Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed through June 30, 1996, to operate Cheers Early Learning Center III in Fort Myers as a child care facility, pursuant to Certificate No. 086194. Each of the inspections of Respondent's child care facility in 1995 revealed deficiencies with the sanitary diaper- changing areas of the facility. Cleanliness of the diaper-changing areas is important in preventing the transmission of diseases, especially diarrhea. Staff must carefully clean the area after changing diapers containing fecal material in order to reduce the chances of communicable diseases passing from an infected child to an uninfected child. On the January 5, 1995, inspection, the inspector found items stored on diaper-changing table. Routine use of such items undermined efforts to maintain clean conditions in the diaper- changing area. The inspector cited this deficiency, and Respondent presumably corrected it. On the February 17, 1995, inspection, the inspector found that the diaper-changing table under the changing mat in the two year-old room needed to be thoroughly cleaned, according to the inspection sheet. Respondent cleaned the table the same day. On the May 11, 1995, inspection, the inspector found that Respondent kept the disinfectant in a cabinet in the diaper-changing area in the one year- old room. This meant that staff would have to touch the cabinet every time they washed the changing table and the cabinet would become contaminated. Respondent moved the disinfectant bottle the same day as ordered. On the July 13, 1995, inspection, the inspector found that the mat in the diaper changing area in the infant room and one year-old room had tears. The inspection report asks Respondent to "remind staff to thoroughly clean the cracks and corners on the diaper changing area." This reference probably refers to the thick, plastic-covered mat, which contains large creases where it can be folded. Respondent presumably corrected the deficiencies the same day. On the August 10, 1995, inspection, the inspector found that the changing table in the infant room needed to be cleaned at all times and the changing table should not be used to store unnecessary items, like art projects. The inspector added that the mat had a hole and needed to be repaired or replaced and soap was needed at the changing table so staff could wash their hands after changing diapers. On August 14, 1995, Petitioner's inspector wrote Respondent a letter concerning the deficiencies in the diaper-changing area. The letter notes the importance of cleanliness in this area and offers technical assistance from a Public County Health Nurse. The letter warns that further violations could result in administrative action. On the October 5, 1995, inspection, the inspector found that the diaper table under the mat in the one year-old room needed to be cleaned and the mat had a hole in it. The inspector also found the same deficiencies in the infant room. The inspector left a document disclosing an intent to impose administrative action, citing Rule 10M-12.003(9)(b)2. The document informs Respondent that the "diaper area needs to be cleaned thoroughly--this needs to be maintained." The inspector classified the violation as a Class II violation with a fine range of $50-$100 per violation per day. The form warns: "If you fail to comply with the time frames set forth in this notice, or the same deficiencies continue, you may anticipate receipt of an administrative fine." On the November 13, 1995, inspection, the inspector found that the diaper-changing table under the mat in the three year-old room mat needed to be cleaned. The inspector also found that the mat in the diaper-changing area in the one-year old room needed to be cleaned because the seams or folds of the mat were "filled with dirt and sand." The inspection report notes that the deficiency cited in the three year-old room was corrected on site, but the deficiency cited in the one year- old room was referred for administrative action. Respondent's staff was not cleaning the mat with a sanitizing solution after each use. Otherwise, sand and dirt would not accumulate in the folds of the mat. Petitioner repeatedly warned Respondent of sanitary lapses in the diaper- changing areas, and Respondent repeatedly allowed these lapses to continue. A $50 fine is suitable given the importance of cleanliness in this area and the repeated failures of Respondent to deal with this ongoing problem.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $50 against Respondent. ENTERED on June 14, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 14, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12-13: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4-6: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. 7-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as legal argument. 10-16: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 17: rejected as legal argument. 18-19: rejected as subordinate. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate. 21: rejected as subordinate. 22: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The subject mat today would not be expected to have the sand and dirt in its seams or folds that it had on the day of the inspection. 23-25: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Susan Mastin Scott, Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Robert L. Pollack Robert L. Pollack, P.A. 11983 North Tamiami Trail Suite 101-102 Naples, Florida 33963
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in May 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Jerrylene Barr, who is an African-American, contends that in May 1994, Respondent, Columbia Ocala Regional Medical Center (Respondent), unlawfully terminated her from employment as a registered nurse on account of her race. Respondent has denied the charges and contends instead that Petitioner was terminated after she negligently overmedicated a patient, in addition to her prior performance of medication errors over a two-year period. After a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Commission on Human Relations (Commission), which took some three years to complete, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on April 27, 1998. Although not specifically established at hearing, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Respondent employed at least fifteen employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year and thus is an employer within the meaning of the law. Petitioner began working for Respondent as a nurse in January 1992. Between September 1992 and May 1994, a period of seventeen months, Petitioner had twelve documented errors in giving medications to patients under her supervision. This was more than any other employee at Respondent's facility. During Petitioner's tenure at Respondent's facility, Respondent had a Medication Error Policy in effect. This policy outlined the procedures and penalties for medication errors. For each error, points were assigned according to the severity and frequency of errors. The policy provided, however, that management had the right to terminate an employee at any time for a serious medication error regardless of whether the employee had accumulated any points under the policy. Petitioner was aware of, and understood, this policy. On May 2, 1994, Petitioner was working the night shift at Respondent's facility and was in charge of six patients on the third floor. One of her patients was a 78-year-old male who was scheduled to have surgery for a life-threatening abdominal aortic aneurysm. The attending physician had written on his orders that day that the patient was to be given "Halcion 0.125 milligrams PO noon." This meant that he