The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a final order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the physical diagnosis portion. In May 2001, Petitioner sat only for the physical diagnosis portion, having passed all other portions in a prior examination. The physical diagnosis section is a practical examination that tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical case history. The examination generally presents a case history, including the patient's complaint and vital signs, then asks a series of questions designed to lead to a diagnosis. The examination also asks some separate, stand-alone questions designed to elicit knowledge of specific techniques, such as how to obtain particular diagnostic imaging views. The physical diagnosis section of the May 2001 examination consisted of 26 tasks, for which varying numbers of points were awarded for correct answers. Two examiners evaluated the candidate's performance and independently awarded scores for each task. Petitioner's overall score was the average of the two examiners' scores. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section met the criteria for selection as examiners. An examiner must have been licensed in Florida as a chiropractor for at least five years, must not have had a chiropractic or other health care license suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against, and must not be currently under investigation by the Department or any other state or federal agency. Rule 64B2-11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department requires each examiner to attend a training session prior to administration of the examination. The training is designed to ensure that scoring standards are uniform and objective among the various examiners. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section had successfully completed the training session. The first series of questions on the physical diagnosis section dealt with a female patient in her early thirties whose main complaint was constant, severe pain in her left calf. The patient's temperature was slightly elevated at 99.8ºF, and she had swelling in her left ankle. Ultimately, the candidate was expected to arrive at a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis, inflammation of a vein in the left calf. Tasks 1 and 2, for which Petitioner received full credit, required the candidate to obtain a case history from the patient and to discuss the physical examination the candidate would perform on the patient. Task 3 asked the candidate to identify what laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, should be used to assist in arriving at a diagnosis. Task 4 asked the candidate to state his reasoning for choosing these tests. The correct answer to Task 3 was that the candidate should order either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test or a C-reactive protein (CRP) test. The correct answer to Task 4 was that the ESR and CRP assess the inflammatory processes that the candidate should suspect in the patient's left calf. On Task 3, Petitioner responded that he would order a complete blood count (CBC) and a urinalysis. On Task 4, Petitioner responded that he chose these tests because the patient's increased temperature indicated that there might be an infection present, and that a CBC and urinalysis are useful tests for infection. Task 3 was worth a maximum of four points. Task 4 was worth a maximum of three points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 3 and for Task 4. The results of the physical examination, particularly "Homan's sign," or pain in the calf with dorsiflexion of the foot, caused Petitioner to suspect thrombophlebitis. Petitioner knew of no laboratory test that returns a specific positive result for thrombophlebitis. He introduced textbook references to establish that the ESR and CRP tests are not specific to diagnosing thrombophlebitis. Petitioner did not believe that Tasks 3 and 4 gave him the option of ordering no laboratory tests at all, so he chose the most common tests that would at least confirm that no infection was present. Dr. Densmore, Respondent's expert, agreed with Petitioner that a positive Homan's sign is specific for diagnosing thrombophlebitis. However, he disagreed with Petitioner's choice of ordering a CBC and urinalysis. Dr. Densmore admitted that many doctors order these tests as a general standard for all patients, but stated that in this case they would do nothing to narrow the diagnosis. The CBC and urinalysis are useful for identifying infections; thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory disease, not an infectious disease. Dr. Densmore conceded that ESR and CRP are not specific to thrombophlebitis. However, Dr. Densmore believed that Petitioner should have chosen ESR or CRP because inflammation is present in 90 percent of thrombophlebitis cases and therefore those tests would assist the practitioner in arriving at a diagnosis. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for his answer to Tasks 3 and 4 because his answers were not the best answers to those questions. The correct answers set forth by the Department were supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Task 5 dealt with the same patient discussed above, and asked the candidate to indicate which, if any, diagnostic imaging procedures should be performed. The correct answer, worth four points, was "none" or "A-P & lateral leg." "A-P" stands for anteroposterior, or from the front to the back. On the videotape of the examination, Petitioner appeared confused by the question. He said that he would x-ray the "lower leg." One of the examiners asked him to be more specific as to which views he would take. Petitioner stated that he would x-ray the ankle because of the swelling there. Petitioner then mentioned the swelling in the calf, and stated that he would x-ray the "femur." The