The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, should receive a passing grade on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, applied for examination and licensure as a chiropractor and arranged to take the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. She received passing grades on two sections of the examination (Florida Laws and Rules, and X- ray Interpretation) but failing grades in Physical Diagnosis and Technique. During the pendency of this proceeding, it was stipulated that Petitioner should receive a passing grade in Technique, leaving only a failing grade of 74 (with 75 passing) in Physical Diagnosis. Since 75 was passing, Petitioner would pass the examination either if she is given credit for an additional answer, or if a question for which she did not get credit is eliminated. On July 24, 1998, Petitioner telephoned Respondent, the Department of Health, to request that a "review form for Chiropractic" be sent to her address in Dunedin, Florida. On July 30, 1998, Petitioner requested a post-examination review, which provided the same address in Dunedin, Florida. Respondent arranged for the review on September 10, 1998, and attempted to notify Petitioner of the review by letter dated August 21 and postmarked August 25, 1998, and addressed to Petitioner at her address in Dunedin, Florida, certified mail, return receipt requested. Not long after asking for the review, Petitioner moved to Georgia. Petitioner gave the United States Postal Service (USPS) a forwarding address in Cartersville, Georgia, but never notified Respondent of a change of address. When the USPS received Respondent's letter to Petitioner, it placed a postal stamp dated August 30, 1998, on the envelope, bearing the Cartersville address and a request addressed to Petitioner to notify the sender (Respondent) of Petitioner's Cartersville address. The USPS attempted to deliver the letter to Petitioner at the Cartersville, Georgia, address on September 2 and 7, 1998, but could not and had to leave notices for Petitioner to claim the letter. When Petitioner did not claim the letter, the Postal Service "X"-ed out the postal stamp with the Cartersville address and returned the letter to Respondent on September 17, 1998, with a notation that Petitioner had not claimed the letter. The USPS "X"-ed out the postal stamp to signify that the Cartersville address was not a good address. Respondent received the returned letter on September 23, 1998. Because the review notice could not be delivered, Petitioner never received notice. Not having received notice, Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled examination review and was recorded as a "no-show" even though the post office had not yet delivered a return receipt to Respondent. Ten to fifteen percent of the 200 examination reviews a year do not "show." Respondent treats them the same way as it treated Petitioner in this case, which is the same way Respondent treats examination "no-shows." It is not Respondent's practice to attempt to contact either examination or review "no-shows." Petitioner did not re-contact Respondent until August 1999. Initially, Petitioner applied to re-take the Chiropractic Examination in November 1999 but withdrew her application on September 27, 1999, when she realized that her national board part I score expired on December 31, 1998, and her national board scores for parts II and III were going to expire on December 31, 1999. On December 31, 1999, Petitioner attempted to "lock-in" her national board scores but was told that it was too late. When Petitioner realized that there was no way to preserve her national board scores, she renewed her request to review the May 1998 examination. With the assistance of her new attorney, Petitioner persuaded Respondent to agree to an examination review, which was scheduled for February 2000. In its proposed recommended order (PRO), Respondent contended that examination review in February 2000 was "for the sole purpose of preparing for the next examination." (Emphasis in PRO.) Respondent cited no evidence to support this contention, and none is found in the record. Petitioner's examination challenge was filed on March 15, 1998. Respondent also contended in its PRO that Petitioner should be barred from challenging the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination under the doctrine of laches. But not only was laches not raised as a defense in the Joint Response to Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions or at any time prior to Respondent's PRO, there was no evidence that the delay in the examination challenge made it difficult for Respondent to defend against the challenge. Petitioner's examination challenge blamed Respondent for the delay in reviewing the May 1998 examination and for the expiration of her national board scores. It also complained of alleged lack of anonymity and erasure marks on the answer key as well as on "the visceral portion of physical diagnosis." It then challenged two specific physiotherapy questions: one dealing with ultrasound (Question 23); and another dealing with cryotherapy (Question 24). As to the ultrasound, Petitioner essentially complained that she should not have been tested on ultrasound because, as a "straight" chiropractor (as opposed to a "mixer"), Petitioner did not use ultrasound in her practice and did not study it in school. As to the cryotherapy, Petitioner also complained that the answer she gave on the examination was correct and should have received credit. Finally, Petitioner challenged the Technique section of the examination (which Respondent eventually conceded). Like Question 23, Question 24 was worth 5 points on the 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Question 24 consisted of two parts, A and B, each worth 2.5 points. Question 24 dealt with the use of cryotherapy. Part A required a demonstration, which Petitioner clearly failed. (Petitioner did not challenge part A.) After Petitioner attempted her demonstration, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but was somewhat different from the actual first subpart of Question 24B. It does not appear from the evidence that Petitioner herself read the first subpart of Question 24B; she clearly did not read the question aloud. But it does not appear that Petitioner was confused by the way in which the examiner asked the first subpart of Question 24B. Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B varied from (was more conservative than) the accepted answer for time and length of cryotherapy treatment using ice packs. Petitioner testified that she answered conservatively because the hypothetical patient was 60 years old. Petitioner's proposed, more conservative treatment may be appropriate for 60 year-olds with diabetes, fragile skin and blood vessels, or other hypersensitivity to cold due to aging. But for most other 60 year-olds, normal cryotherapy protocol is not contraindicated. Question 24 was silent as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated in the hypothetical patient. During the examination, Petitioner did not ask for clarification as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated. It could not be ascertained from the videotape of the examination whether Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B was adjusted to take into account possible contraindications due to age of the hypothetical patient. The authoritative source for the accepted answer (Applied Physiotherapy, Second Edition, by Jaskoviak and Schafer, p. 249) stated: Cold packs are usually applied for 20-30 minutes when maximum effect is to be achieved. After 30 minutes, the packs lose their necessary degree of therapeutic coolness and must be returned to the refrigerated tank. The point of the authoritative source appears to be that cold packs do not remain cold enough for maximum therapeutic effect for longer than 30 minutes, not that cold packs must be used for 30 minutes for maximum therapeutic effect. It also does not rule out more conservative treatment for a 60 year-old, even assuming no contraindications. Respondent's expert testified persuasively that the authoritative source supported and bolstered his independent knowledge from personal education and extensive experience that the accepted answer was correct, not only generally but also in the case of a 60 year-old female with no contraindications. Petitioner's two experts testified to the contrary. But one had virtually no education, training, and experience in physiotherapy, and the other's education, training, and experience in physiotherapy was far less than Respondent's expert. When Petitioner finished her answer to the first subpart of Question 24B, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but differed significantly from the actual second subpart of Question 24B. The second subpart of Question 24B asked for a listing of physical sensations related to cryotherapy, in sequential order. But the examiner did not initially ask for them in sequential order. The evidence was clear that Petitioner herself did not reread the second subpart of Question 24B; again, she clearly did not read the question aloud. Petitioner began to answer the examiner's question, naming second and fourth sensations in the sequence. As Petitioner paused in her response, one of the examiners told Petitioner that there were four sensations and that Petitioner was required to name all of them in sequential order. The examiner then repeated the sensation mentioned by Petitioner as the first in the sequence. Petitioner continued her response by repeating only the second sensation in the sequence, adding the third sensation in the sequence, and not repeating the fourth sensation in the sequence. Petitioner never named the first sensation in the sequence. At the end of her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B, she commented: "I'm sorry. That's the best I can do. I guess this is why I should have taken physiotherapy." Petitioner argued that the examiner(s) violated the Examiner Manual for the Chiropractic Examination May 1998 (the Examiner Manual) and, in so doing, may have misled Petitioner into thinking that the first sensation mentioned by Petitioner in her answer to the second subpart to Question 24B was the first sensation in the sequence and may have caused Petitioner to omit the actual first sensation in the sequence. The Examiner Manual stated in pertinent part: During the examination If necessary, remind the candidate to read the questions out loud for the video. Do not read the questions to the candidate or ask the candidate for additional information. (Emphasis in original.) We have agreed on the following solutions to possible problems: * * * The answer is incomplete: ask for a complete answer. * * * Avoid Giving Clues DO NOT ask any additional questions, and DO NOT provide any feedback about the correctness of the answers. When the candidate gives a wrong answer, do not ask the candidate to answer it again. You may think you are doing the candidate a favor, but most of the time candidates do not think that way. While the examiner(s) may have misled Petitioner as to the first sensation in the sequence, Petitioner also never gave the last three sensations in proper order. The evidence did not prove that the examiner(s) misled Petitioner in regard to those sensations. In addition, Petitioner more or less conceded to the examiners that she was guessing throughout her attempted answers to Questions 23 and 24. She told the examiners that she had no education in or knowledge of cryotherapy and did not use it in her practice. While correct guesses count as correct answers, Petitioner's admitted guessing supports the finding that she did not answer the second subpart to Question 24B correctly. Petitioner also argued that she should be given partial credit for her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B. But while partial credit was given for a completely correct answer to either subpart of Question 24B, partial credit was not given for a partially correct answer to a subpart. Petitioner did not prove that the it was arbitrary or unreasonable not to give partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart. To give Petitioner partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart of Question 24B would give Petitioner an unfair advantage over other candidates. Question 23 also was worth 5 points on a 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Petitioner clearly did not answer Question 23 on the use of ultrasound as physiotherapy. Petitioner asserted that it was unfair and improper for Respondent to ask questions on physiotherapy on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination because she had no education, training, or experience in it. Petitioner learned "straight" chiropractic at Life University in Georgia and practiced "straight" chiropractic for 12 years in Georgia. "Straight" chiropractic is limited to identification and correction of skeletal subluxations by direct manipulation. It does not use physiotherapy techniques, such as ultrasound and cryotherapy (icing). But, contrary to Petitioner's position in this case, it is found that Petitioner did have the opportunity to study physiotherapy during and after college, but she chose not to. Petitioner also asserted that Respondent gave her inadequate notice that physiotherapy questions would be on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. The Candidate Information Booklet for the May 1998 Chiropractic Licensure and Certification Examination (the Candidate Information Booklet) advised candidates approximately what areas would be covered in the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination, namely: