The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact petitioner is currently licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in four states. Some of his licenses are voluntarily inactive. He is a graduate of Life University, School of Chiropractic, in Georgia. From 1992 to 1999, he taught classes in Clinical and Orthopedic Diagnosis and other clinical classes at that institution, and his final position was Director of Admissions. He currently maintains a chiropractic practice in Georgia. In November 2000, Petitioner took the Florida chiropractic licensure examination. By a January 12, 2001, examination grade report the Department notified Petitioner that he had failed the Physical Diagnosis portion of the licensure examination. The minimum passing score for the Physical Diagnosis portion was 75.00. Petitioner had scored 72.00. As such, Petitioner had failed that portion. The November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination consisted of four portions: Laws and Rules; X:-ray Interpretation; Physical Diagnosis; and Technique. Pursuant to Rule 64B2-11.003, Florida Administrative Code, candidates are required to pass all four portions of the examination. Accordingly, Petitioner's failure of only one portion resulted in his failing the examination. At the disputed-fact hearing, Petitioner narrowed his challenge of disputed questions to Tasks 6 and 7 of the Physical Diagnosis portion of the examination. Petitioner withdrew his challenge to any other portions. Therefore, to pass the entire examination, Petitioner would have to prove entitlement to three points on these two tasks. Task 6 is worth three points. Task 7 is worth two points. Petitioner contended that Tasks 6 and 7 were not worded so as to call for a precise response; that the examination questions related to those tasks were subject to different, but equally correct, assessments or clinical judgments than those approved by the Department, and that he had given equally correct assessments/clinical judgments as his examination answers; and that the scoring of the examination was flawed. Prior to the examination, candidates were provided with a Candidate Information Booklet (CIB). This preparatory booklet explains what the examination will be like, explains how it is scored, and states: The references listed below may be used to prepare for the examination. This list is not considered to be all-inclusive. Following this statement is a list of professional texts divided into categories of "Acupuncture," "Physical Diagnosis," "Technique," and "X-ray Interpretation of Chiropractic and Pathology Films." The Physical Diagnosis portion of the November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination is a practical examination which tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical patient's case history. The case history for the Physical Diagnosis portion is followed by a series of related questions. For this examination, Task 1, the case history, was related to Tasks 6 and 7, because it provided critical information relating to the history of the patient whom Tasks 6 and 7 asked the candidate to evaluate. Task 6 asked the candidate to respond to the question, "What laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, would assist in the diagnosis?" Petitioner testified that he had taken a "medical" approach to this question, which should be appropriate from the viewpoint of the "Board of Chiropractic Medicine." From Petitioner's viewpoint, Task 6; was vague and the time limitations of the examination did not allow him to go back and review the preceding patient history which might have caused him to answer differently. However, he conceded that even if he had gone back and-re-read the patient history, he probably would have answered the same way. Petitioner also conceded that candidates had the opportunity to write notes on scratch paper and were allowed to refer back to their notes for gathering or taking additional information about the patient history as they progressed through the subsequent examination. tasks/questions. Petitioner answered Task 6 by listing specific laboratory test(s) he felt were warranted, whereas the Department's scan sheet or answer key stated that the correct answer should have been "None." The Department's reviewers concluded that Petitioner's answer meant that he had given laboratory tests when none were required, based on the examination information as a whole. Task 7 asked the candidate to respond to the question, "State your reasoning for choosing these tests." Petitioner's actual answers to Task 7 were not offered at hearing. However, at hearing, Petitioner gave his reasons for ordering laboratory tests as not being satisfied with one diagnosis; because a chiropractor should pursue tests to rule out other conditions in a deductive rather than inductive manner; and because a chiropractor is obligated to make a "differential" diagnosis in every case to determine the etiology of the primary diagnosis, i.e. a tumor, so that he can speak intelligently with other health care professionals, such as a medical physicianoncologist, to whom the chiropractor will refer the patient. Petitioner's additional reasons given at hearing for the laboratory tests he would have administered (Task 6) are those given above in Finding of Fact 7. The Department's approved answer for Task 7 was again negative of any reasons for laboratory tests because, in its answer-book, there should have been no laboratory tests ordered on Task 6. Despite his discounted answers to the challenged questions, Petitioner ultimately reached the correct diagnosis for the patient to whom Tasks 1, 6, and 7 applied. He reached the correct diagnosis after receiving further information on examination tasks subsequent to Tasks 6 and 7, but he still reached the correct diagnosis without running any actual laboratory tests or receiving any hypothetical laboratory test results. At the stage of Tasks 6 and 7, he was told by examiners either that no laboratory test results were available or that all laboratory tests were normal. His reaching the correct diagnosis under these conditions demonstrates that reaching a correct diagnosis without the laboratory tests he ordered certainly was possible. Petitioner testified that in formulating his answers to Tasks 6 and 7, he had relied on a standard text, Differential Diagnosis in Primary Care, Second Edition, R. Douglas Collins, M.D. F.A.C.P.; published by J. B. Lippincott Company, which text had been used to instruct him and from which text Petitioner also had taught his chiropractic students. This text is not listed in the CIB. Petitioner also discussed portions of eight other professional health care texts which he felt supported his answers to Tasks 6 and 7. None of these texts were listed in the CIB. Although the CIB is not "all-inclusive" of generally accepted chiropractic texts, the texts listed. thereon may be presumed to be generally accepted. Texts. not listed thereon do not benefit from the CIB's "imprimitur" of general professional acceptance and reliability. Petitioner only asserted that the texts upon which he relied were used in many (not all) chiropractic schools. The Departments expert in chiropractic, Dr. Scott L. Drizin, testified that of the nine texts utilized by Petitioner, only P-5, Griffith's Five Minute Clinical Consult, by Mark A. Dambro, published by Williams & Wilkins, 1997, pages 628-630, constituted a generally-accepted learned treatise recognized and authoritative for use in the practice of chiropractic medicine for Florida chiropractors, and that P-3 and P-4, also texts relied upon by Petitioner, were so specialized as to rarely, if ever, be used by chiropractors. He did, however, testify that possibly P-2, Mosby's Manual of Diagnostic anal Laboratory Tests, by Kathleen and Timothy Pagana, published by Mosby Publishing Co. 1998, might have limited value to Florida chiropractors. Neither of these texts is listed on the CIB. For purposes of his own testimony, Dr. Drizin relied upon three texts, Bates, Guide to Physical Exam History Taking, (R-15); a 1995 edition of P-5, the Griffith's Five Minute Clinical Consult, which was numbered R-16; and The Merck Manual (R-17), which texts were admitted over Petitioner's objection. Of the texts utilized by Dr. Drizin, only R-15 and R-17 