The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact petitioner is currently licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in four states. Some of his licenses are voluntarily inactive. He is a graduate of Life University, School of Chiropractic, in Georgia. From 1992 to 1999, he taught classes in Clinical and Orthopedic Diagnosis and other clinical classes at that institution, and his final position was Director of Admissions. He currently maintains a chiropractic practice in Georgia. In November 2000, Petitioner took the Florida chiropractic licensure examination. By a January 12, 2001, examination grade report the Department notified Petitioner that he had failed the Physical Diagnosis portion of the licensure examination. The minimum passing score for the Physical Diagnosis portion was 75.00. Petitioner had scored 72.00. As such, Petitioner had failed that portion. The November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination consisted of four portions: Laws and Rules; X:-ray Interpretation; Physical Diagnosis; and Technique. Pursuant to Rule 64B2-11.003, Florida Administrative Code, candidates are required to pass all four portions of the examination. Accordingly, Petitioner's failure of only one portion resulted in his failing the examination. At the disputed-fact hearing, Petitioner narrowed his challenge of disputed questions to Tasks 6 and 7 of the Physical Diagnosis portion of the examination. Petitioner withdrew his challenge to any other portions. Therefore, to pass the entire examination, Petitioner would have to prove entitlement to three points on these two tasks. Task 6 is worth three points. Task 7 is worth two points. Petitioner contended that Tasks 6 and 7 were not worded so as to call for a precise response; that the examination questions related to those tasks were subject to different, but equally correct, assessments or clinical judgments than those approved by the Department, and that he had given equally correct assessments/clinical judgments as his examination answers; and that the scoring of the examination was flawed. Prior to the examination, candidates were provided with a Candidate Information Booklet (CIB). This preparatory booklet explains what the examination will be like, explains how it is scored, and states: The references listed below may be used to prepare for the examination. This list is not considered to be all-inclusive. Following this statement is a list of professional texts divided into categories of "Acupuncture," "Physical Diagnosis," "Technique," and "X-ray Interpretation of Chiropractic and Pathology Films." The Physical Diagnosis portion of the November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination is a practical examination which tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical patient's case history. The case history for the Physical Diagnosis portion is followed by a series of related questions. For this examination, Task 1, the case history, was related to Tasks 6 and 7, because it provided critical information relating to the history of the patient whom Tasks 6 and 7 asked the candidate to evaluate. Task 6 asked the candidate to respond to the question, "What laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, would assist in the diagnosis?" Petitioner testified that he had taken a "medical" approach to this question, which should be appropriate from the viewpoint of the "Board of Chiropractic Medicine." From Petitioner's viewpoint, Task 6; was vague and the time limitations of the examination did not allow him to go back and review the preceding patient history which might have caused him to answer differently. However, he conceded that even if he had gone back and-re-read the patient history, he probably would have answered the same way. Petitioner also conceded that candidates had the opportunity to write notes on scratch paper and were allowed to refer back to their notes for gathering or taking additional information about the patient history as they progressed through the subsequent examination. tasks/questions. Petitioner answered Task 6 by listing specific laboratory test(s) he felt were warranted, whereas the Department's scan sheet or answer key stated that the correct answer should have been "None." The Department's reviewers concluded that Petitioner's answer meant that he had given laboratory tests when none were required, based on the examination information as a whole. Task 7 asked the candidate to respond to the question, "State your reasoning for choosing these tests." Petitioner's actual answers to Task 7 were not offered at hearing. However, at hearing, Petitioner gave his reasons for ordering laboratory tests as not being satisfied with one diagnosis; because a chiropractor should pursue tests to rule out other conditions in a deductive rather than inductive manner; and because a chiropractor is obligated to make a "differential" diagnosis in every case to determine the etiology of the primary diagnosis, i.e. a tumor, so that he can speak intelligently with other health care professionals, such as a medical physicianoncologist, to whom the chiropractor will refer the patient. Petitioner's additional reasons given at hearing for the laboratory tests he would have administered (Task 6) are those given above in Finding of Fact 7. The Department's approved answer for Task 7 was again negative of any reasons for laboratory tests because, in its answer-book, there should have been no laboratory tests ordered on Task 6. Despite his discounted answers to the challenged questions, Petitioner ultimately reached the correct diagnosis for the patient to whom Tasks 1, 6, and 7 applied. He reached the correct diagnosis after receiving further information on examination tasks subsequent to Tasks 6 and 7, but he still reached the correct diagnosis without running any actual laboratory tests or receiving any hypothetical laboratory test results. At the stage of Tasks 6 and 7, he was told by examiners either that no laboratory test results were available or that all laboratory tests were normal. His reaching the correct diagnosis under these conditions demonstrates that reaching a correct diagnosis without the laboratory tests he ordered certainly was possible. Petitioner testified that in formulating his answers to Tasks 6 and 7, he had relied on a standard text, Differential Diagnosis in Primary Care, Second Edition, R. Douglas Collins, M.D. F.A.C.P.; published by J. B. Lippincott Company, which text had been used to instruct him and from which text Petitioner also had taught his chiropractic students. This text is not listed in the CIB. Petitioner also discussed portions of eight other professional health care texts which he felt supported his answers to Tasks 6 and 7. None of these texts were listed in the CIB. Although the CIB is not "all-inclusive" of generally accepted chiropractic texts, the texts listed. thereon may be presumed to be generally accepted. Texts. not listed thereon do not benefit from the CIB's "imprimitur" of general professional acceptance and reliability. Petitioner only asserted that the texts upon which he relied were used in many (not all) chiropractic schools. The Departments expert in chiropractic, Dr. Scott L. Drizin, testified that of the nine texts utilized by Petitioner, only