femur is the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee. An x-ray of the femur obviously would reveal nothing about the condition of the patient's calf. The examiner, likely sensing Petitioner's confusion, advised Petitioner to read the question again. Petitioner read the question aloud, then reiterated that he would take x-rays of the patient's ankle and femur. Task 5 was worth a maximum of four points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 5. Petitioner contended that he should have received partial credit for his initial response that he would x-ray the lower leg. However, Task 5 required the candidate to identify the specific views of the x-rays he would take. When the examiner asked him to name the specific views, Petitioner identified the femur. The context of the discussion makes it evident that Petitioner must have been thinking of the fibula or the tibia, i.e., the bones of the lower leg, when he repeatedly named the femur in connection with the patient's calf pain. However, the examiners had no choice but to grade Petitioner on the answer he actually gave. Petitioner should not be awarded any points for his answer to Task 5. Task 18 was a stand-alone question dealing with x- rays. The challenged portion of Task 18, worth two points, asked the candidate what he would do to obtain a quality lumbar spine x-ray of a severely obese patient if his office was equipped with a 300/125 x-ray machine. One of the examiners specified that this patient weighs around 500 pounds. The correct answer was that the candidate would use a higher capacity x-ray machine or refer the patient to a facility that has one. Petitioner's answer was that he would collimate close to the area of injury, decrease milliampere seconds (mAs), increase kilovolt peak (kVp) to increase penetration, and use a rare earth screen. Again, Petitioner appeared to be confused by the question. At the hearing, he testified that Task 18 did not ask what specific view he would take of the obese patient, whether of the arm, the chest, or the skull. Petitioner misread the question. Task 18 clearly states that the required view is of the patient's lumbar spine. Petitioner's misreading of the question led him to treat Task 18 as an x-ray physics question, hence his response, intended to demonstrate how he would maximize the clarity of an x-ray using the equipment at hand. Dr. Densmore stated that an x-ray of a patient this size taken on this equipment would simply be a white picture because of the amount of fatty tissue involved. With a patient of this size, the kVp would have to be increased so much that the practitioner would over-radiate the patient. The practitioner would have no choice but to send the patient out for an x-ray on a higher capacity machine. The examiners independently awarded Petitioner zero points for his response to this portion of Task 18. Their scoring was correct, supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Petitioner alleged that the Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) provided him by the Department did not adequately prepare him for format changes that occurred since his first sitting for the examination. Petitioner compared the CIB for the May 2001 examination to that for the November 2001 examination. He found that the detailed sample questions in the November 2001 CIB more closely reflected the examination he took in May 2001, and contended that the May 2001 CIB was outdated at the time it was distributed. All candidates for the May 2001 examination received the same Candidate Information Booklet that Petitioner received. Respondent's psychometrician, Dr. Linda Dean, testified that the passing rate for the May 2001 examination was in the range of 70 percent, consistent with other administrations of the examination. Petitioner's allegation concerning the adequacy of the CIB is not supported by the evidence. Petitioner also alleged that he was placed at a disadvantage by the fact that the examiners appeared to know that he was not taking the examination for the first time. Both Dr. Dean, the psychometrician assigned to the chiropractic licensure examination, and Dr. Densmore, who has served as an examiner many times, testified that examiners are not told the names or the status of the candidates. Dr. Dean testified that nothing is done to segregate first-time candidates from those who are retaking the examination, though an examiner may suspect that a candidate who is sitting for only one section of the examination is retaking that section. Even if Petitioner's allegation were credited, it would not change the result. Petitioner's responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 were incorrect. The examiners properly awarded him zero points for those tasks. Their knowledge that he was retaking the physical diagnosis section had no bearing on Petitioner's incorrect responses to the challenged tasks.
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 denying Petitioner additional credit for his responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in May 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Allan Niebrugge 4785 Barkley Circle No. 22 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact On April 27, 1987, Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement with the Board of Chiropractic (the Board.) On September 13, 1988, an Order stating the Board's intention to deny Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement was filed by the Board. Petitioner timely filed a request for formal proceedings resulting in the above-styled matter being placed before the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result of attempts to negotiate a settlement between Petitioner and Respondent, Petitioner filed a second application for licensure on or about June 19, 1989. At the July 27, 1989, meeting of the Board, Petitioner's second application