The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(d), 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(t), 458.331(1)(ll), and 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2001),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of licensed physicians pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Dangl, whose address of record is 3900 Clark Road, Suite E-1, Sarasota, Florida 34233, was issued Florida license number ME 71286 to practice medicine in Florida. During all relevant periods of time, he was not board-certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties or by any agency recognized by the Board of Medicine. Dr. Dangl is the holder of a D.M.D. degree from the Washington University School of Dental Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. He is not licensed as a dentist in Florida, but he has previously held dental licenses in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. He is specialty certified by the American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. This specialty is related to the practice of dentistry. During all relevant periods of time, Dr. Dangl's office was fully and properly registered as an office surgical facility. During all relevant periods of time, Dr. Dangl did not have hospital privileges. On August 17, 2001, C.S., a female who was at that time 63 years old, came to Dr. Dangl's office for a consultation regarding facial rejuvenation and body contouring. Dr. Dangl saw C.S. and recommended "that she consider cervicofacial rhytidectomy with full face carbon dioxide laser resurfacing and autogenous fat transfer to the facial area." He further determined that the "degree of liposity in the abdomen and flanks is minimal and this can also be treated at the same time with low-volume tumescent liposuction." Prior to her consultation with Dr. Dangl, C.S. had seen an advertisement for Dr. Dangl in the "Sarasota Herald-Tribune." The advertisement listed Dr. Dangl as "Kurt Dangl, M.D., FAACS" and underneath his name appeared the words "Board Certified." From reading the advertisement, C.S. assumed that Dr. Dangl was board-certified in cosmetic or plastic surgery. C.S. returned to Dr. Dangl's office on August 21, 2001, for preoperative counseling. She signed consent forms for the procedures to be performed. The consent forms listed potential risks and complications involved with the procedures. Complications included infection, wound breakdown, and skin necrosis. The consent forms stated that Dr. Dangl did not guarantee specific results and that wound healing was outside the control of the patient and Dr. Dangl. On the printed consent forms the abbreviation "D.M.D." followed Dr. Dangl's name. No evidence was presented that the consent forms were being used as advertisements. C.S.'s medical records in Dr. Dangl's files indicate a blood sample was taken from C.S. on August 21, 2001, and sent to AccuLab. An AccuLab report dated August 22, 2001, indicated that C.S. had a slightly lowered hemoglobin level of 35.5. Based on a notation on the report, it appeared that Dr. Dangl reviewed the report on August 23, 2001. There is a handwritten note on the AccuLab report that the hemoglobin count was "ok for planned procedure." Dr. Dangl did not advise C.S. prior to the surgical procedures that her hemoglobin count was low. Dr. Dangl's records indicate that C.S. gave a medical history prior to the surgery and that Dr. Dangl performed a physical examination of C.S. prior to the surgery. C.S. advised Dr. Dangl that she had had her coccyx removed about six weeks before her scheduled cosmetic surgery. On August 28, 2001, C.S. returned to Dr. Dangl's office to have Dr. Dangl perform a face and neck lift, laser resurfacing of the face, removing fat from her abdomen and flanks, and transferring some of the fat from the abdomen and flanks to specific areas in her face. Betsy Shecter, who is licensed as an advance registered nurse practitioner in Florida, was the nurse anesthetist for C.S.'s procedures. Ms. Shecter's first contact with C.S. on August 28, 2001, occurred at 13:05, when she interviewed C.S. and then escorted C.S. to the operating room. At 13:15, C.S. was given valium, and an IV infusion of propofol and Sufenta was placed in C.S.'s arm around 13:20. Propofol is an anesthetic and Sufenta is a synthetic narcotic. C.S. was prepped and draped around 13:30, and a local anesthesia was injected at 13:35. Because the local anesthesia required about 20 to 30 minutes to become active, Dr. Dangl did not make the first incision until 14:05. The liposuction procedure to harvest the fat for a fat transfer occurred between 14:05 and 15:00. After liposuction, a local anesthesia was injected in the areas where the face lift would be performed. At 15:20, a garment was applied to the areas where fat had been harvested to keep the swelling down. Sequential leg compressions were put in place to avoid blood clots. The actual face lift started around 15:30 and ended around 20:20, when Ms. Shecter put Opticane ointment and corneal shields in C.S.'s eyes for the laser procedure. The laser procedure began around 20:25. At around 21:00, Ms. Schecter turned off the propofol drip to which Demerol had been added. The actual laser surgery stopped at approximately 20:55. The eye shields were removed at 21:15. The recovery time in the operating room commenced at 21:00 when the drugs were stopped and ended around 21:45. The recovery time continued until C.S. was discharged at 22:30. At the time of her discharge, C.S.'s vital signs were stable, and she was alert and oriented. C.S. was told prior to the surgery that someone would have to stay with her overnight after the surgery. C.S. made arrangements for her daughter and C.S.'s sister to stay overnight with her. C.S.'s sister had training and experience as a certified nurse assistant. Prior to the surgery, Dr. Dangl told C.S. that she would probably be ready to go home around four or five o'clock (16:00 or 17:00). She made arrangements with her daughter to pick her up around 17:00. When her daughter inquired from Dr. Dangl's office at 17:00 whether her mother was ready to leave, she was advised that surgery had not been completed. C.S. was not discharged until over five hours after her daughter first contacted Dr. Dangl's office. C.S.'s daughter became visibly upset when she saw her mother after the surgery and wanted to have C.S. admitted to a hospital. Because of the daughter's agitation, arrangements were made for a licensed practical nurse, Ruth Schneider, to stay overnight with C.S. C.S.'s daughter and sister had some difficulty in getting C.S. into the car for the trip home because of the sequential leg compressions, which C.S. wore home. Dr. Dangl and Ms. Shecter put C.S. in the car. At the time that C.S. was put in the car, C.S. was able to stand on her own and able to walk with support. When C.S. arrived home, Ms. Schneider assisted C.S. into her home. At that time, C.S. was alert and oriented and could ambulate with assistance. When C.S. got in her home, she was able to drink and take nourishment. Ms. Schneider helped C.S. ambulate to the bathroom. C.S. sat in a recliner and slept some during the night. At the close of Ms. Schneider's eight- hour shift, she left C.S. in the care of C.S.'s sister. C.S. was scheduled for a follow-up visit with Dr. Dangl on August 29, 2001, but C.S.'s sister was unable to arouse C.S. and get C.S. up to go to the doctor's office. Dr. Dangl's office was advised that C.S. could not come to his office. Dr. Dangl came to C.S.'s home around nine or ten o'clock in the evening of August 29, 2001, for a follow-up visit. He removed the dressings from her wounds and applied an antibiotic ointment. Dr. Dangl apparently did not have bandages with him that he could place on the surface of the wounds because he asked the sister for sanitary napkins to use as a dressing. C.S.'s sister retrieved sanitary napkins from the bathroom, and Dr. Dangl, using scissors from a nearby basket, cut the napkins up and used them to dress the wounds. He reused the Ace-type bandages which he had removed and placed them over the sanitary pads. C.S. was instructed to come to Dr. Dangl's office on August 31, 2001, for her 72-hour postoperative evaluation. On August 31, 2001, C.S.'s sister took C.S. to Dr. Dangl's office. C.S.'s sister did not accompany C.S. into the treatment room. Dr. Dangl removed the dressings and inspected the wounds. There was no evidence of hematoma, seroma, or infection. He noted that there was a "small area of devascularization immediately anterior to the left tragus on the left side" and described the areas as "about the size of a quarter." His notes indicate that the area would be "followed expectantly and debrided as necessary." He was to follow up with C.S. in 48 or 72 hours. When Dr. Dangl came out of the treatment room, he saw C.S.'s sister and asked her what was wrong with her. She explained that she was tired from being up all night with C.S. Dr. Dangl asked the sister why she did not take one of the sleeping pills that he had prescribed for C.S. The sister replied, "What? Why would you tell me to do that, take someone else's medicine?" Prior to this conversation, Dr. Dangl had not examined the sister in any way, gotten her medical history, or asked her whether she was taking any other medications. Over the next several days, C.S. complained to her sister that she was burning, hurting all over, and was not able to sleep or rest. On September 3, 2001, C.S.'s daughter called Dr. Dangl's office and advised that C.S. had a foul smelling discharge in front of her left tragus. Dr. Dangl called in a prescription for antibiotics for C.S. and told C.S.'s daughter that he wanted to see C.S. the following day. Dr. Dangl saw C.S. in his office on September 4, 2001. His examination of C.S. revealed that the size of the devascularized area in front of her left tragus had increased four times. There was some foul smelling yellow-brown discharge coming from this area as well as from several areas under the mandible approximately following the locations of the previously placed drains. He debrided the devitalized area and irrigated the discharge areas with an antibiotic solution and hydrogen peroxide. An intravenous antibiotic was administered, and wound cultures were obtained from various sites. Dr. Dangl again saw C.S. in his office on the evening of September 4, 2005. There was a minimal amount of drainage and no foul smelling odor. On September 5, 2001, C.S. again presented to Dr. Dangl's office for postoperative infection evaluation and treatment. There was a mild purulent discharge in the left anterior neck and at the left post auricular area. Dr. Dangl debrided the wound area and irrigated the wound area with sterile saline. C.S.'s pain medication was increased. Dr. Dangl saw C.S. in his office on September 6, 2001, for further wound treatment. The laboratory results of the wound cultures indicated a light growth of E. coli. Dr. Dangl administered an antibiotic intravenously and removed necrotic tissue. C.S. returned to Dr. Dangl's office on September 7, 2001. Her temperature was 100.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and she was complaining of significant discomfort. Dr. Dangl debrided the wound area. He examined the abdomen and flank incisions and found no evidence of infection or other signs of untoward wound healing. C.S.'s daughter accompanied her mother to Dr. Dangl's office on September 7, 2001, and expressed her concerns about her mother's condition. The daughter felt that her mother might benefit from hospitalization. Dr. Dangl referred C.S. to Dr. Manual Gordillo for evaluation and determination of the need for hospitalization. Dr. Gordillo treated infectious diseases. Dr. Gordillo saw C.S. and advised C.S. and her daughter that the treatment for the infection could be done in the hospital or on an outpatient basis, but expressed his opinion that admission to the hospital was borderline. C.S. opted for hospitalization and was admitted to Doctors Hospital of Sarasota on September 7, 2001. After C.S. was admitted to the hospital, additional cultures were taken of the wound sites as well as the sites in the abdomen where fat had been harvested. Based on the laboratory results, C.S. had a scant growth of E. coli from her face wound culture and a moderate growth of staphylococcus aureus from abdominal wound culture. C.S. was placed in isolation because of the staph infection. C.S. was experiencing a great deal of pain from her wounds while she was in the hospital. Because of her difficulty with pain management, she was put on a PCP pump to help control the pain. While she was in the hospital, Dr. Dangl visited her several times to observe. He did not perform any treatment on C.S. while she was hospitalized. C.S. told Dr. Dangl that she wished that he would not visit her while she was in the hospital, but he continued to come. The evidence is not clear and convincing that C.S. conveyed to Dr. Dangl that she did not want his services any longer, particularly in light of C.S.'s paying office visits to Dr. Dangl for treatment after she was discharged from the hospital. However, the evidence is clear and convincing that C.S. did not want Dr. Dangl to visit her in the hospital and that she told him so. Dr. Dangl's medical records do not establish a medical basis for continuing to see C.S. in the hospital after she asked him not to do so. C.S. was discharged from the hospital on September 13, 2001. At that time, she was feeling much better, her wounds were stable, and her wounds were not clinically overtly infected. She was directed to follow up with Dr. Dangl as soon as the following day and to follow up with Dr. Gordillo within a week. After her discharge from the hospital, C.S. continued to see Dr. Dangl on September 15, 17, 19, and 21, 2001. Dr. Dangl changed the dressings and, on two of the visits, did some minimal debridement. C.S. discontinued seeing Dr. Dangl after her office visit on September 21, 2001. On September 24, 2001, C.S. began seeing Dr. John