The Issue The issue in the case is whether sufficient deficiencies existed during the March 3, 1999, inspection of the Lee Convalescent Center by the Agency for Health Care Administration to warrant licensing the facility with a "conditional" rating.
Findings Of Fact Lee Convalescent Center (Center) is a nursing home located in Fort Myers, Florida, and licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). On March 3, 1999, AHCA conducted an inspection of the Center. At the time of the inspection, the Center had a license rating of "Superior." During the inspection, AHCA identified several alleged deficiencies in the Center's operation. The alleged deficiencies are identified in the inspection report and referenced by "tag" numbers. The inspection report identifies "Tag F241" as a failure to "promote care for 2 of 21 sampled residents and 1 random observation in a manner that maintains resident dignity." Tag F241 is identified in the inspection report as a violation of the regulatory standard set forth at 42 CFR S.483.15(a). Although the inspection report indicates that there was a total of three incidents underlying the alleged failure, only one complaint by one resident was addressed during the hearing. During the inspection, the resident apparently complained to inspectors that her hair was not being washed to her satisfaction. She allegedly complained that it was unclean and that she had dandruff. Inspectors testified that the resident complained that the facility employee who shampooed her hair wore rubber gloves when doing so, and that the gloves pulled the hair and caused her scalp to hurt. The resident told inspectors that she had complained about the situation to the appropriate person at the facility, but that nothing had changed. According to the facility policy as discussed during the hearing, staff members assess the cleanliness of the hair and condition of the scalp prior to shampooing. Shampoos are offered to residents twice weekly. The policy provides that the staff may wear gloves "when appropriate." Although there were no open sores on the resident's head, the resident had dandruff. The assistant who shampooed the resident's hair wore surgical latex gloves. Although the resident who complained of the shampoo was described as "not shy" about complaining, the director of nursing for the facility had not been told of the complaint prior to the resident's discussion with the AHCA inspector. The resident is a 44-year-old quadriplegic, with a history of alcohol dependency. She is fully alert. Facility records suggest the resident is inclined towards manipulation of staff members and attempts to create conflict between persons at the facility. The inspection report notes that even after the resident's hair was shampooed she continued to state that she had excessive dandruff and "felt unclean." The evidence fails to establish that the wearing of gloves to shampoo the resident's hair was a violation of facility policy, or of any state or federal regulation. The evidence fails to establish that the alleged violation set forth at Tag F241 warranted amending the facilities licensure rating to "conditional." The inspection report identifies "Tag F314" as an allegation that two residents "developed avoidable pressure sores." Tag F314 is identified in the inspection report as a violation of the regulatory standard set forth at 42 CFR S.483.25(c). There is no credible evidence, medical or otherwise, that the residents' wounds were "avoidable." It should be noted that none of the AHCA inspectors actually observed the "pressure sores." The sole indication of the "pressure sores" on the residents comes from the facility's records. At hearing, the two residents were identified as Resident 13 and Resident 17. According to the inspection report, Resident 13 suffered from Alzheimer's disease and peripheral vascular disease. She was completely dependent on the facility staff for all "activities of daily living." Shortly after her admission on December 1, 1998, Resident 13 was identified as being at risk for development of pressure sores due to incontinence and inactivity. Persons suffering from peripheral vascular disease are susceptible to development of pressure sores in the extremities of the body. The facility's records establish that employees were conscious of the resident's susceptibility. The facility provided special chairs and mattresses to minimize the potential development for development of pressure sores. The patient was moved frequently, and incontinence care was provided. Despite the facility's efforts, at some point the resident developed a continuing skin rash. As of February 15, 1999, the "nurses notes" state that the certified nursing assistant indicated Resident 13 had an "open area" on her buttocks. A skin assessment dated February 21, 1999, notes the "open area on buttocks" of the resident. The "nurses notes" of February 26, 1999, state that facility personnel were changing the dressing on the "open area in gluteal fold" during each shift. Another "nurses note" dated March 1, 1999, records the "open area on gluteal fold" of Resident 13. The facility's nutritionist noted in the dietary progress note on February 16, 1999, that the resident should receive a multivitamin and additional Vitamin C. In a dietary progress note dated February 19, 1999, the nutritionist again recommended the vitamin supplements and a protein supplement. The recommendations of the nutritionist were not forwarded to the attending physician until March 2, 1999. There is no credible evidence that the nutritionist's vitamin regimen, whatever the impact on the resident's general health, would have caused the open area to heal. There is no medical evidence that the facility's delay in implementing the nutritionist's recommendations caused any effect at all on the resident's condition. The AHCA inspection report also alleges that from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on the date of the survey Resident 13 remained in her wheelchair. The evidence fails to establish the allegation. There is no evidence that an AHCA inspector paid such close attention to the resident as to credibly testify that the resident remained unmoved and unattended in the chair during the cited period. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on December 10, 1998, and suffers from diabetes, osteoarthrosis, and hypertension. She also suffered from incontinence. As of January 4, 1999, the "nurses notes" noted a "small" Stage II wound on the resident's right buttock. On January 31, 1999, the attending physician recommended Vitamin C and Zinc supplements, and the application of "Replicare" to the wound. On February 15, 1999, a care plan was developed to address the pressure wound. The Center asserts that Resident 17's skin problem was not a "pressure sore" but instead developed from the resident's scratching of a rash resulting from a yeast infection. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the assertion. The facility asserts that the skin condition was a "stage II" rash. There is no credible evidence that rashes are commonly identified and classified by "stage" description. There was extensive disagreement at the hearing on whether the facility's representatives acknowledged the existence of the allegedly "avoidable pressure sores" during a post-inspection meeting with ACHA representatives. The evidence is insufficient to establish that such admissions by the facility occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order establishing a "standard" rating for the Lee Convalescent Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel L. Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the June 1997 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the authority and responsibility to regulate the practice of chiropractic medicine. Petitioner sat for the chiropractic licensure examination administered in June 1997. The licensure examination administered in June 1997 included a section that tested the candidates in making physical diagnoses. This section consisted of an oral practice examination that was administered and graded by two examiners. A standardized system was used to ensure consistency in the questions and in the grading of the questions. To pass the licensure examination, a candidate must pass all sections of the examination, including the physical diagnosis section. Petitioner passed all sections of the exam except for the physical diagnosis section. A score of 75 was required to pass the physical diagnosis section of the exam. Petitioner received a score of 70.5 on the physical diagnosis section. Consequently, he failed that section of the exam and the overall exam. Petitioner originally challenged the grading of Questions 3, 13, and 26. At the formal hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge to Question 13. Questions 3 and 26 were not multiple choice questions. The candidate was required to perform physical examinations of "patients" and to answer one or more questions about the examinations. The candidate was to provide the best answer to each question. Question 3 was worth 5 points and Question 26 was worth 8 points. A candidate could receive partial credit for his or her answer to Question 3. Partial credit was not available for Question 26; a candidate would receive either zero or eight points for his or her response. The grade was based on the physical examinations and on the answer to each question. Question 3 required the candidate to examine the patient's eyes and answer the question: "What does papilledema indicate?" 1/ Petitioner examined the eyes of the patient and answered that papilledema indicates that the patient's cerebral spinal fluid pressure has increased. Petitioner was awarded no credit for his examination or his answer to the question. Petitioner presented no evidence at the formal hearing to demonstrate that he was entitled to credit for his performance on the eye examination; however, Petitioner did assert that he was entitled to credit for his response to the question. The correct answer to Question 3 is that papilledema indicates an increased intracranial pressure. Papilledema is a non-inflammatory swelling of the optic nerve-head resulting from increased intracranial pressure. An increase in the cerebral spinal fluid pressure is one of many causes for papilledema. Other causes of increased intracranial pressure that may result in papilledema, unrelated to increased cerebral spinal fluid pressure, include bleeding, tumors, headaches, and hypertension. Petitioner was not awarded credit for his answer to Question 3 because his was not correct. 2/ Question 3 was not ambiguous. The decision of the examiners to award no points for Petitioner's response to the question pertaining to papilledema was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. There was no evidence that Petitioner was entitled to additional credit for his performance on the eye examination. Question 26 presented the candidate with a patient with symptoms and required the candidate to specifically diagnosis the patient's condition. The correct diagnosis was stenosing tenosynovitis of the abductor pollicis longus and the extensor pollicis brevis, 3/ which is also known as de Quervain's disease. Petitioner's diagnosis was tenosynovitis. That diagnosis is incomplete. Petitioner incorrectly named the muscles involved. When asked to be more specific, Petitioner stated that the patient had tendonitis, which is a more general diagnosis. Petitioner was awarded no credit for his answer to Question 26 because he gave an incomplete diagnosis, was not specific in his answer, and incorrectly identified the muscles involved. Question 26 was not ambiguous. The decision of the examiners to award no points for Petitioner's diagnosis was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the grades he received to Questions 3, 13, and 26 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in June 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 17th day of February, 1998.