P-5, Griffith's Five Minute Clinical Consult, by Mark A. Dambro, published by Williams & Wilkins, 1997, pages 628-630, constituted a generally-accepted learned treatise recognized and authoritative for use in the practice of chiropractic medicine for Florida chiropractors, and that P-3 and P-4, also texts relied upon by Petitioner, were so specialized as to rarely, if ever, be used by chiropractors. He did, however, testify that possibly P-2, Mosby's Manual of Diagnostic anal Laboratory Tests, by Kathleen and Timothy Pagana, published by Mosby Publishing Co. 1998, might have limited value to Florida chiropractors. Neither of these texts is listed on the CIB. For purposes of his own testimony, Dr. Drizin relied upon three texts, Bates, Guide to Physical Exam History Taking, (R-15); a 1995 edition of P-5, the Griffith's Five Minute Clinical Consult, which was numbered R-16; and The Merck Manual (R-17), which texts were admitted over Petitioner's objection. Of the texts utilized by Dr. Drizin, only R-15 and R-17 are listed on the CIB and only P-5/R-16 is accepted as authoritative by both Petitioner and by Dr. Drizin. However, Dr. Drizin testified credibly that all three of the texts he had used were generally-accepted as learned treatises recognized and authoritative for use in the practice of chiropractic medicine for Florida chiropractors. It is therefore found that an insufficient predicate was laid to establish that any texts other than P-5/R-16, R-15, and R-17, constituted generally accepted chiropractic texts, sufficiently reliable for making findings of fact.' Dr. Drizin is a Florida-licensed chiropractor. He has practiced in Florida for thirteen years. In addition to his doctorate of chiropractic medicine, he holds a master's degree in biomechanical trauma. He is a member, and has held office in, multiple professional chiropractic associations and has published extensively in his professional field. He is currently a licensing examiner, consultant, and coordinator for the Department. He has testified as an expert on licensing examination challenges approximately 25 times. Accordingly, by education, training, and experience, his testimony has been accorded great weight. Upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner's responses to Tasks 6 and 7 are incorrect and the Department's answers are correct for the following reasons. Dr. Drizin, and the reliable medical references that support his opinion, established that the principal source of diagnosis information is commonly found in the history of the patient, which was described in detail in examination Task 1. At least two of the texts upon which he relied affirmatively demonstrate that the Department's answers to Tasks 6 and 7 are correct. Dr. Drizin also explained credibly and persuasively that the case progression format from Task 1 through Tasks 6 and 7, and beyond, is designed to eliminate any perception of vagueness by the candidate, so that by the time the candidate has progressed to Task 6, he or she has more than enough information to come up with a correct diagnosis without laboratory tests. The four symptoms provided prior to Task 6 disclosed a classic syndrome, which syndrome is often used in testing physicians for the type of diagnosis sought. The four symptoms are not usually found together in the same patient. Therefore, when all four symptoms are found together in the same patient, it is so unusual that they point to only one diagnosis, without the need for the laboratory tests which Petitioner responded with for Task 6. Also, some of the tests Petitioner ordered would come back as "normal" in early stages of the condition Petitioner was asked to diagnose. Therefore, the laboratory tests that Petitioner would have conducted were neither appropriate nor effective at the early stage of the disease described in Task 1 or the early stage of the examination (Tasks 6 and 7) in the diagnosis process simulated on the examination. Although Dr. Drizin, in effect, conceded that the laboratory tests Petitioner ordered would do no harm and might be peripherally valuable, he found them superfluous in the present era of managed care. He further opined that ordering every test available to rule out all possibilities besides the obvious diagnosis at so early a stage in patient assessment would be inappropriate and would constitute detrimental over-utilization of resources which exploit the patient. Moreover, Petitioner testified that he used P-5, a text on oncology, to rule out a lung abscess, but Dr. Drizin testified credibly that the patient history of no elevated temperature provided on the examination should have ruled, out a lung abcess without the need for the further tests specified in P-5 and in Petitioner's examination answers. Petitioner presented no evidence to support a human or mechanical error in creating or scoring Tasks 6 and 7 of his examination. The Departments past testing experience does not reveal anything "tricky" about Tasks 6 and 7, provided they were approached sequentially from Tasks 1 through 6 (and 7). Several previous chiropractic licensure examinations have used these questions without a high number of failures on those particular questions. Nothing in past testing history has pointed out that these questions are misleading or confusing to a high number of candidates, because a high number of candidates do not miss these questions. Two examiners independently grade each candidate's performance during the Physical Diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination. Two examiners are used to ensure fairness to the candidate and reliability of the scores. They are selected on the basis of the requirements of Rule 64B2-11.007, Florida Administrative Code. Each examiner must attend a training session for standardization purposes and to reduce subjectivity and/or discrepancies among the examiners approaches. The examiners who graded Petitioner's performance, Examiners 15 and 59, met all qualification anal training prerequisites established by statute and rule. The two examiners agreed 100 percent in scoring Petitioner's responses to Tasks 6 and 7. Both examiners gave Petitioner an °A" score, representing zero points for each task. Upon review, other fully-qualified examiners reached the same conclusion that Petitioner's answers to Tasks 6 and 7 had been correctly scored as earning zero points. These scoring methods were correct.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order denying and dismissing Petitioner's challenge of the score he received on the November 2000 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 19th day of July, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 13-16, 1992, petitioner, James S. Moore, a chiropractic physician, was a candidate on the chiropractic licensure examination. Doctor Moore is a recent graduate of Life Chiropractic College and was taking the examination for the first time. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Chiropractic (Board). On July 2, 1992, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that while he had received passing grades on the X-ray interpretation and technique portions of the examination, he had received a score of 70.5 on the physical diagnosis portion of the test. A grade of 75.0 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated September 23, 1992, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Dr. Moore generally contended that he had been denied licensure without any reason or explanation, and that during the review process his contentions were not given meaningful consideration. As further clarified at hearing, petitioner contended that he should have received higher scores on procedures 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination, and thus he should have received a passing grade. That portion of the test is a practical examination requiring the candidate to give verbal and demonstrative responses to a series of questions designed to test the candidate's diagnostic skills. Among other things, the candidate is required to perform certain tests and procedures on a volunteer patient. To memorialize a candidate's performance, the examination is videotaped, and a copy of petitioner's performance is found in joint exhibit 1 received in evidence. Petitioner generally contends that he should have received a higher grade on the above questions. To support his position, petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his uncle-employer, a chiropractic physician in Jacksonville, Florida, who has seven years experience in the field. Respondent offered the testimony of a Miami chiropractic physician who has been a grader on the examination for the last twelve years and was accepted as an expert in the field of chiropractic. It is noted that both physicians reviewed petitioner's examination prior to giving testimony. However, respondent's expert did not regrade the examination but rather evaluated the questions, petitioner's responses and the grades of the two examiners who graded petitioner to determine if the scores were within acceptable guidelines. As might be expected, the two physicians offered conflicting opinions regarding petitioner's examination scores. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and this testimony is embodied in the findings below. There are two independent chiropractors who grade each candidate on the physical diagnosis part of the examination. Each examiner is given one hour of standardization training prior to the examination, there is no discussion by the examiners during the examination itself, and they grade independently of one another. There is no evidence to support a finding that the two examiners who graded petitioner conferred with each other prior to assigning a grade or otherwise acted improperly in the performance of their duties. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the examination, the questions or information given to a candidate will not be repeated verbatim here but rather only a general description will be given. As to question 1, petitioner was penalized one point (or given a grade of three out of four points) because he stated that the normal range for a particular joint was at 100 degrees. He derived this answer from the American Medical Association Guidelines for Impairment, which is the standard used for disability evaluation. Because impairment standards are not synonymous with a normal range of motion, petitioner's response was incorrect and his score of three should not be changed. In procedure 2, the candidate was given a hypothetical case history of a female patient and was required to choose four appropriate orthopedic tests that related to her condition and to then perform each test. The question noted that if an incorrect test was selected, no credit would be given even if the test was performed correctly. Petitioner selected only two correct tests and accordingly received a grade of two out of four possible points. Respondent's expert confirmed that only two correct answers were selected, and thus petitioner's grade should not be changed. Among other things, procedure 7 required the candidate to use and interpret the Wexler scale, a reflex scale used by chiropractic and orthopedic physicians. Petitioner contended that the Wexler scale is considered zero to five, and he used this range to fashion his answer. Although at hearing respondent asserted that the scale is actually zero to four, it now concedes that petitioner's response was correct and that his grade on this question should be adjusted upward by 1.5 points. Procedure 10 related to diagnostic imaging and generally required the candidate to select the appropriate x-rays to be taken for a given set of facts. Because petitioner failed to take a necessary spot hip x-ray, he did not receive full credit on the question. At hearing, petitioner contended that the omitted x-ray would over-radiate the patient and that the large views taken of the patient would give sufficient detail of the primary complaint area. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Therefore, the request to change the grade on this procedure should be denied. In procedure 15, petitioner was given certain information concerning a patient and was required to make a specific diagnosis to be written in the patient's records. The question also provided that if an incorrect diagnosis was selected, the candidate would receive no credit. In this case, petitioner failed to select the proper diagnosis. His response that the patient suffered from a "sprain/strain" of a particular muscle was incorrect since there is no such thing as a sprain of a muscle. Indeed, only joints and ligaments can be sprained. Although respondent's expert conceded that the correct answer was not "easy" to ascertain, all candidates faced the same level of difficulty on the question and thus no change in petitioner's grade is warranted. Petitioner next contends that he was given an incorrect grade on procedure 17, which required him to identify which physical examination procedures (more than one) he would use based upon a hypothetical patient history. The question provided that unless all procedures were identified, no credit would be given. Because petitioner did not state that he would take the patient's vital signs, a necessary procedure for a new patient, he properly received a zero score. Finally, procedure 18 used the same hypothetical patient history given in procedure 17 and required the candidate to demonstrate on a volunteer patient the necessary examination procedures. Of particular significance was the requirement that the candidate not only correctly perform the procedures, but also demonstrate those procedures in the usual and customary order. Unfortunately, petitioner performed the first of four procedures last, which would affect the reliability of the findings, and thus he received no credit. Therefore, petitioner's grade on this question should not be changed. In summary, with the exception of procedure 7, the scores given to petitioner on each of the challenged procedures are supported by logic and reason, and there is no justification in changing the overall score to a passing grade. In addition, the test was fairly administered in every respect to all candidates, including the provision in some questions that unless the entire question was correctly answered, no partial credit would be given. Thus, petitioner's contention that he should have received partial credit instead of no credit on several questions is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order raising petitioner's grade on the physical diagnosis part of the May 1992 chiropractic licensure examination from 70.5 to 72.0 but denying his petition in all other respects. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1993. Respondent: APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6162 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 3-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dr. James S. Moore P. O. Box 229 Doctor's Inlet, FL 32030 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a final order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the physical diagnosis portion. In May 2001, Petitioner sat only for the physical diagnosis portion, having passed all other portions in a prior examination. The physical diagnosis section is a practical examination that tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical case history. The examination generally presents a case history, including the patient's complaint and vital signs, then asks a series of questions designed to lead to a diagnosis. The examination also asks some separate, stand-alone questions designed to elicit knowledge of specific techniques, such as how to obtain particular diagnostic imaging views. The physical diagnosis section of the May 2001 examination consisted of 26 tasks, for which varying numbers of points were awarded for correct answers. Two examiners evaluated the candidate's performance and independently awarded scores for each task. Petitioner's overall score was the average of the two examiners' scores. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section met the criteria for selection as examiners. An examiner must have been licensed in Florida as a chiropractor for at least five years, must not have had a chiropractic or other health care license suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against, and must not be currently under investigation by the Department or any other state or federal agency. Rule 64B2-11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department requires each examiner to attend a training session prior to administration of the examination. The training is designed to ensure that scoring standards are uniform and objective among the various examiners. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section had successfully completed the training session. The first series of questions on the physical diagnosis section dealt with a female patient in her early thirties whose main complaint was constant, severe pain in her left calf. The patient's temperature was slightly elevated at 99.8ºF, and she had swelling in her left ankle. Ultimately, the candidate was expected to arrive at a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis, inflammation of a vein in the left calf. Tasks 1 and 2, for which Petitioner received full credit, required the candidate to obtain a case history from the patient and to discuss the physical examination the candidate would perform on the patient. Task 3 asked the candidate to identify what laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, should be used to assist in arriving at a diagnosis. Task 4 asked the candidate to state his reasoning for choosing these tests. The correct answer to Task 3 was that the candidate should order either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test or a C-reactive protein (CRP) test. The correct answer to Task 4 was that the ESR and CRP assess the inflammatory processes that the candidate should suspect in the patient's left calf. On Task 3, Petitioner responded that he would order a complete blood count (CBC) and a urinalysis. On Task 4, Petitioner responded that he chose these tests because the patient's increased temperature indicated that there might be an infection present, and that a CBC and urinalysis are useful tests for infection. Task 3 was worth a maximum of four points. Task 4 was worth a maximum of three points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 3 and for Task 4. The results of the physical examination, particularly "Homan's sign," or pain in the calf with dorsiflexion of the foot, caused Petitioner to suspect thrombophlebitis. Petitioner knew of no laboratory test that returns a specific positive result for thrombophlebitis. He introduced textbook references to establish that the ESR and CRP tests are not specific to diagnosing thrombophlebitis. Petitioner did not believe that Tasks 3 and 4 gave him the option of ordering no laboratory tests at all, so he chose the most common tests that would at least confirm that no infection was present. Dr. Densmore, Respondent's expert, agreed with Petitioner that a positive Homan's sign is specific for diagnosing thrombophlebitis. However, he disagreed with Petitioner's choice of ordering a CBC and urinalysis. Dr. Densmore admitted that many doctors order these tests as a general standard for all patients, but stated that in this case they would do nothing to narrow the diagnosis. The CBC and urinalysis are useful for identifying infections; thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory disease, not an infectious disease. Dr. Densmore conceded that ESR and CRP are not specific to thrombophlebitis. However, Dr. Densmore believed that Petitioner should have chosen ESR or CRP because inflammation is present in 90 percent of thrombophlebitis cases and therefore those tests would assist the practitioner in arriving at a diagnosis. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for his answer to Tasks 3 and 4 because his answers were not the best answers to those questions. The correct answers set forth by the Department were supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Task 5 dealt with the same patient discussed above, and asked the candidate to indicate which, if any, diagnostic imaging procedures should be performed. The correct answer, worth four points, was "none" or "A-P & lateral leg." "A-P" stands for anteroposterior, or from the front to the back. On the videotape of the examination, Petitioner appeared confused by the question. He said that he would x-ray the "lower leg." One of the examiners asked him to be more specific as to which views he would take. Petitioner stated that he would x-ray the ankle because of the swelling there. Petitioner then mentioned the swelling in the calf, and stated that he would x-ray the "femur." The femur is the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee. An x-ray of the femur obviously would reveal nothing about the condition of the patient's calf. The examiner, likely sensing Petitioner's confusion, advised Petitioner to read the question again. Petitioner read the question aloud, then reiterated that he would take x-rays of the patient's ankle and femur. Task 5 was worth a maximum of four points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 5. Petitioner contended that he should have received partial credit for his initial response that he would x-ray the lower leg. However, Task 5 required the candidate to identify the specific views of the x-rays he would take. When the examiner asked him to name the specific views, Petitioner identified the femur. The context of the discussion makes it evident that Petitioner must have been thinking of the fibula or the tibia, i.e., the bones of the lower leg, when he repeatedly named the femur in connection with the patient's calf pain. However, the