are listed on the CIB and only P-5/R-16 is accepted as authoritative by both Petitioner and by Dr. Drizin. However, Dr. Drizin testified credibly that all three of the texts he had used were generally-accepted as learned treatises recognized and authoritative for use in the practice of chiropractic medicine for Florida chiropractors. It is therefore found that an insufficient predicate was laid to establish that any texts other than P-5/R-16, R-15, and R-17, constituted generally accepted chiropractic texts, sufficiently reliable for making findings of fact.' Dr. Drizin is a Florida-licensed chiropractor. He has practiced in Florida for thirteen years. In addition to his doctorate of chiropractic medicine, he holds a master's degree in biomechanical trauma. He is a member, and has held office in, multiple professional chiropractic associations and has published extensively in his professional field. He is currently a licensing examiner, consultant, and coordinator for the Department. He has testified as an expert on licensing examination challenges approximately 25 times. Accordingly, by education, training, and experience, his testimony has been accorded great weight. Upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner's responses to Tasks 6 and 7 are incorrect and the Department's answers are correct for the following reasons. Dr. Drizin, and the reliable medical references that support his opinion, established that the principal source of diagnosis information is commonly found in the history of the patient, which was described in detail in examination Task 1. At least two of the texts upon which he relied affirmatively demonstrate that the Department's answers to Tasks 6 and 7 are correct. Dr. Drizin also explained credibly and persuasively that the case progression format from Task 1 through Tasks 6 and 7, and beyond, is designed to eliminate any perception of vagueness by the candidate, so that by the time the candidate has progressed to Task 6, he or she has more than enough information to come up with a correct diagnosis without laboratory tests. The four symptoms provided prior to Task 6 disclosed a classic syndrome, which syndrome is often used in testing physicians for the type of diagnosis sought. The four symptoms are not usually found together in the same patient. Therefore, when all four symptoms are found together in the same patient, it is so unusual that they point to only one diagnosis, without the need for the laboratory tests which Petitioner responded with for Task 6. Also, some of the tests Petitioner ordered would come back as "normal" in early stages of the condition Petitioner was asked to diagnose. Therefore, the laboratory tests that Petitioner would have conducted were neither appropriate nor effective at the early stage of the disease described in Task 1 or the early stage of the examination (Tasks 6 and 7) in the diagnosis process simulated on the examination. Although Dr. Drizin, in effect, conceded that the laboratory tests Petitioner ordered would do no harm and might be peripherally valuable, he found them superfluous in the present era of managed care. He further opined that ordering every test available to rule out all possibilities besides the obvious diagnosis at so early a stage in patient assessment would be inappropriate and would constitute detrimental over-utilization of resources which exploit the patient. Moreover, Petitioner testified that he used P-5, a text on oncology, to rule out a lung abscess, but Dr. Drizin testified credibly that the patient history of no elevated temperature provided on the examination should have ruled, out a lung abcess without the need for the further tests specified in P-5 and in Petitioner's examination answers. Petitioner presented no evidence to support a human or mechanical error in creating or scoring Tasks 6 and 7 of his examination. The Departments past testing experience does not reveal anything "tricky" about Tasks 6 and 7, provided they were approached sequentially from Tasks 1 through 6 (and 7). Several previous chiropractic licensure examinations have used these questions without a high number of failures on those particular questions. Nothing in past testing history has pointed out that these questions are misleading or confusing to a high number of candidates, because a high number of candidates do not miss these questions. Two examiners independently grade each candidate's performance during the Physical Diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination. Two examiners are used to ensure fairness to the candidate and reliability of the scores. They are selected on the basis of the requirements of Rule 64B2-11.007, Florida Administrative Code. Each examiner must attend a training session for standardization purposes and to reduce subjectivity and/or discrepancies among the examiners approaches. The examiners who graded Petitioner's performance, Examiners 15 and 59, met all qualification anal training prerequisites established by statute and rule. The two examiners agreed 100 percent in scoring Petitioner's responses to Tasks 6 and 7. Both examiners gave Petitioner an °A" score, representing zero points for each task. Upon review, other fully-qualified examiners reached the same conclusion that Petitioner's answers to Tasks 6 and 7 had been correctly scored as earning zero points. These scoring methods were correct.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order denying and dismissing Petitioner's challenge of the score he received on the November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 19th day of July, 2001.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure exam should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a chiropractic doctor who has been licensed to practice in the state of Ohio since 1993. He maintains an active practice in Ohio, and he currently sees approximately 190 patients per week. Petitioner filed an application with the Department for a Florida chiropractic license. Applicants for licensure are required by statute and rule to take the licensure exam developed by the Department. Petitioner took the exam in May 2001. The exam consists of four parts, three practical and one written. The practical parts test the applicant on physical diagnosis, X-ray interpretation, and technique; and the written part tests the applicant on the Florida laws and rules regulating chiropractors. An applicant for licensure must receive a score of 75 on each part to pass the examination. Petitioner passed the written part of the exam as well as the X-ray and technique practical parts; however, on the physical diagnosis part, he received a failing score of 70. As a result, he failed to pass the exam and may not receive a Florida chiropractic license.2 The physical diagnosis part of the exam consisted of 26 tasks which the applicant was required to perform within the allotted time of 70 minutes. The physical diagnosis part of the chiropractic licensure exam is developed by a team of consultants retained by the Department. The team consists of licensed chiropractic doctors with varied practices and at least ten years of experience. The team derives the exam questions from case studies from prior administrations of the exam. The team meets on several occasions to refine the case studies and rework the questions. The team also develops and refines the answers to the questions based upon their research and a consensus reached after debate. After the exam questions are finalized and before the administration of the exam, the Department holds standardization sessions which all of the examiners are required to attend. The purpose of the standardization sessions is to ensure that each examiner knows what is a correct answer and what is an incorrect answer for each question. This, in turn, ensures consistency in the evaluation and grading of all applicants. The examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis exam attended all of the standardization sessions. The applicant's performance of each task in the physical diagnosis part of the exam is independently graded by two examiners. The purpose of the independent grading is to eliminate any potential bias in the grading and to increase reliability in the scoring of the exam. The examiners independently assigned a letter score -- A, B, or