was to receive one-half of a .25 milligrams tablet of Halcion, a narcotic-type drug, by mouth at noon on May 3, the following day. The order was attached to the patient's chart. Around 6:30 p.m. on May 2, 1994, Petitioner mistakenly gave the patient five Halcion 0.25 milligrams tablets by mouth, or ten times the prescribed dosage. Although Petitioner did not initially disclose this fact to other personnel, she eventually conceded that she had made an error. When the patient was found in a comatose state a few hours later, three physicians were called to check on his condition, including his primary physician, a critical care physician, and a neurologist. Not knowing that Petitioner had overmedicated the patient, the primary physician initially believed the patient had suffered a stroke. The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), a catheter was inserted, and he was placed on a respirator. After reading the medication record, the ICU nurses discovered that the patient had been overmedicated. The patient eventually recovered, but his surgery had to be postponed, which might have resulted in a burst aorta. His family later sued the hospital for Petitioner's negligence. Because of the serious nature of the error, and given Petitioner's past history of medication errors, Respondent terminated Petitioner on May 3, 1994. The employment decision was not based on Petitioner's race, but rather was based on "her poor work performance overall." There is no evidence as to whom, if anyone, was hired to replace Petitioner. The termination was wholly consistent with Respondent's Medication Error Policy. At hearing, Petitioner contended that the hospital did not terminate other nurses for similar offenses. However, during the same period of time that Petitioner was employed by Respondent, another nurse, M. C., a Caucasian female, was also terminated for making a serious medication error with a narcotic- type drug. Although M. C. had an otherwise "very good" record at the hospital, and did not have a history of medication errors, Respondent nonetheless terminated her since her conduct, like that of Petitioner, constituted a "life-threatening nurse practice error." Petitioner also contended that another nurse on duty that evening assisted her in calculating the Halcion dosage and this should relieve her of any responsibility. Although there was no independent testimony to corroborate this claim, even if true, the patient was under the direct supervision of Petitioner, and it would not diminish Petitioner's responsibility for placing the patient in a life-threatening situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 14th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerrylene Barr Post Office Box 289 Reddick, Florida 32686 Kip P. Roth, Esquire 2501 Park Plaza Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for an alleged violation of Chapters 395 and 401, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. HCA Raulerson is the only hospital in Okeechobee County, Florida. As such, it serves all of Okeechobee County and parts of the surrounding counties. It is a small community hospital that is best characterized as a primary care receiving facility as opposed to a secondary hospital or a tertiary care or trauma center hospital. The Hospital does not provide heart-bypass surgery, cardiac catherization, neuro-surgery services or even obstetrical services (other than the emergency delivery of babies.) The Hospital provided approximately three million dollars in uncompensated care to indigent residents of Okeechobee County in the year preceding the incident involved in this case. Under existing Florida law, a hospital is not required to provide either orthopedic surgery services or peripheral vascular services and there is no requirement for a hospital to have on its medical staff any orthopedic surgeons or peripheral vascular surgeons. The Hospital does not have the angiography equipment necessary for peripheral vascular surgery. As a result, the Hospital does not provide peripheral vascular surgery and there are no vascular surgeons on staff. Such services were not offered at the Hospital for at least several months prior to the incident in question. The Hospital has a single orthopedic surgeon on staff, Dr. Zafar Kureshi. Dr. Kureshi is board certified in orthopedic surgery. He has been engaged in the private practice of medicine in Okeechobee, Florida since October of 1986. While many of Dr. Kureshi's patients are treated at the Hospital, Dr. Kureshi is not employed by or under contract with the Hospital. This arrangement is not unusual since surgeons, including orthopedic and vascular surgeons, do not typically become employees of hospitals or enter into contracts with hospitals. The Hospital has tried to recruit additional orthopedic surgeons and other specialists for its medical staff, but has been unsuccessful. There is a shortage of orthopedic surgeons in Florida, especially in rural areas, and recruiting orthopedic surgeons to such areas is extremely difficult. It is unrealistic to expect that the Hospital would be able to recruit or retain any orthopedic surgeons if it required them to be "on call" at all times. For a short time after he first obtained staff privileges, Dr. Kureshi provided "on call" services for the Hospital's emergency room several nights per month. On those occasions, he treated patients irrespective of their financial status. At the time of the incident in question, however, Dr. Kureshi had ceased providing "on call" services. His decision was consistent with the Hospital medical staff by-laws. The by-laws of the Hospital medical staff state that, if there is only one physician on staff in a specialty, then that specialty does not have to make emergency department call rosters available to the emergency room. Since he was the only specialist on staff in his area of practice, Dr. Kureshi was not required to provide "on call" coverage. Subsequent to the incident involved in this case, Dr. Kureshi, at the request of the Hospital, has voluntarily agreed to be "on-call" several nights per month. Even when Dr. Kureshi is not formally "on call," the emergency room staff often contacts him when a patient presents at the emergency room in need of orthopedic care. On some such occasions, Dr. Kureshi will treat the patient if he was capable of doing so. When an orthopedic patient or a peripheral vascular patient presents at the Hospital and Dr. Kureshi can not or will not treat the patient, the Hospital (1) provides such care as can be rendered by the emergency room physician or others on HCA Raulerson's medical staff, (2) stabilizes the patient for transfer, (3) calls hospitals and their on-call physicians to arrange transfer, and (4) arranges suitable transportation and transfers the patient. In the months preceding the incident in question, the Hospital arranged the transfer to other hospitals of approximately eleven patients who presented at the Hospital's emergency room in need of orthopedic care. Four of those patients were "paying" patients covered by third party insurers, four were covered by Medicare or Medicaid and the remaining three were self-pay patients. There is no indication that financial status and/or the ability to pay in any way influenced the Hospital's actions with respect to these patients. HRS contends that Sections 395.0142, 395.0143 and 401.45, Florida Statutes, require a hospital that provides any given specialty service (e.g., orthopedic surgery services) to arrange 24-hour a day, seven day a week coverage for that service, either by providing coverage through physicians on staff or entering into advance transfer agreements with other hospitals to cover any such patients who