Leikensohn, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, for wound treatment. He diagnosed C.S. as having massive skin necrosis. When C.S. began seeing Dr. Leikensohn, she was asked to sign a medical release for her medical records from Dr. Dangl, and she did so. Dr. Leikensohn's staff contacted Dr. Dangl's office by telephone to get C.S.'s records. The medical release was sent by facsimile transmission to Dr. Dangl's office with a request for C.S.'s records. By October 2, 2001, Dr. Leikensohn had not received the records from Dr. Dangl. Dr. Leikensohn asked C.S. and C.S.'s daughter to stop by Dr. Dangl's office and get a copy of the records. C.S. went to Dr. Dangl's office and personally asked his staff for her records, but was not given the records. She also submitted a written request for her records, but did not receive them pursuant to the written request. Barbie Beaver, Dr. Dangl's office coordinator, does not recall when or from whom she actually received a request for C.S.'s records, but she does remember sending C.S.'s medical records to Barbara Dame, Dr. Dangl's risk manager, for her review on September 27, 2001. When Dr. Dangl's office received a request for a patient's records, she would advise Dr. Dangl and he would decide what to do. She gave a request for C.S.'s medical records to Dr. Dangl, and he instructed her to send them to Ms. Dame for review prior to releasing the records. Ms. Beaver does not recall when she actually sent C.S.'s records to the person who requested them. During his treatment of C.S., Dr. Dangl wrote several prescriptions for C.S. The prescription scripts contained the abbreviation "D.M.D." after his name. No evidence was presented that the prescriptions were intended to be used for advertising purposes. Dr. John J. Obi, a board-certified plastic surgeon, testified as the Department's expert witness. It is Dr. Obi's opinion that it would have been good medical practice to have advised C.S. of her low hemoglobin prior to surgery, but that because the blood level was not dangerously low, he could not "say that's a complete deviation from the standard of care." Dr. Obi further opined that Dr. Dangl exceeded the eight-hour limitation on elective cosmetic surgery in a physician's office when he performed the procedures on C.S. on August 28, 2001. Dr. Obi's opinion is based on his incorrect understanding that the anesthesia was stopped at 22:00. Thus, even if the time for calculating surgical procedures ran from the time the anesthesia was first administered at 13:15 until it was stopped at 21:00, the length of time for the surgical procedures was seven hours and forty-five minutes. Dr. Obi opined that the recovery time for C.S. was insufficient. Again he based his opinion in part on his incorrect assumption that the anesthesia was discontinued at 22:00. Dr. Obi creditably testified that Dr. Dangl's continuing to see C.S. in the hospital after she told him that she did not want him to visit fell below the prevailing standard of care. Dr. William Frazier, the expert who testified on behalf of Dr. Dangl, gave no opinion on whether Dr. Dangl's continued hospital visits after being told not to visit by C.S. violated the standard of care. Dr. Obi opined that it was a violation of the standard of care for Dr. Dangl to tell C.S.'s sister to take some of C.S.'s prescription sleeping pills without examining or taking a medical history of the sister. Dr. Frazier was of the opinion that the conversation between Dr. Dangl and C.S.'s sister did not fall below the standard of care. Dr. Frazier's opinion was based on his misunderstanding that C.S.'s sister had asked Dr. Dangl if it was appropriate for her to take a sleeping medication that she already had.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Dangl violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(t), 458.331(1)(ll), and 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes; finding that Dr. Dangl did not violate Subsection 458.331(1)(d), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 for the violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $3,500 for violations of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(ll), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes; suspending his license for two years; and requiring Dr. Dangl to attend continuing medical education classes to be specified by the Board of Medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing grade on the Physician Assistant licensure examination administered in June of 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Raul A. Gonzalez, sat for the Physician Assistant licensure examination administered in June of 1998. The Physician Assistant licensure examination is made up of three parts: (1) a general written examination; (2) a surgical specialty examination; and (3) a primary care specialty examination. In order to pass the overall examination and be eligible for licensure, an applicant must pass the general written examination and must also pass at least one of the two specialty examinations. The general written examination and both of the specialty examinations are all multiple-choice examinations. A scaled score of 600 is required to pass each of the three examinations. The following grades were assigned to the Petitioner's examinations: 595.50 on the primary care specialty examination; 554.50 on the surgery specialty examination; and 591.90 on the general written examination. On the basis of these grades, the Petitioner was advised that he had failed all three portions of the examination. In order to receive a passing grade on the overall examination, the Petitioner needs credit for correct answers to three additional questions on the general written portion of the examination, and either (a) credit for a correct answer to one additional question on the primary care specialty examination, or (b) credit for correct answers to ten additional questions on the surgery specialty examination. The Petitioner is entitled to credit for a correct answer to one additional question on the primary care specialty examination. With credit for the one additional correct answer, the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the primary care specialty examination.2 The subject licensure examination was prepared and conducted in accordance with the standard testing and security procedures of the Department of Health. The post-examination review of the subject licensure examination was conducted in accordance with the standard examination review procedures of the Department of Health. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record of this case of any material defects or deficiencies in those procedures. There is no competent substantial evidence of any material departure from established procedures during the course of the preparation of the subject licensure examination, the administration of the examination, the grading of the examination, or the post-examination review of the examination. Except as noted above in paragraph 4, there is no competent substantial evidence in the record of this case of any error or omission in the scoring and grading of the Petitioner's answers on the subject licensure examination.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the primary care specialty examination; that the Petitioner failed the other two portions of the examination; and that the Petitioner is not entitled to the license he seeks. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 21st day of April, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Peter P. McKeown, is a graduate of the University of Queensland Medical School in Brisbane, Australia. He holds the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery. Doctorates of Medicine, under the British system, are reserved for specialists. Nonetheless, the medical training Petitioner received equates to that leading up to the award of the degree of Doctor of Medicine in the United States, and he is a physician and licensed as such in several states. He has completed residencies in general and thoracic surgery in Australia and the United States and has taken advanced training in cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at Emory University. Immediately before coming to the University of South Florida, (USF), Dr. McKeown was an Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington. In mid to late 1988, Dr. McKeown responded to an advertisement USF had placed in the Journal of the American Medical Association seeking applicants qualified for appointment at the Associate Professor level "... to join the Department of Surgery at the University of South Florida College of Medicine as the Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery." He was selected for the position and joined the faculty effective May 1, 1989. All the correspondence leading up to Petitioner's joining the University faculty referred not only to his appointment as Associate Professor but also his assignment as Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division. Only the actual state employment contract described his employment exclusively as Associate Professor and made no mention of the Chief position. Under these circumstances, Petitioner did not gain any proprietory interest in the position of Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division. Dr. McKeown held the position of Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division until April, 1994, when, as a result of a decision made by the Chairman of the school's Department of Surgery, he was replaced as Chief and that position was filled, on a temporary basis, by the Department Chair. Petitioner claims that when he arrived at USF to assume the directorship, an administrative position, he saw an opportunity to develop the position into something significant. He contends he would not have come to USF unless he was to be the Chief of the Division as there was no appeal to him in a position as a general faculty member. He wanted an opportunity to budget, hire people, and develop plans and programs, and in order to advance in academic medicine, one must, at some point, hold an administrative position. Apparently the Department of Surgery had experienced a rapid turnover in faculty. It is not clear whether this caused or was the result of a dispute with administrators and medical staff at Tampa General Hospital, (TGH), where much of the clinical medical school activity is carried on. However, the program was recognized as being weak in cardiothoracic surgery, and this condition offered Petitioner the challenge he wanted. In his five years as Chief, Petitioner increased both the number and quality of personnel and revenues considerably. He developed affiliations with several foreign universities and recruited qualified people, built up the laboratory, secured more grants, developed a program of continuing medical education and raised the examination scores of the school's graduates. He opened new clinical programs and built up both billings and collections to the point where the program revenues were increased at least 2 to 5 times. By 1992- 1993, the Division was making money and generating a surplus and still used clinic funds to support research. During his tenure as Chief of the Division, Petitioner served under two Department of Surgery chairmen. The first was Dr. Connar, the individual who recruited him; and the incumbent is Dr. Carey, the individual who removed him. Petitioner asserts that at no time during his tenure in the position of Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division was he ever told, by either Department Chairman, that his performance was unsatisfactory. All Division heads within the Department were, from time to time, counseled about personnel costs, and Petitioner admits he had some differences with Dr. Carey about that subject and some other financial aspects of the job, but nothing different than anywhere else in academia. Petitioner was removed by Dr. Carey based in part upon his alleged inability to get along with people. Though he claims this is not true, he admits to three areas of conflict. The first related to his objection to transplants being accomplished by unqualified surgeons which, he alleges, Dr. Carey permitted to further his own ends. The second related to the pediatric heart transplant program for which Petitioner supported one candidate as chair and Dr. Carey supported another. The third related to Petitioner's reluctance to hire a physician whom Dr. Carey wanted to hire but to whom Petitioner purportedly objected. Of the three areas of dispute, only the first two came before his removal, but he contends at no time was he advised his position was a problem for the Department. By the same token, none of Petitioner's annual performance ratings reflected any University dissatisfaction with his performance. At no time was he ever rated unsatisfactory in any performance area; and prior to his removal, he had no indication his position as Chief of the Division was in jeopardy. Dr. Carey indicates he did counsel with Petitioner often regarding his attitude but did not rate him down because he hoped the situation would improve. Dr. McKeown was called to meet with Dr. Carey in his office on April 12, 1994. At that meeting, Dr. Carey was very agitated. He brought up the "Norman" incident and indicated he was going to remove Petitioner as Chief of the Division. Dr. McKeown admits to having made an inappropriate comment regarding Dr. Norman, another physician, to a resident in the operating room while performing an operation. He also admits that it was wrong to do this and apologized to Dr. Norman both orally and in writing shortly thereafter. Dr. Norman accepted his apology and Petitioner asserts that after his removal, Dr. Norman called him and assured him he, Norman, had not prompted the removal action. Dr. Norman did not testify at the hearing. Dr. Carey removed Petitioner from his position as Chief because of the comments he had made regarding Dr. Norman. Almost immediately after the meeting was concluded, Dr. Carey announced in writing his