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Petitioner was properly denied licensure as an optometrist based on the examination taken by him on September 16 - 18, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Optometry has been the state agency responsible for the licensing of optometrists in Florida. On September 16 - 18, 1988, Petitioner, Kenneth W. Gerke, O.D., took the optometry examination administered at the Department's Miami Examining Center. He failed both the practical examination and a clinical examination, and passed the pharmacology/ocular examination with a grade of 72 and the Florida law/rules examination with a grade of 96. No evidence was introduced to establish what the pass/fail point was for each section of the examination. Thereafter, Respondent requested a review of his scores and on February 28, 1989 he was again notified he had failed the examination though his pharmacy/ocular score was raised to 73.7 and his clinical score was raised to Petitioner then filed a request for a hearing to contest specifically the grade he received on questions 4 & 10 of the clinical examination, Part I, and questions 2, 10, 14, 15, and 16 of the clinical examination, Part II. In his initial request for review, submitted on December 3, 1988, Petitioner did not cite specific questions, asking only that the test results of the practical examination taken on September 18, 1988 be reviewed with special emphasis on that portion of the practical which dealt with tonometry. Petitioner thereafter challenged Examiner 11's grading of question 4, Clinical I, and Examiner 13's grading of question 10, on Clinical I. With regard to the former, Petitioner claims the examiner did not fill in the bubble, thereby depriving him of 1 point. This discrepancy was corrected on review, however, and Petitioner was awarded credit. With regard to the latter, Petitioner was given full credit for the entire question on review. The combined increase did not give him a passing score. With regard to question 2, Clinical II, Petitioner questions Examiner 60's evaluation of his answer, contending the disc was clearly visible and should have been seen by the examiner since the other examiner, 54, who was working in pair with Examiner 60, did see it. Review of the evaluation sheet pertinent to this question reveals that Examiner 60 gave Petitioner no credit, indicating he did not see the disc. Examiner 54, his partner, gave Petitioner credit but, in the comments section of the form, indicated, "not a very good view." On review, examination officials decided to make no change in Petitioner's grade because even Examiner 54, who had given Petitioner credit for having performed the disc, indicated it was not a good view, and on that basis, they could find no basis to change examiner 60's evaluation. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that decision was in error. Petitioner challenged Examiner 54's evaluation of his answer to question 10, Clinical II, indicating, "I did focus on optic disc and estimate C/D ratio (the other examiner saw it and awarded full points). It was very clear to me and I cannot understand why the examiner did not see it." In this case, Examiner 60 gave Petitioner full credit for his answer, but Examiner 54 gave no credit. When examiners disagree, generally examination officials look at the Examiner comments individually. If it is impossible to sustain the negative comments, the negative evaluation is rejected and the applicant is given full credit. Even if the dispute cannot be resolved, partial credit is usually given, and in this case, initially, Petitioner was given half credit. However, upon review it was determined that his challenge to the grade given by examiner 54 on this question had merit, and he thereafter received full credit for the question. This did not give him a passing score, however. With regard to question 14, Clinical II, Petitioner challenged both Examiner 60 and Examiner 54, since both gave him no credit for his performance of the procedure, a Goldman tonometry. Examiner 54 commented that Petitioner "ran out of time" and Examiner 60 commented that he could see no "mires". Petitioner's challenge reads, "My patient was tearing profusely. I applied fluorescein strip and attempted the pressure measurement. There were no mires due to excessive tearing of patient washing out fluorescein. I dried the patient's tears, reapplied another fluoresceins strip, and was retaking the pressure when time ran out. I believe the timer was not set correctly to allow me a full two minutes." This procedure requires the candidate to anesthetize the patient's eye, apply a fluorescein dye, and thereafter measure pressure by evaluation of "mires" observed through the instrument. Resolution of this question involves a study of the background of the examination. So much of the examination as is contained in Part I is conducted with the candidate performing certain procedures on a patient provided by the examination officials. Part II of the examination involves observation of procedures accomplished on a patient provided by the candidate. The patient is first evaluated by examination officials to determine that he or she is qualified to serve and one eye is dilated by examination officials at that time. Thereafter, the patient is released to the applicant who performs the procedures required under the observation of the two examiners assigned to him. In the case of question 14, the procedure requires the candidate to demonstrate accurate measurement of intra-ocular pressure. He is required to anesthetize the eye, apply a fluorescein dye by means of a strip dipped into the substance, and thereafter measure pressure by the use of an instrument which is gently placed against the patient's eyeball and through which "mires" are observed. Petitioner's patient was unknown to him at the time he performed the procedure. Because he did not know anyone to take as his patient, prior to the examination he contacted an optometrist in Miami whose secretary's boyfriend was recommended as a patient. Petitioner accepted him and used him and the patient was qualified as a bona fide patient. Petitioner contends, however, that for various reasons, the patient's eyes teared excessively washing out the fluorescein dye which would have provided the "mires" for observation. Before he could get additional dye into the eye and remove the excess, time ran out. He also claims that he was not given the full two minutes to accomplish the procedure. Both examiners denied Petitioner credit for his performance of this procedure. On review it was felt that Petitioner did not overcome the negative comments of the examiners. Further, Petitioner failed to follow the procedure which he should have invoked at the time, a description of which was included in the examination description and study guide provided to him prior to the examination and which was verbally briefed to him the day of the examination. He should have notified his examiners at the time he noticed the excessive tearing. Under the protocol for this examination, those examiners would not have made a determination at the site but would have brought the problem to the supervisor for review. Petitioner also could have filed a card when he left his station to formally register the complaint - not while the patient is still present, but to be reviewed afterward. There is no indication here that either examiner brought Petitioner's problem to the supervisor because Petitioner did not bring it to their attention. In addition, Petitioner did not fill out a comment form about the problem as he could have done when leaving the area. If he had notified the examiners of the problem, they would have stopped the evaluation at that moment. The complaint procedure is designed to insure the applicant gets a fair and full chance to demonstrate his ability. Petitioner failed to utilize it. Consequently, even on review he was awarded no credit for this question. Petitioner also challenges Examiner 60's evaluation of his response to question 15, Clinical II, and contends: I did provide a good view of the angle structures. My patient had wide open angles clearly visible. The evaluation sheet reflects that both Examiners 54 and 60 gave Petitioner no credit for this question. Examiner 54 commented that Petitioner failed to describe "scleral spur" and Examiner 60 commented, "Poor to no view." On review, it was determined that neither examiner initially gave credit and that there was no evidence presented by Petitioner which would cause a change to that lack of award. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a basis for change to the score of "0" given him on question 15. Petitioner also challenges Examiner 60's response to question 16, Clinical II, claiming: I did estimate the pigment deposition. The examiner may have had a poor view (as in other parts) but mine was clear. (The other examiner had a clear view and awarded full points.) Review of the evaluation sheets reflects that Examiner 54 gave Petitioner full credit for this procedure and he was originally awarded 2 points. The examination sheet filled out by Examiner 60 reflects, "No credit. Poor to no view." On review, the award of 2 of 4 points was not overturned. At the hearing, Petitioner engaged in a substantial dialogue with the Board's consultant, Dr. Attaway, as to whether the examiners' view of the applicant's performance could have been affected by either the placement of the "teacher's" mirror, through which the examiners observed the procedure, or the examiners' position with regard to the mirror. Dr. Ottawa conceded that both contingencies could affect the evaluation and in light of the fact that Examiner 54 gave full credit with no adverse comment, and his opinion has been held to be highly esteemed in other incidents involving this Petitioner, it must be concluded that Petitioner's accomplishment of the required procedure was done properly and he should be awarded the additional 2 points. In each case during the examination, the candidate is observed by two examiners. It is not uncommon for examiners to disagree. Between 85 and 88 percent of the time, they agree on their evaluation of a particular candidate's procedure. In the instant case, however, the area of disagreement was somewhat higher. When this happens, generally it means the candidate is borderline; neither clearly very good nor clearly very poor. With regard to the pressure test, (Goldman tonometry), measured in procedure 14, the Board's consultant, agrees that not all patients can be evaluated for pressure utilizing this method, also known as aplination tonometry. In the instant case, the evidence showed that the patient had had his eye dilated upon reporting for qualification more than an hour prior to the accomplishment of the procedure. In the course of the qualification and the procedure evaluations, he had been examined by numerous people. This is not an unusual set of circumstances in an examination situation. It would, however, prolong the procedure and certain individuals tear more than others. As a result, it is possible that in these circumstances, the patient would excessively tear and the fluorescein dye used to present the mires could wash out, giving an improper reading. Here, one examiner indicated he was unable to identify or observe any mires. If the probe used to measure pressure were touching the eye and no mires were presented, that would mean there was no dye left on the eye. However, if the probe was not touching the eye, there would be no mires presented even if there was dye in the eye. Petitioner's witness, Dr. Perry, an expert in ophthalmology, has often had dye wash out of an eye because of excess tearing and has often had difficulty in getting a pressure reading. It can quite often take longer than the 2 minutes allowed during the examination for the procedure and is sometime impossible to get under any circumstances. Aplination tonometry is not a difficult procedure to learn and its use is not reserved to ophthalmologists or optometrists. Routinely, technicians are easily taught to perform it and do so on a repeated basis. Petitioner has worked for an ophthalmologist in the Sarasota area for 5 years as a technician and has done many of the procedures on which he was tested during the examination in issue. Petitioner has done thousands of aplination tonometry procedures and in fact, has performed the procedure on Perry. In those cases of which Dr. Perry is aware, including his own, the procedure was done properly. Dr. Parry agrees that the time limit of 2 minutes allotted at the examination is not unrealistic in the normal situation. However, the procedure often takes more than 2 minutes to perform, and when it does, that fact is usually indicative of a