may present in need of such services. The Hospital has attempted, but has been unsuccessful in its attempts, to obtain advance transfer agreements from other hospitals regarding the transfer of patients presenting themselves at the Hospital's emergency room in need of orthopedic surgery services or in need of peripheral vascular surgery services. The Hospital has limited bargaining power in attempting to induce other hospitals to enter into an advance transfer agreement. Because the Hospital is a small rural hospital, virtually all the services it offers are already available at the neighboring hospitals which are potential transfer partners. The only advance transfer agreements that the Hospital has been offered would require the Hospital to assume full responsibility for payment for services rendered to transferred patients by the transferee hospital. Those proposals have been rejected because the financial burden of such an arrangement would probably cause the Hospital to close. As of August 24, 1989, the date of the incident which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint in this case, HRS had not notified the Hospital of any rule or policy interpreting Sections 395.0142, 395.0143, and 401.45, Florida Statutes. As of August 24, 1989, HRS had not adopted any rule which stated a specific requirement that hospitals which provide orthopedic surgery must staff or provide on-call orthopedic surgery services on a continuous basis, i.e. twenty-four (24) hours per day, 365 days per year or have in place an agreement with another hospital(s) to provide such coverage. HRS contends that this requirement is imposed by the clear language of the statutes. On the evening of August 24, 1989 at approximately 7:45 p.m., K.H., a 28 year old male, presented himself at the Hospital's emergency room for treatment of a shotgun wound to his lower left leg. Dr. Charles Vasser, the emergency room physician on duty when K.H. arrived, stabilized the Patient and provided all the treatment that could be provided by an emergency room physician not trained in orthopedic surgery or vascular surgery. The radiology report prepared at the Hospital diagnosed the Patient's condition as follows: "focal soft tissue injury, with multiple metallic fragments of variable size, super imposed over soft tissues of distal right leg are noted. Comminuted compound fracture of distal tibial shaft, as well as linear fracture through distal fibula at same site, are observed. Findings are due to gun shot injury with residual bullet fragments within soft tissues. Correlation with patient's clinical findings is recommended." Because of the nature of the injury and the extent of the damage to the soft tissue of the Patient's lower leg, Dr. Vasser and the attending staff were concerned about the possibility of vascular damage. They frequently checked and charted the Patient's distal pulses. While the distal pulses appeared normal, the presence of distal pulses does not rule out vascular injury. A vascular injury is possible with a comminuted fracture even when the distal pedal pulses appear normal. A vascular problem is especially likely when the wound was inflicted by a shotgun blast and numerous metallic fragments are involved. After providing initial emergency room services to the Patient, Dr. Vasser felt that the assistance of appropriate specialists, i.e., an orthopedic surgeon and at least a consult with a vascular surgeon, would be required for further treatment. Dr. Vasser called the only orthopedic surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff, Dr. Zafar Kureshi, at 8:50 p.m. Dr. Kureshi was not on call that evening. Based on Dr. Vasser's description of K.H.'s condition, Dr. Kureshi stated that he was not capable of treating K.H. without the backup availability of a vascular surgeon and advised that K.H. should be transferred. This recommendation was made not only because Dr. Kureshi was not on call, but also because Dr. Kureshi was not capable of treating the Patient at an acceptable level of medical care without the availability of a vascular surgeon. As indicated in Findings of Fact 3 above, there are no vascular surgeons on staff at the Hospital and the Hospital does not offer vascular surgery services. In determining whether a patient needs the services of a physician in a particular specialty, the Hospital relies upon the medical judgment of the attending physician and any consulting physician. The Hospital did not and should not have ignored the medical determination made by the emergency room physician, in consultation with Dr. Kureshi, that the Patient, K.H., needed vascular backup in order to be properly treated. With the assistance of emergency technician Wendy Johns, Dr. Vasser began placing calls to other hospitals and their on-call physicians at 9:15 p.m. in an effort to arrange a transfer of the Patient. The first physician contacted through another hospital, Dr. Floyd, indicated that he would be unable to treat the Patient because of the extent of the soft-tissue injuries and the corresponding likelihood of vascular involvement. A number of additional hospitals and physicians were contacted and they also refused to accept the transfer of the Patient. All told, nineteen different physicians and/or hospitals were contacted between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. A variety of reasons were cited by those who refused to accept the transfer. Many of the reasons given for refusing the transfer were arguably a pretext and/or contravened the language and intent of Sections 395.0142, 395.0143 and 395.0144, Florida Statutes. Several of the doctors who were contacted confirmed that the treatment of the Patient would require the availability of a vascular surgeon as well as an orthopedist. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to transfer the Patient, Dr. Vasser contacted a general surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff, Dr. Husain, at approximately 12:10 a.m. Dr. Vasser and Dr. Husain again contacted Dr. Kureshi. The three physicians concurred that they were unable to treat the Patient because of the need for a vascular backup and the Hospital's inability to provide the necessary vascular backup. After he talked to Dr. Kureshi the second time, Dr. Vasser resumed calling other hospitals and their on-call physicians. The next call was to a vascular surgeon, Dr. Viamentes. Dr. Viamentes was reached through his beeper, but was unable to accept the transfer because he was out of town. At approximately 12:30 a.m., a social worker for the Hospital, Terry Cooper, contacted St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach. After some discussion and deliberation, St. Mary's agreed to accept the transfer of K.H. The Patient was transferred in stable condition via ambulance to St. Mary's Hospital where he arrived at approximately 3:00 a.m. Surgery was initiated at approximately 4:30 a.m. After the Patient was admitted to St. Mary's Hospital, the administration of that hospital filed a complaint with HRS pursuant to Section 395.0142, Florida Statutes. That complaint recites the facts surrounding the transfer of the Patient and the refusal of several other hospitals to accept the transfer. It is not clear whether St. Mary's was questioning the medical necessity of the transfer or simply the refusal of the other hospitals to accept the transfer. HRS initiated an investigation of the transfer of the Patient and submitted the Patient's medical records from both HCA Raulerson and St. Mary's to its expert, Dr. Slevenski, for review. Dr. Slevenski is an emergency room physician who has no specialized training in orthopedic surgery or vascular surgery. Dr. Slevenski testified that he saw no evidence in