examiners had no choice but to grade Petitioner on the answer he actually gave. Petitioner should not be awarded any points for his answer to Task 5. Task 18 was a stand-alone question dealing with x- rays. The challenged portion of Task 18, worth two points, asked the candidate what he would do to obtain a quality lumbar spine x-ray of a severely obese patient if his office was equipped with a 300/125 x-ray machine. One of the examiners specified that this patient weighs around 500 pounds. The correct answer was that the candidate would use a higher capacity x-ray machine or refer the patient to a facility that has one. Petitioner's answer was that he would collimate close to the area of injury, decrease milliampere seconds (mAs), increase kilovolt peak (kVp) to increase penetration, and use a rare earth screen. Again, Petitioner appeared to be confused by the question. At the hearing, he testified that Task 18 did not ask what specific view he would take of the obese patient, whether of the arm, the chest, or the skull. Petitioner misread the question. Task 18 clearly states that the required view is of the patient's lumbar spine. Petitioner's misreading of the question led him to treat Task 18 as an x-ray physics question, hence his response, intended to demonstrate how he would maximize the clarity of an x-ray using the equipment at hand. Dr. Densmore stated that an x-ray of a patient this size taken on this equipment would simply be a white picture because of the amount of fatty tissue involved. With a patient of this size, the kVp would have to be increased so much that the practitioner would over-radiate the patient. The practitioner would have no choice but to send the patient out for an x-ray on a higher capacity machine. The examiners independently awarded Petitioner zero points for his response to this portion of Task 18. Their scoring was correct, supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Petitioner alleged that the Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) provided him by the Department did not adequately prepare him for format changes that occurred since his first sitting for the examination. Petitioner compared the CIB for the May 2001 examination to that for the November 2001 examination. He found that the detailed sample questions in the November 2001 CIB more closely reflected the examination he took in May 2001, and contended that the May 2001 CIB was outdated at the time it was distributed. All candidates for the May 2001 examination received the same Candidate Information Booklet that Petitioner received. Respondent's psychometrician, Dr. Linda Dean, testified that the passing rate for the May 2001 examination was in the range of 70 percent, consistent with other administrations of the examination. Petitioner's allegation concerning the adequacy of the CIB is not supported by the evidence. Petitioner also alleged that he was placed at a disadvantage by the fact that the examiners appeared to know that he was not taking the examination for the first time. Both Dr. Dean, the psychometrician assigned to the chiropractic licensure examination, and Dr. Densmore, who has served as an examiner many times, testified that examiners are not told the names or the status of the candidates. Dr. Dean testified that nothing is done to segregate first-time candidates from those who are retaking the examination, though an examiner may suspect that a candidate who is sitting for only one section of the examination is retaking that section. Even if Petitioner's allegation were credited, it would not change the result. Petitioner's responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 were incorrect. The examiners properly awarded him zero points for those tasks. Their knowledge that he was retaking the physical diagnosis section had no bearing on Petitioner's incorrect responses to the challenged tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for his responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in May 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Allan Niebrugge 4785 Barkley Circle No. 22 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, the Respondent Joseph O. Smith, was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. On or about March 3, 1982, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, William Pawley, went to the chiropractic office of the Respondent Smith and took into his possession five (5) pieces of literature, each containing the name of the Respondent Smith, from the public waiting area of the office. The literature consisted of the following: A brochure entitled "Total Health Care Center", on which is printed the name Dr. Joseph O. Smith with no designation of the Center as a chiropractic or related facility or of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) A flyer with the Respondent Smith's and Total Health Care Center's address captioned across the top, with no designation of the Center as a chiropractic or related institution or of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) A brochure entitled "What to Do in Case of an Automobile Accident" which has the Respondent's and Total Health Care Center's address and telephone number on the cover with no designation of the Center as a chiropractic or related institution or of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) A wallet-size card with the Republican Party's elephant symbol, the slogan "The Republican Party of Florida" and the Respondent's name without a designation of Respondent as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4) A booklet entitled "Foundation of Man" authored by the Respondent Smith which designates him as a chiropractic physician. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) The "Total Health Care Center" is located at 349 Southwest 79th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and is the chiropractic office of the Respondent Smith. The sign outside the office which is visible from the street clearly designates the office as being that of a chiropractic physician. The "Total Health Care Center" is primarily a chiropractic office which also offers related health care and medical services when appropriate. During the past three years, Dr. R. George Manieri, D.O., has examined patients at the Center and provided medical services including routine check-ups, vaginal examinations, breast examinations and pap smears. He also treated the Respondent's patients on a referral or part-time basis, by prescribing medication for birth control and other medical reasons. According to Dr. Manieri, the Respondent's position at the Center was both as a director and chiropractor since both medical and chiropractic services were available. Dr. Jeffrey Goldenberg, a licensed medical doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, saw the Respondent's patients at the Center for birth control exams, breast checks and other medical reasons. The Respondent referred patients to Dr. Goldenberg, who saw patients either in the Center or at his private office. The Respondent Smith treated patients at the Center only for chiropractic problems. The Respondent Smith acted as the Director of the Center and has employed both chiropractic and medical physicians as part of his total or holistic philosophy of health care. Consumers who arrive at the Center are immediately placed on notice that the Center is essentially a chiropractic office by signs both outside and inside the establishment. The booklets, which were obtained by the Department from inside the Center and which failed to designate the Respondent or the Center by use of the term "D.C. or Chiropractic" (Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 & 3), were provided for general informational purposes and were not intended as chiropractic advertisements. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 3 are neither false nor misleading and contain general medical information concerning breast cancer, arthritis, burns, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, heart attacks, CPR and aid for automobile accident victims. These pamphlets (Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 & 3) were distributed for informational purposes only to patients once inside the office, who were already on notice that they were in the office of a chiropractor. When the Respondent Smith advertised himself as a chiropractor, he used the term chiropractor or D.C. after his name. However, when he advertised the Center, the Respondent would indicate that it provided both chiropractic and medical services as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. In addition to running the Center and practicing chiropractic, the Respondent also ran for the Republican nomination for Governor of Florida. His campaign office was located at the Center and, as demonstrated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, at least one campaign document was kept at the Center which did not designate him as a chiropractic physician. Dr. Barry Adler, a licensed chiropractor and Secretary of Broward County Chiropractic Society and Co-Chairman of the Society's Ethics Committee, testified concerning the community standard in Broward County regarding the designation of chiropractors for advertising purposes. In Broward County, it is common for chiropractors to not use the term chiropractor or D.C. in their names when they are not advertising chiropractic services. For example, business cards and bank accounts of chiropractors are maintained without the designation, since such items are not generally considered as advertisements. Similarly, the Journal of the Florida Chiropractic Association, Inc., and Directors of the Broward County Chiropractic Society, lists their directors as "Drs." without the specific designation of chiropractor or D.C. following each name. Patients who visited the Total Health Care Center would not be misled by the lack of the designation "D.C." or "chiropractor" on Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which were offered to prospective patients once inside the Center. The information both outside and inside the Center made it clear that the Respondent provided primarily chiropractic care while the Center offered both chiropractic and medical services. No evidence was presented on Count I of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Joseph O. Smith be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 1983, Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure practical examination administered in November of 1989 and received a score of 71.2%. The minimum passing score was 75%. The Petitioner needs 1.5 additional raw score points in order to obtain a minimal passing grade. The Petitioner challenged portions of the practical portion of the chiropractic examination. The practical examination includes the areas of x-ray technique, chiropractic technique, and physical diagnosis. Stephen Ordet, D.C., testified on behalf of the Respondent. He was received as an expert in chiropractic medicine (TR, page 117, line 19). He testified that he has been an examiner for the Florida chiropractic practical examination since approximately 1980 (TR, page 102, line 18). The practical portion of the chiropractic examination was administered to the Petitioner by two of several doctors of chiropractic, who were examiners at this examination. The practical examination questions asked the Petitioner were developed by the two examining doctors. The various areas which can be included on the technique examination include cervical, lumbar, thoracic, occipital, pelvic, rib, soft tissue, and extremities. The examiners' questions to the Petitioner did not address the lumbar, occipital or rib areas. Examiner No. 12 gave the Petitioner a score of 4 on cervical, 3 on thoracic, 3 on pelvic, 2.5 on soft tissue, and 1 on extremities. Examiner No. 13 gave the Petitioner a score of 4 on cervical, 3.5 on thoracic, 3 on pelvic, 2.5 on soft tissue, and 2 on extremities. Each portion of the examination has a possibility of 4 points. A candidate must average 3 points fob each question on the examination or a score of 75%. The school which the Petitioner attended is an accredited school. The Petitioner's responses to various questions from the examiners were scored by the examiners under more than one phase of the examination. The Petitioner received a grade of 4 (excellent) from both examiners on the cervical portion of the examination. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that the Petitioner's responses to the questions on the pelvic and thoracic were complete answers. The grades given the Petitioner by one of the examiners were 3.5 and 3, and the grades given by the other examiner were 3 and 3. The grades given are consistent with the petitioner's expert's characterization of her performance. There is no evidence that these questions or grading were arbitrary or capricious. The Petitioner was given an extremities question, and she began an examination of the patient. Thereafter, she advised the examiners that her school had not taught adjustment of the extremities and had not known she would be examined in this area. Additional evidence presented at the bearing shows that extremities were not taught at the Petitioner's school when she attended based upon the school's philosophy relating to spinal adjustment. The two remaining areas addressed in the practical portion of the examination were soft tissue and extremities. Grader 13 scored the Petitioner 2.5 on soft tissue and 2 on extremities. Grader 12 scored the Petitioner 2.5 on soft tissue and 1 on extremities. Dr. Ordet opined that extremity technique as a necessary part of chiropractic medicine (TR, page 100, line 11). He referred to several technique books in chiropractic to support the necessity of extremity technique. The text books included Anatomical Adjustment Techniques by Dr. Homer Beatty. One of the examiners responded that they would move onto another area and gave her a new question referring back to the patient with torticollis. The responses by the Petitioner regarding manipulative relief of the torticollis were not addressed by the Petitioner's witness. There is no basis for concluding that the examiners were clearly erroneous in their evaluation of the Petitioner's response. The Respondent's expert witness revealed that the examination did not place special emphasis on the technique taught at the candidate's particular college.