for licensure by endorsement was denied. At the time of the final hearing, an Order had not yet been filed, but was to be forthcoming. The grounds for the Board's denial of Petitioner's April, 1987, application were that: Pennsylvania did not require applicants for licensure to receive a score of at least 75% on each portion of the state licensure exam; Pennsylvania did not require completion of continuing education as required of licensees in Florida; and Pennsylvania permitted licenses to be inactive for five years before said licenses became null and void. The Board of Chiropractic determined that the requirements for licensure in Pennsylvania are not substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, counsel for Respondent waived the grounds regarding inactive licenses and completion of continuing education. The grounds for the Board's denial of Petitioner's June, 1989, application for licensure by endorsement are that the Pennsylvania requirements for licensure are not substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the licensure examination administered by the Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic does not cover physical diagnosis and x-ray interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films, both of which are covered in the practical examination given by the Florida Board of Chiropractic as a requirement for licensure. Petitioner has taken and successfully completed parts I and II of the National Beard written examination. Petitioner has not taken or passed the National Board Written Clinical Competency Examination (which has been administered only since September, 1987). Petitioner has taken and successfully completed the Pennsylvania state licensure examination in chiropractic. Petitioner has been licensed as a chiropractor in Pennsylvania for 6 years. The pertinent Pennsylvania law in effect at the time that the Board considered Petitioner's applications for licensure by endorsement is set out in the following portions of Section 625.501 and Section 625.502, 63 Pennsylvania Statutes: s. 625.501 Applications for license Requirement for licensure.-- An applicant for a license under this act shall submit satisfactory proof to the board that the applicant meets all of the following: (1) Is 21 years of age or older. Is of good moral character. Has a high school diploma or its equivalent. Has completed two years of college or 60 credit hours. Has graduated from an approved college of chiropractic, with successful completion of not less than the minimum number of hours of classroom and laboratory instruction required by regulation of the board, which minimum shall be at least 4,000 hours. Has passed the examination required under this act. Has not been convicted of a felonious act prohibited by the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or of an offense under the laws of another juris- diction which if committed in this Commonwealth would be a felony under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, unless the applicant satisfies all of the following criteria: At least ten years have elapsed from the date of conviction. Satisfactorily demonstrates to the board that he has made sig- nificant progress in personal rehabilitation since the conviction such that licensure of the appli- cant should not be expected to create a substantial risk of harm to the health and safety of his patients or the public or a substantial risk of further criminal violations. Satisfies the qualifica- tions contained in this act. An applicant's statement on the application declaring the absence of a conviction shall be deemed satisfactory evidence of the absence of a conviction, unless the board has some evidence to the contrary. As used in this section the term "convicted" shall include a judgment, an admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere. * * * s. 625.502. Examination * * * Nature and content of examination.-- The examination shall be oral, practical and written, upon the principles and technique of chiropractic and shall include the following subjects: anatomy, physiology, histology, chemistry, pathology, physics, bacteriology, diagnosis, hygiene and sanitation, symptomatology, chiropractic analysis, x-ray, chiropractic principles and a practical demonstration of chiropractic technique. * * * Testing organization.-- All written, oral and practical examinations required under this section shall be prepared and administered by a qualified and approved professional testing organization in accordance with section 812.1 of the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L. 177, No. 175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, except that the oral and practical examinations shall not be subject to section 812.1 until such examinations are available from a testing organization. Score.-- A license shall be granted to an applicant who meets the requirements of this act and who achieves: An overall score of at least 75% on the entire examination; or An average score of at least 75% on the oral and practical examina- tion and a passing score on the written examination administered by the National Board of Chiro- practic Examiners as such passing score is determined by the national board. (Emphasis added.) The Pennsylvania Board of Chiropractic does not have any published rules regarding licensure of applicants in the State of Pennsylvania. The Petitioner did not prove that the Pennsylvania Board of Chiropractic examines applicants in the area of x-ray interpretation and physical diagnosis. The Petitioner did not prove that the Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic required applicants to re-take Pennsylvania's entire examination if any portion was failed. The Petitioner did not prove that the requirement of the Florida Board of Chiropractic that applicants for licensure be tested on ability to make physical diagnoses and to interpret