the Hospital's medical records that a vascular evaluation or consultation was necessary to treat this Patient and that the Hospital inappropriately transferred the Patient to another hospital. Dr. Slevenski's opinions are rejected. Dr. Slevenski erroneously assumed that the Hospital had not attempted to contact an orthopedic surgeon regarding the Patient. In fact, the Hospital contacted Dr. Kureshi, the only orthopedic surgeon on its staff, who indicated he was not qualified to treat the Patient's injury. The evidence established that both the emergency room physician and the orthopedic surgeon who was contacted at home felt that a vascular consult was necessary. These opinions were reasonable under the circumstances. The testimony of Dr. Henderson, the Respondent's expert, is accepted and confirms that the opinions of the emergency room physician and the orthopedic surgeon were reasonable under the circumstances and given the nature of the Patient's injury. There is no evidence that the Patient's care was deficient in any respect at either St. Mary's or the Hospital. The Patient progressed normally and a good result was achieved. In sum, the evidence established that the Hospital secured appropriate treatment for K.H. by providing an on-site emergency room physician and supporting staff who (1) provided immediate emergency care and stabilized the patient for transfer, (2) confirmed with the orthopedic surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff that a transfer was medically necessary, (3) called hospitals and their on-call physicians to arrange the transfer, and (4) arranged suitable transportation and transfer of the patient. The Hospital provided all the care that it could within its service capability. In view of his injury, the Patient's best interests were served by transferring him rather than treating him at the Hospital. The evidence did not establish whether K.H. was a paying or nonpaying patient. The evidence did establish that the decision to transfer K.H. was not based on his financial status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint filed against HCA Raulerson Hospital. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of January, 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 17th day of January, 1991.
The Issue The following are the issues presented: Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) has jurisdiction to determine the claim of Petitioners Wal-Mart, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) and Sedgwick CMS (“Sedgwick”) to relief under section 440.13(8) and (11), Florida Statutes; If DOAH has jurisdiction, whether Petitioners have standing to raise the issue of medical overutilization; If DOAH has jurisdiction and the Petitioners have standing, whether Petitioners are estopped from seeking reimbursement of any monies paid to Intervenors Florida Institute for Neurologic Rehabilitation (“FINR”) and Fruitville Holdings - Oppidan, Inc. (“Oppidan”); If DOAH has jurisdiction and Petitioners have standing and are not estopped, whether Intervenors engaged in overutilization of medical care in their care and treatment of the injured worker, D.F.; Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Department), has the authority to order Intervenors to reimburse Petitioners for payments related to overutilization by Intervenors in the medical care of D.F.; and If the Department has such authority, how much money should Intervenors be ordered to reimburse Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.13 governs the Department’s responsibilities and procedures for overseeing the provision by employers to their employees of “such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require, which is in accordance with established practice parameters and protocols of treatment as provided for in this chapter ” § 440.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner Wal-Mart is an “employer” as that term is defined in section 440.02(16). Petitioner Sedgwick acts as a workers' compensation servicing agent or “third party administrator” (“TPA”) for Wal-Mart and is a workers’ compensation “carrier” as defined in section 440.13(1)(c). D.F. is an “employee” as that term is defined in section 440.02(15). In 2003, during the course of his employment with Wal- Mart in Sarasota, D.F. fell approximately six feet from a ladder to the ground, landing on his left side and striking his head. D.F. was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. Through Sedgwick, Wal-Mart accepted the compensability of D.F.'s injuries under the law and began furnishing “medically necessary treatment, care and attendance” to D.F. as required by section 440.13(2). In the immediate aftermath of the accident, D.F. was treated at Sarasota Memorial Hospital, where he was diagnosed with cephalgia (headache), left flank contusion, and cervical strain. He was later seen at First Care in Sarasota with complaints of headache, and by a Dr. Barnea (no first name in the record) with complaints of headaches, dizziness, backaches, trouble with memory, and an inability to taste food. D.F. was also seen by Dr. Hal Pineless, a neurologist at the Neurocare Institute of Central Florida, who diagnosed D.F. with a cerebral concussion with post-concussive syndrome, post-concussive headaches, depression, and anosmia (loss of the sense of smell). In January 2005, D.F. took a handful of pills in what was at least a suicidal gesture, if not a serious attempt to kill himself. He was admitted to the Halifax Medical Center, and a Baker Act2/ proceeding was initiated against him. Although D.F. was found not to meet the criteria for involuntary hospitalization at that point, three months later he was referred by James Hutchens, his attorney, to Dr. Howard Goldman, a psychiatrist, because of the attorney's fear that D.F. would again attempt to harm himself. In February 2007, D.F. was evaluated at FINR, an inpatient neurologic rehabilitation facility in Wauchula. FINR recommended inpatient treatment for D.F. at their facility for an initial period of 30 to 60 days. The cost of the treatment was set at $950 a day. Susan Smith was the Sedgwick claims adjuster assigned to D.F.’s claim. Relying on the expertise of the physicians at FINR, Ms. Smith agreed to the admission and the price. Ms. Smith testified that when she took over the case, there were five physicians treating D.F., including a neurologist, a psychotherapist, a psychiatrist, and a physiatrist. The physicians were all requesting different courses of treatment and were prescribing medications that were in some instances contraindicated with each other. The physicians were not communicating with each other. D.F.’s case was “just a mess.” Ms. Smith stated that FINR seemed to present an opportunity for D.F. to receive all of his treatments in one place, with one physician in charge, in a coordinated fashion. D.F. was admitted to FINR in March 2007. Dr. Jorge J. Villalba, the medical director of FINR, diagnosed D.F.'s medical conditions as post-traumatic headaches, anxiety, and depression. FINR provided monthly reports of D.F.'s progress to Sedgwick. D.F.’s treatment was administered by a team of physicians at FINR and consisted of medical monitoring, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy. D.F. was provided vocational rehabilitation in FINR’s computer lab and in the wood shop, where he worked on sanding, staining, and building wood products. In August 2007, D.F. was transferred to Oppidan, an assisted living facility, as a “step down” in treatment from the inpatient FINR facility. Oppidan is affiliated with FINR, which does all of the billing for both entities. Again relying on the expertise of the physicians, Ms. Smith agreed to the transfer