Orthopedic and Neurological 30-35%; Diagnostic Imaging 20-25%; Case History and Physical 15-20%; Laboratory 5-10%; Diagnosis 15- 20%; and Clinical Judgment 5-10%. But it also included the following statement: Based on the Board of Chiropractic's approval of a proposal made by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, starting with the May 1998 examination, the Physical Diagnosis portion of the examination will include questions relating to the practice of Physiotherapy. The inclusion of these questions does not alter the percentage of areas to be tested on the Physical Diagnosis portion [of] the examination, as stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. The only other evidence as to whether inclusion of the physiotherapy questions (i.e., Questions 23 and 24) caused the percentage of areas to be tested to depart from the approximations in the Candidate booklet or the percentages stated in the pertinent Board rule was the testimony of Respondent's psychometric expert. It was her general understanding that inclusion of the physiotherapy questions did not alter the percentages because: "They are covered all through the exam I believe." But she conceded that her expertise does not extend to examination content, and she could not testify specifically as to how inclusion of the physiotherapy questions affected the percentages in the Candidate Information Booklet and in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. No "content expert" addressed the issue. It is found that the only place where physiotherapy possibly might fit under the Candidate Information Booklet's description of Physical Diagnosis would be under "clinical judgment." If the physiotherapy questions were assigned to "clinical judgment" under Physical Diagnosis, the ten points assigned to those questions would have to be added to the six points assigned to "clinical judgment" on other parts of the Physical Diagnosis examination, for a total of 16 points, which exceeds the maximum percentage in the Candidate Information Booklet. (As reflected in the Conclusion of Law 42, infra, the same holds true for the percentages stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Health, enter a final order that Petitioner passed the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Post Office Box 37094 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-7094 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, the Respondent Joseph O. Smith, was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. On or about March 3, 1982, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, William Pawley, went to the chiropractic office of the Respondent Smith and took into his possession five (5) pieces of literature, each containing the name of the Respondent Smith, from the public waiting area of the office. The literature consisted of the following: A brochure entitled "Total Health Care Center", on which is printed the name Dr. Joseph O. Smith with no designation of the Center as a chiropractic or related facility or of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) A flyer with the Respondent Smith's and Total Health Care Center's address captioned across the top, with no designation of the Center as a chiropractic or related institution or of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) A brochure entitled "What to Do in Case of an Automobile Accident" which has the Respondent's and Total Health Care Center's address and telephone number on the cover with no designation of the Center as a chiropractic or related institution or of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) A wallet-size card with the Republican Party's elephant symbol, the slogan "The Republican Party of Florida" and the Respondent's name without a designation of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4) A booklet entitled "Foundation of Man" authored by the Respondent Smith which designates him as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) The "Total Health Care Center" is located at 349 Southwest 79th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and is the chiropractic office of the Respondent Smith. The sign outside the office which is visible from the street clearly designates the office as being that of a chiropractic physician. The "Total Health Care Center" is primarily a chiropractic office which also offers related health care and medical services when appropriate. During the past three years, Dr. R. George Manieri, D.O., has examined patients at the Center and provided medical services including routine check-ups, vaginal examinations, breast examinations and pap smears. He also treated the Respondent's patients on a referral or part-time basis, by prescribing medication for birth control and other medical reasons. According to Dr. Manieri, the Respondent's position at the Center was both as a director and chiropractor since both medical and chiropractic services were available. Dr. Jeffrey Goldenberg, a licensed medical doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, saw the Respondent's patients at the Center for birth control exams, breast checks and other medical reasons. The Respondent referred patients to Dr. Goldenberg, who saw patients either in the Center or at his private office. The Respondent Smith treated patients at the Center only for chiropractic problems. The Respondent Smith acted as the Director of the Center and has employed both chiropractic and medical physicians as part of his total or holistic philosophy of health care. Consumers who arrive at the Center are immediately placed on notice that the Center is essentially a chiropractic office by signs both outside and inside the establishment. The booklets, which were obtained by the Department from inside the Center and which failed to designate the Respondent or the Center by use of the term "D.C. or Chiropractic" (Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 & 3), were provided for general informational purposes and were not intended as chiropractic advertisements. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 3 are neither false nor misleading and contain general medical information concerning breast cancer, arthritis, burns, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, heart attacks, CPR and aid for automobile accident victims. These pamphlets (Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 & 3) were distributed for informational purposes only to patients once inside the office, who were already on notice that they were in the office of a chiropractor. When the Respondent Smith advertised himself as a chiropractor, he used the term chiropractor or D.C. after his name. However, when he advertised the Center, the Respondent would indicate that it provided both chiropractic and medical services as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. In addition to running the Center and practicing chiropractic, the Respondent also ran for the Republican nomination for Governor of Florida. His campaign office was located at the Center and, as demonstrated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, at least one campaign document was kept at the Center which did not designate him as a chiropractic physician. Dr. Barry Adler, a licensed chiropractor and Secretary of Broward County Chiropractic Society and Co-Chairman of the Society's Ethics Committee, testified concerning the community standard in Broward County regarding the designation of chiropractors for advertising purposes. In Broward County, it is common for chiropractors to not use the term chiropractor or D.C. in their names when they are not advertising chiropractic services. For example, business cards and bank accounts of chiropractors are maintained without the designation, since such items are not generally considered as advertisements. Similarly, the Journal of the Florida Chiropractic Association, Inc., and Directors of the Broward County Chiropractic Society, lists their directors as "Drs." without the specific designation of chiropractor or D.C. following each name. Patients who visited the Total Health Care Center would not be misled by the lack of the designation "D.C." or "chiropractor" on Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which were offered to prospective patients once inside the Center. The information both outside and inside the Center made it clear that the Respondent provided primarily chiropractic care while the Center offered both chiropractic and medical services. No evidence was presented on Count I of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Joseph O. Smith be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 1983, Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Schlein was properly graded on the November 1986 practical examination for chiropractic. Preliminary matters At the opening of the hearing, the petitioner, Dr. Stuart Schlein, inquired whether a former member of the Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Dr. Posner, could represent him in this proceeding. After inquiring about Dr. Posner's credentials, Dr. Posner was not accepted as a qualified representative, but Dr. Schlein was permitted to consult with Dr. Posner throughout the proceeding to assist in the presentation of Dr. Schlein's evidence. At the hearing, David Paulson, Ph.D., and Robert Samuel Butler, Jr., D.C., testified on behalf of both parties. Petitioner introduced exhibits 1-14, and respondent introduced exhibits 1 and 2.
Findings Of Fact Stuart Schlein, the petitioner, was a candidate during the November 1986 chiropractic examination. He was exempt from Part I (Basic Sciences Examination) and Part II (Clinical Sciences Examination) because he had already passed the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners' examination. The practical examination consists of three portions, one on x-ray interpretation, one on chiropractic technique, and one on physical diagnosis. There was no dispute with respect to the scoring of Dr. Schlein on the x-ray interpretation portion of the exam, on which he received a grade of 74.2 percent. Dr. Schlein's grade on technique was 75.0 and on physical diagnosis was 72.5, for an overall score on the three portions of practical examination of 73.9 percent. Dr. Schlein would have been eligible for registration for licensure as a chiropractor if his overall grade was 75 percent or better on the practical examination. Rule 21D- 11.003(4), (5), Florida Administrative Code. To conduct the technique and physical diagnosis portions of the practical examination, the Department of Professional Regulation hires examiners who have five or more years experience as licensed chiropractors in Florida who have not been disciplined or investigated by the Board. Rule 21D- 11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. Pairs of examiners question each candidate. There is a standardization training session for examiners which lasts 2-3 hours the morning of the examination. During that training, the examiners learn the scoring scale to be used; candidates are scored on a scale from 1-4, with scores of four being the maximum. Examiners are told to independently evaluate the candidate's performance and are told how to record their answers on a sheet which can be scanned by computer, and are told the different content areas from which they may ask questions of candidates. For example, in the technique examination, there are four sub-areas to be covered, cervical, thoracic, occipital, and soft tissue. The examiner, individually, determines what he wishes to ask candidates from those subject areas. Both examiners' scores on each test are averaged to produce a candidate's final score for each test. The examiners change partners from the morning to afternoon examination sessions. For approximately 30 minutes before the morning or afternoon sessions, the examiners paired for that session may discuss with each other the questions which they intend to ask. To use a legal analogy, this method of testing candidate's practical knowledge is not much different than placing two examining lawyers in a room to question and evaluate a bar applicant, after merely instructing the lawyers to "ask something about evidence, about constitutional law, and about criminal law." (Transcript 137). There is no assurance that the questions posed by the examiners are at a proper level of difficulty to assess minimum qualifications for practice. There is no requirement that a given pair of examiners ask the same questions of their examinees during a morning or afternoon examination session. There is no assurance that the other examiner in the room even knows the answer to a question posed, yet both examiners are required to assign a grade for the candidate's performance on each sub-area. The Department makes a tape recording of the examination of each candidate for review. Dr. Schlein's grades on the technique and diagnosis portions of the practical examination were as follows: TECHNIQUE Examiner I Examiner 4 1. Cervical 3 4 2. Thoracic 3 3 3. Occipital 4 3 4. Soft Tissue 2 2 12 12 16 16 = 75 percent = 75 percent Average score 75 percent DIAGNOSIS Examiner 1 Examiner 4 Case History 3 3 Chiro. Exam. 2 2 Orthopedic 4 4 Neurological 4 3 Laboratory Diagnosis 3 2 Nutrition 2 [examiner failed to assign a grade] 18 14 24 20 = 75 percent = 70 percent Average score 72.5 percent Technique 75 percent Diagnosis 72.5 percent X-Ray 74.2 percent Final Average 73.9 percent Dr. Schlein objects to the grades he received for cervical and occipital on the technique exam and for neurological and nutrition in the diagnosis exam. With respect to the grade for nutrition, the Department of Professional Regulation could not explain why Examiner 4 failed to assign any grade for the candidate's answer with respect to the questions he was asked on nutrition. Dr. Schlein attempted to impeach the explanation given by Examiner 1, Dr. Butler, for the grades assigned on the four portions of the examination Dr. Schlein challenged by introducing portions of text books used in chiropractic schools which tend to support Dr. Schlein's oral answers. While the matter is not free from doubt, Dr. Schlein's text book excerpts have not convinced the Hearing Officer that the grades given are erroneous. Dr. Schlein was not properly graded, however, with respect to the area of nutrition since examiner 4 (who was not called as a witness) failed to assign any grade and the reason for his failure to do so was unexplained.