chiropractic and pathology x-ray films is unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it creates or maintains an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition. The Petitioner did not prove that the requirement of the Florida Board of Chiropractic that applicants for licensure must re-take the entire licensure examination if any portion of the examination is failed is unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it creates or maintains an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition. The Petitioner did not prove either that it would be unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it would create or maintain an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition for the Florida Board of Chiropractic to decide that "the requirements for licensure in Pennsylvania are [not] substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of this chapter [460, Florida Statutes.]" Cf. Section 460.4065, Florida Statutes (1987 and Supp. 1988).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order denying the applications of the Petitioner, Norman R. Wiedow, D. C., for licensure by endorsement. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard Powers, was at all times material hereto a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH0003372. Respondent has routinely advertised his chiropractic practice in the Palm Beach Post. On July 8, 1984, July 15, 1984, and September 2, 1984, Respondent ran an advertisement in the Palm Beach Post which offered a free examination and which stated that the "usual value of this exam is $80. This includes X-rays if needed." The advertisement did not include the disclaimer mandated by Section 455.24, Florida Statutes. That statute, effective June 12, 1984, required that: In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care provider ... (such as Respondent) ... 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 WHICH 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. By memorandum dated September 30, 1984, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic (Board), advised all licensees of the aforesaid amendment to section 455.24. Respondent asserts he had no knowledge of the amendment until his receipt of the Board's memorandum in October, 1984, and that he complied, or attempted to comply, with the amendment at all times thereafter. The evidence supports Respondent's assertions. The advertisements of July 8, 1984, and July 15, 1984, were captioned in bold type "ADVANCED APPLIED CHIROPRACTIC," listed Respondent as a diplomate of the National Board of Chiropractic, and concluded in bold type "A STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE." The advertisement of September 2, 1984, touted Respondent's clinic as "Advanced Applied Chiropractic and Comprehensive Pain Center." The generally accepted definition within the medical community of diplomate is an individual who has completed an extensive post graduate program and successfully passed the board's examination. This establishes superior qualifications in the individual's field of practice. Although the National Board of Chiropractic issues diplomate certification to those individuals who pass its examination, its examination is a basic licensing examination which establishes minimal competency, not excellence. Respondent's use of the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" to describe his clinic implies that he possesses skills superior to the average chiropractor. Respondent has registered the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" as a fictitious name. Respondent was, on one prior occasion, disciplined by the Board for an advertising violation.
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 The Respondent, Joseph A. Buttacavoli, is a licensed chiropractor, having been issued license number 00335. The Respondent practices chiropractic at 7162 Beneva Road, Sarasota, Florida 33583. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) On July 6, 1981, Jeffrey Goldman responded to the Respondent's newspaper advertisement offering a free examination. (See Prehearing Stipulation; Tr. 15.) On July 6, 1981, Goldman was complaining of pain in the neck radiating into the left shoulder. The pain was recent in origin, having started a few weeks prior to July 6, 1981. Goldman had suffered similar problems during the past 10 or 12 years on an intermittent basis, but this instance was more intense than previously experienced. (Tr. 12, 13.) The Respondent performed a free examination consisting of certain orthopedic and neurological tests. (Tr. 73, 77.) The Respondent did not record in writing the results of this examination. (Tr. 117.) Two of the tests were positive on Goldman's left side. (Tr. 73-77.) After completion of the examination, the Respondent tentatively diagnosed a pinched nerve in the neck and recommended to Goldman that x-rays be taken. (Tr. 78.) Goldman consented to the x-rays and was charged $80 for four x-rays which were taken. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) After the x-ray examination, the Respondent concluded that Goldman had a straightening of the normal cervical spine, some arthritic spurring and disc degeneration at the C4/C5 and C5/C6 level, and several vertebral misalignments. (See Prehearing Stipulation; Tr. 87.) The Respondent advised Goldman that his condition was serious and recommended treatment for 90 days. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) The Respondent told Goldman what the 90 days' treatment would cost and advised Goldman that the cost would be less if paid in advance. The Respondent practices a chiropractic technique known as Grostic or orthospinology. (Tr. 53, 55.) A diagnosis cannot be reached without x-rays using the Grostic technique, and the Respondent takes x-rays in every case except those in which the problem is muscular or x-rays are refused by the patient. (Tr. 115, 116.) The preliminary or free examination is the basis for the Respondent's recommending that x-rays be taken. (Tr. 117.) In the Grostic technique, a complex analysis of x-rays is the basis for a final diagnosis. This requires that x-rays be taken of the patient to apply the technique. (Tr. 59-63, 117-118.) In addition to the x-rays, which were kept by the Respondent as part of the record, Goldman's history/interview form was also maintained. (Tr. 48.) The x-rays on file and the medical history form constitute sufficient justification for the recommendation made by the Respondent to Goldman. The diagnosis of Goldman's problem was based upon his history, a physical examination and x-ray findings. These findings were reviewed by Dr. George Stanford Pierce, who verified the Respondent's suggested course of treatment based upon the records the Respondent maintained. (Tr. 150.) Goldman refused further treatment by the Respondent. (Tr. 26.) No evidence was received that the Respondent practiced chiropractic with less than the required level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent chiropractic physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent, Joseph A. Buttacavoli, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 12th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael R. N. McDonnell, Esquire 600 Fifth Avenue, South, Suite 301 Post Office Box 8659 Naples, Florida 33941 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Should Petitioner receive a passing grade for the technique portion for the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination (the examination) administered by Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner practices chiropractic in Massachusetts. In November 1997, Petitioner took the Florida chiropractic licensure examination. To pass that examination it was necessary for Petitioner to score 75 points on the technique portion of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 70 points. Petitioner disputes the scores received on several questions, described as questions 1, 4, and 7. Each contested question is worth five points. As a candidate for licensure, Petitioner received an information booklet which contained a reading list informing the candidates of writings of experts in various subjects covered by the examination, upon whom the candidates should rely. This included a list of experts in the technique portion of the examination. Respondent intended to defer to the opinions of those experts in grading the candidates. Additionally, Petitioner and other candidates in the November 1997 examination, were provided written instructions concerning the technique portion of the examination. Those instructions stated: TECHNIQUE EXAMINATION FORM 1 Demonstrate the following chiropractic techniques on the patient. For each technique, indicate the patient and doctor position. location of the segment. patient and doctor contact point. line of drive. Do not actually perform the techniques, but set them up and indicate how you would perform them. If the technique is grossly inadequate and/or clinically inappropriate, no credit will be given for that technique. Technique 1: Bilateral Anterior-Superior Ilia Technique 2: Posterior Radial Head on Left Technique 3: Plantar Cuboid Technique 4: Posterior Superior Occiput on Right Technique 5: L-2, Left Posterior Spinous Yes or No for position, location, contact, and line of drive/correction CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICAL EXAMINATION 11/97 TECHNIQUE (EXAMINER) The expectation was that each candidate in the examination would set up and indicate the manner in which the candidate would perform the five techniques and the four specific positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive related to the five techniques, without actually performing to conclusion. Petitioner and other candidates were graded by two examiners. The examiners, in scoring the candidates, used a grading sheet which described the activities by referring to the five techniques as cases. The various positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive were numbered 1 through 20, with the first four numbers referring to case 1, numbers 5 through 8 referring to case 2, et cetera. Before performing as examiners in the November 1997 session, the examiners who graded Petitioner underwent training to ensure that they followed the same criteria for scoring the Petitioner. Petitioner contests the scores that he received in relation to technique 1 position a./case 1 position 1; technique 1 line of drive d./case 1 line of drive 4; and technique 2 patient and contact point c./case 2 contact point 7. Those items respectively correspond to questions 1, 4, and 7, referred to by the parties. After the two examiners entered the individual scores for the various items within a technique, the scores by the individual examiners were added to arrive at an aggregate score. The aggregate score was then divided by two to reach the final results on the technique portion of the examination. By that arrangement Petitioner received a score of 70 points, insufficient to pass the technique portion of the examination. Although examiner 07, in the score sheet reference case 1 position 1, marked "Y" to point out that the Petitioner had achieved compliance with the expectations of that technique, the examiner did not assign five points to the Petitioner indicating credit for that item. Instead the score sheet reflects zero points for the item. Examiner 15 in relation to that item, wrote "N" on the score sheet signifying non-compliance and provided zero points for non-compliance. In all other respects the scores of the two examiners in relation to the technique portion of the examination, to include the disputed items, were in accord. Notwithstanding the determination by the initial examiners that Petitioner had failed