problem with the patient, not the tester. Based on his personal experience with Petitioner's demonstrated ability to properly perform the aplination dynamotor procedure, he is "flabbergasted" that Petitioner had problems with it during the examination. There is more than one way to apply fluorescein dye to an eye for the purpose of pollination dynamotor. One is to apply the fluorescein by strip and the other is to apply a mixture of dye and anesthetic by dropper. The latter method requires a 30 to 60 second wait after application to allow the excess solution to wash out. However, that procedure was not used in this examination, and the strip, which allows immediate application of the probe and observation of mires, was. In the instant case, the patient's eye had been dilated for over an hour when the examiner placed the anesthetic in the eye to be examined and told Petitioner to begin. Petitioner started immediately but was unable to get a mire even though he saw the glow in the patient's eye which indicates the probe was touching the eye as appropriate. When he checked the equipment and found it to be operating properly, he realized that the dye had washed out of the eye because of the tearing and he was attempting to begin the process again when the examiner indicated he had run out of time. Though Petitioner claims the amount of time he was given was improperly measured, he is unable to establish that by any independent evidence. When he asked the examiners for a second opportunity, allegedly he was advised, "Don't worry about it. It's only one question." After the examination, he thought about filing an objection card but, since he claims to have been advised by another optometrist, "not to make waves", he decided against it. Petitioner claims that the examination was fatally flawed for several reasons. The first is that Examiner 60, he claims, was routinely different and more strict with him than was Examiner 54. Rebuttal evidence presented by Ms. Loewe, the examination specialist, indicates, however, that for this examination, Examiner 60 generally graded higher than others across the board. Petitioner also claims that the routine order of tests was not as recommended by experts. Generally, certain procedures are to be accomplished in a certain sequence in a routine examination. Petitioner overlooks, however, that regardless of the sequence of procedures, the examination was not a routine "patient" examination but an examination of the applicant's ability to perform the procedures in question. The considerations dictating a certain sequence in a clinical examination may not be pertinent to the sequence appropriate for a candidate examination, and this argument is without merit. Petitioner also questions the anonymity of the candidate which prevents a knowledge of the candidate's other background and unexamined qualifications. Anonymity is designed to allow a candidate to demonstrate for examiners the substance of his knowledge and skill, is routine, and is found to be appropriate. Further, he claims the location of the examination, the time limit, and the other factors surrounding the conduct of the examination promote nervousness in the candidate and hinder the candidate in his performance of the required procedures to the best of his ability. There was no independent evidence to support this contention or to demonstrate that had the examination been conducted under other circumstances, Petitioner or any other examinee would have performed differently. There are legitimate reasons for the actions taken by the Board, considering the way the examination was conducted. Admittedly the order of tests to be given is not included in the study guide, and the applicant would not know in advance in what order the procedures would be accomplished, but he would have advance information as to which procedures would be examined. Petitioner also pointed out that the patient upon whom he performed the procedures was a stranger to him and that because of his unfamiliarity with the patient and his background, he sustained a handicap more severe than the other candidates. This contention is without merit. All new patients are strangers to the optometrist when they first come for examination. In any case, the candidate is not being asked to treat a patient, but to demonstrate his ability to properly accomplish certain procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's scores on the September 16 - 18, 1988 optometry examination, as revised prior to hearing, be sustained except for that awarded in Question 16, Clinical II, and that he be awarded an additional two (2) points for his performance of that procedure. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth W. Gerke, pro se 1831 Mid Ocean Circle Sarasota, Florida 34239 Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary DPR 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel DPR 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Pat Guilford Executive Director Board of Optometry 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for her response to Question 36 or for her response to Question 41 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the Chiropractic Licensure Examination administered in November 2000.
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 X-ray portion. The X-ray portion consists of 60 multiple-choice questions, with each question having four possible answers. A chiropractic or pathology film is displayed for each question. The candidates are instructed to select from four possible answers the best answer to the written question pertaining to the accompanying film. The candidates are given 90 seconds to answer each question. The X-ray portion of the examination tests minimal competency and does not provide the candidates a certification or specialty in the field of radiology. Petitioner received a failing score on the X-ray portion of the examination. A candidate must correctly answer 45 of the 60 scores to pass. Petitioner received credit for correctly answering 44 questions. If Petitioner is awarded credit for correctly answering Question 36 or Question 41, she will be entitled to a passing score on the X-ray portion of the examination as well as the over-all examination. The written portion of Question 36 described certain symptoms being experienced by a 60-year-old female. The X-ray depicted a patient whose trachea was deviated to the left of its usual position. Candidates were asked to select the answer that best responded to the question "what is your impression of the radiograph." The parties agree that two of the four answers were incorrect. The other two answers will be referred to as Answer A and Answer B. Answer A, the answer Respondent considered the correct answer, was that the radiograph showed the trachea was deviated to the left of its usual position. Answer B, the answer selected by Petitioner, is a possible reason the trachea was deviated to the left. Petitioner agrees that the radiograph showed that the trachea was deviated to the left, but argues that because the question asks for the candidate's impression, she should attempt to answer why the body part was deviated. 2/ The written portion of the question and the radiograph do not provide sufficient information for a candidate to determine that Answer B was the reason the trachea was deviated to the left. Additional testing would be required before a practitioner could reach a correct diagnosis for the cause of the deviation. Answer A was the best answer to Question 36. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for her answer to Question 36 because her answer was not the best answer to the question. The written portion of Question 41 advised that the candidate's examination of a patient did not find a reason for the patient's mild back pain. The candidate was required to select the best answer to the question "[w]hat does the X-ray disclose." The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the only correct answer was the answer selected by Respondent as being the correct answer. Petitioner concedes that the X-ray disclosed what Respondent asserted was the correct answer, but chose another answer because Respondent's answer would not account for the patient's pain. Petitioner chose the answer that the X-ray disclosed a bilateral fracture. There was a dispute among the experts as to whether the X-ray contained jagged lines, which would indicate a fracture. Respondent's expert testified that there were no significant jagged areas. Dr. Stern testified that there may be some jagged areas, but that further testing would be necessary to reveal a fracture. Dr. Richard Santo testified that there were jagged areas that disclosed a severe fracture. The conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that the X-ray did not clearly disclose an area that had been fractured and did not disclose a bilateral fracture. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for her answer to Question 41 because her answer was not the best answer to the question. Respondent's psychometrician evaluated the responses to Question 36 and Question 41, and found that both questions performed at an acceptable level. For Question 36, 77% of the candidates who took the examination with Petitioner chose Respondent's correct answer, while 17% of the candidates choose Petitioner's answer. For Question 41, 74% of the candidates chose Respondent's answer, and 24% chose Petitioner's answer.
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 her responses to Questions 36 and 41 of the X-ray portion of the Chiropractic Licensure Examination administered in November 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of October, 2001.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's license to practice medicine based on allegations that the Respondent violated the standard of care, specifically Subsection 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes, by allegedly inappropriately or excessively prescribing legend drugs and by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment recognized as acceptable by reasonably prudent physicians under similar conditions and circumstances. It must also be determined, if any of the alleged violations are proven, what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the entry into practice and the regulation of practice of licensed physicians in the State of Florida. That statutory authority includes ascertaining whether physicians practice in accordance with the appropriate standard of care, including determinations of whether and to what degree disciplinary sanctions should be imposed, by standard set forth in Subsection 458.331, Florida Statutes. The Respondent at all times material hereto has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida. He holds license No. ME0010390. The Respondent is board-certified in surgery and thoracic surgery and has been most recently employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) as a physician and Assistant Medical Director at the NFRC. This is a DOC facility in Lake Butler, Florida, which medically screens and processes prison inmates before they are transferred to a permanent prison location. It also provides, through a 130-bed hospital, care and treatment for inmates around the state for non-emergency conditions. The NFRC hospital does not have an intensive care unit but the DOC has a contract to provide care for emergency or complicated medical cases with the Memorial Medical Center in Jacksonville for the performance of any complex or emergency surgeries. The DOC contracted with a private company to provide surgical facilities at the NFRC for minor surgery. This includes hernia repairs and liver biopsies. The private facility maintains a "mobile surgical unit" located a few hundred yards from the NFRC hospital. This unit is not designed for serious post-surgical complications. In order to perform any surgery at this mobile surgical unit an independently-contracted surgical consultant must request the DOC to approve the surgery. Then the requested surgery must be reviewed and approved through a utilization management process. Finally, the recommended surgery is reviewed by Dr. Azcuy, the Medical Director of NFRC. Dr. Azcuy has veto power on any surgery performed at the mobile surgical unit. Once he approves a surgery, an independently contracted surgeon performs the surgery at the mobile