Recommendation 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 the extremities question be stricken from the techniques attempted; the Petitioner receive the average of her remaining techniques scores; and receive a passing score on the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 15th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3398 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted and renumbered. Adopted and renumbered. Rejected. The state of the Petitioner's health when this examination was given is conjectural. The Petitioner was given added credit upon a review of her examination; however, one cannot say the examiners were unfair. The testimony about the amount of time for each examination is conflicting. The Petitioner did not clearly establish this point. True but irrelevant. Contrary to the facts. Contrary to the facts. True but irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted and rewritten. Not a finding. Not a finding. Adopted and rewritten. Adopted. Adopted in part, rewritten in part, and rejected in part. Adopted first sentence. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lois Buxbaum 23 Jones Street, #19 New York, NY Vytas J. Urba, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On April 27, 1987, Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement with the Board of Chiropractic (the Board.) On September 13, 1988, an Order stating the Board's intention to deny Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement was filed by the Board. Petitioner timely filed a request for formal proceedings resulting in the above-styled matter being placed before the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result of attempts to negotiate a settlement between Petitioner and Respondent, Petitioner filed a second application for licensure on or about June 19, 1989. At the July 27, 1989, meeting of the Board, Petitioner's second application for licensure by endorsement was denied. At the time of the final hearing, an Order had not yet been filed, but was to be forthcoming. The grounds for the Board's denial of Petitioner's April, 1987, application were that: Pennsylvania did not require applicants for licensure to receive a score of at least 75% on each portion of the state licensure exam; Pennsylvania did not require completion of continuing education as required of licensees in Florida; and Pennsylvania permitted licenses to be inactive for five years before said licenses became null and void. The Board of Chiropractic determined that the requirements for licensure in Pennsylvania are not substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, counsel for Respondent waived the grounds regarding inactive licenses and completion of continuing education. The grounds for the Board's denial of Petitioner's June, 1989, application for licensure by endorsement are that the Pennsylvania requirements for licensure are not substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the licensure examination administered by the Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic does not cover physical diagnosis and x-ray interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films, both of which are covered in the practical examination given by the Florida Board of Chiropractic as a requirement for licensure. Petitioner has taken and successfully completed parts I and II of the National Beard written examination. Petitioner has not taken or passed the National Board Written Clinical Competency Examination (which has been administered only since September, 1987). Petitioner has taken and successfully completed the Pennsylvania state licensure examination in chiropractic. Petitioner has been licensed as a chiropractor in Pennsylvania for 6 years. The pertinent Pennsylvania law in effect at the time that the Board considered Petitioner's applications for licensure by endorsement is set out in the following portions of Section 625.501 and Section 625.502, 63 Pennsylvania Statutes: s. 625.501 Applications for license Requirement for licensure.-- An applicant for a license under this act shall submit satisfactory proof to the board that the applicant meets all of the following: (1) Is 21 years of age or older. Is of good moral character. Has a high school diploma or its equivalent. Has completed two years of college or 60 credit hours. Has graduated from an approved college of chiropractic, with successful completion of not less than the minimum number of hours of classroom and laboratory instruction required by regulation of the board, which minimum shall be at least 4,000 hours. Has passed the examination required under this act. Has not been convicted of a felonious act prohibited by the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or of an offense under the laws of another juris- diction which if committed in this Commonwealth would be a felony under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, unless the applicant satisfies all of the following criteria: At least ten years have elapsed from the date of conviction. Satisfactorily demonstrates to the board that he has made sig- nificant progress in personal rehabilitation since the conviction such that licensure of the appli- cant should not be expected to create a substantial risk of harm to the health and safety of his patients or the public or a substantial risk of further criminal violations. Satisfies the qualifica- tions contained in this act. An applicant's statement on the application declaring the absence of a conviction shall be deemed satisfactory evidence of the absence of a conviction, unless the board has some evidence to the contrary. As used in this section the term "convicted" shall include a judgment, an admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere. * * * s. 625.502. Examination * * * Nature and content of examination.-- The examination shall be oral, practical and written, upon the principles and technique of chiropractic and shall include the following subjects: anatomy, physiology, histology, chemistry, pathology, physics, bacteriology, diagnosis, hygiene and sanitation, symptomatology, chiropractic analysis, x-ray, chiropractic principles and a practical demonstration of chiropractic technique. * * * Testing organization.-- All written, oral and practical examinations required under this section shall be prepared and administered by a qualified and approved professional testing organization in accordance with section 812.1 of the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L. 177, No. 175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, except that the oral and practical examinations shall not be subject to section 812.1 until such examinations are available from a testing organization. Score.