assumption of the Chief's position, in which position he remained until he hired Dr. Robinson as Chief in April, 1995. Petitioner found out that Carey's threat to remove him had been carried out the following day when his nurse told him his removal had been announced at the Moffett Cancer Center. He thereafter heard other reports of his removal from other sources, and based on what had happened, concluded his removal was intended to be and constituted a disciplinary action for his comment regarding Dr. Norman. He was not advised in advance of Carey's intention to impose discipline nor given an opportunity to defend himself before the action was taken. He claims he was not given any reason for his removal before or at the time of his dismissal. It is found, however, that the removal was not disciplinary action but an administrative change in Division leadership. Dr. McKeown at first did nothing about his removal, believing it would blow over. However, after he heard his removal had been publicized, he called several University officials, including a Vice-President, the General Counsel and the Provost, to see how the matter could be handled. He claims he either got no response to his inquiries or was told it was a Medical College problem. He then met with the Dean of the College of Medicine who indicated he could do nothing. After he was removed as Division Chief, Petitioner's salary remained the same as did his supplement from his practice. He claims, however, his removal has had an adverse effect on his reputation in the medical and academic communities. It is his belief that people now feel something is wrong with him. Dr. Carey's blunt announcement of his assumption of the Chief's position, without any reasons being given for that move or credit being given to Petitioner for his past accomplishments has had an impact on his ability to work effectively. After his removal, he received calls from all over the world from people wanting to know what had happened. The removal has, he claims, also made it more difficult for him to get grants and has, thereby, adversely impacted his ability to do productive research. In addition, his removal made it difficult for him to carry out his academic duties. His specialty is still presented in student rotations, only in a different place in the medical curriculum. Dr. McKeown has sought reinstatement to the administrative position of Chief of the Division. He is of the opinion that Dr. Carey's action in removing him from his position as Division Chief was capricious and damaging to the University as well as to his career. Petitioner admits he could have been less confrontational in the performance of his duties as Division Chief, but he knows of no complaints about him from TGH, All Children's Hospital or the VA Hospital. There are, however, letters in the files of the Department Chairman which indicate some dissatisfaction with Petitioner's relationships in some quarters and, as seen below, there were signs of dissatisfaction from both TGH and All Children's Hospitals. Petitioner admits he may have been somewhat overbearing or abrasive, but neither his alleged inability to properly steward finances nor his alleged inability to get along with people were mentioned to him at the time of dismissal or before. After Dr. Carey assumed the Chairmanship of the Department of Surgery in July, 1990, he saw Dr. McKeown frequently on an official basis at first. A Chief, as Petitioner was, has many and varied functions such as administration, teaching, fiscal, research, clinic administration and the like. People skills are important because of the necessary interface with colleagues, faculty, administrators and the public. When Dr. Carey came to USF, Dr. McKeown had not been in place very long, and the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery was not doing well financially. There were contract negotiations going on with the VA Hospital which were not going well, at least partly because, Dr. Carey asserts, Dr. McKeown had made some major unacceptable demands. As a result, Dr. Carey stepped in, along with Dr. Benke, who was very effective in dealing with the VA, and as a result, an agreement was reached which resulted in somewhere between $275,000 and $300,000 per year coming in which put the Division in the black. Dr. Carey recalls other instances indicating Dr. McKeown's inability to get along with others. One related to the relationship with TGH previously mentioned. TGH had made a decision to use a particular physician as head of its transplant program because, allegedly, Dr. McKeown had so angered private heart patients they would not let him be appointed even though Dr. McKeown was Dr. Carey's choice. As it turned out, Dr. Carey convinced the TGH Director and another physician to agree to a plan whereby Dr. McKeown would be head of the program 50 percent of the time. This would have been good for the University, but Dr. McKeown refused indicating that if he could not be in charge all of the time, he would not be in charge at all. Another incident relates to All Children's Hospital. That institution wanted to initiate a pediatric heart transplant program and a meeting was set up to which Dr. McKeown was invited. Petitioner so infuriated the community surgeons attending that meeting they would not work with him, and without his, Carey's, efforts, Dr. Carey claims the program was doomed to failure. As a result, Carey asked Dr. Nevitsky to help get the program started. This gave the USF an opportunity to participate in the program, but when Nevitsky left, they lost it. Still another example, according to Dr. Carey, is the fact that some surgeons on staff have called to complain about Dr. McKeown's attitude and unwillingness to compromise and negotiate and about his demands for service and staff, all of which creates friction among the hospital staff. A few days before Dr. Carey removed Petitioner as Chief, he spoke with the Dean of the College of Medicine, a Vice-president of the University, and others who would be impacted, about his concern regarding the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division and, in fact, he had had discussions with other officials even before that time. Long before making his decision to remove Petitioner, Carey spoke of his consideration of possibly shifting the emphasis within the Division to non-cardiac thoracic surgery in place of the cardiac program which Dr. Carey felt was not very successful. He believed the program did not do enough procedures to support the medical school affiliation. Dr. Carey chose to dismiss Dr. McKeown as Chief of the Division on April 12, 1994, after learning of McKeown's destructive attack on another surgeon before a junior physician in a public place, an operating room, (the Norman incident). He notes that over the years there was a building concern regarding Dr. McKeown's abilities as an administrator, and this incident with Dr. Norman was the last straw. Dr. Carey had received complaints about Petitioner from other physicians, all of which he discussed with Dr. McKeown. Finally, with the Norman incident, it became abundantly clear that Dr. McKeown's capabilities as a leader had diminished to the point where a change was necessary. Before he dismissed Petitioner, and during the investigation which led up to the dismissal, Dr. Carey admits, he did not give Dr. McKeown any opportunity to give any input to the decision. By the time Carey met with McKeown on April 12, 1994, his mind was made up. The Norman incident was demonstrative of what Carey perceived as McKeown's lack of supervisory ability, and it was that factor which led Carey to the ultimate decision to remove McKeown. He felt it necessary to act then and not leave Dr. McKeown in place during the search for a replacement. Petitioner cites alleged comments made by Carey to others that he would have relieved anyone for doing what Petitioner did in the Norman incident. Dr. Carey cannot recall having made such a statement. He claims he considered disciplinary action against Petitioner for the Norman comments but decided against it. However, it was the last in a series of incidents which caused him to question the propriety of McKeown's placement in the Chief's position, and which ultimately cemented his decision to replace him. Dr. Carey met with Dr. McKeown several times before the dismissal and counseled him about administrative deficiencies in his performance, but he never told Dr. McKeown that unless he improved, he would be dismissed. This is consistent with Petitioner's testimony that he was not warned of his shortcomings or of the administration's dissatisfaction with his performance. Disagreements in conversations between superior and subordinate, meant by the former to be corrective in nature, are not always taken as such by the latter. Dr. Carey did not document any of this in Dr. McKeown's personnel files but put some of the information he received by way of communications from others in the files. These are the letters submitted by the University, pursuant to agreement of the parties, subsequent to the hearing. They contributed to Carey's increasing concern about Dr. McKeown's ability to lead the Division. At no time, however, though he questioned Dr. McKeown's leadership, did Dr. Carey ever question his good faith and sincerity, nor does he do so now. When he finally decided action was necessary, on April 12, 1994, Dr. Carey wrote a memorandum to the Medical College faculty concerning his assumption of the position as Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division. He also advised Dr. McKeown of his removal. Dr. Carey remained in the Chief's position, holding that title in an administrative capacity and not from a clinical standpoint, for approximately one year, intending to stay in the position only until he could find a fully qualified thoracic surgeon to take the job. After Carey removed Petitioner, he was contacted by the Medical College Dean who asked that he get with McKeown and try to work something out. He thereafter offered Dr. McKeown the position of Chief of the cardiac section of the Division but McKeown declined. Dr. Carey also, on April 26, 1994, wrote to TGH recommending that Dr. McKeown be allowed to have more impact on the hospital's transplant program, pointing out that the change in McKeown's position at the University was occasioned by a need for a change in leadership. According to Dr. Tennyson J. Wright, Associate Provost of the University, disciplinary action against nonunion faculty members is governed by Rule 6C4-10.009, F.A.C., and requires notice of proposed action be given before such disciplinary action is taken. The contract which Dr. McKeown holds and has held since the inception of his tenure at the University, is a standard USF/State University System contract. It reflects Petitioner was hired as an Associate Professor, which is one of the three types of personnel classifications used within the system. These are faculty, administration and support. Petitioner's contract does not refer to his holding the Division Chief position and it is not supposed to. Such a position is an administrative appointment within a Department and a working title used to define the holder's duties, and service in such a position is at the pleasure of the Department Chair. Appointment to or removal from a Chief position is an administrative assignment. The position of Department Chairperson, on the other hand is a separate position and subclassification within the University classification system and is different.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Peter P. McKeown's, grievance against the University of South Florida School of Medicine arising from his removal as Chief, Cardiothoracic Surgery Division in the Department of Surgery be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 19th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1832 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Though the documents in question refer to appointment, in actuality the personnel action was an appointment to the faculty with an administrative assignment to the position of Director of the Division. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 19. Accepted and incorporate herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as inconsistent with the better evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as inconsistent with the better evidence of record. & 27. Accepted. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. - 34. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as inconsistent with the better evidence of record. 35. - 37. Accepted. 38. Rejected as argument. 39. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Benjamin H. Hill, III, Esquire William C. Guerrant, Jr., Esquire Danelle Dykes, Esquire Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Tampa, Florida 33601 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Olga J. Joanow, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Noreen Segrest, Esquire General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed July 7, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See § 455.225, Fla. Stat. (2006). The Board is the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. See § 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). Dr. Edison is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 44240. Dr. Edison received his medical degree from the University of Massachusetts; did his residency in general surgery at the Kaiser Foundation in Los Angeles, California; and did a residency in plastic surgery, with specialties in reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery. Dr. Edison is certified in plastic surgery by the American Board of Plastic Surgery and is a lifetime diplomate of that Board. Dr. Edison was also certified in Advanced Cardiac Life Support ("ACLS") at the times material to this proceeding. Dr. Edison has been practicing plastic surgery in Florida for 22 years. Prior to the time material to this proceeding, Dr. Edison performed approximately 150-to-200 breast augmentation surgeries each year and approximately 100-to-150 liposuction procedures each year. Dr. Edison practices at the Cosmetic Surgery Center, which is an office that contains two operating rooms, a recovery room, and an overnight recovery facility that is staffed by an ACLS-certified nurse for patients who undergo procedures such as stomach tucks or facelifts. Dr. Edison's surgical practice is limited to Level II office surgery, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009, Standard of Care for Office Surgery, in pertinent part as follows: Level II Office Surgery. Scope Level II Office Surgery is that in which peri-operative medication and sedation are used intravenously, intramuscularly, or rectally, this making intra and post- operative monitoring necessary. . . . Level II Office Surgery includes any surgery in which the patient is placed in a state which allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining adequate cardiorespiratory function and the ability to respond purposefully to verbal command and/or tactile stimulation. Patients whose only response is reflex withdrawal from a painful stimulus are sedated to a greater degree than encompassed by this definition. Standards for Level II Office Surgery. * * * 4. Assistance of Other Personnel Required. The surgeon must be assisted by a qualified anesthesia provider as follows: An Anesthesiologist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, or Physician Assistant qualified as set forth in subparagraph 64B8- 30.012(2)(b)6., F.A.C., or a registered nurse may be utilized to assist with the anesthesia, if the surgeon is ACLS certified. An assisting anesthesia provider cannot function in any other capacity during the procedure. If additional assistance is required by the specific procedure or patient circumstances, such assistance must be provided by a physician, osteopathic physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or operating room technician. . . . The level of pain and anxiety management achieved under Level II sedation is determined by the type of drugs administered and the dosages in which they are administered. Dr. Edison was ACLS certified and was, therefore, authorized to use the services of a registered nurse to administer the drugs that bring patients to Level II sedation. He does not use the services of an anesthesiologist or of a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist in his surgical facility. Patient P.L. P.L. first consulted with Dr. Edison on July 5, 2005. P.L. filled out a portion of a Patient Information form, and Dr. Edison took a general medical history from P.L., but he did not weigh P.L. during this initial visit, and the Patient Information form does not include her blood pressure, height, or weight. Dr. Edison found P.L. to be a healthy 29-year-old female, the mother of three children, who had no known allergy or adverse reaction to any medication. P.L. wanted breast implants, and, upon examination, Dr. Edison found that P.L. would be a good candidate, anatomically, for the surgery. Dr. Edison spent the majority of time during this initial consultation talking with P.L. and her husband, A.A., about the various breast implant options. He also discussed with them the risks and possible complications of the surgery. After her visit to Dr. Edison's office on July 5, 2005, P.L. notified Dr. Edison's office that she had decided to have the surgery. Dr. Edison had a cancellation on July 7, 2005, and P.L. was scheduled for surgery for 8:00 a.m. on that date. P.L. returned to Dr. Edison's office on July 6, 2005, for a pre-operative examination. At that time, Dr. Edison did an examination during which he checked P.L.'s heart, lungs, blood pressure, and pulse rate, and he noted the results in his examination notes dated July 6, 2005. He found nothing abnormal and concluded that P.L. was a 29-year-old patient in perfect health, with no known allergy or adverse reaction to any medication. Dr. Edison also had blood drawn during the July 6, 2005, office visit, which was sent to a laboratory for testing. The laboratory report was completed at 8:21 a.m. on July 7, 2005, and showed nothing abnormal. P.L. presented herself at Dr. Edison's office on July 7, 2005, at approximately 8:00 a.m. She was examined by Dr. Edison at 8:10 a.m., and he stated in his office notes that she had decided on the 300 cubic centimeter implant. There were no notations of her vital signs in his office notes. Dr. Edison intended for P.L.'s breast augmentation surgery to be Level II office surgery, and he noted this on P.L.'s Immediate Pre-Op Evaluation, which he completed on July 7, 2005. He also decided to use the transaxillary technique, making incisions under the arms through which to insert the implants under the muscle in P.L.'s chest. Dr. Edison was assisted during surgery by Michelle Hoff, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, who administered the sedatives and other drugs to P.L. under Dr. Edison's direction. Dr. Edison was also assisted by Liliana Gabor, a surgical technician. Ms. Hoff is not a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, nor has she received any formal training in administering sedative drugs or anesthesia. She has a significant amount of experience administering drugs for pain and anxiety management. Her experience administering drugs to achieve Level II sedation consists of an externship with Dr. Edison while working on her master's degree in nursing and extensive on-the-job training while working in the operating room with Dr. Edison, which she has done every day since beginning to work with Dr. Edison full-time in November 2003. At some point immediately prior to surgery, Dr. Edison asked P.L. her weight, which she reported as 95 pounds, or 43 kilograms, on the morning of surgery. Dr. Edison needed to know P.L.'s weight in order to calculate the correct dosage of the drugs she would be given, and he wrote "95 lbs" on the outside of P.L.'s folder. Dr. Edison noted P.L.'s weight on the outside of the folder so it would be plainly visible to Ms. Hoff when she had the chart on the anesthesia stand.4 Dr. Edison did not enter P.L.'s weight in his examination notes, and the only other mention of P.L.'s weight in the medical records maintained by Dr. Edison is the notation "<100 lbs" on a sheet containing the contact numbers for P.L. and for her husband, who would be picking her up after surgery. At approximately 8:20 a.m. on July 7, 2005, P.L. walked to the operating room. Working under Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff hooked P.L. up to various monitoring devices, so that her heart, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation level could be monitored during surgery. Her vital signs were noted on the anesthesia chart by Ms. Hoff; at 8:20 a.m., P.L.'s heart rate was approximately 104. At 8:20 a.m., Ms. Hoff began to administer drugs to P.L. to achieve Level II sedation in accordance with directions from Dr. Edison; she documented the name of the drugs she administered, together with the time and dosage administered; she monitored and documented P.L.'s vital signs, including heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation level; and she maintained anesthesia notes. At 8:20 a.m., Ms. Hoff administered two milligrams of Valium; one gram of Ancef, and 0.2 milligrams of Robinol at Dr. Edison's direction. At 8:25 a.m., she administered 10 milligrams of Ketamine and 10 milligrams of Talwin and started the administration of Diprivan by microdrip at the rate of approximately 25 micrograms per kilogram of weight per minute. Ms. Hoff's notes do not indicate the manner in which she administered the Diprivan, nor the dosage or rate of administration. Ms. Hoff also administered nitrous oxide and oxygen at 8:25 a.m., and she noted that Dr. Edison also began administering local anesthetic by injection at 8:25 a.m. Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. was responding to verbal stimuli. Ms. Hoff was not involved with the preparation or administration of local anesthetic to P.L. Dr. Edison prepared a dilute solution of 70 cubic centimeters of 1% Lidocaine with epinephrine with 350 cubic centimeters of saline solution and 10 cubic centimeters of 1/2% marcaine. At approximately 8:25 a.m., Dr. Edison began injecting the Lidocaine solution, which totaled approximately 700 milligrams or approximately 14 milligrams of Lidocaine per kilogram of P.L.'s body weight and 50 milligrams of marcaine, into the tissue surrounding P.L.'s breasts. At 8:30 a.m., Ms. Hoff, at Dr. Edison's direction, administered another 10 milligrams of Talwin. At 8:35 a.m., P.L.'s heart rate was 112 beats per minute and her blood pressure was 142/102. At Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff administered 1/4 cubic centimeter of Labetalol to help control P.L.'s blood pressure. Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. tolerated the Labetalol well and was responsive to verbal stimuli. At 8:45 a.m., Ms. Hoff noticed a brief facial twitch on P.L.'s face, which is an indication of a possible seizure. At Dr. Edison's direction, she immediately stopped administering all sedatives, and the surgery was cancelled. At Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff administered 2.5 milligrams of Valium to keep P.L. sedated and to help control the seizure, together with three liters of oxygen by mask. At 8:55 a.m., Ms. Hoff administered another 2.5 milligrams of Valium at Dr. Edison's direction,5 and she noted that P.L.'s status was unchanged, by which Ms. Hoff meant that P.L.'s airway, breathing, and circulation were maintained, that her vital signs were stable, and that she remained responsive to verbal stimuli. Between 8:55 a.m. and 9:15 a.m., P.L.'s status was unchanged. According to Ms. Hoff's notes, P.L.'s airway, breathing, circulation, and vital signs were maintained at normal levels, and she responded well to the Valium and oxygen. Ms. Hoff observed during this time that P.L. was lethargic and appeared to be a little more deeply sedated than typical Level II sedation. P.L. continued breathing on her own and responding to verbal stimuli. During this interval, Dr. Edison was waiting for P.L. to come out of sedation, and he intended to send her home and recommend that she see her doctor about the twitch. Ms. Hoff noticed a second facial twitch between 9:15 a.m. and 9:20 a.m., and Dr. Edison directed Ms. Hoff to call Emergency Medical Services to transport P.L. to the hospital. Ms. Hoff continued to monitor P.L.'s airway, breathing, circulation and vital signs until the Emergency Medical Services team arrived at 9:30 a.m. During this time, Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. responded to verbal stimuli by moving her head a little bit and attempting to open her eyes. P.L.'s oxygen saturation rate was consistently maintained at 99% to 100% between 8:20 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., when Emergency Medical Services arrived. During this time, P.L. was breathing independently and did not need any assistance with her airway. Emergency Medical Services received the call from Dr. Edison's office at 9:21 a.m. and arrived at 9:26 a.m. At that time, P.L. was receiving oxygen, her airway was normal, and her perfusion was good. Her blood pressure was 102/68, her pulse was strong and regular at 120 beats per minute, her respiratory rate was 20, her respiratory effort was normal, and her breath sounds were clear. She was, however, non-responsive: She was not able to open her eyes, she had no motor response, and she was not able to give a verbal response. She appeared to be having seizure activity in the form of twitching on both sides of the jaw line. P.L. was transported to Memorial Regional Hospital at 9:31 a.m., and she arrived at the hospital at 9:36 a.m. A notation on the EMS Report for the incident states that a "[l]ist of sedation medication [was] given to ER staff." Dr. Todd Gardner was the emergency room physician who treated P.L. on her arrival at Memorial Regional Hospital. His diagnosis on admission was status epilepticus and hypoxia. Status epilepticus is seizures that are unrelenting to normal therapeutic intervention, and hypoxia is low oxygen level. Dr. Gardner did not attribute a cause to the status epilepticus. Dr. Gardner's intake notes reflect that, prior to presenting at the emergency room, P.L. had received Ketamine, Labetalol to lower her blood pressure, and Valium to relieve the seizures. Nothing on the intake sheet indicates that P.L. had received Lidocaine, and there is no list of the medications given by Dr. Edison in the hospital file. Dr. Gardner intubated P.L. at 10:02 a.m. and placed her on a ventilator in the emergency room because she was unable to breathe on her own. He also treated her with Valium, Dilantin, and Diprivan, which is used to sedate patients in the intensive care unit. Dr. Robert Alterbaum, an internist specializing in pulmonary medicine and critical care, provided care to P.L. in the intensive care unit of Memorial Regional Hospital. P.L.'s chest X-ray was abnormal and showed pneumonitis, or an inflammation of the lungs, caused by fluid being aspirated into the lungs. Based on the emergency room chart, Dr. Alterbaum diagnosed P.L. with status epilepticus, or seizures, related to the administration of Ketamine during the pre-operative procedure for breast augmentation surgery. There was no objective medical evidence to support Dr. Alterbaum's conclusion that Ketamine was the cause of the seizures; he reached this conclusion because Ketamine was the only medication noted on the chart as having been administered to P.L. Dr. Alterbaum was not aware that P.L. had also received Lidocaine; had he been aware of this, it might have been information he would have considered in reaching his conclusion regarding the cause of P.L.'s seizures.6 P.L. was discharged from Memorial Regional Hospital on July 12, 2005. She had difficulty walking at first, but has fully recovered except that she sometimes experiences a little memory loss. Drugs administered to P.L. Valium Valium is a benzodiazopene used to control anxiety, and the standard dosage ranges from two to 20 milligrams for conscious sedation. Valium is a controlled substance. Ancef Ancef is an antibiotic. Ketamine Ketamine is a disassociative non-barbiturate analgesic used for sedation and general anesthesia; the maximum dosage is 4.5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. Ketamine causes a large amount of secretions, and its effects last only five to 10 minutes. Ketamine is a controlled substance. Robinol Robinol is an anticholinergic medication used to prevent bradycardia, a heart rate of less than 60 beats per minute, and to help dry out secretions in mucous membranes. Robinol is contraindicated for a patient with tachycardia, or a heart rate of more than 100 beats per minute, however, because it could make the patient's heart rate increase. In a healthy 29 year-old patient such as P.L., however, it was not a violation of the standard of care to administer 0.2 milligrams of Robinol to P.L. even though her heart rate was 104 beats per minute at the time it was administered; a healthy 29-year-old patient could easily sustain a heart rate of 140 beats per minute without ill effects. Dr. Edison administered Robinol to P.L. as a drying agent, to control secretions brought on by the use of Ketamine. Although other drugs can be used to control these secretions, Robinol is the best drug for this purpose and the one most commonly used. Dr. Edison had ample justification for using Robinol under the circumstances, and he did not violate the standard of care by ordering Ms. Hoff to administer the drug even though P.L.'s heart rate slightly exceeded 100 beats per minute. Talwin Talwin is an opiate analgesic that is used to control pain, and the standard dosage is 30 milligrams. Talwin is a controlled substance. Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide is an anesthetic gas that is used for analgesia and sedation; it was administered to P.L. by nasal cannula, which delivers a relatively small amount of gas. Diprivan Diprivan is a sedative hypnotic medication used both for intravenous sedation and for general anesthesia; the package insert recommends a dosage from 100 to 150 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per minute. Diprivan's clinical effects wear off approximately three minutes after its administration is discontinued. The total dose of Diprivan administered to P.L., 25 milligrams, was included in Dr. Edison's medical records, but the manner of administering the Diprivan and the rate of infusion are not recorded. Diprivan, together with other sedative drugs, may be administered in Florida by a registered nurse at the direction and under the supervision of a surgeon during Level II office surgery.7 Dr. Edison did not deviate from the standard of care in Florida by delegating responsibility to Ms. Hoff, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, for administering the various drugs to P.L., under his direction and supervision. Based on her training and experience, Ms. Hoff was qualified to administer these drugs to P.L. to achieve Level II sedation under Dr. Edison's direction and supervision. The combination of sedative drugs Dr. Edison ordered administered to P.L., specifically Diprivan, Ketamine, Talwin, Valium, and nitrous oxide, was appropriate to induce Level II sedation in P.L., and the dosage of each of the drugs administered to P.L. was well below the maximum dosage recommended for each of the drugs. These drugs work synergistically, however, and, depending on the patient and the circumstances, the same combination of sedative drugs could induce Level III sedation. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009 defines Level III office surgery and sets forth the standards that must be met, in pertinent part, as follows: Level III Office Surgery. Scope. Level III Office Surgery is that surgery which involves, or reasonable should require, the use of a general anesthesia or major conduction anesthesia and pre- operative sedation. This includes the use of: Intravenous sedation beyond that defined for Level II Office Surgery; General Anesthesia: loss of consciousness and loss of vital reflexes with probable requirement of external support of pulmonary or cardiac functions: or Major conduction anesthesia. * * * Standards for Level III Office Surgery. In addition to the standards for Level II Office Surgery, the surgeon must comply with the following: * * * 4. Assistance of Other Personnel Required. An Anesthesiologist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, or Physician Assistant qualified as set forth in subparagraph 64B8- 30.012(2)(b)6., F.A.C., must administer the general or regional anesthesia and an M.D., D.O., Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, Physician Assistant, or Operating Room Technician must assist with the surgery. . . . One difference between Level II and Level III sedation is the degree of alertness of the patient. At Level II sedation, the patient must be able to respond to verbal and/or tactile stimuli. If a patient's only response is a reflexive withdrawal from a pain stimulus, the patient is sedated beyond Level II. A primary indication that a patient has slipped from Level II to Level III sedation is the loss of the ability to breathe without assistance, and the patient's airway must be partially or totally managed. In Level II sedation, the need for management of the airway is minimal compared to that required at Level III sedation. P.L.'s blood pressure, pulse rate, oxygenation, and mental state were consistent with Level II sedation until P.L. had her first seizure and all medications, except for the one- half therapeutic dose of Valium, were discontinued. She remained responsive to verbal stimuli after the second 2.5 milligram dose of Valium was given to control the seizure activity, even though she was more lethargic than normal under Level II sedation. P.L. was non-responsive when examined by Emergency Medical Services personnel, but she was breathing independently and was not at Level III sedation. Her lack of response was more likely than not the result of the seizures, after which a patient can go into a postictal state, or a trance of sleepiness.8 Dr. Edison did not violate the standard of care for office surgery in ordering the amounts and combination of drugs used to sedate P.L. because P.L. did not reach Level III sedation. In accordance with the standard of care for Level II office surgery, Ms. Hoff, as a registered nurse, was qualified to administer anesthesia to P.L., including Diprivan, Ketamine, and the other sedative drugs used in P.L.'s surgery, at the direction and under the supervision of Dr. Edison. Dosage of Lidocaine As stated above, Dr. Edison injected a dilute solution of Lidocaine with epinephrine and marcaine into the tissue around P.L.'s breasts between 8:25 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., before P.L. had her first seizure at 8:45 a.m. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic used to numb nerves and tissue. In breast augmentation surgery Dr. Edison always uses Lidocaine with epinephrine because epinephrine is a vasoconstrictor that causes intense vasoconstriction, or closing of the small blood vessels, which slows the rate of absorption of the Lidocaine and virtually eliminates bleeding at the site of surgery. Marcaine is also a local anesthetic similar to Lidocaine, but it is slow to take effect and lasts four to six hours and helps control pain after surgery is completed. Marcaine is commonly used with Lidocaine. It is Dr. Edison's practice to perform breast augmentation surgery using the tumescent infiltration technique to infuse a relatively large volume of dilute Lidocaine solution into the breast area as a local anesthetic. Dr. Edison uses this tumescent infiltration technique in breast augmentation surgery because he can deliver a large volume of Lidocaine that is evenly distributed throughout the breast area, which results in more effective pain reduction. The injection technique Dr. Edison uses for tumescent infiltration in the breast area is very specific, and it takes between 20 and 30 minutes to complete the injections. The needle cannot penetrate close to the pectoral muscle, especially in a woman as small as P.L., because of the danger of puncturing a lung. Dr. Edison injects the solution under pressure into the subcutaneous tissue between the breast and the pectoral muscle. Lidocaine is absorbed faster in areas that are highly vascular. The tissue in the aerolar space between the breast and the pectoral muscle does not contain many blood vessels, so Lidocaine injected in this tissue is absorbed more slowly than it would be if injected into highly vascular tissue. In Dr. Edison's experience, because the epinephrine in the Lidocaine solution causes intense vasoconstriction in the tissue surrounding the injection sites, the Lidocaine stays in place and numbs the area in which the surgery is to be performed. The Lidocaine solution is absorbed slowly over approximately 24 hours, and the peak serum concentration of Lidocaine occurs approximately 10 to 12 hours after it is administered. In this case, Dr. Edison prepared approximately 400 cubic centimeters of solution, which contained 700 milligrams of Lidocaine and 50 milligrams of marcaine, together with a small, non-therapeutic dose of epinephrine. According to his surgical notes, Dr. Edison began the injections of Lidocaine at 8:25 a.m. and had completed the injections by the time P.L. had the first seizure at 8:45 a.m., although it is his recollection that he had not used all of the Lidocaine solution he had prepared. Dr. Edison did not, however, record in the medical records the amount of Lidocaine solution he injected, and any remaining solution was discarded without being measured, so he does not know the dosage of Lidocaine P.L. actually received. Had he injected all of the solution, P.L. would have received approximately 14 milligrams of Lidocaine per kilogram of body weight. According to the package insert that accompanies a bottle of Lidocaine, the maximum dosage of Lidocaine without epinephrine is five milligrams per kilogram of body weight, and the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine is seven milligrams per kilogram of body weight. There is nothing in Dr. Edison's medical records to indicate that the Lidocaine he used in P.L.'s surgery included epinephrine or that he calculated the amount of Lidocaine to administer to P.L. based on her body weight Using the maximum dosage specified on the package insert, the maximum dosage of Lidocaine without epinephrine for P.L. would have been 215 milligrams, and the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine would have been 301 milligrams, using the traditional method of administering the drug. Based on the standard established by the package insert, Dr. Edison exceeded the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine injected into P.L. by approximately 400 milligrams, which constituted a toxic dose of Lidocaine when measured by the maximum dosage stated on the package insert. The maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine stated on the package insert is routinely exceeded by surgeons performing liposuction, which involves suctioning fatty tissue. The tumescent infiltration technique using Lidocaine with epinephrine in a dilute solution is commonly used with liposuction, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 9.009(2)(d), which sets out the standards of care for office surgery, specifically provides that a "maximum of fifty (50) mg/kg of Lidocaine can be injected for tumescent liposuction in the office setting." Large dosages of Lidocaine can be safely used in liposuction because Lidocaine is metabolized more slowly by fatty tissue than by muscle or skin, and approximately 20% of the Lidocaine solution is suctioned out of the body with the fat that is aspirated during liposuction. As a result, it is possible to administer what would otherwise be toxic doses of Lidocaine under the maximum dosages specified in the package insert. Dr. Edison has used the tumescent infiltration technique many times in performing breast augmentations without his patients' suffering any ill effects. There is, however, no rule in Florida equivalent to that relating to liposuction that permits the use of high dosages of Lidocaine as local anesthetic in breast augmentation surgery. Furthermore, Dr. Edison has failed to submit persuasive evidence of a standard of care in Florida among plastic surgeons that would permit the use of dosages of Lidocaine with epinephrine in excess of the seven milligrams per kilogram specified on the package insert for breast augmentation surgery.9 Dr. Edison violated the standard of care by injecting approximately of 700 milligrams of Lidocaine with epinephrine into the tissue surrounding P.L.'s breasts when the maximum allowable dosage, according to the insert packaged with the drug and based on P.L.'s weight, was approximately 300 milligrams. Dr. Edison's previous discipline10 Dr. Edison was charged in an Administrative Complaint dated February 21, 1995, with having committed medical malpractice in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. He executed a Consent Agreement in which he neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations in the complaint but agreed that, if proven, the facts would constitute a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. The Agency for Health Care Administration entered a Final Order dated August 20, 1995, adopting the Consent Agreement in relevant part. This Final Order does not establish that Dr. Edison committed a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. In a Final Order entered January 4, 2007, the Board adopted the recommended disposition in the Recommended Order in Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Richard B. Edison, M.D., DOAH Case No. 06-0598PL (Recommended Order August 25, 2006), that Dr. Edison be found guilty of a single violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order