and to the $850 per day cost of care at Oppidan. Oppidan provided monthly reports to Sedgwick similar to those provided by FINR. These reports, later characterized as "boilerplate" by the Department’s expert medical advisor, Dr. Matthew Imfeld, showed that D.F. was receiving treatment similar to that which he had received at FINR, i.e., medical monitoring, occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, and vocational therapy. D.F. remained at Oppidan from August 2007 until August 2011, more than four years after his initial admission to FINR. Ms. Smith testified that she was in constant contact with the treatment facility and persistently inquired as to when D.F. would be ready for release from the facility. Ms. Smith noted a pattern in which D.F. would seem to improve to the point of discharge and then suffer some form of relapse or new symptom that would preclude his discharge. Increased symptoms included complaints of personality changes, anxiety, syncopal episodes accompanied by frequent falls, medication adjustments, emotional withdrawal, suspected Parkinson's syndrome, ringworm, shoulder problems, ringing in the ears, and anhedonia.3/ Petitioners worked with Oppidan’s medical staff to determine conditions for D.F.’s discharge from Oppidan. On January 9, 2009, Petitioner’s then-counsel, Brian Bartley, discussed the situation with Dr. Villalba and Dr. Jeffrey Walden, D.F.’s neuropsychologist. They agreed that D.F.’s needs could potentially be met within an outpatient day program. At Mr. Bartley’s suggestion, Dr. Villalba and Dr. Walden investigated the Adult Daycare program at Manatee Glens, a behavioral health hospital with an outpatient component. Though they rejected Manatee Glens as an appropriate placement, Drs. Villalba and Walden sent Mr. Bartley a letter, dated January 15, 2009, that outlined the components they felt necessary for an acceptable outpatient program: [D.F.] requires comprehensive case management services to oversee his program, assist with making and following-up on appointments, assist in managing his benefits, and coordinate his care. [D.F.] will require oversight of his medications. We feel that a home health nurse or, alternately, a nurse on site at a potential discharge site, would be necessary to provide for this need by packing his medication box with him, assessing him for possible side effects, overseeing a schedule of routine labs, etc. His wife can assist with prompting him at his medication times as necessary during non-program hours, but we do not recommend that she have primary responsibility for managing his medications or medical status. [D.F.] will require reliable transportation to and from his program and ancillary appointments. His wife will not be able to be his sole source of transportation. First, the only licensed and tagged vehicle they own is an old van that has had multiple reliability issues. Second, his wife has her own ongoing medical concerns that may interfere with her capacity to provide reliable transportation even with a working vehicle. [D.F.] requires activities that challenge him to be in the community and addressing his anxiety and panic symptoms. As such, a club-house model day program will be inadequate. He requires a vocational program where he is in a workplace, managing interpersonal relationships, and working on specified tasks. He has thus far been able to manage such assignments only with the assistance of a one-to-one job coach on the site with him and working at his side. As such, job coaching services will be required for all vocational hours. [D.F.] requires community recreational activities to further challenge his capacity to cope and master anxiety-producing situations with less structure than a workplace. His present program addressed this need through one-to-one lunch outings, fishing trips, etc. During these activities, he is encouraged to use the coping strategies developed in his psychotherapy sessions to manage and persevere despite his debilitating anxiety. [D.F.] requires a quiet place to which he can temporarily retreat and regroup between community-based activities. He can become overwhelmed in busy and chaotic environments such as a room with loud music or television playing, a busy game room, or an activity center. He has coping strategies he utilizes when he must be in such environments, but the availability of a place where he can escape such over- stimulation is required to facilitate his participation in his activities. [D.F.] requires continued participation in weekly cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy. He also requires regular contact with a neurologist and a neuropsychiatrist. His current program includes massage therapy as well to address his shoulder and to assist with relaxation skills. He also receives assistance with the management of his personal budget, including development of computer-based budgeting program, planning of future expenses and anticipated income, and development of financial priorities. He will require continued assistance in this area as well. We hope this adequately describes the services we feel will be required to address [D.F.’s] needs in an outpatient environment. Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions you may have. We will gladly review any proposed discharge site and offer our thoughts regarding the acceptability of such a site to meet his needs. The record indicates that Mr. Bartley suggested at least one more potential discharge site to the medical staff at Oppidan. In a letter dated March 27, 2009, Drs. Villalba and Walden stopped short of rejecting this option outright but did set forth a list of concerns and requests for further information regarding the details of the proposed treatment. The record does not indicate whether Mr. Bartley followed up on these concerns and requests, or whether Petitioners proposed another outpatient program for D.F. By the time of D.F.’s discharge, FINR and Oppidan’s billed charges for his treatment totaled $1,451,301.27. Wal- Mart, through Sedgwick, paid these bills in full without disallowance, adjustment, or reduction. At all times relevant, Ms. Smith relied upon the expertise of the medical staff at FINR and Oppidan’s facilities confirming that the treatment being provided was medically necessary. Ms. Smith also understood that D.F. had been "Baker Acted" and feared that he might harm himself if Oppidan discharged him upon her disallowance of the charges for his treatment. Though they continued paying the charges during D.F.’s stay at Oppidan, Petitioners noted the mounting costs and apparently endless course of treatment. Petitioners referred D.F. to Glenn J. Larrabee, Ph.D., a diplomate in clinical neuropsychology, who examined D.F. on September 28 through 30 and October 5, 2009, and reviewed all of his available medical records. Dr. Larrabee produced a 41-page report, dated November 9, 2009. The report concluded that D.F.’s medical records “suggest that at worst, he suffered a mild traumatic brain injury of an uncomplicated nature, given normal CT Scan the day of injury and multiple subsequent normal CT Scans of the brain.” Dr. Larrabee noted that recovery from such an uncomplicated injury is usually three months at most and that D.F. had no cognitive or emotional complaints in follow-up visits shortly after the injury. It was only a few weeks later that he displayed the symptoms of anosmia. Dr. Larrabee’s examination of D.F. showed “deliberate feigning of odor identification in the left nostril, with significantly worse- than-chance performance, strongly supporting the feigning of anosmia.” Dr. Larrabee further noted evidence of normal neuropsychological test performance in D.F.’s initial neuropsychological