surgical unit. After surgery is completed at the unit the patient is then taken back to the NFRC hospital where DOC employees provide follow-up care and treatment. The Respondent, as Assistant Medical Director of the NFRC hospital, is such a DOC medical employee. The Respondent, Dr. Vontz, was born May 31, 1930, in Germany. He grew up and was educated in pre-war, war-time and post-war, occupied Germany. He received his medical education at Universities in Hamburg and Freiburg, Germany, as well as at the University of Florida and the University of Michigan in the United States. He has been an Assistant Medical Professor at the University of Florida/Shands Medical Center and is board- certified in surgery and in thoracic surgery. He became a United States citizen in 1961 and located his practice primarily in Jacksonville, Florida. He practiced thoracic surgery in Jacksonville, Florida, from the early 1960's until his initial retirement on December 31, 1993. He was primarily responsible for organizing and initiating the first cardiac surgery unit and surgical team in Jacksonville, Florida. His practice involved any type of surgical intervention in the chest cavity including heart, lungs, major vessels, diaphragm, as well as open-heart surgery. He performed open-heart surgery in Jacksonville from 1965 to 1993. After initially retiring from the performance of heart surgery in 1993, Dr. Vontz was unsatisfied with retirement and returned to work as the medical director of Methodist Medical Center in Jacksonville. As Medical Director he supervised physicians and observed and monitored their manner and means of practice. He also became medical director of Champion Health Care, a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO). When Champion Health Care closed its operations in Jacksonville due to financial circumstances in 1996, Dr. Vontz went to work as an employed physician at NFRC as Senior Physician and Assistant Medical Director. He was thus an employee of the Department of Corrections at that point. Dr. Vontz stays current in knowledge of medicine and proper medical practice by participating in continuing medical education. He has never before been the object of a complaint concerning his medical practice and his rendition of medical care for patients. The Surgical Procedures A liver biopsy is a sampling of the tissue of the liver. A percutaneous liver biopsy can be performed with a closed abdomen, involving no incision. It can be done "blindly" meaning without a CT scan or laproscopic instrument for guidance of the insertion and placement of the biopsy needle device. The standard of care requires a surgeon to continue making passes or inserting a needle until an appropriate sample in obtained. The requirement of making three passes of the needle to obtain an adequate sample is probably within the standard of care. The making of four passes, as was the case with this patient, T.C., may or may not be within the standard of care. The standard of care does not specifically determine the number of passes permitted or required. The procedure for a percutaneous liver biopsy involves the use of a "trecut needle." That is a needle with a hollow metal sheath designed to allow the insertion of the needle device into the liver with the hollow sheath taking a core sample of the liver tissue, which is then withdrawn for laboratory analysis. The appropriate standard of care for such a liver biopsy, done blindly, is for the patient to be in a sitting position. This allows gravity to force the organs, including the colon and intestine in the area of the liver, to fall away from the vicinity of the liver somewhat so as to avoid some of the risk of puncturing a hollow intestine or "hollow viscous" organ with the needle. The standard of care would also require that the procedure be done under a local anesthetic so that the patient remains conscious and can demonstrate to the surgeon performing the procedure through reaction to excessive pain, etc., when the procedure may have gone awry through improper placement of the needle device. The two surgical procedures performed on patient T.C. were the percutaneous liver biopsy, with a trecut needle, and a left, inguinal hernia repair. These procedures were performed on the same surgical occasion and were performed under a general, endotracheal anesthesia with the patient on the operating table in a supine position for both procedures. Patient T.C. was a 33-year-old male. He had a left, inguinal hernia which required repair and the attendant liver biopsy procedure was performed on him because he suffered from "Hepititis C." The procedures were performed on April 14, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. by Dr. Zomorodian, a board-certified surgeon and independent contractor for the DOC. The liver biopsy in the upper quadrant required four "runs" or "passes" in order to obtain a specimen. A "gooey substance" was obtained in the trecut biopsy needle. On April 14, 1998, at approximately 9:30 a.m., right after the surgical procedures were performed, Dr. Zomorodian wrote a hand-written operative note reading in pertinent part as follows: "percutaneous biopsy of liver done first the patient tolerated the procedures well- to recovery room in stable condition." This hand-written operative note was the only report of any kind available to the Respondent from Dr. Zomorodian, the operating surgeon, concerning patient T.C. On that same day however, Dr. Zomorodian also a dictated a more detailed operative report. The operative report indicated that a "gooey substance" was obtained during the liver biopsy. Operative reports, in the normal course of business, have to be typed and filed by the administrative staff and are not generally available for approximately three days. That was the case in the instant situation and the operative report was not available at any pertinent time to the case at hand for Dr. Vontz's benefit. Although the extraction of a "gooey substance" does not automatically mean that a bowel or hollow viscous organ has been perforated by the biopsy needle, for instance it could possibly have been a substance obtained from the diseased portion of a patient's liver, it is a strong indication that a hollow viscous organ, for instance the colon, has been penetrated by the needle. The presence of the gooey substance in the biopsy needle specimen should have placed T.C.'s surgeon, Dr. Zomorodian, on notice that a complication had occurred during the liver biopsy, including the likelihood of perforation of a hollow viscous organ such as the colon or other intestinal portion. It is significant that Dr. Zomorodian, after patient T.C.'s death, asked the hospital staff to change his dictated and typed operative note to remove reference to the "gooey substance". The DOC's hospital staff refused to do so. The operative procedures were finished by 9:23 a.m. on April 14, 1998. The patient was removed to the recovery room of the mobile surgical unit and at 9:43 a.m. was given 50 milligrams of Demerol intravenously for pain. At 10:30 a.m. he was moved from the surgical unit to the second floor of the NFRC hospital. Dr. Zomorodian expected him to have pain subsequent to the liver biopsy and hernia repair. At 9:30 a.m. that morning he ordered Demerol in the amount of 75 milligrams with Phenergan intramuscularly on an as-needed basis for pain and also ordered Tylenol No. 3, one or two tablets every three hours for pain. Tylenol No. 3 contains codeine. This analgesic pain medication order by Dr. Zomorodian, according to normal written protocol for the hospital, was to be in effect for three days. Post-Operative Care On April 14, 1998, during the course of the day after surgery, T.C. complained of pain. He was given Demerol and Phenergan (25 milligrams) at 11:00 a.m., 2:30 p.m., and 10:00 p.m., in accordance with Dr. Zomorodian's standard medication order and protocol. Phenergan is a drug used to accentuate the effect of Demerol. T.C. at age 14 began to use marijuana and to drink alcoholic beverages at the age of 16. By age 20 he had started cocaine use. As shown by Dr. Lynn's testimony a patient with a drug history such as this is more resistant to pain medications and requires more of them to alleviate pain than someone who has not used such drugs on a frequent and recurring basis. T.C., in the recovery room, was given 50 milligrams of Demerol intravenously. Dr. Lynn established that this medication approximately an hour after surgery would be abnormal for a hernia repair and an uneventful liver biopsy, if such were the case, especially after receiving 20 cc's of 0.5% marcaine containing epinephrine at the end of the operation in addition to the general anesthetic which has it own pain reliever in it. The installation of the marcaine with the epinephrine should have alleviated any immediate wound pain associated with the surgical procedures. During the afternoon of April 14, 1998, the Respondent was asked by the charge nurse to examine T.C. because of her suspicion that T.C. was complaining of pain merely as a ruse to obtain drugs. The Respondent assessed the patient and determined that his complaints of pain were genuine and so he continued the medication order according to Dr. Zomorodian's standing order. Dr. Vontz had no reason to believe that the patient was having any complication or acute distress at that point and therefore went home at his usual time of approximately 4:00 p.m. His normal working hours were 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Other senior physicians and emergency room physicians were present or on-call during evening and early morning hours under the standard operating procedure of the hospital. Dr. Vontz returned to the hospital at approximately 6:30 to 7:00 a.m. on the morning of April 15, 1998, and saw the patient at 7:15 a.m. The pain medication had been continued according to Dr. Zomorodian's order with the last Demerol injection, with Phenergan, occurring at approximately 4:05 a.m. that morning. The patient had not urinated during the day on April 14 until approximately 5:00 p.m. when he voided 300 cc's of urine with pain. When the Respondent examined the patient at 7:15 a.m. on April 15 he found and noted in his record: "abdomen tightly distended ?? rebound. Will treat as acute abdomen and follow closely." An abdomen described as "tightly distended" means that the abdomen is tense, firm and swollen. "Rebound" means that the physician has placed pressure on the abdomen with his fingers and upon release of the pressure the patient has pain. "Acute abdomen" is severe abdominal pain that could occur for a number of reasons. It could be a potentially catastrophic event needing immediate surgical intervention (abdominal exploratory surgery). It may be caused by a disease process secondary to a perforated bowel or ruptured appendix for which immediate surgery is indicated, or it may result from conditions such as a subscapsular hematoma (blood under the membrane capsule enclosing the liver), an ileous or blockage of an intestine, or may be pain resulting from a "shutdown" or failure of bowel function. It is not uncommon when abdominal surgery, even a hernia repair, has occurred that for a certain period of time, due to possible contact with the bowel during surgery, that the bowel will simply cease to function temporarily or have a halt to the peristalic movement of the bowel. Dr. Vontz thus made a decision to treat T.C. condition as an acute abdomen and then follow the patient closely to try and diagnose whether the abdominal distress was caused by a catastrophic event such as a perforated bowel requiring surgical intervention (surgically acute abdomen) or whether some other non-infectious disease process or condition was occurring causing the abdominal pain in which case it would be termed and diagnosed as a "medically acute abdomen," not necessarily requiring surgical intervention. Thus the standard of care required that the Respondent attempt to determine the underlying cause of the acute abdomen which he did by ordering a number of diagnostic tests or procedures. He also placed the patient at "NPO," meaning no nourishment or liquids by mouth. He ordered fluids administered intravenously at the rate of 150 cc's per hour, ordered an upright and "flat plate" X-ray of the abdomen and chest and additionally ordered a "stat CBC" meaning an immediate complete blood count. The stat blood count