Although Dr. Mustafa denied knowledge of or responsibility for these false billings, copies of the claims, many of which were signed by Dr. Mustafa, were made a part of the patients' records. Furthermore, contrary to Dr. Mustafa's contentions, he is responsible for the billing procedures of his office. It must be concluded that Dr. Mustafa knew or should have known of the fraudulent billings submitted on behalf of Patients 152 and 151. Further, Dr. Mustafa's acts, conduct, and/or omissions, as set forth in Findings of fact #15 and #16, above, constitute: "Publishing a false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading statement", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(5), Ohio Revised Code; and "The obtaining of, or attempting to obtain, money or anything of value by fraudulent misrepresentations in the course of practice", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(8), Ohio Revised Code. Dr. Mustafa submitted billings and reports of Patient 140's attorneys, listing dates of service and fees not reflected in the patient record. In addition, he billed both attorneys for a January 28, 1986, office visit. Dr. Mustafa's attempts to explain these discrepancies are not convincing. The reports to the attorneys listed no specific treatments or medications for the dates reported; thus, they could not be adequate substitutes for clinical notes which Dr. Mustafa claimed to have recorded on separate cards. Further, Dr. Mustafa claimed that he had made clinical notes on cards, later discarded, because Patient 140 had come to his home, rather than to his office, for treatment; yet he had earlier testified that his office was in his home (Tr. at 41). Also, Dr. Mustafa's attempt to blame his receptionist for the double billing of the January 28, 1986, visit is not well taken. Dr. Mustafa signed the reports submitted to both attorneys and was responsible for their accuracy. It is evident that the billings submitted to Patient 140's attorneys for reimbursement for professional services fraudulently misrepresented the extent of and fees for Dr. Mustafa's services. Although not part of the Board's charges, it is further noted that the patient record for Patient 166 contains a billing submitted to an attorney which contains both dates of service and fees which are not reflected in the patient record (see Finding of fact #31). * * * * * The testimony and evidence in this Matter sub- stantially shows that Dr. Mustafa, in the routine course of his practice, engaged in inappropriate, indiscriminate prescribing of controlled substances and dangerous drugs. The patient records evidence his willingness to prescribe at the patient's request, without regard for medical indications or patient welfare. In at least one case, he admittedly prescribed narcotics to a known addict for an inappropriate period of time without referring him to an authorized treatment program. Both the State's exhibits and the testimony of its expert, Dr. Junglas, rob Dr. Mustafa's claim, that his prescribing was in accordance with acceptable community standards for the time, of credence. Dr. Mustafa admitted that he had ignored the warnings of drug manufacturers and FDA labeling with regard to his long-term prescribing of controlled substances, relying on information he claimed to have obtained from his colleagues. At best, Dr. Mustafa's prescribing practices reflect a willful ignorance of the properties and effects of drugs. Neither willful ignorance nor the lack of moral character demonstrated by Dr. Mustafa's fraudulent billings would seem to be remediable. PROPOSED ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the certificate of Muhammad S. Mustafa, M.D., to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Ohio shall be and is hereby REVOKED. This Order shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of notification of approval by the State Medical Board of Ohio, except that Dr. Mustafa shall immediately surrender his United States Drug Enforcement Administration certificate and shall not order, purchase, prescribe, dispense, administer, or possess any controlled substances, except for those prescribed for his personal use by another so authorized by law. Further, in the interim, Dr. Mustafa shall not undertake treatment of any individual not already under his care. Wanita J. Sage Attorney Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner's proposed findings of fact, conclusions and order were adopted by the State Medical Board of Ohio on December 6, 1989. Respondent appealed the Board's order through the courts and on May 4, 1992, the Ohio Supreme Court refused respondent's request that it take jurisdiction of the case. Consequently, the order of the State Medical Board of Ohio revoking respondent's license to practice medicine became effective June 15, 1992. Other matters At hearing, respondent offered the opinion of Adnan E. Mourany, M.D., Soundiah Selvaraj, M.D., and Marcello Mellino, M.D., by way of deposition (Respondent's exhibits 9-11), concerning respondent's reputation as a physician. Dr. Mourany is licensed to practice medicine in the State of Ohio, as well as Indiana, Minnesota and New York, and has practiced since 1986. He is Chairman of Surgery and Chief of Otolarynology at St. John's Westshore Hospital, and has known respondent professionally and personally since 1979. Dr. Selvaraj is licensed to practice medicine in the State of Ohio, and has practiced since 1974. he is Chief of Internal Medicine and Ambulatory Care at the Luthern Medical Center, and has known respondent professionally since 1976. Dr. Mellino is licensed to practice medicine in Ohio, and has practiced for 13 years. He is a cardiologist, and has known respondent professionally since 1978. It was the opinions of Doctors Mourany, Selvaraj and Mellino that respondent was an excellent surgeon who enjoyed a reputation as a good physician. 