evaluation with a Dr. Frank in early 2004, in a second neurological evaluation conducted by a Dr. Bosco in 2007, and in Dr. Larrabee’s own current examination. These results “strongly contradict the presence of any persistent deficit from his original mild traumatic brain injury.” In each of these tests, Dr. Larrabee also noted “evidence of invalid test performance with failure of symptom validity tests and measures of response bias,” a further indication that D.F. was deliberately feigning responses. Dr. Larrabee wrote that “[o]ther health care professionals have noted a motivational basis or non-neurologic basis to symptomatic complaint.” Dr. Salter in 2005 included “factitious disorder” as one of his diagnoses, and Dr. Tatum noted that D.F. displayed seizures without any indication of actual epilepsy. Dr. Larrabee concluded that, while there was “compelling evidence of malingering” on the neuropsychological examinations, other professionals have noted “significant personality disorder features” that could lead one to be dependent on the inpatient hospitalization setting. Dr. Larrabee found that there could be “a mix of intentional (i.e., malingering) and unintentional (psychiatric) factors” in the case of D.F. He recommended a one-month stay in a psychiatric facility for evaluation and treatment. Without such hospitalization, it could not be determined whether D.F. had a legitimate psychiatric disorder or whether such disorder was a consequence of his workplace injury. At about the same time as the referral to Dr. Larrabee, Petitioners began to explore legal channels to procure D.F.’s discharge from Oppidan. Petitioners sent the case file to an attorney, Edward Louis Stern, who testified at the final hearing. Mr. Stern testified that he met with D.F.'s attorney for the purpose of obtaining his cooperation in having D.F. discharged. Mr. Stern provided D.F.'s attorney with a copy of Dr. Larrabee’s report. Mr. Stern stated that D.F.'s attorney agreed in principle to the discharge of D.F. but wanted to identify the parameters that would be allowed by FINR/Oppidan for his safe release. To this end, a meeting was set up for June 3, 2010, that included the program director at FINR, the treating neuropsychologist, a vocational consultant, D.F., D.F.'s spouse, and D.F.'s attorney. Mr. Stern reported that no one at the meeting was willing to definitively identify the parameters of D.F.'s discharge. Mr. Stern left the meeting with the definite impression that D.F.’s attorney would not agree to D.F.’s discharge. He also believed that no one at the facility would be willing to identify parameters for discharge. Therefore, Mr. Stern and his clients decided to initiate formal overutilization proceedings based on peer review, pursuant to section 440.13(6). Mr. Stern noted that peer review requires two or more "physicians" to make an evaluation of the care in question. Petitioners had in hand only the opinion of Dr. Larrabee, a neuropsychologist whose non-physician opinion would not be admissible before a Judge of Compensation Claims. After some negotiation, D.F.’s attorney agreed to an examination by a psychiatrist. On September 3, 2010, Dr. R.J. Mignone, a board- certified psychiatrist practicing in Sarasota, evaluated D.F. at Petitioners' request. Dr. Mignone’s 35-page report included a detailed narrative of D.F.’s treatment history, Dr. Mignone’s examination, and his impressions and recommendations. In brief answers to a series of questions propounded by Petitioners, Dr. Mignone concluded that D.F.'s industrial accident was not "the major contributing cause" for the psychiatric care he had been receiving at FINR/Oppidan. Dr. Mignone found no DSM-IV Axis I psychiatric injury to D.F. and concluded that D.F.’s treatment at FINR/Oppidan was actually "psychiatrically contraindicated." Dr. Mignone concluded that it would be appropriate to discharge D.F. from Oppidan with the understanding that some regression should be expected once his “Axis II characteropathy” ceased to be reinforced by the inpatient setting. Dr. Mignone believed that D.F.'s medical professionals had been guilty of "walking on eggshells" in their treatment of him and that D.F.'s "acting out" behavior had been a major factor in FINR/Oppidan's program design. Dr. Mignone concluded that because D.F.’s condition was unrelated to his work injury, all of the treatment he had received at FINR and Oppidan constituted overutilization. After a great deal more legal jockeying, a second peer review was performed by Dr. Thomas Goldschmidt on January 7, 2011. Dr. Goldschmidt is a specialist in neurology and psychiatry, and was specifically recommended by Dr. Mignone to perform an examination of D.F. However, because D.F.’s attorney declined to allow the examination, Dr. Goldschmidt’s opinion was based on his review of the medical record and Dr. Mignone’s evaluation. He summarized his findings as follows: The claimant experienced MTBI [mild traumatic brain injury] on May 9, 2003. He reported loss of consciousness for seconds and was able to drive himself home afterwards. Serial evaluations over time have chronicled multiple normal CT brain scans, normal forty-eight hour EEG monitoring suggesting PNES [psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, i.e., seizures with a psychological cause], symptom exaggeration/malingering on neuropsychological testing, pertinacious somatic preoccupation with trait characterological disturbance consistent with passive-dependent underpinnings, and counter-therapeutic institutionalization at OPPIDAN. As such, the claimant’s clinical course has iatrogenically served to enhance his misguided perception of being “brain injured” in pursuit of satisfying his formidable but chronically frustrated dependency needs. Furthermore, his clinical course is atypical for MTBI and cannot be objectivity [sic] reconciled with the neuropsychological or clinical data provided for my review. From a non-organic perspective, the claimant has parlayed his seven year old MTBI into a state of invalidism largely facilitated by OPPIDAN. In effect, his illness-behavior has been iatrogenically perpetuated by reinforcing the notion of “brain injury” and treatment of psychogenic-mediated symptomatology unrelated to his 2003 work injury. Negotiations continued and a private mediation resulted in a negotiated settlement between Petitioners and D.F. The parties agreed that Petitioners would no longer be responsible for workers’ compensation benefits as of the date the agreement was signed, though D.F. would continue to receive payments for lost wages and supplemental benefits. It was agreed that Petitioners would cease making payments to FINR/Oppidan on August 30, 2011, the date that D.F.’s residency would discontinue. In light of Petitioners’ suspicions regarding D.F.’s possible malingering, it is reasonable to ask why they never disallowed or adjusted any of the bills generated by FINR/Oppidan’s treatment of D.F. Mr. Stern testified that Petitioners did not unilaterally disallow payment out of fear that FINR/Oppidan might retaliate against D.F. by immediately discharging him, thereby risking another suicide attempt and possible tort liability for Petitioners.4/ Petitioners also feared that unilateral disallowance of payments could negatively affect their ongoing negotiations with D.F.’s counsel regarding voluntary discharge from Oppidan. On January 28, 2011, Petitioners filed the Reimbursement Petition with the Department, naming FINR and Oppidan as respondents and expressly disclaiming any direct reimbursement dispute with D.F. The Reimbursement Petition recited the history of D.F.’s treatment. It did not name a specific instance of overutilization; rather, it stated that all of D.F.’s