was designed to show whether white blood cell counts were elevated, which would indicate that an infectious process was going on which would require surgical exploration to determine if the colon and/or another organ had been penetrated, required repair and emergency treatment for infection. At 11:10 a.m. on the morning of April 15, Dr. Vontz also ordered a catheterization for T.C. because of the previously noted problem of low urine output. At 12:15 p.m. Dr. Vontz met with the radiologist, Dr. V. M. Saenz, and evaluated the chest and abdominal X-rays. It was their joint opinion that the chest X-ray was not remarkable. The abdominal X-ray did not show any air or fluid levels which the Respondent would expect if a perforated bowel had occurred. The presence of air (gas) or fluid would indicate the perforation of a hollow viscous organ, such as the colon. The X-ray did show a large amount of feces in the colon however. Because of the history of the recent liver biopsy the possibility of a subcapsular hematoma of the liver was considered. A subcapsular hematoma is the accumulation of blood and fluid within the membrane capsule surrounding the liver and could occur due to bleeding from the penetration of the liver by the biopsy needle. In order to investigate that possibility a CT scan of the abdomen was ordered by the Respondent and performed. The CT scan was requested on an emergency basis and performed at 1:47 p.m. on April 15. A CT scan images a patient in "slices" giving a three dimensional picture of the area in question so that the patient can be observed for any abnormalities. Drs. Vontz and Saenz interpreted the CT scan of the abdomen as follows: . . . a crescent-shaped, hypodense collection of fluid is demonstrated along the supra lateral portion of the liver. Although this could correspond to a liquefied subcapsular hematoma taking into consideration that the liver biopsy was performed yesterday . . . would expect this to be of higher density . . . there are also several fluid filled distended loops of small bowel in the left upper quadrant which most probably correspond to jejunum. Because, in effect, the collection of fluid referenced in this quoted note is not of sufficient density to be recognized as a collection of blood along the supra lateral portion of the liver, it was determined that this was serum or other fluid. Thus on April 15th at 4:00 p.m. Dr. Vontz ruled out a subcapsular hemorrhage, thus ruling out both blood and "free air" in the abdomen. In cases where the colon or other hollow viscous organ is penetrated the presence of "free air" or gas is noted in approximately 75% of the cases. Thus the lack of it is indicative, although not conclusive, of the lack of a perforation of a hollow viscous organ. When the Respondent saw the patient at 7:15 on the morning of April 15th and ordered the stat CBC the blood count was then made, some 22 to 24 hours post-surgery. The blood count showed a white blood cell count of 4.6 with the upper end of the normal range being 12.3. Thus the white blood cell count, a marker for infection, appeared entirely normal. The neutrophil portion of the blood count revealed a slightly elevated reading or a slight abnormality. Neutrophils are immature white blood cells which, if abnormally high, can indicate the presence of infection. Because they were only slightly elevated that did not really indicate infection to the Respondent since they can normally occur after surgery. A slight elevation can normally be attributed to atelectasis, a condition associated with the fact that the patient had had a general anesthesia and therefore somewhat decreased lung function as well as an abdominal operation which subsequently resulted in severe pain in the abdomen, which can cause a slight elevation in the neutrophil count. The normal white blood cell count, with only a slight increase in neutrophil reading and the absence of any significant elevated temperature on April 15th understandably resulted in the Respondent's not concluding that any infectious process was going on at that point. This is certainly an abnormal presentation of symptoms by a patient, who upon autopsy, was proven to have had a large, two centimeter perforation of the colon, with a massive peritonitis infection. In such a patient it is highly unusual for more blatant signs of an infectious process, including a significantly elevated, white blood cell count, not to have occurred 24 hours after the surgical procedure which resulted in the perforation. On April 15th at 4:00 p.m., Dr. Vontz ruled out a subcapsular hematoma or hemorrhage and ruled out blood and free air being present in the abdomen. The CT scan however, did show the presence of a fluid collection in the vicinity of the liver, as found above. Also on April 15th at 5:00 p.m., Dr. Vontz ordered the placement of nasogastric tube in the patient in order to prevent his swallowing air and causing further distention of the alimentary tract. At 7:00 p.m. that evening the patient removed the nasogastric tube on his own and refused to have it replaced. He was uncooperative with care throughout that shift even when the nurse explained the necessity of his treatment. On the morning of April 15th at 6:30 a.m., just before the Respondent saw him, T.C.'s vital signs were within normal limits. At 1:25 p.m. that day, some 29 hours after the liver biopsy, his vital signs were still within normal limits. His blood pressure was 134/88, his temperature was 97.4, his heart rate was 110, and his respiratory rate was 20 at 1:25 on April 15th. Thus he was still not demonstrating an infectious process some 29 hours after the surgical procedure involved. On April 15, 1998, at approximately 5:00 p.m. the patient's abdomen remained distended, without audible bowel sounds and he continued to complain of pain. His urine was dark and concentrated. Once again, in accordance with Dr. Zomorodian's orders, was given Demerol at approximately 5:00 p.m. on April 15th. On April 16, at approximately 6:25 a.m., T.C. was restless and continued to complain of severe pain, he was again given Demerol. At 6:22 a.m. on the morning of April 16th approximately 46 hours subsequent to the liver biopsy, his vital signs were still within normal limits. At 8:00 a.m. that morning Dr. Vontz ordered that he be maintained on NPO status; that intravenous fluids be decreased to 100 cc's per hours and that he be given a dulcolax suppository because of his bowel status. T.C., as a result, had a large emptying of the bowel, which made him feel grossly better. During his interview with Dr. Vontz at approximately noon that day he was able to stand at his bedside and sit by his bedside and converse with Dr. Vontz. At 8:45 that morning of April 16th, Dr. Vontz had ordered a "stat Chem 20 test." The "Chem 20" revealed hemoconcentration or concentration of the blood, which indicated dehydration. At 12:40 p.m. on April 16th, Dr. Vontz ordered a foley catheter inserted in the patient's bladder and ordered another Chem 20 test of his blood for April 17th. He also ordered clear liquids for T.C. since he seemed to be feeling better after the bowel movement and the Respondent felt he could take clear liquids by mouth. His urine output remained low and at 1:00 p.m. on April 16th, Dr. Vontz ordered a urine culture and sensitivity study. The urine culture was ordered by the respondent by telephone upon a nurse contacting him because he was at an in-service training seminar some half-mile away from the patients hospital floor at that time. By 1:00 p.m. the patient was very restless, becoming somewhat confused and was tachycardic, which means increased heart rate. His heart rate was as high as 159 beats per minute. He had a respiratory rate of 28 and a blood pressure of 94/64 in the afternoon of the 16th. In addition to ordering the urine culture, an electrocardiogram was performed on the patient, ordered approximately at 1:00 p.m., which revealed abnormal tachycardia. Dr. Vontz listened to T.C.'s bowel sounds on both the morning of the 15th and the morning of the 16th. His bowel sounds were returning to normal on the morning of the 16th and after receiving the suppository T.C. had a bowel movement, which gave the Respondent the impression that the patient was improving. Clinically, he exhibited no nausea, vomiting, or any sign of bowel obstruction. The low urine output and the tachycardic condition along with the elevated respiratory rate and depressed blood pressure after 1:00 p.m. on the 16th showed that the patient, however was becoming more critically ill. In retrospect it is apparent that he was in septic shock. Dr. Vontz last visited the patient at 4:30 p.m. on the 16th. He determined that he should be transported to Memorial Hospital for more aggressive care, including surgical exploration of the abdomen to attempt to determine the cause of his condition. The Respondent elected however, because of the lateness in the day to avoid confusion and discontinuity in his care and treatment by having him transported early the following morning. Dr. Vontz felt there would be less likelihood of delay or interruption in the level of care for the patient than if he arrived at the critical care hospital in the middle of the evening. After seeing the patient at approximately 4:30 p.m., Dr. Vontz went home but remained in telephone communication with the hospital, medical staff and the registered nurse on duty. At approximately 8:15 p.m. on the 16th Katherine Kravitz, R.N., called Dr. Vontz informing him that T.C. had "spiked a fever," measured at the axcilla (armpit) at 103 degrees. She also advised the Respondent that the Chem 20 test had been returned and demonstrated a BUN of 55. Dr. Vontz determined that this demonstrated hemoconcentration, indicating dehydration. Dr. Vontz therefore increased his fluids intravenously to 150 cc's per hour. He also ordered Lasix to be provided, as a "one-shot" medication, because he was concerned about T.C.'s kidney function being substandard, in view of the rising BUN reading and because the fluid was being increased to 150 cc's per hour. He wanted to be sure that T.C. was able to void sufficient urine to accommodate the increase in intravenous fluid. He learned that T.C. had adequate kidney function to accommodate the increase in IV fluid administration. He also ordered at this time that T.C. be given Fortaz at 1 gram every 8 hours intravenously. Fortaz is an antibiotic specifically designed to attack abdominal infectious processes especially attributable to escherichia coli (e-coli) contamination in the abdomen. Dr. Vontz was of the belief that the sudden temperature elevation indicated that there had been a sudden burst of infection. Up to the point of the telephone call at 8:15 the evening of the 16th T.C.'s temperatures had not been significantly elevated, although other of his vital signs on the afternoon of the 16th had indicated abnormality, involving low blood pressure, elevated respiratory rate and tachycardia, as found above. Dr. Vontz called nurse Kravitz at 11:00 p.m. on April 16th and learned that T.C.'s temperature was down from 103 to 100.6 degrees. This led him to believe that the antibiotic administration and the IV fluid therapy was improving the patient. Earlier on April 16th at approximately 4:30 p.m. in response to the patient's restlessness and continued severe pain the Respondent had ordered Ativan and Morphine, as well as placing him in restraints and a posey vest. The Ativan and restraints were ordered because of his restlessness and anxiety. The Morphine is a narcotic stronger than Demerol in its analgesic properties. Patient T.C. at 6:00 p.m. that day was still confused and his urine was dark amber in color, indicating dehydration. Throughout the late night of April 16, 1998, the nursing notes indicated that the patient was moaning and groaning without verbal response and was no longer fighting against his restraints. In retrospect it is clear that he was dying. The information given Dr. Vontz when he called the nurse to check on the patient at approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 16th, and learned that the patient's temperature was down to 100.6 and that his other vital signs were returning to normal levels, indicated to him that the antibiotic and intravenous fluid therapy was helping the patient to improve. Curiously, the hospital records indicate that on the early morning of April 17th at 1:15 