Dismissing Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint; Finding Dr. Edison guilty of a single violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and of two violations of Section 458.331(1)(t)1., Florida Statutes; Suspending Dr. Edison's license for a period of 90 days, followed by four years' probation under such terms as shall be imposed by the Board; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 1st day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Stanley E. Ross, D.D.S. is licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, and at all times relevant herein was so licensed. His practice is limited to periodontics and Ross is a board certified periodontist. In 1975 Ross was associated with the Professional Association owned by Dr. Marvin M. Rosenberg, also a board certified periodontist. Offices were occupied in Boca Raton and West Palm Beach with each dentist spending part of each week at each office. Although they practiced under the same roofs it was very infrequent one would treat a patient of the other. Nathan Wolfson, a 61 year old retiree, was referred to Rosenberg and Ross for examination and possible periodontal treatment by Dr. Medoff, a dentist engaged in general practice. Following routine pre-operative procedures, extensive periodontal surgery was performed by Ross on Wolfson on Friday, November 7, 1975. Numerous incisions were made in the gums, tissue and bone was removed, and the tissue sutured back to the jaw. The operation lasted three to four hours and Wolfson departed the dental office ambulatory. Ross had prescribed Percodan for Wolfson to take for pain expected following the extensive surgery. On Sunday Wolfson began experiencing pain in the neck and across the shoulders and his wife called Ross. When the latter inquired and was advised that Wolfson was not taking the Percodan that had been prescribed Ross told her that the medication had been given him to take care of the pain and to start using them. Sunday night or Monday morning part of the packing fell out and on Monday Wolfson went to the Boca Raton office to have this replaced. Ross was not in the Boca Raton Office that day and a dental hygienist replaced the packing. One witness testified that Dr. Rosenberg was seen coming out of the operatory with Wolfson and was overheard telling Wolfson that the pain in his neck and across the shoulders was very normal following such surgery. Rosenberg denied ever seeing or talking to Wolfson. On Tuesday November 11, 1975 Wolfson was still uncomfortable and again returned to the Boca Raton office. He told one of the dental assistants that he was experiencing pain in the jaw, neck, across the shoulders and "pressure in the chest". She advised him to describe these pains to Ross. Shortly thereafter Ross came in, looked in Wolfson's mouth and listened to Wolfson's complaints of pain in the neck, jaw and across the shoulders. He gave Wolfson 1 cc of Demerol and 1 cc of Tigan, both intramuscular. Ross remained with Wolfson 10 or 15 minutes until the Demerol took effect and Wolfson's pain eased. Wolfson then departed in company with his wife and his wife's sister-in-law. Wolfson occupied the back seat of their car and the two ladies sat in front. Shortly after leaving Ross' office Mrs. Wolfson turned to look back at her husband and saw he was dead. A passing car directed them to Boca Raton Community Hospital where Wolfson was pronounced dead on arrival after emergency resuscitation steps had failed. An autopsy was subsequently performed on Wolfson and the cause of death reported as "coronary insufficiency following severe atherosclerosis of coronary arteries". The right coronary artery was described as showing "more than 95 percent narrowing of the lumen by atherosclerosis 2.0 cm away from the coronary ostium." A medical witness described the autopsy report as showing such extensive cardiovascular disease as to have made Wolfson a poor risk for heart surgery. On September 2, 1975 Wolfson received a physical examination from Dr. Robbins and the EKG taken was considered normal. Other tests performed at this examination were just outside the range of normalcy and Dr. Robbins would have rated Wolfson's physical condition as fair at the conclusion of this examination. He considered Wolfson physically fit for the periodontal surgery performed. Wolfson had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Robbins on November 10, 1975 which was not kept. Mrs. Wolfson, the widow of Nathan, testified that Nathan Wolfson at his November 11, 1975 visit to Ross told Ross that he was experiencing pain in the neck, jaw, back, chest, and down both arms. Ross denied being told of any pain other than in neck and jaw. Shortly after Wolfson's death Mrs. Wolfson and her son visited Dr. Medoff and told him that Wolfson's complaints of pain following his oral surgery was in the back of his neck and shoulder area. No mention was made to Medoff of any pain in the chest or pain radiating down the arms. Boca Raton Community Hospital records of Nathan Wolfson on November 11, 1975 contain the notation "wife states: left dentist office and suddenly had SOB." Again following Wolfson's death, Mrs. Wolfson, in discussing Wolfson's death with Dr. Robbins, mentioned Wolfson having pains following his oral surgery in the jaw and shoulder. She asked Dr. Robbins if pain in the jaw could be from a heart attack and he told her "yes, sometimes." A medical witness specializing in emergency medicine opined that pain in the jaw, neck and across the shoulders four days following extensive oral surgery would not be recognizable as stemming from cardiac problems as all of these symptoms could be attributed to the oral surgery. Another medical witness whose specialty is internal medicine testified it would be extremely unusual for pains across the back and down both arms to lead to medical practitioner to the conclusion the patient was experiencing cardiac failure. He described classic pre-cardia pain to be in chest radiating down left arm. It also can be from chest radiating down the back. He identified pain across shoulders down back and down both arms as that resulting from a dissecting aneurism of the aorta. No evidence, other than Mrs. Wolfson's testimony, showed Ross was ever made aware Wolfson had pain in the chest or pain radiating down either or both arms. As noted above, shortly after Wolfson's death his widow made no mention of pain in chest or arms to the doctor and dentist to whom she spoke. Pain in the jaw can be indicative of cardiac problems when other significant cause for such pain is not present. Here it is obvious there were other significant causes of pain. Three to four hours in the dentist chair with head back, jaws extended having tissue and bone cut away would undoubtedly result in pain in the jaw for several days. From the evidence presented regarding the condition of Wolfson's cardiovascular system as shown by the autopsy performed, it is questionable that Wolfson would have survived even had medical treatment been available and administered at the time he experienced his actual attack. In the building occupied by Ross in Boca Raton two medical offices were also present. One is occupied by internists and the other office has doctors engaged in family practice. Ross has in the past consulted with both of these offices when medical problems occurred during or prior to performing surgery on his dental patients. These consultations and referrals involved anesthetics as well as actual medical symptoms. Respondent Ross is a well trained and gifted periodontal surgeon. He is held in very high esteem by his colleagues and peers. He serves as visiting professor and guest lecturer of periodontics at the University of Pennsylvania, Boston University, Loyola University (Chicago), Emory University, and Medical College of Georgia. He has lectured at various dental meetings in the U. S., Europe, Mexico, and South America. Here the ultimate factual issue is whether or not from the symptoms presented by Nathan Wolfson to Ross during his office visit on November 11, 1975 Ross should, in the exercise of the degree of care and knowledge expected of a dentist, have recognized that Wolfson was experiencing cardiac problems and required the immediate services of a medical practitioner. From the factual situation as noted in the above findings that question must clearly be answered, no. The evidence presented at this hearing was tainted by animosity and avarice as well as close friendship. The calibre of the latter was more impressive than the former.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Department of Professional Regulation, should pay the Petitioner, Kirk A. Woodson, M.D., attorney fees and costs under Section 57.011, Fla. Stat. (1989), the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, the parties stipulate that the Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" and that reasonable fees and costs exceed $15,000, the statutory cap. The only remaining issue under the statute is whether the Respondent was "substantially justified" in filing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 90- 5986 against the Petitioner. 1/
Findings Of Fact On or about June 7, 1988, a complaint was filed against the license of the Petitioner, Kirk A. Woodson, M.D., subsequent to closure of a professional malpractice liability claim against him without payment of indemnity. The substance of the complaint was that, on January 1, 1986, Woodson saw and performed a hysterectomy on a patient who had presented at the emergency room at University Community Hospital in Tampa, Florida, with heavy and continuous vaginal bleeding. The complaint stated that post-surgery the patient developed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and died. The complaint questioned whether Woodson failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. By letter dated June 30, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation (the Department or DPR) notified Woodson that it had received the complaint and that it was initiating an investigation. DPR subpoenaed the hospital records which revealed that the patient arrived at the UCH emergency room at 5:28 a.m. on January 1, 1986, with at least a three-day history of vaginal hemorraging. An emergency room physician saw the patient, gave her two units of packed blood cells, and admitted her to Woodson's service. Woodson was called at approximately 8:30 a.m. and saw the patient later that morning. The patient's admission to surgery to determine the cause of the bleeding and perform necessary procedures was delayed until at least approximately 2:00 p.m. because the patient refused to consent to a dilation and curettage (D and C); she was insisting on a hysterectomy only. She finally consented to a D and C to be followed by a hysterectomy if Woodson found it to be medically necessary. During this delay, the patient continued to bleed and was transfused with two more units of packed blood cells at approximately 1:45 p.m. After the consent was given, there was a further delay, not explained by the records, until approximately 6:00 p.m. in getting the patient to surgery. The patient continued to bleed. Surgery took almost five hours. During surgery, the patient's bleeding got worse, and she was transfused with four more units of whole blood during the surgery. The DPR investigator was unable to ascertain from the hospital records the reason for the length of the surgery. The DPR investigator attempted to arrange an interview with Dr. Woodson and his attorney on or about February 28, 1989. The appointment was cancelled. When the DPR investigator contacted Woodson to reschedule the interview, Dr. Woodson questioned why DPR was pursuing the complaint when the malpractice claim was closed without payment of indemnity. Dr. Woodson agreed to be interviewed but expressed his preference that the investigator first review the "extensive depositions" taken in the malpractice litigation. 