the technique portion, Respondent instituted a non-rule policy to have three additional examiners review Petitioner's performance on the technique portion, by resort to the audio-video tape that had been made during the pendency of the technique portion of the examination. Apparently, Respondent in view of the reference by examiner 07 to "Y," indicating compliance with case 1 position 1, treated the item in a manner which signified compliance. Thus Petitioner was entitled to 5 points on the score sheet of examiner 07. The activities of the discrepancy reviewers were designed to determine whether that view finding compliance should be upheld in a setting where examiner 15 had entered "N" for that item signifying non-compliance. The review was expected to break the impasse. The three reviewers determined that Petitioner had not complied with the requirements of case 1 position 1. As a result, the score of 70 points, the average arrived at by adding and then dividing the two 70-point scores assigned by the original examiners was upheld. When Petitioner was given notice of the examination results, the 70-point score for the technique portion was reflected in those results. By inference it is found that the original examiners and discrepancy reviewers practiced chiropractic in Florida. In reference to case 1 position 1, examiner 15 commented about "contact P.S.I.S. should be ischium." P.S.I.S. stands for Postier Superior Iliac Spine. Examiner 07 made no comment concerning that item. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, both examiners felt that Petitioner had not complied with that requirement. Examiner 07, in commenting, stated "not on ischium." Examiner 15 commented "wrong line of drive." In reference to case 2 contact point 7, examiner 07 commented, "Not thumb-thenar." Examiner 15 commented, "No thumb contact." At the hearing to contest the preliminary determination finding Petitioner to have failed the technique portion of the examination, Petitioner offered his testimony as an expert in chiropractic concerning the several items at issue. To rebut that testimony, Respondent presented Dr. Darryl Thomas Mathis, an expert who practices chiropractic in Florida. Dr. Mathis also served as an examiner in the licensure examination, but did not test Petitioner. In his opinion Petitioner feels that he is entitled to additional points on each of the several questions at issue. In his opinion, Dr. Mathis disagrees. In explaining his performance related to case 1 position 1, Petitioner opined that his placement of the patient in the side posture position was correct. Petitioner also opined that his position for the case was correct. By contrast to the Petitioner's opinion concerning case 1 position 1, Dr. Mathis expressed the opinion that Petitioner's position in addressing the patient was incorrect. According to Dr. Mathis, Petitioner had his hand pointing upward parallel to the spine of the patient and not 90 degrees to the spine when contacting the ischium as required. In Dr. Mathis' opinion the table height for the examination area Petitioner was working in did not prohibit Petitioner from positioning himself appropriately to demonstrate his position reference to the patient. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 1 position 1. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, Petitioner offered his explanation in the examination that he would use the opposite of the actual listing. He opined that given the way that the inter-joint subluxates, one would go in the opposite direction to get a more neutral setting. Therefore when dealing with anterior-superior, one would go postier and inferior to accomplish the opposite of the listing. In contrast, Dr. Mathis, in offering his opinion about this item, referred to the anterior-superior listing as one in which the pelvis, in the circumstance that is bilateral, makes it such that both hip bones, or the pelvis in its entirety, has tipped forward and up over the femur heads or leg bones. Noting that Petitioner stated in his examination that he would thrust in the opposite manner, postier to anterior, meaning back to front, and superior to inferior, from top to bottom, Dr. Mathis opined that Petitioner was partially correct. However, Dr. Mathis was persuaded that additional information was required as to the actual angle or direction of thrust determined by the shaft of the femur or leg bone, and this additional information was not addressed by Petitioner. Dr. Mathis criticizes Petitioner's explanation of the technique to be employed on this item by leaving out the shaft of the femur as constituting the determinate of the angle employed. Moreover, Dr. Mathis did not believe that Petitioner could, in the attempt to demonstrate the technique at issue, perform adequately. The Petitioner was on the upper portion of the pelvis or ilium as opposed to being on the ischium, or lower portion of the pelvis. Consequently, according to Dr. Mathis, if Petitioner was going to thrust in the direction that Petitioner stated he would, he could not get the correction that he was attempting to obtain because Petitioner was on the wrong segment or portion of the pelvis. As Dr. Mathis perceives it, Petitioner could not physically accomplish by demonstration, what he claimed he could do because Petitioner was in the wrong location to make that correction. Dr. Mathis' opinion about case 1 line of drive 4 is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for this item. Case 2 contact point 7 is what Petitioner refers as to tennis elbow. Petitioner concedes that normally he would use the thumb as the contact point; however, he offers his opinion that during the time of his practice, he has learned other techniques. According to Petitioner, those other techniques are especially useful to address an acute patient with a lot of swelling, where a thumb contact can be painful. Therefore, Petitioner believes that the thenar, the soft part of the palm of the hand below the thumb, is appropriate as a contact point in an acute situation. Given this alternative, Petitioner did not believe that his use of the thenar in the examination was harmful. By contrast Dr. Mathis believes that the thumb is the only acceptable answer. Further, Dr. Mathis stated that the reference list provided to Petitioner and other candidates prior to the examination, in association with A.Z. States' description of the appropriate technique, upon which the Respondent relied in determining the appropriate answer for this item, concludes that the thumb is to be employed in this technique. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 2 contact point 7.