5/ At hearing, respondent also presented proof that during medical school he received an award from the Governor of Oklahoma for having performed volunteer work with charitable organizations, and that during his practice in Cleveland he received a ten-year service award from Luthern Medical Center and an award from the United States Senate recognizing his volunteer work for the Cleveland Foundation. Respondent also participated in two projects in Cleveland, one in 1983 and one in 1987, to treat patients without charge. All such activities predated the charges filed by the Ohio Board of Medicine. Since revocation of his Ohio license, respondent attended three courses of continuing medical education programs. The first, "Medical Malpractice and Risk Management--1993," was apparently completed in October 1993; the second, "AIDS and Florida Law--1993," was apparently completed in October 1993; and the third, "Surgical Education and Self-Assessment Program," was apparently completed in November 1993. Other than having attended such courses, respondent's activities since the revocation of his Ohio license do not appear of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of September 1994. 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 12th day of September 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for an alleged violation of Chapters 395 and 401, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. HCA Raulerson is the only hospital in Okeechobee County, Florida. As such, it serves all of Okeechobee County and parts of the surrounding counties. It is a small community hospital that is best characterized as a primary care receiving facility as opposed to a secondary hospital or a tertiary care or trauma center hospital. The Hospital does not provide heart-bypass surgery, cardiac catherization, neuro-surgery services or even obstetrical services (other than the emergency delivery of babies.) The Hospital provided approximately three million dollars in uncompensated care to indigent residents of Okeechobee County in the year preceding the incident involved in this case. Under existing Florida law, a hospital is not required to provide either orthopedic surgery services or peripheral vascular services and there is no requirement for a hospital to have on its medical staff any orthopedic surgeons or peripheral vascular surgeons. The Hospital does not have the angiography equipment necessary for peripheral vascular surgery. As a result, the Hospital does not provide peripheral vascular surgery and there are no vascular surgeons on staff. Such services were not offered at the Hospital for at least several months prior to the incident in question. The Hospital has a single orthopedic surgeon on staff, Dr. Zafar Kureshi. Dr. Kureshi is board certified in orthopedic surgery. He has been engaged in the private practice of medicine in Okeechobee, Florida since October of 1986. While many of Dr. Kureshi's patients are treated at the Hospital, Dr. Kureshi is not employed by or under contract with the Hospital. This arrangement is not unusual since surgeons, including orthopedic and vascular surgeons, do not typically become employees of hospitals or enter into contracts with hospitals. The Hospital has tried to recruit additional orthopedic surgeons and other specialists for its medical staff, but has been unsuccessful. There is a shortage of orthopedic surgeons in Florida, especially in rural areas, and recruiting orthopedic surgeons to such areas is extremely difficult. It is unrealistic to expect that the Hospital would be able to recruit or retain any orthopedic surgeons if it required them to be "on call" at all times. For a short time after he first obtained staff privileges, Dr. Kureshi provided "on call" services for the Hospital's emergency room several nights per month. On those occasions, he treated patients irrespective of their financial status. At the time of the incident in question, however, Dr. Kureshi had ceased providing "on call" services. His decision was consistent with the Hospital medical staff by-laws. The by-laws of the Hospital medical staff state that, if there is only one physician on staff in a specialty, then that specialty does not have to make emergency department call rosters available to the emergency room. Since he was the only specialist on staff in his area of practice, Dr. Kureshi was not required to provide "on call" coverage. Subsequent to the incident involved in this case, Dr. Kureshi, at the request of the Hospital, has voluntarily agreed to be "on-call" several nights per month. Even when Dr. Kureshi is not formally "on call," the emergency room staff often contacts him when a patient presents at the emergency room in need of orthopedic care. On some such occasions, Dr. Kureshi will treat the patient if he was capable of doing so. When an orthopedic patient or a peripheral vascular patient presents at the Hospital and Dr. Kureshi can not or will not treat the patient, the Hospital (1) provides such care as can be rendered by the emergency room physician or others on HCA Raulerson's medical staff, (2) stabilizes the patient for transfer, (3) calls