-- A license shall be granted to an applicant who meets the requirements of this act and who achieves: An overall score of at least 75% on the entire examination; or An average score of at least 75% on the oral and practical examina- tion and a passing score on the written examination administered by the National Board of Chiro- practic Examiners as such passing score is determined by the national board. (Emphasis added.) The Pennsylvania Board of Chiropractic does not have any published rules regarding licensure of applicants in the State of Pennsylvania. The Petitioner did not prove that the Pennsylvania Board of Chiropractic examines applicants in the area of x-ray interpretation and physical diagnosis. The Petitioner did not prove that the Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic required applicants to re-take Pennsylvania's entire examination if any portion was failed. The Petitioner did not prove that the requirement of the Florida Board of Chiropractic that applicants for licensure be tested on ability to make physical diagnoses and to interpret chiropractic and pathology x-ray films is unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it creates or maintains an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition. The Petitioner did not prove that the requirement of the Florida Board of Chiropractic that applicants for licensure must re-take the entire licensure examination if any portion of the examination is failed is unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it creates or maintains an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition. The Petitioner did not prove either that it would be unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it would create or maintain an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition for the Florida Board of Chiropractic to decide that "the requirements for licensure in Pennsylvania are [not] substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of this chapter [460, Florida Statutes.]" Cf. Section 460.4065, Florida Statutes (1987 and Supp. 1988).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order denying the applications of the Petitioner, Norman R. Wiedow, D. C., for licensure by endorsement. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case as follows: The Respondent, Clifford Fruithandler, D.C. is and has been at all times material hereto [sic] the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 89-7036, (DPR Case Number 0094598) a chiropractor licensed in the State of Florida having been issued license number CH 0004149. The Respondent's address is 5417 West Atlantic Boulevard, Margate, Florida 33063. The Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed chiropractor caused to be published an advertisement in the North West Medical Guide in Broward County. The advertisement was published on September 16, 1987. The advertisement identified the Respondent's chiropractic practice as "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control Center". The Respondent has been subject to discipline by the Board of Chiropractic in DPR Case Number 44292, 40777, and 28914. On or about March, 4, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation wrote a letter to Respondent which stated "Please be advised that the Department has received a complaint based on the enclosed advertisement. The allegations are: (1) Advance Chiropractic implies that you possess skills and or other attributes which are superior to other chiropractors..." Within one week following the receipt of such letter by Respondent, the Respondent changed the name of the clinic and stopped using the name "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control". Prior to the receipt of DPR's letter of March 4, 1988, Respondent had received no complaints from DPR, the Board of Chiropractic, or from any patient regarding the use of such name.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, issuing a reprimand to the Respondent and assessing a fine against Respondent in the amount $750.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Roger W. Calton, Esquire Qualified Legal Representative 30131 Town Center Drive Suite 177 Laguna Niguel, CA. 92677-2040 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact L. R. Fleming is a chiropractic physician licensed by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners and holds License #1239. Dr. L. R. Fleming caused to be published in the Today Newspaper an advertisement, a copy of which was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. This advertisement read as follows: CHIROPRACTORS SEEK RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS The International Pain Control Institute in conjunction with the New York Chiropractic College is presently engaged in what is the most extensive research program ever undertaken by the chiropractic profession. This research is directed toward determining the relationship between health problems and spinal misalignments and utilizes a screening process called Contour Analysis. Volunteers are being sought for screening. Contour Analysis enables taking a three- dimensional picture (called Moire photography) of the topography of the surface of the spine to detect spinal stress deviations. This analysis will be correlated with leg deficiency, patient symptomatology, and levels of tenderness. An analysis of this type can reveal such things as normal and abnormal stress patterns, spinal curvature, muscle spasms, muscle imbalance, spinal distortions and scoliosis. There is no charge to participating volunteers, since the doctors are contributing their time, service, and facilities for the program. Final processing and evaluation will be done at the New York Chiropractic College. Anyone wishing to be a volunteer may telephone participating doctors directory for information or an appointment. MERRITT ISLAND TITUSVILLE MELBOURNE (doctor's (doctor's Dr. Lyle name deleted) name deleted) Fleming Phone 254-3343 The advertisement above was published in the Today Newspaper on or about April 1, 1978. Gladys Teate, of Melbourne, Florida, read this advertisement on or about April 1, 1978, and made an appointment with dr. Fleming for contour analysis on April 11, 1978. Gladys Teate kept the appointment on April 11, 1978, and had a contour analysis performed at Dr. Fleming's office. The process of contour analysis consisted of the taking of certain personal data together with symptomatology from Gladys Teate by one of the doctor's assistants. Thereafter, the doctor's assistant took a Moire photograph of Teate's back. Teate was then seen by Dr. Fleming, who performed an elementary examination of Teate's back and explained the Moire photograph to her. Teate had no recollection of the contour analysis, Dr. Fleming's examination, or any subsequent events to include any oral representations made by Dr. Fleming. However, records reflect that x-rays were taken of Teate at Dr. Fleming's office. Thereafter, a thorough chiropractic examination was performed by the doctor, who prepared a written diagnostic recommendation, a copy of which was introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Teate was unclear as to whether she saw Dr. Fleming on one or two (2) occasions; however, she was given a bill for $10 for a chiropractic examination and a bill for $45 for x-rays upon leaving Dr. Fleming's office. There was no charge for the contour analysis. No competent evidence of Dr. Fleming's indicating that further examination and diagnosis was free was presented. No evidence was introduced that the research program described in the advertisement was not a legitimate research program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners take no action against the license of Dr. L. R. Fleming, D.C. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul W. Lambert, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis V. Cianfrogna, Esquire 308 Julia Street Post Office Drawer 6310-G Titusville, Florida 32780 Board of Chiropractic Examiners 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