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Schlein be granted the opportunity to be reexamined on the practical portion of the chiropractic examination, at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact proposed by the petitioner. Rejected as introduction. Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 5. Covered in paragraph 6. Covered in paragraphs 1 and 5. Rejected because it is not possible to tell what the effect of the failure of Examiner 4 to give a grade on nutrition was, other than to draw the conclusion expressed in paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law that the examiner did not completely understand the grading instructions. Rejected for the reasons stated in paragraph 8. The finding that the testimony establishes there is no uniform method for grading examinees is implicitly accepted in paragraph 3, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The following are my rulings of findings of fact proposed by the respondent. The Department filed no proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 STUART SCHLEIN, D. C. 1035 FRANKLING ROAD APARTMENT N-208 MARIETTA, GEORGIA 30667 PAT GUILFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule Subsections 64B2-15.001(2)(e), (i), and (l) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that they exceed Respondent's rulemaking authority or enlarge, modify, or contravene the law the Rule implements.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Michael John Badanek, D.C., is a duly licensed chiropractic physician in the State of Florida. Dr. Badanek actively practices in Ocala, Florida. Dr. Badanek has engaged in and is engaging in, the advertising of professional services to the public. Dr. Badanek is subject to the provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated by Respondent. Dr. Badanek's failure to adhere to the provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, including the Challenged Rule Subsections, may result in the discipline of his professional license. Dr. Badanek has standing to challenge the Challenged Rule Subsections. The affected state agency is the Board of Chiropractic Medicine (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), located at 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Board is charged by Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, with the duty of regulating the chiropractic profession in Florida. In carrying out that duty, the Board has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 64B2. At issue in this matter is the Challenged Rule Subsections of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B2-15.001. The Challenged Rule Subsections provide the following: 64B2-15.001 Deceptive and MisleadingAdvertising Prohibited; Policy; Definition. . . . . (2) No chiropractor shall disseminate or cause the dissemination of any advertisement or advertising which is in any way fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading. Any advertisement or advertising shall be deemed by the Board to be fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading, if it: . . . . (e) Coveys the impression that the chiropractor or chiropractors, disseminating the advertising or referred to therein, posses qualifications, skills, or other attributes which are superior to other chiropractors, other than a simple listing of earned professional post-doctoral or other professional achievements. However, a chiropractor is not prohibited from advertising that he has attained Diplomate status in a chiropractic specialty area recognized by the Board of Chiropractic. Chiropractic Specialties recognized by the Board are those recognized by the various Councils of the American Chiropractic Association or the International Chiropractic Association. Each specialty requires a minimum of 300 hours of post-graduate credit hours and passage of a written and oral examination approved by the American Chiropractic Association or International Chiropractic Association. Titles used for the respective specialty status are governed by the definitions articulated by the respective councils. A Diplomate of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners is not recognized by the Board as a chiropractic specialty status for the purpose of this rule. A chiropractor who advertises that he or she has attained recognition as a specialist in any chiropractic or adjunctive procedure by virtue of a certification received from an entity not recognized under this rule may use a reference to such specialty recognition only if the board, agency, or other body which issued the additional certification is identified, and only if the letterhead or advertising also contains in the same print size or volume the statement that "The specialty recognition identified herein has been received from a private organization not affiliated with or recognized by the Florida Board of Chiropractic Medicine." A chiropractor may use on letterhead or in advertising a reference to any honorary title or degree only if the letterhead or advertising also contains in the same print size or volume the statement "Honorary" or (Hon.) next to the title. . . . . (i) Contains any representation regarding a preferred area of practice or an area of practice in which the practitioner in fact specializes, which represents or implies that such specialized or preferred area of practice requires, or that the practitioner has received any license or recognition by the State of Florida or its authorized agents, which is superior to the license and recognition granted to any chiropractor who successfully meets the licensing requirements of Chapter 460, F.S. However, a chiropractor is not prohibited from advertising that he has attained Diplomate status in a specialty area recognized by the Board, or . . . . (l) Contains a reference to any other degree or uses the initials "M.D." or "D.O." or any other initials unless the chiropractic physician has actually received such a degree and is a licensed holder of such degree in the State of Florida. If the chiropractic physician licensee is not licensed to practice in any other health care profession in Florida, the chiropractic physician must disclose this fact, and the letterhead, business card, or other advertisement shall also include next to the reference or initials a statement such as "Not licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida" or "Licensed to practice chiropractic medicine only" in the same print size or volume. . . . . The authority cited by the Board as its "grant of rulemaking authority" for the Challenged Rule Subsections is Section 460.405, Florida Statutes, which provides: Authority to make rules.