C -- to the applicant's performance on each task. A score of "C" represents full credit for the task. A score of "B" represents partial credit for the task. A score of "A" represents no credit for the task. Where the examiner awards less than full credit, he or she provides a notation on the score sheet regarding what the applicant failed to do properly. The letter score was translated into a numerical score based upon the pre-determined point value for the task. Each of the tasks at issue in this proceeding -- numbers 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 -- were worth 4 points each. A grade of "C" for these tasks translates into a raw score of 4 points; a grade of "B" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 2 points; a grade of "A" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 0 points. The raw scores resulting from each examiner's grades are totaled separately and, then, those totals are averaged. The averaged score is what is reported to the applicant as his or her final score on the physical diagnosis part of the exam. As noted above, Petitioner received a score of 70 on that part. Task 13 (S1 Dermatome) Task 13 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 13, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the S1 dermatome, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 13. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. A "dermatome" is an area of the body surface served by a particular spinal nerve. The S1 dermatome is the area of the body surface served by the S1 nerve. The S1 dermatome encompasses an area which begins on the back of the leg below the calf, runs down the back of the foot over the heel, along a portion of the bottom of the foot to the toes, and then around the outside (lateral) portion of the foot. The expert testimony and the scientific texts introduced in this case vary on the exact portion of the bottom of the foot included in the S1 dermatome. Some indicate that it encompasses only that area from the outside of the foot to the fourth or fifth (little) toe, while others indicate that it extends from the outside of the foot all the way to the midline of the foot at the third (middle) toe. The common element in all of the expert testimony and the scientific texts is that the location of the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot is towards the outside of the foot rather than the inside (arch) of the foot. The S1 dermatome is tested by touching the dermatome with an instrument to determine whether the patient exhibits any sensory reaction, i.e., whether and to what degree the patient feels the touch. The dermatome can be tested without tracing its entire area; however, in order to map out the entire dermatome, its entire area would be tested. On the video tape of Petitioner's performance of Task 13, it appears that he is attempting to test the S1 dermatome, rather than demonstrating its area as the task requires. Petitioner can be heard telling the patient that he is going to "test" the dermatome level by touching the patient's foot to see if the patient can feel it. Immediately after these comments, one of the examiners (Dr. Weiss) can be heard on the video tape telling Petitioner to "trace the path of S1." Dr. Weiss also can be heard asking Petitioner to show the examiners where S1 starts and where it goes. Petitioner performed Task 13 by making a single straight-line motion starting on the back of the leg below the calf, then proceeding downward and under the foot, and ending near the big toe. Petitioner repeated the movement, again ending near or even slightly to the inside (arch side) of the big toe. By making only a single straight-line motion along the bottom of the foot, Petitioner failed to demonstrate the area of the S1 dermatome. At most, Petitioner demonstrated the line separating the S1 dermatome from the L5 dermatome, which is adjacent to the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot. As noted above, however, the S1 dermatome extends no further than the mid-line of the foot and therefore the line demonstrated by the Petitioner could not have been the boundary of the S1 dermatome. Even if Petitioner understood the task as "test the S1 dermatome" rather than demonstrate its area, the weight of the evidence shows that Petitioner did not correctly test the dermatome along the bottom of the foot. As discussed above, Petitioner's instrument appeared to travel along the inside (arch) of the bottom of the foot rather than the outside of the bottom of the foot. The S1 dermatome does not extend inward on the bottom of the foot beyond the mid-line and it certainly does not extend to the big toe. The notes written by the examiners on the grading sheets indicate that the "B" grade that Petitioner received on Task 13 was based upon the his tracing of an incorrect area on the bottom of the foot. The notes written by Dr. Weiss, the examiner who testified at the hearing, stated "traced wrong area under foot." The notes written by the other examiner similarly stated "S1 under foot incorrect." The notes were corroborated at hearing by the videotape and the testimony of Dr. Mathis. Because Petitioner failed to properly demonstrate the S1 dermatome, the examiners properly gave him only partial credit on Task 13. Task 14 (Acquilles Reflex Test) Task 14 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 14, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the Achilles reflex test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 14. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. Petitioner tested the Achilles reflex by lying the patient face down (prone) and then tapping a reflex hammer directly on the Achilles tendon of each foot. Petitioner did not dorsiflex either foot before striking the tendons. The taps elicited a reflexive response which can be clearly seen on the video tape of Petitioner's exam. Had the tap not elicited a response, Petitioner testified that he would have pursued alternative means of testing the reflex. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at the hearing show that there are several alternative ways to test the Achilles reflex, all of which are professionally accepted. One way is to tap directly on the Achilles tendon as Petitioner did. This can be accomplished with or without dorsiflexing the foot. The Department was looking for the candidate to pre-stress the tendon by dorsiflexing the foot prior to striking the tendon with the reflex hammer. The evidence does explain why dorsiflexing the foot would be the preferable method of testing the Achilles reflex under the facts of the case study. Another way to test the Achilles reflex is for the doctor to dorsiflex the foot by pressing his or her fingers against the ball of the patient's foot and then tap his or her fingers with a reflex hammer. Where the ankle is swollen or it is too painful to strike the tendon itself, this method of eliciting the reflex is preferred. The case study on which Task 14 was based indicated that the patient had "severe pain and swelling in the right calf, ankle, and heel." The case study did not indicate that the patient had a ruptured Achilles tendon, but that injury could not be ruled out based on the case study. In such circumstances, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the preferred method of checking Achilles reflex would not be striking the tendon itself. Task 18 (X-Ray of 5-year Old) Task 18 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 18, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to answer the question of whether he or she would X-ray a 5-year-old child with certain symptoms, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 18. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The question required applicants to answer "yes" or "no." They were not permitted to explain their answer. The question provided only limited information regarding the child and his medical history. The question did not state whether the parent had signed a consent form authorizing treatment of the child. Without parental consent, it would not be proper for the doctor to render any medical treatment to the child. It would have been reasonable for Petitioner to assume that any necessary consent forms had been signed. Petitioner did not request any clarification on this point from the examiners nor did his response during the exam mention the lack of a signed parental consent form. Instead, Petitioner explained that he would not X-ray the child because of the apparent severity of the child's injury and a concern that the child may have an injury "that wouldn't be chiropractic in nature." Based on these concerns, Petitioner stated during his exam that he would refer the child to his family physician. At hearing, Petitioner indicated that his concern regarding the severity of the child's injury was based upon the case study which indicated that the child was holding his neck. Petitioner considered this to be Rust's Sign. Petitioner did not request any clarification from the examiners regarding the manner in which the child was holding his neck. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing indicate that Rust's Sign is most commonly exhibited by the patient supporting his or her head by holding the chin, rather than the neck. The patient holds his or her head to compensate for some muscular, ligament, or disk damage, which causes the neck to be unable to support the head. Even if Petitioner construed the limited case history provided to be evidence of Rust's Sign, the proper course of treatment would not have been to refer the patient to a family physician as Petitioner stated during his exam. Instead, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the proper course of treatment would have been to immediately stabilize the neck with a cervical collar or something similar and immediately perform imaging (e.g., X-ray) to determine the source of the injury. Petitioner is not entitled to additional points for Task 18. Task 21 (Gluteus Maximus Test) Task 21 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 21, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the second sub-task. Only the first sub- task, which required the applicant to perform the gluteus maximus muscle test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 21. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The gluteus maximus muscle is the largest muscle in the body and is largely responsible for the shape of the buttock. It extends and laterally rotates the hip joint. The muscle is tested by having the patient lie face down (prone) with his or her knee bent 90 degrees or more. The importance of bending the knee is to isolate the muscle. While the doctor holds the patient's hip to stabilize it and applies downward pressure to the back of the thigh, the patient attempts to raise his or her leg. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that Petitioner had the patient in the prone position. Petitioner did not have the patient bend his knee. Nor did Petitioner have the patient lift his leg up. Instead, the tape shows Petitioner pulling the leg outward as the patient attempted to move the leg inward. Petitioner did not rotate the leg. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing show that the test performed by Petitioner was the proper test for the gluteus medius or gluteus minimus rather than the gluteus maximus. This evidence corroborates the notation on one of the examiners' score sheet which stated "did gluteus med[ius]?" And see Endnote 1. Indeed, it appears from the video tape that Petitioner misunderstood the task he was to perform. When Petitioner first read the question for Task 21, he correctly read the two tests he was to perform, gluteus maximus and soleus. Petitioner then performed the soleus test. Then, he could be heard saying "gluteus medius" as if to remind himself what test he was to perform. Immediately after that comment, one of the examiners suggested that Petitioner reread the question. He did so, correctly reading "gluteus maximus." Petitioner then set up the table and got the patient situated. Then, one of the examiners asked which muscle test Petitioner was going to perform. He stated "gluteus medius." Petitioner then stood over the patient for a minute or so, apparently thinking to himself, and then performed the test as described above. Any confusion regarding the test to be performed was not a result of the form of the examination or the conduct of the examiners. The examination clearly indicates that the test to be performed is gluteus maximus. The words "gluteus maximus" are in bold type. The examiners attempted to clarify Petitioner's confusion by giving him an opportunity to correct himself after he first misstated the test to be performed. Task 22 (Trendelenburg Test) Task 22 required the applicant to perform two distinct tests and state what he or she is looking for in each test. To receive full credit for Task 22, the applicant was required to properly perform each test and state what he or she is looking for in each test. The only dispute in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's statement of what he was looking for in the Trendelenburg test was the correct response. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 22. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The Trendelenburg test is used to evaluate the ability of the hip abductors, primarily the gluteus medius, to stabilize the pelvis on the femur. The test is performed by having the patient stand facing away from the doctor. The patient then lifts one of his or her legs. A positive sign is where the pelvis/hip of the lifted leg tilts downward instead of rising. Reference to the pelvic/hip tilt was what the Department considered to be a correct answer for Task 22. When performing the Trendelenburg test, the doctor should stand behind the patient with his or her hands on the patient's hips. This placement of the hands serves two purposes. First, it allows the doctor to feel even slight movement of the pelvis/hip in order to detect even a mildly positive sign. Second, it allows the doctor to stabilize the patient in the event that the patient loses his or her balance. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that he correctly performed the Trendelenberg test. He was positioned behind the patient with his hands on the patient's hips. He directed the patient to raise his right leg. Then, he stated that if the patient were to fall over, there would be a gluteus medius problem. Dr. Weiss requested clarification from Petitioner, specifically asking him what he was looking for. Again, Petitioner stated that the patient would fall over or lose his balance. Petitioner never used the word "lurch." The Trendelenberg test could cause the patient to lose his or her balance and "lurch" in the direction of the lifted leg or even fall over, but only in cases of severe weakness in the gluteus medius muscle. Such a response would be a positive Trendelenburg sign. The most common positive sign, however, is a downward tilt of the pelvis/hip on the side of the lifted leg. All of the scientific texts, including that offered by Petitioner, identify the tilt as the positive sign which the doctor should be looking for. The tilt is what causes the "lurch" that occurs in more severe cases. If the doctor is looking only for a "lurch," he or she might miss the tilt and thereby miss the most common positive sign of the Trendelenburg test. Because Petitioner stated that he was looking for the patient to fall over or lose his balance, rather than looking for the pelvis/hip tilt, his response to Task 22 was incomplete at best. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for Task 22. Disruptive Noise During Petitioner's Examination The physical diagnosis part of the May 2001, licensure exam was administered in several conference-type rooms of a hotel. Approximately five or six applicants were administered the exam in the same room as Petitioner. Several of those applicants went before Petitioner and several went after him. While Petitioner was taking the examination, loud noises could be heard. On the video tape of Petitioner's exam, the noises sounded like loud scraping, scratching, and rumbling of metal, as if a large piece of equipment or furniture was being moved in a nearby area of the hotel. At other points, the noises sounded like thumping or banging. In his testimony, Petitioner described the noise as sounding like a mechanical tool or jack-hammer. Dr. Weiss, one of the Department's examiners who graded Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis part of the exam, testified that he heard the noise as well and described them as construction noises outside of the room. The noise was not continuous throughout the exam. The noise first could be heard on the video tape near the end of Petitioner's performance of Task 1. It was very loud, but lasted only for several seconds before subsiding. It could also be heard at a very loud level during Tasks 2, 4, 7, and 17, again for only a few seconds each time. The noise could also be heard during Tasks 6, 8, and 16, but at a much lower level. Immediately after the noise first occurred during Task 1, one of the examiners asked Petitioner if the noise was bothering him. Specifically, the examiner asked, "Is that distracting you?" To which Petitioner responded "No, it’s okay." Had Petitioner indicated that the noise bothered him, Dr. Weiss testified that the examination would have been stopped until the source of the noise problem could be addressed. Neither Petitioner nor the examiners mentioned the noise during the remainder of the exam. The video tape does not show any significant difference in Petitioner's demeanor during the tasks where the noise could be heard than the remainder of the tasks. Throughout the test, Petitioner looked somewhat uncomfortable, but not any more so than would be expected under the pressure of this type of exam. At most points where the noise could be heard, Petitioner appeared to be oblivious to it because he was so deep in concentration on the task at hand. Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis exam with more than 17 minutes of the allotted 70 minutes remaining. After he completed his exam, Petitioner filled out a Candidate Concern Form on which he stated that the noises made it hard for him to concentrate. The form was provided to Adrian Washington who was the Department employee in charge of administration of the exam. Mr. Washington informed the two examiners who evaluated Petitioner that a concern had been filed and requested that they independently describe the incident. Dr. Weiss' written comments on the incident referred to the noises as "distracting to me." However, Dr. Weiss' comments, as well as the comments of the other examiner, stated that Petitioner was asked during the examination whether the noises were distracting to him and that he said "no." The comments of the other examiner confirmed what the undersigned witnessed on the video tape, i.e., that "he [Petitioner] did not appear to be visually upset during the examination." The examiners comments also noted that even with the distraction from the noise, Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis part of the exam with time remaining. Based upon the responses of the examiners, primarily the fact that Petitioner stated during the exam that the noises were not bothering him, Mr. Washington determined that no further action was warranted with respect to Petitioner's examination. He did notify the hotel staff about the distractions around the testing area. No other candidate or examiner expressed any concern to Mr. Washington regarding noise problems during the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for a chiropractic license based upon the failing score that he received on the physical diagnosis part of the May 2001 licensure exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 15th day of March, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Patrick Dennis (Petitioner) should be granted additional credit for any physical diagnosis practical examination questions which he answered on the May, 1990, chiropractic examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (Respondent), or whether, in the alternative, he should be permitted to retake the chiropractic practical examination at no additional charge.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a graduate of the New York Chiropractic College, is licensed to practice chiropractic in New York and New Jersey, and is seeking licensure as a chiropractor in the State of Florida. He took the chiropractic practical examination administered by the Respondent in May, 1990, receiving grades of 96.6% in X-ray interpretation, 95.3% in technique, and 63.75% in physical diagnosis. A grade of 75% on each portion of the practical examination is required to pass. After receiving notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he should be granted additional credit on this practical exam. It was established that the practical exam was properly administered, appropriate standardization procedures were followed, and each examiner independently graded Petitioner's exam, and was qualified to serve as an examiner. At hearing, the Petitioner solely disputed the score he received in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. A four point scoring system is used on the practical examination. A score of 4 means that the candidate demonstrated an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject area; a score of 3 represents an adequate understanding; a score of 2 indicates an inadequate knowledge of the subject area; and a score of 1 indicates that the candidate would be a danger to the public if allowed to practice in that particular subject area. If a grader feels that the candidate's answer demonstrates a degree of knowledge that is between two of these scores, a .5 credit can be given. This is a subjective, rather than an objective, scoring system that requires each examiner to use his own judgment in evaluating the completeness of a candidate's response; generally, there are no simple right or wrong answers to practical exam questions. In arriving at a candidate's overall percentage score, a score of 4 equals 100 points, a score of 3 equals 75 points, 2 equals 50 points, and 1 equals 25 points. A .5 score equals 12.5 points. For example, a score of 3.5 would equal 87.5 points. Each content area of the practical exam is weighted equally, and there were 5 content areas in the May, 1990, chiropractic practical exam. Two examiners are used to score each candidate's practical examination, and the scores given by each examiner are then averaged to give the candidate's overall grade. In this instance, out of a possible 4 credits, the Petitioner received a grade of 1 and 1.5 from his two examiners in general physical examination, and grades of 1.5 and 2 from the examiners in laboratory diagnosis. In this case, the Petitioner has presented challenges to the grades he received on these two content areas of the practical exam, general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. Since there are five portions of the physical diagnosis exam, and an average of 75%, or an average score of 3, is required to pass the examination, a cumulative average score of 15 (3 points times the 5 exam areas) is required. The Petitioner's cumulative average score was 12.75, or 2.25 points short of passage. Thus, he would have to receive an increase of 2.25 points in the average of the grades he received from the two examiners on the general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis portions of the exam, in order to receive an overall passing score. Regarding the general physical examination content area, the Petitioner was asked to describe how a prostate examination should be conducted. Petitioner understood that this was a rectal exam, but he testified that he was not trained to perform such examinations at New York Chiropractic College, and he had not seen one performed. Therefore, he could not, and did not, describe how to perform a prostate exam. The evidence is conflicting concerning whether New York Chiropractic College offered instruction in prostate examinations. The Petitioner testified that such instruction was not offered, but Dr. Todd Zazulia, who graduated from that college in 1978 and who is a licensed Florida chiropractor, testified that such instruction was offered at New York Chiropractic College. Documentary evidence received from the Dean of Academic Affairs at New York Chiropractic College, Dr. Anthony Onorato, confirms Dr. Zazulia's testimony. Dr. Salvatore D. LaRusso graduated from this same college in 1984, after Petitioner and Dr. Zazulia, and he testified that instruction in the examination of the prostate was not offered at that time. The Petitioner testified that he was taught to recognize signs and symptoms associated with prostate