4/ Having already determined to request an expert evaluation of the case, the investigator decided to postpone the interview with Dr. Woodson. On July 10, 1989, the DPR asked a probable cause panel of the Board of Medicine to authorize the retention of an expert in gynecology to review the information obtained through investigation to that point in time to assist in the determination whether Woodson's treatment of the patient fell below that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. On July 22, 1989, the probable cause met and authorized the expert review. On or about November 2, 1989, the DPR requested an expert review by Doris N. Carson, M.D., a Board-certified gynecologist with extensive surgical experience, including emergency room experience. Dr. Carson reviewed the hospital records supplied by DPR, some of which were difficult to read. By letter dated November 20, 1989, Dr. Carson reported her impressions. Dr. Carson believed the records supported Dr. Woodson's diagnosis and ultimate course of treatment. In the patient's condition, the proper course of treatment was to attempt to stop the vaginal bleeding by doing a D and C; a hysterectomy only should have been attempted if the D and C did not stop the bleeding. However, Dr. Carson perceived other problems that were not explained to her satisfaction by the hospital records. First, Dr. Carson did not see anything in the records to justify the length of the surgical procedures performed by Dr. Woodson. She reported: Careful review indicated that the subject attempted to remove the fibroids vaginally, and when this only increased the bleeding, then decided to do a laparotomy. The uterus, although enlarged, was not huge and the procedure as described seemed to move along without difficulty. When, however, the time is reviewed five hours would indicate very serious problems of technique or what seems more likely a lot if indecision about how to proceed. Evidently there was no physician surgical assistant, and the subject proceeded alone. In retrospect better operationg room help should have been available. Second, Dr. Carson felt that the patient received too much whole blood replacement during the course of the day and the surgery. Her reading of the hospital records indicated to her that five units of whole blood were given to the patient in addition to four units of packed cells. She felt: "Packed cells altogether would have been a better choice in light of the volume given to the patient." Her concern was that "volume overload," rather than ARDS, may have resulted ultimately in the death of the patient. However, she disclaimed the necessary expertise to render a conclusive opinion on the question and recommended that, if the DPR wanted a conclusive opinion on the cause of death, it should have a specialist in intensive care or a respiratory expert review the records. Dr. Carson had some difficulty with the delay in getting the patient to the operating room. The records indicated that at least some of the delay was caused by the patient's unwillingness to give consent to the recommended D and C. But Dr. Carson nonetheless had concerns that the delay added to the amount of blood transfused. Dr. Carson closed her letter with this remark: "In conclusion: A poorly done sugical proceeding below the recognized normal level of care." For reasons not apparent from the evidence presented, DPR did not interview Dr. Woodson before asking the probable cause panel to find probable cause and file a draft Administrative Complaint against Dr. Woodson based on Dr. Carson's expert review and the rest of the investigative report, including the hospital records. The draft Administrative Complaint, drawn in two counts, sought to discipline Dr. Woodson under Count I for failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, in two respects: first, for allegedly causing volume overload in the patient by ordering units of whole blood, instead of packed blood, to replace the patient's blood loss; and, second, for allegedly taking too long, without justification, to perform the necessary surgery. Count II alleged that Woodson failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, specifically with respect to ordering whole blood instead of packed units and with respect to the length of the surgical procedures. The probable cause panel considered the matter at its meeting on June 22, 1990. Counsel for the panel pointed out that the "extensive depositions" Woodson had indicated he wanted the DPR investigator to read before Woodson was interviewed were not in the packet of materials reviewed by the panel. 5/ But members of the panel indicated that they had reviewed the material that was in the packet and that they thought the information contained in it was adequate to make a probable cause determination. One of the doctors on the panel called it a "horrendous case." She felt that Woodson had "swamped out the patient" and had performed "inappropriate types of fluid therapy and blood therapy." The other member mentioned the "five-hour operating time . . . without any real explanation." The panel's attorney pointed out the part of the report of investigation that referenced the patient's refusal to consent to Dr. Woodson's proposed surgery and asked whether it constituted "any semblance of an explanation for a delay?" It is not clear from the transcript of the probable cause proceeding how the panel resolved the attorney's question, but the panel voted to find probable cause notwithstanding the question. 6/ There is information in the materials reviewed by Dr. Carson, and by the probable cause panel, which tends to explain some of the time it took for Dr. Woodson to perform surgery on the patient. Some of this partially exculpatory information was difficult to read and decipher in the records. Some of the partially exculpatory information was acknowledged by Dr. Carson and may also have been taken into account independently by the panel. Notwithstanding this partially exculpatory information in the record, the finding of probable cause was substantially justified.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for authorization for the autologous chondrocyte implantation procedure should be approved pursuant to worker's compensation laws and rules.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Injury At all times, the Petitioner has been employed as a Ladies Wear Department Manager for K-Mart Corporation. On July 21, 1998, Petitioner, while in the course and scope of her employment, was injured when she fell on a metal ladder as she attempted to hang clothes on a rail. Her left knee struck a metal bar on the second step of the ladder, causing immediate pain. On August 26, 1998, Petitioner consulted Dr. Jeffery Friedman, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, who specializes in knee and shoulder surgery. Dr. Friedman was recognized as an expert in the field of orthopedic surgery. On or about September 4, 1998, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery performed by Dr. Friedman to remove a loose body from the knee. Dr. Friedman found grade III chondromalacia and debrided the area using an arthroscopic shaver. He also found loose articular cartilage at the patella. Dr. Friedman's records describe the area of grade III chondromalacia as "fairly large" and involving " the apex of the patella." However, neither the size nor the shape of the injury is disclosed. Dr. Friedman also debrided flake of articular cartilage from the tibial plateau and removed a calcific loose body from the posteromedial compartment. His post-operative diagnosis was left knee loose body, chrondromalacia, and intracruciate ligament strain. Petitioner returned to work with K-Mart after the arthroscopic surgery, and was placed on light duty. While performing her duties, Petitioner is required to stand most of the time, and is unable to sit. Prior to her injury, Petitioner worked 40 hours per week. After her injury, due to her physical limitations resulting from the accident, Petitioner is only able to work 24 hours per week. Petitioner's pain limits her ability to work 40 hours per week. Petitioner cannot put her full weight down on the left knee while going up steps or a ladder or it causes sharp shooting pains. In addition, continuous walking results in continuous aching pain. The reduction in Petitioner's work hours was due to her injury. Petitioner is now unable to perform all of the duties that were required of her before the injury. Dr. Friedman found Petitioner to have reached maximum medical improvement in December 1998. In early 1999, Petitioner sought treatment for continued pain. An MRI was performed on or about March 5, 1999, which suggested a small defect in the articular cartilage, thinning of the patellar cartilage, and narrowing of the medical femoral tibial joint consistent with the early stages of osteoarthritis. In June, 1999, Petitioner underwent steroid injections for continued pain. In September, 1999, Petitioner returned to Dr, Friedman because of continued pain. Dr. Friedman reviewed a video tape that he had made of the arthroscopic surgery and fount that the Petitioner had a fairly large chondral defect of the patella. Dr. Friedman determined that Petitioner was a candidate for ACI, also known as the Genzyme Carticel Procedure (Genzyme Procedure). Dr. Friedman believed that the ACI procedure would benefit Petitioner by providing long-term symptomatic relief with joint pain and mechanical disturbances and improved joint motion function, eliminating the complaints of grinding and catching, and furthering the goal of returning the patient to regular and even strenuous activity. Petitioner then requested authorization for the ACI procedure. The Employer/Carrier denied the request and referred it to the Agency for Health Care Administration for review in accordance with Florida law. The Agency consulted with the University of Florida Faculty Practice Group, and Dr. B. Hudson Berrey, Chair of the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, rendered an opinion that the procedure is investigative within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. Dr. Berrey further opined that there was not reliable evidence that ACI would provide significant benefit to the recovery and well-being of the injured employee within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.004(3), Florida Administrative Code. The documents and information forwarded to Dr. Berrey by Respondent included Petitioner's medical records provided by Intervenor, K-Mart carrier. Dr. Berrey did not review any actual MRI films, did not review any films taken at the time of the arthroscopic procedure, and in fact only reviewed certain documentation that was supplied to him by the agency. Petitioner was denied her right to present information to Dr. Berrey prior to his forming his opinion for the agency. This was a violation of Rule 59B-11.003, Florida Administrative Code. The agency rendered a decision based upon Dr. Berrey's opinion, declining to order the Employer/Carrier to provide ACI to Petitioner. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation The ACI procedure was initially developed in Sweden by Dr. Lars Peterson. ACI is a surgical procedure whereby a sample of cartilage is harvested from another area of the joint. The harvesting of the cartilage is performed during an arthroscopic surgical operation. The sample is sent to Boston to the laboratory of Genzyme Tissue Repair, Inc. ("Genzyme"), the owner of the process. Genzyme uses its proprietary process to culture the cells into an estimated 12 million chondrocytes over a period of approximately two months. Genzyme then returns the cultured chondrocytes to the surgeon. The surgeon then performs an open surgical operation. The surgeon creates a periosteal flap. In addition, the injury is debrided and the chondrocytes are implanted on the wounded cartilage and covered with the periosteal flap. The ACI procedure thus requires two surgical operations, one arthroscopic procedure and one open procedure. The claimed benefit of ACI is that the cartilage that is generated and implanted onto the knee will be hyaline cartilage or hyaline-like cartilage rather than fibrocartilage. Hyaline cartilage is composed both of the cartilage cells of an extra-cellular matrix. It has greater ability than fibrocartilage to withstand compression and shearing forces. ACI has been shown to produce "hyaline-like" cartilage in some patients. However, it does not reproduce the extra- cellular matrix in which the chondrocytes are found in naturally occurring hyaline cartilage. Alternative Treatments Other available treatments for a defect in articular cartilage of the knees include abrasion chondroplasty, arthroscopic microfracture, and arthroscopic drilling. Many patients get relief with one or more of these alternative procedures and do not need another operation. In addition, a surgical procedure to elevate the tibial tubercle and remove some of the weight from the patella might also alleviate the Petitioner's pain and improve her functioning. Dr. Friedman performed an abrasion chondroplasty during the arthroscopic surgery of September 4, 1998. Dr. Friedman did not offer Petitioner either the microfracture or the drilling procedures. Dr. Friedman had considered performing a tibial tubercle elevation but has not recommended that the Petitioner undergo that procedure either before the ACI is approved or independently of the ACI. Dr. Friedman views the primary purpose of this procedure as assuring the best possible results from the ACI. Dr. Friedman indicated there were no appropriate alternative medical procedures, other then the ACI procedure, available for Petitioner's injury. Dr. Friedman opined that the only viable option of putting back normal articular cartilage underneath the kneecap would be with the ACI procedure. In this opinion, the alternative procedures are not appropriate for and would not benefit Petitioner, as they were merely temporary procedures. Moreover, he emphatically stated that the ACI procedure is the procedure which is appropriate for an would benefit Petitioner. The Evidence That ACI Remains Investigative The Agency for Health Care Administration has not promulgated, endorsed, or approved any particular treatment for injuries to the articular cartilage of the knee in accordance with Sections 440.13(15) or 408.02, Florida Statutes; therefore, there was no Agency-approved protocol for Dr. Berrey to consider in rendering his opinion. Dr. Berrey testified that he could find no articles or publications describing controlled studies in which the effectiveness of ACI compared to any other procedure. Dr. Berrey further testified that he could find no articles about the ACI procedure in peer-reviewed journals in which the authors used objective measures of outcome which compared the patients' condition before and after treatment. The use of blinded or controlled studies is important so that possible confounding factors or variables can be controlled or accounted for and the results measured objectively. Dr. Berrey found that the publications cited by the proponents of the procedure discussed research which was funded by Genzyme, the owner of the process by which the chondrocytes were cultured. The funding of the research by the owner of the process was an additional factor in his determination that the evidence supporting the efficacy of the procedure was not reliable. The Cartilage Repair Registry and the results reported therein do not constitute reliable evidence of the benefits of ACI when compared to other available procedures for two reasons. First, the potentially confounding variables are neither controlled nor accounted for. Second, each surgeon evaluates his or her own work, so that there is no objective, independent measurement or assessment of the condition of each patient before and after surgery. Although the premise on which ACI is based is that the patient's implant will consist of hyaline cartilage rather than fibrocartilage, the available data does not indicate that the results are comprised only, or even primarily, of genuine hyaline