--The Board of Chiropractic Medicine has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter conferring duties upon it. The Board has cited Sections 456.062 and 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as the "law implemented" by the Challenged Rule Subsections. Section 456.062, Florida Statutes, provides: Advertisement by a health care practitioner of free or discounted services; required statement.--In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care practitioner licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, chapter 462, chapter 463, chapter 464, chapter 465, chapter 466, chapter 467, chapter 478, chapter 483, chapter 484, chapter 486, chapter 490, or chapter 491, the following statement shall appear in capital letters clearly distinguishable from the rest of the text: THE PATIENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PAY, CANCEL PAYMENT, OR BE REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT THAT IS PERFORMED AS A RESULT OF AND WITHIN 72 HOURS OF RESPONDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FREE, DISCOUNTED FEE, OR REDUCED FEE SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT. However, the required statement shall not be necessary as an accompaniment to an advertisement of a licensed health care practitioner defined by this section if the advertisement appears in a classified directory the primary purpose of which is to provide products and services at free, reduced, or discounted prices to consumers and in which the statement prominently appears in at least one place. Section 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, provides the following ground for disciplinary action: "False, deceptive, or misleading advertising." While neither this provision nor any other specific provision of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, imposes a specific duty upon the Board to define what constitutes "false, deceptive, or misleading advertising," the Board is necessarily charged with the duty to apply such a definition in order to carry out its responsibility to discipline licensed chiropractors for employing "false, deceptive, or misleading advertising."
Findings Of Fact L. R. Fleming is a chiropractic physician licensed by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners and holds License #1239. Dr. L. R. Fleming caused to be published in the Today Newspaper an advertisement, a copy of which was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. This advertisement read as follows: CHIROPRACTORS SEEK RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS The International Pain Control Institute in conjunction with the New York Chiropractic College is presently engaged in what is the most extensive research program ever undertaken by the chiropractic profession. This research is directed toward determining the relationship between health problems and spinal misalignments and utilizes a screening process called Contour Analysis. Volunteers are being sought for screening. Contour Analysis enables taking a three- dimensional picture (called Moire photography) of the topography of the surface of the spine to detect spinal stress deviations. This analysis will be correlated with leg deficiency, patient symptomatology, and levels of tenderness. An analysis of this type can reveal such things as normal and abnormal stress patterns, spinal curvature, muscle spasms, muscle imbalance, spinal distortions and scoliosis. There is no charge to participating volunteers, since the doctors are contributing their time, service, and facilities for the program. Final processing and evaluation will be done at the New York Chiropractic College. Anyone wishing to be a volunteer may telephone participating doctors directory for information or an appointment. MERRITT ISLAND TITUSVILLE MELBOURNE (doctor's (doctor's Dr. Lyle name deleted) name deleted) Fleming Phone 254-3343 The advertisement above was published in the Today Newspaper on or about April 1, 1978. Gladys Teate, of Melbourne, Florida, read this advertisement on or about April 1, 1978, and made an appointment with dr. Fleming for contour analysis on April 11, 1978. Gladys Teate kept the appointment on April 11, 1978, and had a contour analysis performed at Dr. Fleming's office. The process of contour analysis consisted of the taking of certain personal data together with symptomatology from Gladys Teate by one of the doctor's assistants. Thereafter, the doctor's assistant took a Moire photograph of Teate's back. Teate was then seen by Dr. Fleming, who performed an elementary examination of Teate's back and explained the Moire photograph to her. Teate had no recollection of the contour analysis, Dr. Fleming's examination, or any subsequent events to include any oral representations made by Dr. Fleming. However, records reflect that x-rays were taken of Teate at Dr. Fleming's office. Thereafter, a thorough chiropractic examination was performed by the doctor, who prepared a written diagnostic recommendation, a copy of which was introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Teate was unclear as to whether she saw Dr. Fleming on one or two (2) occasions; however, she was given a bill for $10 for a chiropractic examination and a bill for $45 for x-rays upon leaving Dr. Fleming's office. There was no charge for the contour analysis. No competent evidence of Dr. Fleming's indicating that further examination and diagnosis was free was presented. No evidence was introduced that the research program described in the advertisement was not a legitimate research program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners take no action against the license of Dr. L. R. Fleming, D.C. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul W. Lambert, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis V. Cianfrogna, Esquire 308 Julia Street Post Office Drawer 6310-G Titusville, Florida 32780 Board of Chiropractic Examiners 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Petitioner passed the 1987 chiropractic examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mary Campilii, was a candidate for the May 14-17, 1987 chiropractic examination. Petitioner achieved an overall score of 72, as reflected by an upward revision to her original score of 66, on the practical section of the examination. Petitioner achieved a score of 76 on the Florida laws and rules section of the examination. A minimum score of 75 is required to pass both the practical and laws and rules sections of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the method of grading utilized by the Respondent contending that it is subjective as it elates to her, and did not properly reflect her level of achievement and knowledge to the questions that she answered on the May 1987 examination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she demonstrated expert or superior knowledge in her answers to any of the questions on the May 1987 exam that she now challenges. The oral practice examination for chiropractic certification is an independent, subjective grading of a candidate's responses to questions asked by two graders. The graders have all been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five (5) years in Florida and have undergone several hours of standardization training prior to examining the candidates for license certification. One of the techniques required of graders is that they must write their comments if they give a candidate any score less than a 3, which is a passing grade. The grade range is from 1-4. A score of 3 is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimum competency and a score of 4 is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested. Petitioner presented Thomas P. Toja, an expert in grading chiropractic examinations for the Board, who offered his opinion that had the grading system utilized by Respondent been different, i.e. a system whereby a candidate could be accorded a score somewhere between a 3 and 4, when such candidate has demonstrated more than minimum competency but less than superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested, a candidate, such as Petitioner, could have achieved an additional 3 points to her score of 72, and thereby received a passing score of 75. Petitioner has not, however challenged validity of the existing rule which permits Respondent to utilize the grading procedures applied in this case. Stephen Ordet, a licensed chiropractor in Florida for more than 7 years was received as an expert in the grading of chiropractic examinations in Florida, and was one of the graders during the May 1987 examination. Ordet's opinion, which is credited, was that Petitioner did not earn a score of 4 on any of the questions that she now challenges, and was correctly assigned a score of 3 for each of the responses she gave to questions she challenged. Thomas P. Hide, a chiropractor who specializes in the area of sports related injuries, was tendered and received as an expert in the area of reviewing x-rays and the grading of the chiropractic examination. Hide credibly testified and it is found that Petitioner was properly assigned a score of 3 on questions 8, 12, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30 and 33.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met the minimum criteria to pass the challenged chiropractic examination and deny her request for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dr. Mary Camiplii 2921 Buckridge Trail Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C., is duly qualified and licensed to practice as a Chiropractor in the State of Florida. Dr. Johnson holds a license issued by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. From on or about July 18, 1975 until August 18, 1975, Dr. Johnson treated Mabel-Ann Miller. Ms. Miller had been having pain in her back and legs and was seeking chiropractic treatment in the hope of alleviating the pain. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on approximately twenty occasions during the one month that she was under his care. The testimony from several of the witnesses was understandably somewhat vague with respect to what was said or done on any given visit. It is apparent, however, that during the early consultations with her, Dr. Johnson told her that he could help her, and that more than a year of treatment would be necessary. Dr. Johnson initially represented to her that the cost of treatment would be approximately $200, and that she would be permitted to pay $5 per week and the remainder when she finished her schooling. Dr. Johnson diagnosed a degenerated or herniated disc, a scoliosis or curvature of the spine, and a pelvic obliquity. Dr. Johnson told Ms. Miller that she was loosing fluid from her spine, and that unless she received immediate chiropractic treatment she would require an operation within a year, that the operation would have only a 50/50 chance of success, and that without chiropractic treatment she would stand a very good prospect of spending her life in a wheelchair. Mabel-Ann Miller's boyfriend, Chuck Alexander, had been Dr. Johnson's patient prior to the time that Ms. Miller went to Dr. Johnson. Alexander told Dr. Johnson about Ms. Miller, and prior to Ms. Miller's seeing Dr. Johnson as a patient, Alexander agreed to pay all of her expenses that she could not pay herself. He signed an agreement to this effect (licensee's Exhibit 6). The existence of this side agreement was not revealed to Ms. Miller until her second, third, or fourth visit. Ms. Miller became incensed at the arrangement, and told Dr. Johnson that she would pay her own bills. Dr. Johnson then related to her that the cost of her treatments would exceed $1,000. He told her that he would treat her on a "case fee" basis for $1,060.30. It was agreed that she would pay him a small portion of this case fee until she finished her schooling and was able to pay the entire bill. There after Dr. Johnson endeavored to have Ms. Miller sign a note for the "case fee". He initially requested 7 percent interest on the note, but later changed that amount to 5 percent. A copy of an agreement to pay which Dr. Johnson presented to Ms. Miller was received in evidence as Board Exhibit 6. Ms. Miller never signed the agreement. The testimony respecting Mabel-Ann Miller's condition varied somewhat. Dr. Johnson's diagnosis did not vary to an extraordinary degree, however, from the diagnosis given by other chiropractors, and by Dr. Hobby, a Medical Physician. The most creditable testimony demonstrates that Ms. Miller had a very mild curvature of the spine or scoliosis. She suffered a pelvic obliquity. Her left pelvis was 1.2 centimeters higher than her right pelvis. The pain being suffered by the patient was primarily muscular in nature. Ms. Miller would have benefited from chiropractic treatments, but her condition was not so severe as to require more than a year of intensive chiropractic therapy. Primarily she needed a good exercise program. After leaving Dr. Johnson's care, Ms. Miller submitted to the care of