treatment by FINR and Oppidan constituted overutilization. The Reimbursement Petition requested that the Department, “in accordance with Section 440.13(6), Florida Statutes . . . disallow the payment of services previously paid by the Petitioner[s] and reimburse Petitioners all sums paid.” The Reimbursement Petition also requested the return of payments made by Petitioners in accordance with section 440.13(11)(a).5/ Attached to the Reimbursement Petition was a copy of DFS Form 3160-0023, entitled “Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute,” executed by Wal-Mart and Sedgwick. Just below the title of DFS Form 3160-0023 is the following statement: “A Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute must be served on the Agency within 30 days after the Petitioner’s receipt of a notice of disallowance or adjustment of payment, pursuant to 69L-31.008, Florida Administrative Code.” Section 440.13(7)(a) likewise provides, in relevant part: Any health care provider, carrier, or employer who elects to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier under subsection (6) must, within 30 days after receipt of notice of disallowance or adjustment of payment, petition the department to resolve the dispute. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on the carrier and on all affected parties by certified mail. The petition must be accompanied by all documents and records that support the allegations contained in the petition. Failure of a petitioner to submit such documentation to the department results in dismissal of the petition. FINR and Oppidan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Reimbursement Petition arguing that jurisdiction for a reimbursement review can be invoked only where a medical bill has been disallowed or adjusted for payment. They further argued that Petitioners could not invoke the Department’s jurisdiction to conduct a mandatory utilization review under section 440.13(6) because of that subsection’s provision that if a carrier finds that overutilization of medical services has occurred, the carrier “must disallow or adjust payment for such services.” FINR/Oppidan argued that the dispute mechanism afforded a carrier under section 440.13 is limited to disallowing or adjusting a payment, which triggers the filing of a petition by the health care provider and a response from the carrier. Given that the Sedgwick did not disallow or adjust any payments, the Reimbursement Petition should be dismissed. As a result of the Reimbursement Petition, the Department initiated an investigation of FINR/Oppidan and of Dr. Villalba individually as medical director of FINR/Oppidan pursuant to section 440.13(11). Eric Lloyd, who at the time was program administrator of the office of medical services in the Division of Workers’ Compensation, testified that the Department did not then have a formalized method for reporting provider violations and that the language of 440.13(7) makes it clear that only a health care provider may pursue a petition for resolution of a reimbursement dispute. Mr. Lloyd stated that the Department therefore treated the Reimbursement Petition as a report of provider violation and converted the matter into a review under section 440.13(11). Delays in the resolution of the audit were caused by the need to advertise for and contract the services of an Expert Medical Advisor (“EMA”) pursuant to section 440.13(9). The Department’s initial contracting efforts were futile. Two contracted EMAs disqualified themselves for conflicts of interest. The Department finally engaged the services of a certified EMA, Dr. Imfeld, a specialist in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Dr. Imfeld reviewed D.F.'s medical records from FINR/Oppidan, as well as the reports from the various doctors that were provided to the Department by the parties. Petitioners provided documents pursuant to a “Health Care Provider Violation Referral Document Request” issued by the Department on March 31, 2011, and a “Health Care Provider Violation Referral Document Request Addendum” issued by the Department on April 4, 2011. Both documents required the carrier to submit various forms of documentation. The Department’s initial document request states that the Reimbursement Petition alleged “that services rendered by Dr. Jorge Villalba, M.D. (hereinafter “Provider”), for the treatment rendered to the above referenced injured employee while an inpatient at FINR/OPPIDAN was in excess of established practice parameters and protocols of treatment established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.” In fact, the Reimbursement Petition made its allegations against FINR and Oppidan as institutions. Dr. Villalba was not mentioned by name in the Reimbursement Petition. The only reference to him was a statement that “[b]oth entities seemingly have the same medical director or attending physician.” Pamela Macon, bureau chief of the bureau of monitoring and audit in the Division of Workers’ Compensation, conceded at the hearing that it was her office that decided to include Dr. Villalba in the investigation because he was the medical director of the facilities. The language of the document requests plainly reflects an attempt to impute to Petitioners the Department’s own decision at the outset of the investigation to focus on Dr. Villalba individually. The end result of the investigation was that charges were brought against Dr. Villalba, but not against FINR or Oppidan as institutions. As explained more fully below, the case against Dr. Villalba was settled. No case was ever brought against the institutions. The following colloquy at the hearing is between Ms. Macon and counsel for Petitioners: Q. And as I understand it, you added Dr. Villalba to the case because he would have been, as the medical director, responsible for any medical care that was provided within the facility and he then should be responsible? A. Yes. Q. That’s why you added him? A. Correct. Q. But then you changed your mind and determined that he wasn’t involved with it at all, so you weren’t going to give – you weren’t going to penalize him? A. Right, that he didn’t render the direct care. Q. Okay. Did you ever make a determination who did the direct care? A. Not to my knowledge, no. Mr. Lloyd testified as to a policy dispute within the agency as to whether a “health care provider” violation may be brought only against individual health care providers or whether a facility can also be found in violation and sanctioned. He acknowledged that the statutory term “health care provider” explicitly includes health care facilities, but cited the difficulty involved in disciplining a facility such as FINR, which treats multiple injured workers. If the Department bars an entire facility, it would affect not just the individual injured worker whose treatment is in question but any others the facility is treating now or in the future.6/ In his report, dated August 12, 2013, Dr. Imfeld concluded that while D.F.'s 2003 accident resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury, it did not cause a seizure disorder or Parkinson's disease. He further concluded that all of the inpatient treatment from FINR/Oppidan was excessive and not medically necessary. On September 23, 2013, the Department entered its “Report of Health Care Provider Investigation and Notice of Intent to Impose Penalties Pursuant to §440.13, F.S.”7/ The Notice of Intent was directed to Dr. Villalba individually and stated as follows, in relevant part: The record in this matter, corroborated by the EMA opinion, evidences certain care that was neither medically necessary nor clinically appropriate for D.F.'s compensable condition. Accordingly, the Department finds that