Findings Of Fact Aurora Jones was born on September 2, 2010, at Osceola Regional Medical Center in Kissimmee, Florida. Aurora weighed 7 pounds and six ounces (3,345 grams) at birth. Donald Willis, M.D. (Dr. Willis), was requested by NICA to review the medical records for Aurora. In a medical report dated December 4, 2012, Dr. Willis opined: In summary, the mother was admitted in labor at 41 weeks. Vaginal delivery was accomplished without apparent difficulty. The baby was not depressed at birth. However, excessive oral sections were noted at time of delivery. A cranial nerve dysfunction was subsequently diagnosed, which resulted in poor swallowing and excess oral sections. There was no apparent obstetrical event that resulted in loss of oxygen or mechanical trauma to the baby's brain during delivery or the immediate post delivery period. NICA engaged Michael S. Duchowny, M.D., a Florida board-certified pediatric neurologist to review the medical records of Aurora, to conduct an examination of Aurora, and to render an opinion whether a birth-related neurological injury occurred. In a report dated March 27, 2013, Dr. Duchowny opined: The combined evidence from the record review and physical examination do not suggest that Aurora has a substantial mental impairment. Furthermore, there is no evidence of either mechanical injury or oxygen deprivation in the course of labor, delivery or the postdelivery period. Rather, it is more likely that Aurora has primary neuromuscular disorder, either congenital myopathy or dystrophy or a genetic disorder producing prominent motor involvement. She has never had a muscle biopsy which might be useful in ascertaining a diagnosis. I, therefore, do not recommend Aurora for inclusion in the NICA program. A review of the file does not show any contrary opinions, and Petitioner has no objection to the issuance of a summary final order finding that the injury is not compensable under the Plan. The opinions of Dr. Willis and Dr. Duchowny that Aurora did not suffer a neurological injury due to oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury during labor, delivery, or the immediate postdelivery period are credited. Dr. Duchowny's opinion that Aurora does not have a permanent and substantial mental impairment is credited.
Findings Of Fact Ashanti Stephens was born on December 27, 2010, at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, Florida. Ashanti weighed 3,570 grams at birth. Donald Willis, M.D. (Dr. Willis), was requested by NICA to review the medical records for Ashanti. In an affidavit dated May 1, 2013, Dr. Willis opined that "[t]here was no apparent obstetrical event that resulted in loss of oxygen or mechanical trauma to the baby's brain or spinal cord during labor, delivery, or the immediate post delivery period." Raymond J. Fernandez, M.D., a pediatric neurologist, was retained by NICA to perform an independent medical examination of Ashanti. He did so on September 18, 2012. In an affidavit dated May 3, 2013, Dr. Fernandez opined the following within a reasonable degree of medical probability: Ashanti's left upper extremity weakness is due to mechanical injury of the left brachial plexus and cervical nerve roots during delivery, but there is no evidence of mental or physical impairment due to brain or spinal cord injury due to oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury. A review of the file does not show any contrary opinions to those of Dr. Willis and Dr. Fernandez, and Petitioner and Intervenors have no objection to the issuance of a summary final order finding that the injury is not compensable under Plan. The opinions of Dr. Willis and Dr. Fernandez that Ashanti did not suffer a neurological injury due to oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury during labor, delivery, or the immediate post-delivery period are credited.