problems since they cause lower back pains, and that he was taught laboratory tests that would signify prostatic problems. He admitted that he felt an obligation to recognize potential problems from signs and symptoms associated with the prostate. The greater weight of the evidence supports the Respondent's position that the Petitioner was offered instruction in signs and symptoms of prostate problems, as well as rectal prostatic examinations, at New York Chiropractic College. Therefore, the Petitioner has failed to establish that he should not have been asked a question about prostate examinations on his practical examination. The Respondent introduced competent substantial evidence to establish that some chiropractors in Florida do perform prostate examinations, and that this practice is within the recognized scope of practice of chiropractic in Florida. Although a substantial number of chiropractors in Florida do not perform this examination, and although there is evidence that it is a violation of chiropractic licensing statutes and rules in a majority of states for chiropractors to perform prostate examinations, nevertheless there is no evidence that the Florida Board of Chirporactic has adopted any rule or taken any action against any chiropractor in Florida for performing such examinations. In fact, Dr. Phil Leon, a licensed Florida chiropractor and licensure examiner, testified that he has asked a question about prostatic examinations of almost every applicant he has examined over the past five years. Documentary evidence submitted by the Respondent from other examiners confirms Dr. Leon's testimony that such questions are a regular part of the chiropractic practical examination in Florida, and also indicates that prostatic examinations are covered on the exam given by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Even Dr. Thomas P. Toia, who was called on behalf of the Petitioner, testified that the ability to recognize prostate problems is within the scope of the practice of chiropractic, and that prostate examinations are an authorized chiropractic procedure. Based on the evidence in the record, it is found that the Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the general physical exam content area of the practical examination were arbitrary or capricious. Dr. Leon testified that he gave the Petitioner a grade of 1.5 because he did not know where the prostate was, could not describe how to perform a prostate examination, and did not evidence an awareness or understanding of the fact that pain in the low back area could be related to the prostate. Dr. Zazulia testified that he also would have given the Petitioner a grade of 1.5. Dr. Toia testified that when a candidate has no knowledge about a particular question, a grade of 1 is appropriate. Regarding the exam content area of laboratory diagnosis, the Petitioner was asked to identify the tests that should be given to diagnose gonorrhea and lupus. For gonorrhea, the Petitioner identified the chocolate agar test, and for lupus, the Petitioner identified the antinuclear antibody test (ANA). While these are correct answers, the Petitioner's grades in this content area were lowered to 1.5 and 2 by the two examiners because he failed to mention an additional test which can also detect systemic lupus, the LE prep test, and he failed to describe how the lab samples are taken and how these tests are performed in the laboratory. Based upon the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the laboratory diagnosis content area were arbitrary or capricious. While Dr. Toia testified that he would have given the Petitioner higher grades on this content area, Dr. Zazulia supported the grades given. Dr. Zazulia testified that the Petitioner's failure to inform the patient about what they were likely to expect at the lab when they had the tests performed, and his inability to differentiate the test for gonorrhea as a smear, swab or blood test would result in a grade of 1.5. Because systemic lupus affects almost every system of the body, the Petitioner's failure to identify the LE prep test for complete screening was significant and would result in a grade of 2. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the grades which the Petitioner received on the laboratory diagnosis content area of the practical exam.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grades he received on the May, 1990, chiropractic practical examination in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. This is a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 2-4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 1 and 5. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 3, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony and not a proposed finding. Rejected as citations to statutes and rules and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 9, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 15-16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Findings 8-10. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Adopted in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 21-23. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Findings 11 and 12. Copies furnished: Lawrence J. Langer, Esquire 400 Executive Center Drive Suite 210 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued October 2, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses in the health professions and occupations, including chiropractic physicians. See § 456.073, Fla. Stat. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing penalties against chiropractic physicians for violations of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes. See § 460.413(2), Fla. Stat. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Falowski was a chiropractic physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 5108. Dr. Falowski was first certified in Florida to practice chiropractic medicine in 1986. Dr. Falowski also is certified to administer propriety drugs. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Falowski did business as Rainbow Rehabilitation, and his address of record was 4201 North State Road 7, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33319. On or about August 25, 2997, Dr. Falowski submitted an application for acupuncture certification to the Department. He paid a fee and was certified to take the acupuncture certification examination. His application reflects that he completed 105 hours of acupuncture training at the University of Miami. Dr. Falowski took the acupuncture certification examination in November 1997, but he did not pass the examination. On or about April 15, 1998, Dr. Falowski submitted a second application for acupuncture certification to the Department. He paid a fee and was again certified to take the acupuncture certification examination. His application reflects that he completed acupuncture training at the University of Miami. Dr. Falowski took the acupuncture certification examination in May 1998 and attained a passing score. On or about July 7, 1998, the Department mailed an Examination Grade Report to Dr. Falowski, advising him that he had passed the chiropractic certification examination for acupuncture. A Request for Registration Form for the Board of Chiropractic Medicine was included with the Examination Grade Report, and the instructions stated that the form and a check or money order must be returned to the Department within 45 days. The form listed a $100.00 fee for the Chiropractic Acupuncture Certification. There is nothing in the records of the Department indicating that it received the Request for Registration Form or check in the amount of $100.00 from Dr. Falowski, nor do the records reflect that Dr. Falowski has been issued an acupuncture certification.4 On or about December 28, 2005, writing was observed on the window of the Rainbow Rehabilitation office which stated: WE DO PHYSICALS & BLOOD WORK LICENSED ACUPUNCTURE EKG No acupuncture license number was listed on the window. Dr. Falowski intended to perform acupuncture treatments for any member of the public who requested these treatments at Rainbow Rehabilitation.