Recommendation It is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued finding that Petitioner did not pass the technique portion of the 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John Bisanti 150 Sumner Avenue Springfield, Massachusetts 01108 Ann Marie Frazee, Esquire Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0752
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 central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for the responses given during his practical examination for licensure which was conducted during November, 1991, and for which Petitioner entered this challenge.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, David Sanders, is a candidate for chiropractic licensure. His candidate for licensure number is 200142, and he took the November, 1991, practical examination administered by the Department. Petitioner received a score of 64.0 on the practical examination. Petitioner's score fell below the minimum score for passing, 75.0. Petitioner timely challenged the examination results and claimed that the Department had incorrectly graded Petitioner's responses and performance during the examination. In this case, the practical examination was administered by two examiners who, independently of one another, scored the responses given by Petitioner when presented with two case studies. For Case 1, the scoring was divided into fourteen sections or subsections where the candidate was evaluated and given points based upon the responses given. For the orthopedics section of Case 1, the Petitioner was given a scenario of facts from which he was to determine the appropriate tests to be administered to the patient. Following selection of the tests to be given, Petitioner was required to perform the test. For an inappropriate test, no points were awarded, even if the candidate performed the test correctly. Of the nine tests listed, four were to be chosen and performed. One point was awarded for each appropriate test correctly performed. In response to the orthopedics section, Petitioner selected three appropriate tests to perform. Consequently, the maximum grade, per examiner, he could have received was a score of three. Petitioner received a score of two from one examiner, and a three from the other. The first examiner commented that the Yeomans test was wrong. Since Yeomans was an appropriate test to perform, and Petitioner correctly performed the test, Petitioner should have received a three on that section from that examiner. Under the neurological subsections of Case 1, Petitioner was required to identify, based upon the fact scenario given, four muscles which should be examined and tested. Petitioner only identified three relevant muscles. Consequently, he received a score of three from each examiner. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Under subsection 8 of the neurological portion Petitioner received no credit as he failed to select three appropriate tests and correctly interpret the responses. Accordingly, the scoring on this subsection was correct. The final subsection of the neurological portion was the diagnosis rendered based upon all the findings of the scenario and test results. Since Petitioner rendered an inappropriate diagnosis, no points were awarded. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Case 2 of the physical examination contained nine sections or subsections for which Petitioner could have received credit. The first section of Case 2 required Petitioner to obtain a history from the patient. To achieve a perfect score on this section, the candidate had to inquire into seven or more areas of relevant history. If so, the score for the section would be a four. In this case, Petitioner should have received a four from both examiners regarding the history taken. As it was, Petitioner only received a three from the examiners. In order to receive credit on the physical-selection portion of the test, Petitioner was required to auscultate the heart and lungs, and purcuss the chest. Since he failed to do so, the scoring on this subsection was correct. In connection with subsections 18 and 19 of Case 2, Petitioner failed to receive full credit because he did not indicate an appropriate laboratory test. Had Petitioner requested a SMAC test, full credit would have been given for both subsections. As it was, because Petitioner failed to request a SMAC test, he could not receive credit on either subsection. The scoring on these subsections was correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a final order changing Petitioner's score on the November, 1991, physical examination as noted above in order to recalculate and determine whether or not Petitioner failed the examination through no fault of his own. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2709 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: With regard to paragraph 1, with the deletion of the words "on physical diagnosis" in sentence 1, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraphs 5 through 9 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sanders 359 Glenwood Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