The Issue Was Petitioner properly graded and given appropriate credit for his answers on the July, 1990 Florida Podiatric Medicine Licensure Examination (Florida Podiatry Examination).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Paul L. Sheehy, Jr., candidate No. 20017, was a candidate for licensure by examination as a Podiatrist, and the Board of Podiatry, (Board), was and is the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of Podiatrists and the regulation of the Practice of podiatric medicine in this state. Petitioner sat for the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination on July 27, 1991. Petitioner obtained a score of 70.0 percent, representing 210 correct answers. A passing grade requires a score of 72 percent, representing 216 correct answers. Shortly before the beginning of the hearing, Respondent agreed to give Petitioner credit for questions 16 and 180 of Clinical I of the examination thereby raising his total score to 70.666 percent. At the beginning of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge to questions 22, 37, 87, 89, 104, 149, 176 and 178 of Clinical I of the examination and questions 3, 16, 22, 50, 67 and 53 of Clinical II of the examination. During the hearing Petitioner withdrew his challenge to question 27 of Clinical I and question 12 of Clinical II of the examination, leaving only his challenge to questions 103, 114, 138, 144 of Clinical I of the examination. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner was qualified and met all the requirements to sit for the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination, and that Petitioner timely received a copy of the July 1990, Podiatric Medicine Licensure Examination Candidate Information Booklet (booklet). There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the Florida Podiatry Examination given on July 27, 1990 was misleading in that it tested subjects or disciplines not covered or contained in the booklet, or that it was prejudicial as applied to Petitioner. The first question at issue is question 103 of Clinical I which stated: CASE HISTORY 44 In the exhibit book are photographs for this examination. Identify the photograph in the respective exhibit. 103. Which of the following answer choices is the best description of exhibit #11? Ganglion Cyst Verruca Melanoma Kaposi's Sarcoma Petitioner answered, C, Melanoma and the Respondent's answer was, B, Verruca. Petitioner admitted that his answer was incorrect. However, Petitioner contends that the question comes within the area of histology, an area not specifically mentioned in the booklet to be covered by the examination. Therefore, he was mislead by the booklet into not studying the area of histology. While the booklet does not specifically mention histology as an area of study to be covered in the examination, there were several other areas of study listed in the booklet which conceivably would have covered this question. Therefore, there has been no showing that the Respondent's failure to specifically list histology as an area of study mislead or prejudiced the Petitioner. The second question at issue is question 114 which stated: CASE HISTORY 45 An elderly obese male presents with an acutely inflamed first metatarsophalangeal joint. The pain began late last night and he awoke in severe pain. His past medical history reveals two previous such occurrences which resolved and went un- treated. He reports a history of chronic renal disease and mild hypertension. He presently takes no medication and has no known allergies. He denies use of alcohol and tobacco. Physical exam reveals an acutely inflamed, edematous 1st MPJ. A 3mm ulceration is present dorsally with white, chalky material exiting the wound. Laboratory studies reveal a CBC within normal limits and an elevated uric acid of 9.0mg/100ml. 114. Which of the following would you expect to find on microscopy of the synovial fluid? trapezoidal-shaped violet crystals absence of leukocytes needle-like birefringent crystals reflective hexagonal crystals and many leukocytes Petitioner answered D, reflective hexagonal crystals and many leukocytes. The Respondent's answer was C, needle-like birefringent crystals. Petitioner contends that none of the answers offered were entirely correct but that answer D was the most correct, while answer C was incorrect. Case History 45 would describe gout and pseudogout, but the key is the description of the fluid removed from the joint which is a white, chalky material found only with gout. Additionally, gout produces needle-like crystals (urate) that are negatively birefringent when view under crossed polarizing filters attached to a microscope. Leukocytes would be present in this case history but it would not produce reflective hexagonal crystals or trapezoidal-shaped violet crystals. Answers A and B are entirely incorrect, and although the presence of leukocytes is correct, it is not relevant because leukocytes are a normally found in any infection. Therefore, answer C is the correct answer, notwithstanding the absence of the word negative proceeding the word birefringent. The third question at issue is question 138 which stated: CASE HISTORY 49 A 27 year old athletic individual presents with a severely painful and swollen right ankle following a basketball injury the day before. There is severe ecchymosis and blister formation about the ankle. X-rays reveal (1) a displaced oblique spiral fracture of the lateral malleolus which runs anterior-inferior to posterior-superior at the level of the syndesmosis (2) transverse fracture of medical malleolus. There is gross dislocation and mal position of the talus. 