a.m., the patient's temperature was 100.6, his pulse rate was down to 80, and his respiratory rate was 24 with blood pressure at 100/60, indicating vital signs returning to normal levels. At 3:45 a.m. on April 17th however, T.C. was found to be without vital signs and was shortly thereafter pronounced dead. Thus, within 55 hours of the attempted liver biopsy by Dr. Zomorodian, T.C. was dead. Upon autopsy, it was found that he had a two centimeter diameter hole in his colon which caused significant release of e-coli bacteria into T.C.'s abdominal cavity, resulting in massive, acute bacterial peritonitis. Dr. Vontz arose at his home at approximately 4:00 a.m. on the morning of April 17th to go to the hospital to arrange for the patient's transfer to the acute facility at Memorial Medical Center. He was shocked to arrive and find that the patient had died. The patient had been seen on the night of the 16th and early morning of the 17th by the emergency room physician on duty, Dr. Edwards. Emergency room physicians are involved in continuing the treatment of in-house patients at NFRC when attending physicians are off-duty. Analysis of Responsibility The medical examiner, Dr. Hamilton, who performed the autopsy on T.C. found the two centimeter hole in the proximal transverse colon. The proximal transverse colon is on the right side of T.C.'s body adjacent to the liver. This clearly demonstrated that the attempted liver biopsy by Dr. Zomorodian caused the perforation of the colon in the vicinity of the liver. The patient had been given 50 milligrams of intravenous Demerol at 9:43 a.m. by Dr. Zomorodian's order. This need for medication only approximately an hour after surgery would be abnormal for a hernia repair and an uneventful liver biopsy. Less than an hour after receiving this Demerol T.C. was moved out of the surgical unit recovery room and taken to "two West" in the NFRC hospital. When transferred to the NFRC hospital it would have been certainly appropriate for Dr. Zomorodian to admonish, in his post-operative note, as testified to by Dr. Lynn, that "we may have caused this patient some problems, we did four sticks, we came back with a gooey substance, watch this patient carefully." Instead Dr. Zomorodian only made a cryptic post- operative note to the effect that the liver biopsy was done, with no more description than the fact that it was done. Although he dictated and had typed a more elaborate post-operative note that mentioned the gooey substance, this was not available at any time to Dr. Vontz during his care of the patient. Moreover, Dr. Zomorodian attempted to have the reference to the gooey substance edited out of his post-operative note, which the hospital staff quite correctly refused to do. The surgeon performing the surgical procedures, under the protocol of the American College of Surgeons and the NFRC protocol should not delegate post- operative care to someone else, under normal circumstances. If that surgeon cannot be involved in the post-operative care, he must communicate in a very clear and unequivocal fashion, to one who has been delegated the post-operative care, all information concerning the surgical procedure and the care of the patient while the patient was under his care and treatment, which Dr. Zomorodian did not do. It was thus incumbent upon Dr. Zomorodian to make certain that there was effective follow-up care for his patient but there is nothing in the record to indicate that Dr. Zomorodian ever called anyone associated with the NFRC hospital, post-operatively, to check on his patient or to provide them information concerning the patient. Be that as it may, the Respondent, in the absence of any information from Dr. Zomorodian, in following the appropriate standard of care, should have contacted Dr. Zomorodian as the surgeon of record during the course of the care of T.C., and he failed to do so. Dr. Vontz also departed from the appropriate standard of care in several other particulars. First, he failed to adequately recognize and act on the knowledge produced by the CT scan that there was a fluid collection, which did not appear to be blood, in the vicinity of the liver. This clue, learned by the Respondent and the radiologist at approximately 4:00 p.m. on April 15th would seem to indicate that aggressive, surgical intervention early in this patient's course of care was in order. Moreover, in the face of the patient's continuing symptoms, and even though the initial complete blood count did not show an elevated white cell count, and thus did not seem to indicate infection, a later CBC should have been ordered on April 15th or even April 16th; particularly on the morning of April 16th in a continuing effort to rule out an infectious process beginning in the patient. This was not done after the initial CBC was obtained on the morning of April 15th. Additionally, compliance with an appropriate standard of care would dictate that by the early afternoon of April 16th, with the presence of tachycardia, depressed blood pressure, elevated respiratory rate, and the continuing severe abdominal pain, that the Respondent should have transferred the patient to Memorial Medical Center that afternoon for more aggressive treatment. The decision to transfer him did not occur until early in the evening of the 16th and then the Respondent, for the reasons found above, decided not to effect the actual transfer until early the following morning, by which time it was, of course, too late. Although the Respondent was not clearly alerted to an infectious process until the high temperature which occurred after 8:00 p.m. on the night of the 16th, the other critical symptoms earlier in that afternoon should have compelled him to have the patient transferred to the acute care facility. Indeed, if a CBC had been ordered to look at white blood cell count earlier on the 16th or even on the afternoon of the 15th the progress of the infection might have been detected even though it was not resulting in any significant increase in body temperature. Thus, in these particulars, the Respondent must be found to have violated the appropriate standard of care as well as in the fact that during the day on April 16th he did not make progress notes outlining his treatment plan. That is not a finding that he had no treatment plan, however. Taking a more prophylactic, cautious view of the results of the CT scan and the ordering of an additional CBC on late April 15th or early on April 16th might have pointed him toward a finding of the existence of a surgical problem rather than a medically acute abdomen problem. This would have impelled him to effect aggressive surgical intervention earlier, with the possibility of saving the patient. In fairness to Dr. Vontz it should be pointed out that infectious peritonitis is a rapid and devastating illness, but death within the third day of contamination is a bit rapid and unusual. Moreover, traditionally a patient experiencing one or more perforations of the colon usually evolves a clearly discernable infectious process around the 24th hour after the perforation occurs. The medications ordered and administered by the surgeon, Dr. Zomorodian, could have masked some symptoms and led the later care-giver astray as to the evolving signs and symptoms of a perforated viscous for a time. T.C.'s infectious process presented in an unusual manner. A typical patient would demonstrate severe illness, with nausea, vomiting, and severe pain. In the vast majority of cases he would exhibit free air or gas under the diaphragm and would have an elevated white blood cell count fairly early, with associated elevated body temperature or fever and chills. Dr. Vontz indeed considered the issue of a perforated bowel and performed the above-found tests in an effort to find evidence of it. He believed the test results, including the complete blood cell count did not produce evidence to support the existence of a perforated bowel. In fact, however, the abnormality on the CT scan involving hypodense fluid in the vicinity of the liver should have alerted him to that potential and he should have ordered an updated complete blood cell count which might have told him of the advancing infectious process at an early enough time to have saved the patient. In fact, the evidence demonstrates that the time period between 12 hours and 48 hours after such a perforation and inoculation with e-coli bacteria occurs is critical and that after 48 hours without aggressive, surgical intervention it is improbable that such a patient can be saved. A more aggressive approach to the result of the CT scan abnormality, an updated complete blood cell count and contact with the surgeon involved would have been a more appropriate standard of care and might have compelled Dr. Vontz to have acted more quickly in having the patient transported for more critical intensive care.
Recommendation Accordingly, having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, in the above-found and concluded manner, and not guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, and that, as a penalty therefor the Respondent shall: Complete 50 hours of continuing medical education in surgery; Complete the Florida Medical Association Quality Medical Records Course; Remain on a probationary status for a period of one year with the probationary term to require a review of 25% of the Respondent's medical records by a supervising physician approved by the Board of Medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristy Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Thomas R. Brown, Esquire Brown, Terrell, Hogan, Ellis, McClamma and Yegelwel, P.A. Blackstone Building, Eighth Floor 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the podiatry licensure examination administered by the Respondent in July, 1989, receiving a grade of 66.9%, with 241 correct answers. A score of 75%, with 270 correct answers, is required to pass the examination for licensure. This podiatry examination was developed by the Bureau of Examination Services in conjunction with consultants who served as "item writers", and Florida licensed podiatrists. Five Florida licensed podiatrists selected items written by the various consultants from a bank of questions available for the 1989 examination. Competent substantial evidence was not introduced on behalf of the Petitioner to establish that the examination was in any way flawed in its preparation or method of selecting the actual questions used on this exam. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the grades which the Petitioner received on the July, 1989, podiatry licensure 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 grades he received on the July, 1989, podiatry licensure examination. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 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 7th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2803 Despite waiting an additional seven days until April 25, 1991, as requested by counsel for the Petitioner in his letter filed on April 19, 1991, no proposed recommended order was filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Melvyn G. Greenspahn, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 404 Miami, FL 33137 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 Podiatry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Florida Medical Association and Florida Association of Physicians Assistants have standing to initiate this challenge to the proposed rules. (See Section 120.56(3) Florida Statutes.) Whether proposed Rules 64B1-4.010 and 64B1-4.011, Florida Administrative Code, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority because they exceed the Board of Acupuncture's rulemaking authority contained in Section 457.104, Florida Statutes. (See Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes.) Whether proposed Rules 64B1-4.010 and 64B1-4.011, Florida Administrative Code, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority because they enlarge, modify, or contravene the provisions of Section 457.102, Florida Statutes. (See Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes.)