hospitals and their on-call physicians to arrange transfer, and (4) arranges suitable transportation and transfers the patient. In the months preceding the incident in question, the Hospital arranged the transfer to other hospitals of approximately eleven patients who presented at the Hospital's emergency room in need of orthopedic care. Four of those patients were "paying" patients covered by third party insurers, four were covered by Medicare or Medicaid and the remaining three were self-pay patients. There is no indication that financial status and/or the ability to pay in any way influenced the Hospital's actions with respect to these patients. HRS contends that Sections 395.0142, 395.0143 and 401.45, Florida Statutes, require a hospital that provides any given specialty service (e.g., orthopedic surgery services) to arrange 24-hour a day, seven day a week coverage for that service, either by providing coverage through physicians on staff or entering into advance transfer agreements with other hospitals to cover any such patients who may present in need of such services. The Hospital has attempted, but has been unsuccessful in its attempts, to obtain advance transfer agreements from other hospitals regarding the transfer of patients presenting themselves at the Hospital's emergency room in need of orthopedic surgery services or in need of peripheral vascular surgery services. The Hospital has limited bargaining power in attempting to induce other hospitals to enter into an advance transfer agreement. Because the Hospital is a small rural hospital, virtually all the services it offers are already available at the neighboring hospitals which are potential transfer partners. The only advance transfer agreements that the Hospital has been offered would require the Hospital to assume full responsibility for payment for services rendered to transferred patients by the transferee hospital. Those proposals have been rejected because the financial burden of such an arrangement would probably cause the Hospital to close. As of August 24, 1989, the date of the incident which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint in this case, HRS had not notified the Hospital of any rule or policy interpreting Sections 395.0142, 395.0143, and 401.45, Florida Statutes. As of August 24, 1989, HRS had not adopted any rule which stated a specific requirement that hospitals which provide orthopedic surgery must staff or provide on-call orthopedic surgery services on a continuous basis, i.e. twenty-four (24) hours per day, 365 days per year or have in place an agreement with another hospital(s) to provide such coverage. HRS contends that this requirement is imposed by the clear language of the statutes. On the evening of August 24, 1989 at approximately 7:45 p.m., K.H., a 28 year old male, presented himself at the Hospital's emergency room for treatment of a shotgun wound to his lower left leg. Dr. Charles Vasser, the emergency room physician on duty when K.H. arrived, stabilized the Patient and provided all the treatment that could be provided by an emergency room physician not trained in orthopedic surgery or vascular surgery. The radiology report prepared at the Hospital diagnosed the Patient's condition as follows: "focal soft tissue injury, with multiple metallic fragments of variable size, super imposed over soft tissues of distal right leg are noted. Comminuted compound fracture of distal tibial shaft, as well as linear fracture through distal fibula at same site, are observed. Findings are due to gun shot injury with residual bullet fragments within soft tissues. Correlation with patient's clinical findings is recommended." Because of the nature of the injury and the extent of the damage to the soft tissue of the Patient's lower leg, Dr. Vasser and the attending staff were concerned about the possibility of vascular damage. They frequently checked and charted the Patient's distal pulses. While the distal pulses appeared normal, the presence of distal pulses does not rule out vascular injury. A vascular injury is possible with a comminuted fracture even when the distal pedal pulses appear normal. A vascular problem is especially likely when the wound was inflicted by a shotgun blast and numerous metallic fragments are involved. After providing initial emergency room services to the Patient, Dr. Vasser felt that the assistance of appropriate specialists, i.e., an orthopedic surgeon and at least a consult with a vascular surgeon, would be required for further treatment. Dr. Vasser called the only orthopedic surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff, Dr. Zafar Kureshi, at 8:50 p.m. Dr. Kureshi was not on call that evening. Based on Dr. Vasser's description of K.H.'s condition, Dr. Kureshi stated that he was not capable of treating K.H. without the backup availability of a vascular surgeon and advised that K.H. should be transferred. This recommendation was made not only because Dr. Kureshi was not on call, but also because Dr. Kureshi was not capable of treating the Patient at an acceptable level of medical care without the availability of a vascular surgeon. As indicated in Findings of Fact 3 above, there are no vascular surgeons on staff at the Hospital and the Hospital does not offer vascular surgery services. In determining whether a patient needs the services of a physician in a particular specialty, the Hospital relies upon the medical judgment of the attending physician and any consulting physician. The Hospital did not and should not have ignored