Dr. Hobby, who advised that she use an elevation on her shoe to level the pelvis and engage in an exercise program. She followed Dr. Hobby's advice, and at least up until the time of the hearing her condition improved, and she was no longer suffering pain. As has been said, Dr. Johnson's diagnosis of Ms. Miller's condition was not inaccurate. His statements respecting the severity of the condition were, however, quite exaggerated. Any disc deterioration that Ms. Miller suffered was very slight. Her scoliosis was not so severe as to require intensive chiropractic treatment. Her pelvic obliquity was not a severe problem. Dr. Johnson's statement that she would require surgery if she did not receive immediate chiropractic attention was not true. Neither was it true that she would require more than a year of intense chiropractic treatment. Dr. Johnson frequently utilized the "case fee" system of billing, and he attempted to utilize this system in billing Mabel-Ann Miller. Under the "case fee" system, a patient pays a lump sum for all needed chiropractic treatment rather than a per-visit fee. The testimony revealed that the average per-visit fee for chiropractic services in the St. Petersburg area varied from $8 to $12. Dr. Johnson's quoted "case fee" of more than $1,000 is so out of line with typical fees charged in the St. Petersburg area as to raise suspicions respecting Dr. Johnson's motives. There was no reason to expect that Ms. Miller required so many treatments as to justify such a case fee. Dr. Johnson's exaggerated statements respecting her condition could only have been motivated by his desire to have her contract for a fee far out of line with fees normally charged in the St. Petersburg area, and far out of line with the nature of treatment that Ms. Miller needed whatever fees were charged. Since Ms. Miller never signed a note agreeing to a "case fee" Dr. Johnson rendered her a statement for services on a per-visit or per-service basis. The statement was for $1,411.16. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on fewer than twenty occasions. Although she enjoyed the full range of services available at Dr. Johnson's office during these visits, the treatment and services she received were not remotely worth the amount which Dr. Johnson billed her. Dr. Johnson never had any agreement with the patient which would have justified such a bill which so far exceeds the community standards of the value of chiropractic services. During the time that Ms. Miller was under Dr. Johnson's care she received treatment known as Galvanic treatment in his office. A Galvanic machine renders heat to areas of the patient's body where the pads from the machine are placed. Use of the machine is somewhat risky in that a patient can be burned as a result of errors that are easy to make. Galvanic treatment was rendered to Ms. Miller at Dr. Johnson's office by Barbara Duynslager. Ms. Duynslager was trained in use of the Galvanic machine primarily by Dr. Johnson's wife, who served as Dr. Johnson's office manager. Dr. Johnson witnessed Ms. Duynslager using the machine on two occasions. Generally she was supervised in use of the machine, if at all, by Dr. Johnson's wife. It is normal procedure in the St. Petersburg area for chiropractic assistants to watch from five to ten Galvanic treatments and to be closely supervised on from five to ten more treatments before they are permitted to administer treatments unsupervised. Ms. Duynslager was given less training than that. Given the community standards, and given the risk involved in using the machine, it is apparent that Ms. Duynslager was not adequately trained. During the time that she was being treated, Ms. Miller received a minor burn on her lower back. There was no direct testimony from which it could be concluded that the burn came from the Galvanic machine; however, there is ample circumstantial evidence from which it can be determined that she did receive the burns from the machine. The burns appeared during the time she was receiving Galvanic treatment, the nature of the irritation is consistent with a Galvanic burn, and no other source of such an irritation was known. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that Barbara Duynslager was negligent in using the machine; however, the existence of the burn dramatizes the necessity for careful training on the machine. During late September and early October, 1975, Dr. Johnson consulted Philip W. Settepani, as a patient. Mr. Settepani was experiencing back pains, and he sought chiropractic assistance from Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson showed Settepani x-rays of his back, and described what Dr. Johnson characterized as "spurs" on the x-rays. Mr. Settepani was quite upset at what he saw on the x- rays, and he eventually sought and received chiropractic treatment from a Dr. Tilka rather than Dr. Johnson. Dr. Tilka did not describe Mr. Settepani's condition as "spurs". This led Mr. Settepani to believe that Dr. Johnson either made an erroneous diagnosis or misrepresented the diagnosis in order to scare the patient. Several of the expert witnesses who testified identified Mr. Settepani's condition as spurs . It is apparently the use of that term which caused Mr. Settepani to complain to the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Dr. Johnson made an erroneous diagnosis of Mr. Settepani, or made any fraudulent or misleading statements to Mr. Settepani. In early February, 1976, Ms. Shirley Sabo visited Dr. Johnson's office as a patient. Dr. Johnson's wife told Ms. Sabo that Dr. Johnson never had a patient he couldn't cure, and that the cure would be quick. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that these statements were authorized by Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson informed the patient that she would require approximately one year of treatment, and that the cost would be $1,000. Ms. Sabo did not continue treatment with Dr. Johnson. She eventually received treatment from another Chiropractor and was billed $160 for x-rays and twelve visits. The fee quoted by Dr. Johnson was far out of line with customary fees in the St. Petersburg area, and is difficult, if not impossible, to justify. Nonetheless, there is no evidence from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson misrepresented any facts to Ms. Sabo. Dr. Johnson instituted two law suits under the name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. The name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. was recorded in the public records of Pinellas County as a fictitious name for Johnson Chiropractic Clinic. Dr. Johnson performs as a sole practitioner. There was no other evidence respecting any advertising undertaken by Dr. Johnson in the name of a clinic, or any announcements made by Dr. Johnson that his office was a clinic.