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner FMA is organized and maintained for the benefit of approximately 16,000 licensed allopathic and osteopathic Florida physicians. FMA's standing in this proceeding has always been at issue. The foregoing stipulation encompasses all of the factual allegations about Petitioner contained in the Petition. Dr. Steven West, an allopathic physician licensed in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and a member of FMA, testified as follows: Well, we have two interests. Certainly one interest is that we want to make certain that only qualified individuals and practitioners treat patients and diagnose patients because we have an interest in the health and welfare of the people of the State of Florida. Secondly, we have an interest in making certain that all of the hard work and time that we have spent in our training remains valuable and is considered unique and important. And so we have a concern about the devaluation of the practice of medicine. (TR-17) It was stipulated that there is only one Respondent, the Board of Acupuncture, created by the Florida Legislature and placed within the Florida Department of Health. It is axiomatic that Respondent has standing herein. There were no stipulations as to the standing of either intervenor, and both the Board and FSOMA have asserted in their respective Proposed Final Orders that FAPA, as well as FMA, is without standing to bring this rule challenge. However, no party has contested the veracity of the factual statements concerning standing in either Petition to Intervene, and no party opposed intervention. The Petitions to Intervene of FAPA and FSOMA were granted, subject to proving-up standing at hearing. Even stipulations as to standing do not preclude consideration of standing as a matter of law. Florida Medical Ass'n., Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Health, Florida Bd. of Nursing, et al., DOAH Case No. 99-5337RP (Final Order March 13, 2000), per curiam affirmed Bd. of Nursing, et al. v. Florida Medical Ass'n., Inc., et al, So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, under these circumstances, and applying that case, the intervenors' factual allegations for purposes of standing may be taken as true for findings of fact, but each intervenor's status still depends upon that of the respective party upon whose behalf each intervenor entered this case. Therefore, with regard to the status of FAPA, it is found that: FAPA is organized and maintained for the benefit of the licensed Florida physicians assistants who compromise [sic] its membership and has as one of its primary functions to represent the interests of its members before various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its boards. (FAPA Petition to Intervene) Therefore, with regard to the status of FSOMA, it is found that: FSOMA is a Florida nonprofit corporation comprised of over one-third of the doctors of oriental medicine and licensed acupuncturists under the regulatory aegis of the Board of Acupuncture, State of Florida Department of Health, Chapter 457, F.S., with a mission to represent the acupuncture and oriental medicine practitioner interests of its members in judicial, administrative, legislative and other proceedings. (FSOMA Petition to Intervene) The text of proposed Rule 64B1-4.010, set forth in the petition is no longer correct, because it has been altered by Notices of Change, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Rule 64B1-4.010, as currently proposed, would provide: Traditional Chinese Medical Concepts, Modern Oriental Medical Techniques. Traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques shall include acupuncture diagnosis and treatment to prevent or correct malady, illness, injury, pain, addictions, other conditions, disorders, and dysfunction of the human body; to harmonize the flow of Qi or vital force; to balance the energy and functions of a patient; and to promote, maintain, and restore health; for pain management and palliative care; for acupuncture anesthesia; and to prevent disease by the use or administration of: stimulation to acupuncture points, ah-shi points, auricular points, channels, collaterals, meridians, and microsystems which shall include the use of: akabane; allergy elimination techniques; breathing; cold; color; correspondence; cupping; dietary guidelines; electricity; electroacupuncture; electrodermal screening (EDS); exercise; eight principles; five elements; four levels; hara; heat; herbal therapy consisting of plant, animal, and/or mineral substances; infrared and other forms of light; inquiring of history; jing-luo; listening; moxibustion; needles; NAET; observation; oriental massage -- manual and mechanical methods; palpation; physiognomy; point micro-bleeding therapy; pulses; qi; xue and jin-ye; ryodoraku; san-jiao; six stages; smelling; tongue; tai qi; qi gong; wulun- baguo; yin-yang; zang-fu; Ayurvedic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Manchurian, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uighurian, Vietnamese, and other east Asian acupuncture and oriental medical concepts and treatment techniques; French acupuncture; German acupuncture including electroacupuncture and diagnosis; and, the use of laboratory test and imaging findings. (Emphasis supplied). The "authority" cited by the Board for proposed Rule 64B1-4.010 is Sections 457.102 and 457.104, Florida Statutes. The Board cites the "law implemented" for Rule 64B1- 4.010 as Section 457.102, Florida Statutes. The text of Rule 64B1-4.011, as set forth in the petition also is no longer correct, because it has been changed by Notices of Change, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Rule 64B1-4.011, as currently proposed, would provide: Diagnostic techniques which assist in acupuncture diagnosis, corroboration and monitoring of an acupuncture treatment plan or in making a determination to refer a patient to other health care providers shall include: traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques, recommendation of home diagnostic screening; physical examination; use of laboratory test findings; use of imaging films, reports, or test findings; office screening of hair, saliva and urine; muscle response testing; palpation; reflex; range of motion, sensory testing; thermography; trigger points; vital signs; first-aid; hygiene; and sanitation. (Emphasis supplied). The "authority" cited by the Board for proposed Rule 64B1-4.011 is Sections 457.102(1) and 457.104, Florida Statutes. The Board cites the "law implemented" for proposed Rule 64B1-4.011 as Section 457.102 (1), Florida Statutes. Section 457.104, Florida Statutes, currently provides: The board has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of this chapter conferring duties upon it. Section 457.102, Florida Statutes, currently provides: "Acupuncture" means a form of primary health care, based on traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques, that employs acupuncture diagnosis and treatment, as well as adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques, for the promotion, maintenance, and restoration of health and the prevention of disease. Acupuncture shall include, but not be limited to, the insertion of acupuncture needles and the application of moxibustion to specific areas of the human body and the use of electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies, as defined by board rule. "Acupuncturist" means any person licensed as provided in this chapter to practice acupuncture as a primary health care provider. "Board" means the Board of Acupuncture. "License" means the document of authorization issued by the department for a person to engage in the practice of acupuncture. "Department" means the Department of Health. "Oriental medicine" means the use of acupuncture, electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies. "Prescriptive rights" means the prescription, administration, and use of needles and devices, restricted devices, and prescription devices that are used in the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine. (Emphasis supplied) The Board asserts that the use of a comma between "other adjunctive therapies" and "as defined by board rule" in the second sentence of Section 457.102(1), Florida Statutes, establishes that the clause "as defined by board rule" applies to "the insertion of acupuncture needles and the application of moxibustion to specific areas of the human body and the use of electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies," and those practices "included but not listed." Rule 64B1-3.001, Florida Administrative Code, most recently amended February 27, 1992, addresses "adjunctive therapies" of acupuncturists as follows: Acupuncture diagnostic techniques shall include but not be limited to the use of observation, listening, smelling, inquiring, palpation, pulses, tongues, physiognomy, five element correspondence, ryordoraku, akabani, German electro acupuncture, Kirlian photography, and thermography. (Emphasis supplied). * * * Adjunctive therapies shall include but not be limited to: Nutritional counseling and the recommendation of nonprescription substances which meet the Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements, as dietary supplements to promote health; Recommendation of breathing techniques and therapeutic exercises; and Lifestyle and stress counseling; The recommendation of all homeopathic preparations approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Committee; and Herbology. This rule has not been challenged.1 Likewise, Rule 64B1-4.008, Florida Administrative Code, promulgated December 24, 2000, has not been challenged,2 and defines "adjunctive therapies," of acupuncturists as follows: Adjunctive therapies shall include the stimulation of acupuncture points, ah-shi points, auricular points, channels, collaterals, meridians, and microsystems with the use of: air; aromatherapy; color; cryotherapy; electric moxibustion; homeopathy; hyperthermia; ion pumping cords; iridology; kirlian photography; laser acupuncture; lifestyle counseling; magnet therapy; paraffin; photonic stimulation; recommendation of breathing techniques; therapeutic exercises and daily activities; sound including sonopuncture; traction; water; thermal therapy; and other adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques of traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques as set forth in Rule 64B1-4.010. (Emphasis supplied). Acupuncturists are, by law, "primary health providers." Subsections 457.102(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. (See Finding of Fact 14). A primary health care provider is a professional to whom patients can go without a referring physician and who, by diagnosis and treatment, assumes responsibility for patients' appropriate care. Allopaths and osteopaths are also primary health care providers. FSOMA asserted that the challenged rules are supported by Section 457.1085, Florida Statutes, which provides, 457.1085 Infection control--Prior to November 1, 1986, the board shall adopt rules relating to the prevention of infection, the safe disposal of any potentially infectious materials, and other requirements to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Beginning October 1, 1997, all acupuncture needles that are to be used on a patient must be sterile and disposable, and each needle may be used only once. The traditional course of education, training, and experience for allopathic physicians and osteopathic physicians involves four years of undergraduate college education, four years of medical school, one-year internship, and one to two years of residency, but is more specifically set out for licensing purposes in Sections 458.311-458.318, Florida Statutes, for allopaths, and Sections 459.0055-459.008, Florida Statutes, for osteopaths. All of these courses/periods of learning involve, to a greater or lesser degree, learning to use and interpret modern laboratory and imaging tests. The traditional course of education for acupuncturists involves only two years of college and four years of acupuncture schooling, but is more specifically set out for licensing purposes by Section 457.105, Florida Statutes. Four hours per week for one year is about the extent of training in the use and interpretation of modern laboratory tests and imaging films afforded acupuncture students. There clearly are more stringent requirements for licensure of allopaths and osteopaths than for acupuncturists. Allopaths and osteopaths clearly spend more time training in the ordering, use, and interpretation of modern laboratory tests and film imaging. As previously stated (see Finding of Fact 14), an acupuncturist, as defined by law, . . . employs acupuncture diagnosis and treatment, as well as adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques for the promotion, maintenance, and restoration of health and the prevention of disease . . .