the medical determination made by the emergency room physician, in consultation with Dr. Kureshi, that the Patient, K.H., needed vascular backup in order to be properly treated. With the assistance of emergency technician Wendy Johns, Dr. Vasser began placing calls to other hospitals and their on-call physicians at 9:15 p.m. in an effort to arrange a transfer of the Patient. The first physician contacted through another hospital, Dr. Floyd, indicated that he would be unable to treat the Patient because of the extent of the soft-tissue injuries and the corresponding likelihood of vascular involvement. A number of additional hospitals and physicians were contacted and they also refused to accept the transfer of the Patient. All told, nineteen different physicians and/or hospitals were contacted between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. A variety of reasons were cited by those who refused to accept the transfer. Many of the reasons given for refusing the transfer were arguably a pretext and/or contravened the language and intent of Sections 395.0142, 395.0143 and 395.0144, Florida Statutes. Several of the doctors who were contacted confirmed that the treatment of the Patient would require the availability of a vascular surgeon as well as an orthopedist. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to transfer the Patient, Dr. Vasser contacted a general surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff, Dr. Husain, at approximately 12:10 a.m. Dr. Vasser and Dr. Husain again contacted Dr. Kureshi. The three physicians concurred that they were unable to treat the Patient because of the need for a vascular backup and the Hospital's inability to provide the necessary vascular backup. After he talked to Dr. Kureshi the second time, Dr. Vasser resumed calling other hospitals and their on-call physicians. The next call was to a vascular surgeon, Dr. Viamentes. Dr. Viamentes was reached through his beeper, but was unable to accept the transfer because he was out of town. At approximately 12:30 a.m., a social worker for the Hospital, Terry Cooper, contacted St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach. After some discussion and deliberation, St. Mary's agreed to accept the transfer of K.H. The Patient was transferred in stable condition via ambulance to St. Mary's Hospital where he arrived at approximately 3:00 a.m. Surgery was initiated at approximately 4:30 a.m. After the Patient was admitted to St. Mary's Hospital, the administration of that hospital filed a complaint with HRS pursuant to Section 395.0142, Florida Statutes. That complaint recites the facts surrounding the transfer of the Patient and the refusal of several other hospitals to accept the transfer. It is not clear whether St. Mary's was questioning the medical necessity of the transfer or simply the refusal of the other hospitals to accept the transfer. HRS initiated an investigation of the transfer of the Patient and submitted the Patient's medical records from both HCA Raulerson and St. Mary's to its expert, Dr. Slevenski, for review. Dr. Slevenski is an emergency room physician who has no specialized training in orthopedic surgery or vascular surgery. Dr. Slevenski testified that he saw no evidence in the Hospital's medical records that a vascular evaluation or consultation was necessary to treat this Patient and that the Hospital inappropriately transferred the Patient to another hospital. Dr. Slevenski's opinions are rejected. Dr. Slevenski erroneously assumed that the Hospital had not attempted to contact an orthopedic surgeon regarding the Patient. In fact, the Hospital contacted Dr. Kureshi, the only orthopedic surgeon on its staff, who indicated he was not qualified to treat the Patient's injury. The evidence established that both the emergency room physician and the orthopedic surgeon who was contacted at home felt that a vascular consult was necessary. These opinions were reasonable under the circumstances. The testimony of Dr. Henderson, the Respondent's expert, is accepted and confirms that the opinions of the emergency room physician and the orthopedic surgeon were reasonable under the circumstances and given the nature of the Patient's injury. There is no evidence that the Patient's care was deficient in any respect at either St. Mary's or the Hospital. The Patient progressed normally and a good result was achieved. In sum, the evidence established that the Hospital secured appropriate treatment for K.H. by providing an on-site emergency room physician and supporting staff who (1) provided immediate emergency care and stabilized the patient for transfer, (2) confirmed with the orthopedic surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff that a transfer was medically necessary, (3) called hospitals and their on-call physicians to arrange the transfer, and (4) arranged suitable transportation and transfer of the patient. The Hospital provided all the care that it could within its service capability. In view of his injury, the Patient's best interests were served by transferring him rather than treating him at the Hospital. The evidence did not establish whether K.H. was a paying or nonpaying patient. The evidence did establish that the decision to transfer K.H. was not based on his financial status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint filed against HCA Raulerson Hospital. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of January, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 17th day of January, 1991.