because of your role at FINR and OPPIDAN, you have directly or indirectly engaged in a pattern or practice of overutilization or a violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, in the treatment rendered to D.F. Dr. Villalba filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on October 7, 2013, in response to the Notice of Intent. The Department and Dr. Villalba agreed to hold the case in abeyance rather than forward it to DOAH. The case was ultimately settled, the parties entering into a Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order on May 13, 2014. The settlement provided that the Department would withdraw and dismiss its Notice of Intent and that Dr. Villalba would withdraw and dismiss his petition for an administrative hearing with prejudice. Mr. Lloyd testified that after the Notice of Intent was filed against Dr. Villalba, the Department received a Recommended Order from an Administrative Law Judge in another DOAH case in which the Department had issued a Notice of Intent against an individual physician for overutilization. The Recommended Order was “pretty critical of the Department and the process that was involved,” and the Department felt obliged to enter a settlement for attorney’s fees. Mr. Lloyd testified that the Department believed Dr. Villalba’s case had “the same shortcomings” as that earlier case. Mr. Lloyd stated that this belief played a large role in the decision to settle with Dr. Villalba in lieu of trying to prove a difficult case of overutilization in a formal proceeding. Wal-Mart and Sedgwick were given no notice of the settlement negotiations or the entry of the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order between the Department and Dr. Villalba. Mr. Lloyd testified that there is no statutory obligation for the Department to apprise the complainant of the status of the Department’s investigations. On March 23, 2015, the Department issued an order titled “Workers’ Compensation Medical Services Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal” that purported to dispose of the Reimbursement Petition filed by Wal-Mart and Sedgwick on January 28, 2011. The order provided as follows, in relevant part: There is no information to suggest that Wal- Mart, Inc. or Sedgwick CMS discontinued authorization for treatment and care for [D.F.] by the Respondent herein during the specified dates of service. * * * The issues raised by Wal-Mart, Inc. and Sedgwick CMS are utilization review issues, not appropriate for resolution in reimbursement dispute resolution proceedings under section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes. The utilization issues were resolved by the Department in its MSS Case No. ROV00039 and Department Case No. 143376 [i.e., the case against Dr. Villalba that was dismissed via Consent Order]. Therefore, this Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute in MMS Case No. 20110531-001 is hereby DISMISSED.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 19th day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a medical doctor licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 89113. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is also licensed as a medical doctor in the State of New Jersey. The Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (New Jersey Board) is the licensing authority regulating the practice of medicine in the State of New Jersey. On or about February 21, 2012, the New Jersey Board entered an Order of Automatic Suspension of Respondent’s New Jersey medical license. The basis for the Order was Respondent’s purported failure to comply with a Private Letter Agreement previously entered between Respondent and the New Jersey Board, in that she allegedly failed to undergo an independent psychiatric evaluation and failed to provide required psychiatric reports to the state’s Physician Assistance Program (PAP).2/ The action by the New Jersey Board constitutes action against Respondent’s medical license by the licensing authority of another jurisdiction. Respondent did not report the action against her New Jersey license to the Florida Board of Medicine on or before March 23, 2012, or within 30 days of the action against her license. When documents are received by the Department, they are imaged into the Department’s system. Mail for the licensing unit is picked up several times a day, and all documents are indexed by the licensee’s license number. A licensee can check to see if documents are received by contacting the Department by telephone or e-mail. As of the week before the hearing, no information regarding Dr. Ackerman had been received by the Department from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent claims that she notified the Board by both United States Mail and by certified mail of the action against her New Jersey license. A copy of the letter she claims to have sent is Respondent’s Exhibit 1. This letter is dated March 2, 2012, is not signed, does not contain her license number in Florida or New Jersey, and is addressed to “Florida License Board.” The document does not include an address beyond Tallahassee, Florida. No zip code is included. Dr. Ackerman could not say whether she had a receipt for the certified mail, only that she probably “had it somewhere.” She could not identify who, if anyone, signed for it. When asked for the address where she mailed the letter, Dr. Ackerman said, after a considerable pause, 452 Bald Cypress Way, and claimed she knew that address “off the top of her head.”3/ The copy admitted into evidence only reflects a faxed date of March 22, 2014, two days before the hearing.4/ By contrast, Board staff testified credibly as to the process for logging mail at the Department, and that no notification had been received from Dr. Ackerman. While staff acknowledged that it is “possible” for mail to come to the Department and not be routed appropriately, the more persuasive evidence in this case is that the Board staff received nothing from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent’s claim that both copies of her letter somehow slipped through the cracks is simply not believable. Moreover, Dr. Ackerman is a physician. As such, she is presumed to be a relatively intelligent person, capable of providing appropriate notification to the Board. The docket and evidentiary record in this case demonstrate that when she wants to get a message across, she is capable of doing so (and equally capable of avoiding answering a direct question if it is not to her advantage). Her claim that she notified the Board of the action against her license in New Jersey is not credible, and is rejected. Dr. Ackerman also did not update her practitioner profile. Practitioner profiles can be updated by faxing the updated information, using the fax number available on-line; by mailing the information to the Department; or by logging into the practitioner profile database using the licensee’s specific log- in ID and password. Dr. Ackerman did none of those.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn). In addition, it is recommended that the Board impose the following penalty: a reprimand of Respondent’s license to practice medicine; an administrative fine of $5,000; suspension of Respondent’s license to practice medicine until such time as Respondent demonstrates that her license in New Jersey has been reinstated and demonstrates the ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety; and reservation of jurisdiction by the Board to impose a period of probation should Respondent successfully petition the Board for reinstatement and demonstrate compliance with the terms described in recommendation three. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2014.