(Emphasis supplied). Section 458.305(3), Florida Statutes, defines the "practice of medicine" as "Practice of medicine" means the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. (Emphasis supplied). Section 459.003(3), Florida Statutes, defines the "practice of osteopathic medicine" as "Practice of osteopathic medicine means the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition, which practice is based in part upon educational standards and requirements which emphasize the importance of the musculoskeletal structure and manipulative therapy in the maintenance and restoration of health. (Emphasis supplied). The following statutes express the Legislature's intent with regard to regulation of acupuncturists, allopaths, and osteopaths: 457.101 Legislative Intent - The Legislature finds that the interests of the public health require the regulation of the practice of acupuncture in this state for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens while making this healing art available to those who seek it. 458.301 Purpose - The Legislature recognizes that the practice of medicine is potentially dangerous to the public if conducted by unsafe and incompetent practitioners. The Legislature finds further that it is difficult for the public to make an informed choice when selecting a physician and that the consequences of a wrong decision could seriously harm the public health and safety. The primary legislative purpose in enacting this chapter is to ensure that every physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe practice. It is the legislative intent that physicians who fall below minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public shall be prohibited from practicing in this state. 459.001 Purpose - The Legislature recognizes that the practice of osteopathic medicine is potentially dangerous to the public if conducted by unsafe and incompetent practitioners. The Legislature finds further that it is difficult for the public to make an informed choice when selecting an osteopathic physician and that the consequences of a wrong decision could seriously harm the public health and safety. The primary legislative purpose in enacting this chapter is to ensure that every osteopathic physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe and effective practice. It is the legislative intent that osteopathic physicians who fall below minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public shall be prohibited from practicing in this state. There was competent testimony that allopathic and osteopathic physicians may utilize acupuncture in the practice of their professions, as defined respectively at Sections 458.305(3) and 459.003(3), Florida Statutes. They are permitted to perform acupuncture, although their traditional course of professional education and training involves fewer (or no) hours of acupuncture education and training than are required under Chapter 457, Florida Statutes, the acupuncture practice Act. Presumably, that is because their respective professions and the Legislature have recognized that the training of allopaths and osteopaths encompasses the appropriate skills for acupuncture. However, if they perform acupuncture, they can only be disciplined under their respective practice Acts, Chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes. The Board of Acupuncture has no authority to discipline them. The record is silent as to whether or not Physicians Assistants, whether FAPA members or not, may legitimately perform acupuncture. To "practice medicine" or to "practice osteopathic medicine," as those terms have been respectively defined by Sections 458.305(3) and 459.003(3), Florida Statutes, do not render modern laboratory tests and imaging films unique to medical or osteopathic diagnosis. However, Harvey Kaltsas, a Florida-licensed acupuncturist and a member of the Board of Acupuncture, testified that "traditional Chinese medical concepts," and "modern oriental medical techniques" include gynecological and obstetric services, abortions, and cut-and-stitch surgery and that these services are performed by acupuncturists in China today. He further testified that the Board of Acupuncture believed that these tasks are "better handled" by allopathic physicians, and therefore the Board of Acupuncture has promulgated rules (most particularly the unchallenged rules addressing adjunctive therapies) which do not list these services. The Board believed that by not listing these services, it was prohibiting its licensees from performing them. The Board further asserts that its challenged rules only define "traditional Chinese medical concepts" and "modern oriental medical techniques" as used in Chapter 457, Florida Statutes, to include the use of laboratory tests and imaging findings and to clearly specify that "diagnostic techniques" for acupuncturists also include the use of modern laboratory test findings, and use of imaging films, reports, and test findings. There was competent testimony that modern laboratory Chinese medical tests on urine and feces evolved from ancient and traditional concepts and are regularly used in China and the orient by acupuncturists today. There was competent testimony that comparison of x-rays, at least for gross chest problems or for placement of acupuncture needles, is taught in an acupuncture college in Florida as part of its usual and required curriculum today. Allopaths and osteopaths use laboratory tests, imaging films, and reports thereon to reach an initial diagnosis and to test and revise that diagnosis through a course of treatment. Dr. West testified that he relies on his own "reading" of x-rays for his specialty of cardiology, while other allopaths may rely on a radiologist to read x-rays for them or may rely on a radiology report. Diagnosis is also a part of acupuncture. Acupuncturists want to use modern laboratory tests and imaging films to reach an initial diagnosis and to test that diagnosis through a course of treatment. They want to use laboratory tests and film imaging to properly direct their own initial treatment efforts, such as using urinalysis to eliminate a urinary tract infection before treating muscles and bones for a backache. They want to determine blood clotting speeds via an INR test on persons presenting with a prescriptive history of blood-thinner use, such as Coumadin, before using acupuncture needles. They want to be able to eliminate conditions they do not feel competent to treat, i.e. cancer, and to properly refer those patients for treatment by allopaths and osteopaths. Modern laboratory test results are variously formatted, sometimes as a report or value and result. X-rays are frequently the subject of a narrative report from a radiologist. Some modern imaging results are available directly to the public, like mobile TB screenings.
The Issue Should Petitioner be given credit for answers scored as incorrect on questions which Petitioner challenged on the October 2001, Cosmetology Clinical Examination?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Examination for licensure as a cosmetologist is administered by the Department's Bureau of Testing and consists of two parts: Part One, Clinical; and Part Two, Theory. Petitioner passed Part Two, and Part Two is not in contention. A passing score on the Clinical part of the examination was 75. Petitioner received a failing score of 70. Petitioner challenged the answers to certain questions on the Examination and was awarded an additional three points, bringing her total score on the Examination to 73, but still a failing grade. Subsequently, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on this matter, which was referred to the Division. Subsequent to this matter being referred to the Division, the Department agreed to allow Petitioner another review of the test questions and her answers in an attempt to resolve this matter. The Department did not allow any extra points as a result of this review, and the matter proceeded to hearing. Petitioner is challenging seven examination questions, to-wit: questions 14, 23, 36, 37, 40, 52, and 65. The Department utilizes Milady's Textbook of Cosmetology (Milady's) and a textbook titled Salon Fundamentals, A Resource for Your Cosmetology Career (Salon Fundamentals) as a resource for the questions on the Examination and the answers to those questions. Petitioner utilized Milady's during her schooling and in preparation for the Examination. There is some question as to whether Petitioner received notice that Salon Fundamentals, was also a reference source for the Examination. Therefore, the Department did not rely on Salon Fundamentals as a reference source in defending its answers to the challenged questions. There is no dispute that Milady's covered the subject matter sufficiently. Petitioner contends that both (A) and (B) are correct answers to question 14. Petitioner chose (B) as the answer to question 14. The Department contends that there is only one correct answer to question 14 and that is (A). After a review of the section entitled "Types of Lighteners" set out in pages 324-325 in Milady's covering the issue presented in question 14, the testimony of the Department's experts, Carol Nealy and Este Lita Phelps, and Petitioner's testimony, answer (A) is the only correct answer to question 14. Petitioner's answer (B) to question 14 is incorrect. Petitioner contends that both (A) and (B) are correct answers to question 23. Petitioner chose (A) as the answer to Question 23. The Department contends that there is only one correct answer to question 23 and that is (B). After a review of the section entitled "Damaged Hair" set out in pages 346-348 in Milady's covering the issue presented in question 23, the testimony of the Department's experts, Carol Nealy and Este Lita Phelps, and Petitioner's testimony, answer (B) is the only correct answer to question 23. Petitioner's answer (A) to question 23 is incorrect. Petitioner waived her challenge to question 36 and elected not present any evidence on question 36. Petitioner contends that (D) was the correct answer to question 37. The Department contends that (C) is the correct. answer to question 37. After a review of Milady's Chapter 11, Permanent Waving, page 251 covering the issue presented in question 37, the testimony of the Department's experts Carol Nealy and Este Lita Phelps, and Petitioner's testimony, answer is the correct answer to question 37. Petitioner's answer is incorrect. Petitioner contends that (A) was the correct answer to question 40. The Department contends that (D) is the correct answer to question 40. After reviewing pages 248 through 250 of Milady's, which covered the issue presented in question 40, the testimony of the Department's experts Carol Nealy and Este Lita Phelps, and Petitioner's testimony, answer (D) is the correct answer to question 40. Petitioner's answer (A) is incorrect. Petitioner contends that (B) was the correct answer to question 52. The Department contends that (C) was the correct answer to question 52. After reviewing page 100, Basics of Haircutting, and page 120, Scissors-Over-Comb Technique of Milady's, which covered the issue presented in question 52, the testimony of the Department's experts Carol Nealy and Este Lita Phelps, and Petitioner's testimony, answer (C) is the correct answer to question 52. Petitioner's answer (B) is incorrect. Petitioner contends that (C) was the correct answer to question 65. The Department contends that (D) was the correct answer to question 65. After reviewing page 58 (Texture, Porosity, and Elasticity) and page 163, Chapter 9, Wet Hairstyling, of Milady's, which covered the issue presented in question 65, the testimony of the Department's experts Carol Nealy and Este Lita Phelps, and Petitioner's testimony, answer (D) is the correct answer to question 65. Petitioner's answer (C) is incorrect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the October 2001, Cosmetology, Clinical Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Bridgett Y. Washington 2019 Terhune Avenue Orlando, Florida 32818-5264 Julie Baker, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