138. If the initial treatment above were to fail, then treatment should consist of: immediate open reduction. wait 4-6 days, then perform open reduction and internal fixation. open reduction contraindicated at any time with this type of fracture. fusion of ankle joint. Petitioner answered A, immediate open reduction and the Respondent's answer was B, wait 4-6 days, then perform open reduction and internal fixation. The correct initial treatment for the patient would have been attempted close reduction as indicated by the correct answer to question 137 which Petitioner answered correctly. An attempted close reduction is an attempt to correctly align the fractured bone by manipulation as opposed to surgically opening the area and aligning the bone visually by touch which is the open reduction and internal fixation procedure. After an attempted alignment of the bone, an x-ray will determine if there is proper alignment. If there is proper alignment, then the area is immobilized with a cast or some other device until the fracture heals. If the x-ray shows that proper alignment of the bone has not been obtained (the initial treatment has failed) then open reduction and internal fixation would be proper provided the swelling, ecchymosis and blistering are not present. Otherwise, as in this case, the proper method would be to wait a period of time, 4-6 days, for the swelling, ecchymosis and blistering to go away. Petitioner's contention that the swelling had gone down since there had been immobilization of the area with a cast, posterior splint or unna boot and a waiting period is without merit since those devices would not have been used before determining by x-rays that the initial treatment (closed reduction) had failed. The fourth and last question at issue in question 144 which stated: CASE HISTORY 50 A patient presents with a painful left ankle. The pain occurs following ambulation and is relieved by rest. There is minimal periartic- ular atrophy and the joint is slightly warm. X-rays reveal non-uniform joint narrowing, subchondral sclerosis and marginal osteophytes. 144. It can be expected that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. significant cartilage damage will occur. total joint replacement will be required. total remission can be expected following treatment. Petitioner answered B, significant cartilage damage will occur and Respondent's answer was A, that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. There were a series of questions preceding this question concerning the patient in Case History 50. The first question asked for a diagnosis which the Petitioner correctly answered as osteoarthritis. The second question concerned advising the patient on treatment which the Petitioner answered correctly by giving instructions on protecting the joint and taking simple analgesics. The third question concerned activity levels such as jogging and climbing steps which Petitioner answered correctly by advising to avoid squatting. However, in selecting B as the answer to question 144 the Petitioner did not consider the suggested treatment and advise given in the previous answers. His reasoning was that he could not assume that the patient would follow his suggested treatment or advise on prevention and activity. Additionally, the Petitioner felt that other factors such as the patient's age, weight, general health, level of activity and occupation that were missing from the case history were necessary to make a proper evaluation of whether the patient would respond favorably to treatment. Respondent admitted that either answer A or B would be correct but he picked B because he knew the disease was progressive and in time would get worse causing significant cartilage damage. Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease that is not uniformly progressive that responds to treatment but cannot be cured. There will be recurring episodes of pain (flareups) triggered by factors such as the weather or a person's activity. Based on the factors in the above case history, there is sufficient evidence to show that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. It was reasonable and logical for the Respondent to assume that the Petitioner in answering question 14 would consider his preceding answers and assume that the patient would follow the suggested treatment and advice. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that significant cartilage damage would occur based on the facts given in Case History 50. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the grades which the Petitioner received on the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination were incorrect, unfair, or invalid, or that the examination, and subsequent review session, were administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade he received on the July 1990, Florida Podiatry Examination. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2118 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 4.-6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8, respectively. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Hewitt E. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 76081 Tampa, FL 33675 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Board of Podiatry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Cody Smith has suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as alleged in the claim for compensation.
Findings Of Fact Cody Smith (Cody) is the natural son of Lisa Smith and Jeffrey Smith. He was born a live infant on May 1, 1991, at Memorial Hospital, in Broward County, Florida, and his birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. The physicians delivering obstetrical services during the birth of Cody were Sidney Morrison, M.D., and Robert Siudmak, M.D., who were, at all times material hereto, participating physicians in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Cody's delivery at Memorial Hospital on May 1, 1991, was not without complications. Being post term, with a delivery weight of 10 pounds 3 ounces, Cody's extraction was difficult, and due to a "moderate to severe degree of shoulder dystocia" ("the shoulder was hung up in the birth canal") force was necessary to extract him from the birth canal. As a consequence of such force, trauma to segments of the brachial plexus occurred which induced a left upper extremity Erb's palsy. Today, while improved from his initial condition, Cody's physical impairment, occasioned during the course of delivery, may be described as permanent and substantial; however, a brachial plexus injury, which can result in an Erb's palsy, is not an injury to or a consequence of any injury to the brain or spinal cord. 1/ Moreover, Cody's mental functioning is age appropriate, and he has not been shown to have suffered any mental impairment, much less a substantial mental impairment.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state department charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez was a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida having been issued license number ME96703. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez is board certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology and Pain Management. At all times material to this case, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez was employed by Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) Physician's Services Group, as a medical director of the pain management program. On October 7, 2008, C.C. presented to Dr. Diaz- Ramirez's office for evaluation for continued treatment of her long-standing back pain. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez examined C.C. and noted her assessment as chronic low back, right leg, and hip pain with severe right L2-3 foraminal stenosis, status post L3- S1 fusion, and lumbar postlaminectomy syndrome. There was no indication on October 7, 2008, that C.C. was having problems with her sacroiliac joint. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez discussed her treatment plan with C.C. and noted the following in C.C.'s medical records: Today we reviewed the actual CT scan films from 07/10/2006. We have also reviewed her laboratories from July. The pain is persistent. It seems to be spinal in origin. We have decided to perform bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections for pain management of her symptoms. She will continue with current analgesics. She was instructed to take her oxycodone every six hours. We will be performing these injections twice and we will see her in follow-up 2-3 weeks after the injections. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez signed an order for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections to be done two times. This order was on a document entitled Discharge Instructions.2/ When the order for the first bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections was put into the scheduling system for the Sarasota Memorial Health Care System Pain Management procedure area, the procedure was erroneously scheduled as a sacroiliac joint injection. Because of the scheduling error, all of the documentation for the procedure, including the physician order for the procedure and the consent form, was filled out for a sacroiliac joint injection. On October 15, 2008, C.C. presented for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Prior to performing the procedure, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez examined C.C. C.C. advised Dr. Diaz-Ramirez that her pain had increased and moved. However, the pre-operative history and physical notes hand written by Dr. Diaz-Ramirez at 8:35 a.m. on October 15, 2008, state that the history and physical remain unchanged from October 7, 2008, except for a sprain of C.C.'s left ankle. Prior to doing the procedure on October 15, 2008, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez talked with C.C. and explained to C.C. that a sacroiliac joint injection would be performed. It was Dr. Diaz- Ramirez's opinion that based on the examination and her discussion with C.C. that a sacroiliac joint injection was appropriate for C.C.'s pain on that day. C.C. signed a consent form for a sacroiliac joint injection. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez performed the sacroiliac joint injection on C.C. After the procedure, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez went back to her office to dictate her notes. For the first time that day, she looked at her original order and saw that on October 7, 2008, she had ordered bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections for C.C. Realizing that there had been a scheduling error, she contacted Ronda Layton (Ms. Layton), the clinical coordinator for the pain management center. This was not the first time that a scheduling error had taken place, and Dr. Diaz-Ramirez reported the scheduling error to Ms. Layton so that the problem could be addressed. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez and Ms. Layton went to the bedside of C.C. and told her that a wrong procedure had been done. C.C. was advised that she had been scheduled for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections, but a sacroiliac joint injection had been performed. C.C. was also advised that Dr. Diaz-Ramirez felt that the sacroiliac joint injection was the appropriate procedure for the pain that C.C. was experiencing that day. After talking with C.C., Dr. Diaz-Ramirez dictated her report on October 15, 2008. She noted that her pre-operative diagnoses were "[l]eft low back pain, sacroiliac pain and lumbar spinal stenosis." This is the first time that Dr. Diaz-Ramirez specifically noted that C.C. was experiencing sacroiliac pain. Her notes further stated: The patient is a [redacted] year-old [redacted] patient with chronic low back pain with lumbar spinal stenosis scheduled for bilateral L2-L3 transforaminal epidural steroid injection. We performed sacroiliac joint steroid injection for management of her symptoms. On October 28, 2008, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez made an addendum to her report dated October 15, 2008. The addendum stated: After the procedure was done, it was discovered that the intended scheduled procedure was not performed. The patient was made immediately aware and full disclosure was made. Under the circumstances of the evaluation this morning, the sacroiliac joint injection would not have been an inappropriate procedure to perform for this patient and she actually received immediate relief in the area of her pain. The patient understood. She agrees and she will be seen for her intended scheduled procedure of a bilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injection at L2-L3 at her next visit. On October 15, 2008, C.C.'s pre-operative pain level on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the worst and one being the least, was ten. Her post-operative pain level was seven, and her pain level at discharge was between nine and ten. C.C. was scheduled for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections for October 22, 2008, and Dr. Diaz-Ramirez performed the scheduled injections on that date. C.C.'s pre-operative pain level on October 22, 2008, was seven. Her post-operative pain level was four, and her discharge pain level was between four and five.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Diaz-Ramirez did not violate section 456.072(1)(bb) and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2011.