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order Finding that Francis J. Falowski, D.C., offered to practice acupuncture when he was not certified to do so, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(t); Imposing an administrative fine against Dr. Falowski in the amount of $5,000.00; and Placing Dr. Falowski on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 20th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida, and is seeking certification in physiotherapy. She took the practical examination in physiotherapy administered by the Respondent on November 11, 1989, receiving a grade of 71.8%. The minimum passing grade on this practical exam was 75%. Thereafter, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if she should be granted additional credit on this practical exam, and based thereon, whether she should receive certification in physiotherapy. It was established that the practical exam was properly administered, appropriate standardization procedures were followed, and each examiner independently graded Petitioner's exam and was qualified to serve as an examiner. At hearing, the Petitioner solely disputed the score she received in the content areas of ultrasound and cryotherapy. In each of these areas, she received a score of 3 out of a possible 4 credits. A four point scoring system is used on the practical examination. A score of 4 means that the candidate demonstrated an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject area; a score of 3 represents an adequate understanding; a score of 2 indicates an inadequate knowledge of the subject area; and a score of 1 indicates that the candidate would be a danger to the public if allowed to practice in that particular subject area. If a grader feels that the candidate's answer demonstrates a degree of knowledge that is between two of these scores, a .5 credit can be given. This is a subjective, rather than an objective, scoring system that requires each examiner to use his own judgment in evaluating the completeness of a candidate's response; generally, there are no simple right or wrong answers to practical exam questions. In arriving at a candidate's overall percentage score, a score of 4 equals 100 points, a score of 3 equals 75 points, 2 equals 50 points, and 1 equals 25 points. A .5 score equals 12.5 points. For example, a score of 3.5 would equal 87.5 points. Each content area of the practical exam is weighted equally, and there were 4 content areas in the November, 1989 physiotherapy practical exam. Two examiners are used to score each candidate's practical examination, and the scores given by each examiner are then averaged to give the candidate's overall grade. In this instance, each examiner graded Petitioner's practical examination the same in all four content areas. Instead of the score of 3 on both the ultrasound and cryotherapy portions of the physiotherapy exam, if Petitioner received a 4 on either portion from one of the two examiners, a 3.5 on either portion from both examiners, or a 3.5 on both portions from only one examiner, she would receive an overall grade of 75%, which is the minimum passing score. Thus, if she received one additional raw point in these two content areas which are under challenge, she would receive a passing score. Regarding the practical exam content area of ultrasound, the Petitioner used a device known as a "coupling cushion" in applying ultrasound over bony prominences in the shoulder area in order to protect her patient from burning. This cushion is basically a water-filled container placed between the ultrasound device and the patient's skin. In addition, when the patient complained of no improvement in his condition after five days, the Petitioner raised the intensity of the ultrasound. Both Drs. Jeffrey Gordon and Ronald Scott, who were accepted as experts in physiotherapy, testified that the Petitioner's use of a coupling cushion and increasing the intensity of ultrasound after five days in response to patient complaints were acceptable methods of treatment. Support for the use of a coupling cushion over bony prominences while administering ultrasound is also found in authoritative treatises, Applied Physiotherapy and Physical Agents for Physical Therapists, excerpts of which were introduced at hearing. Dr. Scott was one of the two examiners who graded Petitioner's practical exam. He testified he gave her a score of 3 in ultrasound because, while Petitioner did demonstrate an adequate knowledge and understanding of the use of ultrasound, she did not demonstrate a depth of understanding regarding the use of ultrasound over bony prominences without a coupling cushion. He testified that there are other acceptable, and perhaps more efficient, ways of applying ultrasound to a shoulder than through a water coupling. However, he conceded that the Petitioner was never questioned about different theories or techniques of application for ultrasound. On the "comments" portion of the examination grade sheet, Dr. Scott included the following note next to Petitioner's grade in ultrasound: "limited and instructed poorly". He explained that this meant Petitioner had demonstrated limited knowledge of the content area. However, this conflicts with his assessment at hearing, and with the excerpts from treatises in the record which confirm the method of treatment demonstrated by the Petitioner. While Dr. Scott testified that there are other acceptable methods of applying ultrasound over bony prominences, none were specifically described. Indeed, Dr. Gordon pointed out that the failure to use a coupling cushion over a bony prominence would be neglectful since it would likely subject the patient to burning. There is no basis in the record to support Dr. Scott's comment that Petitioner was instructed poorly, and to the contrary, the only treatises in the record support the treatment methods used by the Petitioner. The other examiner, who was not present to testify, made the comment on his grade sheet for the Petitioner that she "needs work" in ultrasound. No evidence was presented to support this rather imprecise assessment. It is conceded by Respondent's expert witness, Dr. Scott, that Respondent's answer was acceptable. Based on the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner was incorrectly graded on the ultrasound portion of her practical examination. Rather than a grade of 3, meaning she gave an adequate answer, the evidence establishes that the technique she used was consistent with the only authoritative treatises in the record, as well as with the expert testimony of Dr. Gordon. The use of a coupling cushion over bony prominences is recommended to avoid burning the patient while administering ultrasound. Increasing the intensity of ultrasound after five days when the patient complains of no improvement, is reasonable and acceptable practice. However, since Dr. Scott testified that there are other unspecified methods which could also have been used in this situation, it cannot be found that Petitioner's answer was "exceptional", and therefore deserving of a grade of 4. Rather, she demonstrated a degree of knowledge and understanding between the grades of 3 and 4, or 3.5, which she should have received from both examiners on the ultrasound portion of this exam. Regarding the exam content area of cryotherapy, the Petitioner treated the patient, diagnosed as having a mild to moderate lumbar sprain/strain injury, by applying a cold pack wrapped in a warm, moist towel for ten to twenty minutes. Drs. Scott and Gordon acknowledged that this was an acceptable form of treatment for this condition. Authoritative treatises introduced in evidence confirm that this treatment is recommended, although other forms of treatment were also noted, including placing a cooled pack directly on the skin, or wrapping it with a dry towel. There is a conflict among the authorities regarding the placement of a cold pack directly on the skin. In her response on this content area, the Petitioner did not demontrate that she understood this conflict in authorities, but rather expressed the view, adopted by one authority, that cold packs should never be placed directly on the skin. Based upon the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner received the correct grade of 3 from both examiners on the cryotherapy portion of the practical examination. In contrast to the ultrasound portion of the exam, for cryotherapy there is clear evidence of conflicting methodologies for the treatment of a lumbar sprain/strain with cold packs. Petitioner did not demonstrate her knowledge of these conflicting methodologies, but simply demonstrated the one method which she prefers, which while acceptable, is not exclusively appropriate. Since the Petitioner's score should have been increased by .5 point on both examiners' grading sheets in the content area of ultrasound, she should have received one additional raw point, which results in her achieving an overall average of 75% on the practical examination, the minimum passing score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to her grade in cryotherapy, but granting her challenge to the ultrasound portion of the November, 1989, chiropractic physiotherapy certification examination and awarding Petitioner a grade of 3.5 in ultrasound instead of 3, thereby increasing her overall grade from 71.8% to 75%, the minimum passing score, and as a result, approving Petitioner's certification in physiotherapy. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. CASE NO. 90-3402 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 6, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 7-10. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Findings 11, 12. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Findings 7, 8, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 3, 6, 8. Adopted in Finding 12, but Rejected in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 8, but Rejected in Findings 9, 10. Adopted in Findings 11, 12. Adopted in Finding 12, but Rejected in Findings 10, 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Brian S. Fischer, Esquire 3695 W. Boynton Beach Blvd. Suite 8 Boynton Beach, FL 33436 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the examination, its administration, or its grading were arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Su-Jung Shiuey sat for the acupuncture licensure examination on July 18 through 20, 1986, in Orlando, Florida. The examination included a requirement for candidates to demonstrate practical clinical skills including sanitation, needling technique, and point location. A passing score of 70 on the clinical practical portion of the examination is required of candidates. Su-Jung Shiuey failed to locate four points in the point location portion of the examination. See Respondent's exhibits 3 and 4. No evidence was presented that this portion of the examination was not fair or was not graded fairly. Su-Jung Shiuey failed to demonstrate proper needling techniques. See Respondent's exhibits 2 and 3. No evidence was presented that this portion of the examination was not fair or was not graded fairly. Each of the examiners was a licensed acupuncturist in Florida. Each of the examiners worked with a co-examiner, and all examiners are required to score candidates independently. Each of the examiners' grade sheets for these two portions of the examination made the same findings and similar observations. Su-Jung Shiuey received 66 points on the clinical practical portion of the examination and was denied licensure. Su-Jung Shiuey presented no independent testimony or evidence to discredit the qualifications of Respondent's witnesses or evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Dr. Su-Jung Shiuey's request for increased score, or reexamination without fee, should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 9th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Su-Jung Shiuey (Petitioner's husband) 331 Bloomfield Avenue Nutley, New Jersey 07110 Jeffrey H. Barker, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marcelle Flanagan, Executive Director Board of Acupuncture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Benton, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the chiropractic examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the November 1999 examination for chiropractic licensure. He passed the written part and the technique portion of the practical part. However, Petitioner failed the physical diagnosis and X-ray interpretation portions of the practical part. The physical diagnosis portion of the examination supplies candidates with a brief case history followed by several questions. Score sheets provide standards for the scoring of responses. Question 3 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination requires the evaluators to ask the candidate to demonstrate and describe an abdominal examination and explain the significance of a digital rectal examination on the patient, who has complained of cramping, bloatedness, and distention, as well as alternating stool consistency with an irregular pattern of defacation. The evaluators assigned Petitioner no points for his responses to Question 3. For the demonstration of an abdominal examination, Petitioner failed to ensure that the abdominal muscles were relaxed in order to permit a useful examination. Petitioner attempted to listen to the spleen, prior to performing percussion and palpation, but he was not in the left lower quadrant, which is the location of this organ. Petitioner palpated the abdominal area with his fingertips, rather than his palms, and failed to perform deep palpation. Petitioner also failed to outline the liver in his demonstration. The purpose of the digital rectal examination, for this patient, was to detect blood or a palpable lesion. Petitioner incorrectly responded that the purpose of this examination was to perform a prostate examination. Petitioner's misdiagnosis of diverticulitis, in response to Question 8, reflects his limited insight into this patient's condition, for which the correct diagnosis was irritable bowel syndrome, colitis, or spastic colon. Question 17 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination required a demonstration of the gluteus maximus and peroneus muscles. The evaluators credited Petitioner for the correct demonstration of the gluteus maximums, but not the peroneus. Petitioner incorrectly grasped the patient's calf and ankle, which precluded the isolation of the peroneus. Failing to grasp the metatarsal end of the foot prevented Petitioner from properly isolating the peroneous muscle. At the hearing, Respondent gave Petitioner full credit for his response to Question 24 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination. Question 3 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the examination required Petitioner to examine two X-ray films, taken two years apart, and render a probable diagnosis. The vast destruction of bone mass suggested a case of neuropathic joint resulting from syphillis, but Petitioner diagnosed post-traumatic joint disease, focusing instead on the patient's physically demanding profession and her age of 37 years. However, the extensiveness of bone destruction over a relatively short period favored the diagnosis of neuropathic joint over Petitioner's diagnosis. Question 5 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the examination required Petitioner to identify the anatomical structures outlined at lumbar-3 on a specific X-ray. Petitioner identified the structures as lamina, but they were the pars interarticulares, which are isthmus between the lamina and pedicle. Question 38 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the examination required Petitioner to explain why the neural foramen, as revealed on an X-ray, appeared enlarged. Rather than cite the nondevelopment of the cervical-6 pedicle, Petitioner incorrectly chose neurofibromatosis, despite the failure of the exposed structures to reveal the angularity characteristic of this condition and the absence of any bony structure subject to the process of deterioration resulting from neurofibromatosis. Despite the concession by Respondent on Question 24 on the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination, Petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitled to additional credit on the physical diagnosis or X-ray interpretation portion of the chiropractic licensure examination that he should have passed either portion of the examination.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Gregory W. Stancel 2256 Iris Way Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Cherry A. Shaw Senior Examination Attorney Department of Health General Counsel's Office 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