cartilage. Rather, the evidence is that some patients develop "hyaline-like" cartilage, or cartilage composed partly of hyaline tissue. It cannot be determined whether hyaline or hyaline- like cartilage has filled a patient's defect without performing a biopsy and a histological evaluation of the tissue. The published reports described in the testimony contain discussions of post-surgical histological performed on very small numbers of patients. The published reports concerning the use of ACI to treat defects of the patella show that the results are not as favorable as those claimed for treatment of the femoral condyle. After the proponents of the procedure began to perform other procedures with the ACI to assure that any defects in the alignment of the patella are repaired, improved results were reported. Dr, Friedman testified about the published results of histological evaluations of 37 patients. Of those, seven underwent ACI to treat defects of the patella. Only one of the seven showed the development of hyaline-like tissue. Further, only two of the seven patella patients reported surgical results classified as good or better. Dr. Friedman opined that the histological data resulting from treatment of defects of the patella had improved since the study described in the preceding paragraph. However, he could not give any reference to the basis for his opinion. Dr. Friedman further testified that the more recent articles discussed the results of patients who had been followed from nine to 15 years. However, the articles and presentations from 1997 to 2000 report on follow-up of the first hundred patients between two and nine years after their surgery. Dr. Billings testified that Dr. Peterson's presentation discussed follow-ups of ACI patients occurring as long as 15 years after surgery. Yet, the March 2000 presentation to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons focused on 40 patients who had been evaluated three or more years after their surgery. The FDA granted an accelerated approval of the Carticel product in 1997. The original accelerated FDA approval was granted for defects of the femoral condyle, the trochlear groove, and the patella. The terms of the approval require that controlled studies be conducted which compare the procedure to other procedures available for the treatment of focal chondral defects, specifically, microfracture and the creation of a periosteal flap without the injection of the cultured chondrocytes. None of the expert witnesses had found in their literature search any published reports of the progress of the controlled studies required under the terms of the accelerated FDA approval. In February, 2000, the FDA approval was modified. Genzyme is no longer permitted to market the ACI procedure or its Carticel product for treatment of defects to the patella. The requirements of Rule 59B-11.004, Florida Administrative Code, differ significantly from those of the accelerated FDA approval process, so that the granting of accelerated approval does not determine the answer to the question whether a treatment is investigative under that rule. The FDA's inquiry addresses the issues of safety and efficacy. However, the accelerated FDA approval process does not address the issues of whether a particular product is more effective than currently existing treatments or is equally cost-effective. Based upon all the evidence, the performance of the ACI procedure on the defects located in the patella is investigative within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. The Probability That ACI Would be of Significant Benefit in Returning Petitioner to Work Both of Petitioner's expert witnesses testified that if she does not undergo ACI, it is likely that she will need a total knee replacement. However, neither witness testified that Petitioner currently requires a total knee replacement. No testimony was presented as to when Petitioner might require a total knee replacement. Despite the testimony that ACI has been studied for 20 years, the published reports follow patients only for nine years after surgery. From the current state of the research, it is not possible to conclude that patients who undergo ACI avoid the need for subsequent surgery in ten or more years. The published studies of the results of ACI going out nine years from the date of surgery do not state the number of procedures performed on the patella. No witnesses testified regarding any published studies of the effectiveness of ACI that addressed the extent to which patients had been able to return to work as a result of the procedure. There is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that the ACI is more likely to enable the Petitioner to return to her duties that other available procedures. The Likelihood That the Benefits of ACI Would Outweigh the Risks and the Costs The testimony compared the cost and benefit of ACI with chondroplasty, microfracture or drilling, and, to some extent, a Macquet procedure or tibial tubercle elevation. Each of the other procedures requires only one surgical operation. ACI requires an arthroscopic surgical procedure to harvest cartilage, culturing of the chondrocytes at the Genzyme laboratory in Boston, and followed by an open surgical procedure to create a periosteal flap and to implant the chondrocytes. Petitioner's expert testified that the cost of culturing the chondrocytes alone was between $8,000 and $10,000, in addition to the two surgical procedures. Petitioner's expert compared the cost of ACI to that of a total knee replacement. However, that comparison is not appropriate under the rule because there is no evidence that Petitioner currently needs a knee replacement or that a knee replacement is the treatment generally used to treat her current condition. The cost of the abrasion chondroplasty, the microfracture or drilling procedure would approximate the cost of the first stage of ACI, approximately $2,300. Dr. Billings testified that the cost of the second stage of ACI was greater than that of the first stage. The second stage is an open surgical operation rather than an arthroscopic one. The total cost of the ACI procedure, including therapy, is probably close to the $30,000 required for a total knee replacement, including the therapy required for the total knee replacement. Dr. Berrey testified that published reports of the cost of ACI are as high as $37,000. The ACI requires extensive physical therapy; Petitioner presented no evidence as to the extent to which the cost of this aspect of treatment was included in the total cost of ACI. ACI has been established to be safe, so that the benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks. However, there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that the benefits of ACI outweigh the additional costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying approval of the autologous chondrocyte implantation for Petitioner Rebecca Crane. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey J. Bordulis, Esquire 570 Crown Oak Centre Drive Longwood, Florida 32750 Lisa J. Hurley, Esquire Pyle, Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A. 1069 West Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michelle L. Oxman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue An Administrative Complaint dated May 22, 1990, alleges that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), F.S. by gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. More specifically, Petitioner alleges that Respondent undertook certain surgical procedures on patient, R.M., without conducting necessary pre-surgery work up and testing. At the hearing Petitioner voluntarily dismissed remaining allegations in the Complaint, related to a subsequent hospitalization of the same patient. (transcript, pp 13 & 14) The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the alleged violation, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Irving L. Colvin, M.D., is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician, having been issued license number ME0008095 by the State of Florida. He has practiced in the Central Florida area since 1958, and is a Board-certified surgeon. R.M., a 35 year old male, became a patient of Dr. Colvin in 1985, when he complained of right upper quadrant pain. Gallbladder x-rays were obtained at that time, and several months later when the complaints persisted. In August 1985, Dr. Colvin obtained a sonogram (echo test) of the gallbladder and an upper gastrointestinal series. Blood tests were also taken. The results of these tests did not, in Dr. Colvin's opinion, indicate a need for surgery, and the patient was treated symptomatically. R.M. continued to complain of pain in 1986 and was treated symptomatically. He was seen by another internist and a gastroenterologist and was placed on several medications. None of the medications appeared to relieve his pain, and he visited Dr. Colvin again in June 1988, with the same complaints: recurring episodes of right upper quadrant pain radiating to the back. Laboratory tests were done and some jaundice was found. His serum bilirubin was elevated and was treated symptomatically for a couple of weeks, until the patient was admitted to AMI Medical Center in Orlando for exploratory surgery in July 1988. None of the tests conducted prior to the surgery revealed the existence of gallstones. Three gallbladder x-rays were performed between 1985 and 1988. At least one sonogram was conducted, as well as blood tests and upper gastrointestinal series. Dr. Colvin considered that the tests ruled out other bases for the recurring complaints and clinically concluded that the patient had chronic cholecystitis (gallbladder disease) with bile duct obstruction and possibly intermittent stones. By the time of the surgery, the patient indicated he was tired of putting up with the pain and wanted something done other than the medications. At Dr. Colvin's request, the morning of surgery, Dr. Talal Hilal, a gastroenterologist, conducted an endoscopy to rule out other causes of the intermittent jaundice. This consisted in the insertion of a tube through the mouth and esophagus, down to the stomach and to the small intestine where the gallbladder is found in the duodenum. Dr. Hilal's findings were essentially normal, and he recommended that Dr. Colvin proceed to surgically explore the common bile duct. The surgery conducted by Dr. Colvin included exploration of the duct with a choledoscope and removal of the gallbladder. The surgery was appropriate as the gallbladder was diseased. Post operative diagnoses were: chronic acalculus cholecystitis, chronic pancreatitus and stenosis (constriction) of the distal common bile duct and sphincter of odi. None of the experts claims that the surgery should not have been performed. Rather, the agency's two experts, who reviewed the medical files only, claim that insufficient work-up was completed prior to the surgery. The original function of the gallbladder was to store bile in lower animals, which has carried over into a gallbladder in human beings and which may or may not have very much function. Still, invasive procedures should be avoided unless they are necessary, as they can be life-threatening. The agency's experts claim that less invasive procedures should have been tried prior to surgery. More specifically, they suggest that an operative cholangiogram should have been done. That is a procedure wherein a small tube is inserted through a small nick in the part of the gallbladder that joins the common bile duct. Dye is injected, and x-rays of the duct are taken. They also suggest other procedures, including sonography or ultrasound, hiatiscan, CAT scan, a study of the bilirubin, and ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram). At least two of these procedures, sonography and bilirubin tests, were obtained by Dr. Colvin prior to surgery. By the time that he performed surgery on R.M., Dr. Colvin surmised through his clinical observations that the patient's gallbladder disease was not likely caused by stones. Chronic acalculus cholecystitis is a specific disease characterized by the absence of stones but still caused by an inflammatory reaction. From five to ten percent of gallbladder cholecystitis exists without the presence of stones. Diagnosis of the disease is made clinically, through the elimination of possibilities of other diseases, by skillfully feeling the patient and by listening to his complaints. Typically, the symptoms of chronic acalculus cholecystitis are upper abdominal pain, sometimes radiating to the back, digestive disturbances and low grade fever. The disease recurs chronically, with subsidence of the symptoms from time to time. There is substantial difference of opinion on the utility of the multiple tests suggested by the agency's experts. A cholangiogram is helpful when stones are strongly suspected, as it indicates how many stones exist, so that surgery will remove them all. While not as life-threatening as the exploratory surgery, this procedure also has risks, including inflamation of the pancreas, and it still involves opening the abdomen. Dr. Colvin already had the advantage of several sonagrams and X-rays indicating that stones did not exist. He had the laboratory tests revealing fluctuating bilirubin levels and strongly indicating the need for bile duct exploration. The hiatiscan, involving a nuclear radiation determination of obstructions, is most commonly used in cases of acute, rather than chronic cholecystitis. If the ERCP needed to have been done, Dr. Hilal would have performed it at the time that he did the pre-surgery endoscopy. He did not feel it was necessary and recommended that Dr. Colvin follow his plan for the surgery. A CAT scan would have been very costly and is an inaccurate means of detecting gallstones, detecting less than ten or fifteen percent of existing stones. From his review of the records, Dr. Corwin, an expert witness for the agency, conceded that R.M. probably had chronic cholecystitis. He has never treated a patient with chronic acalculus cholecystytis and stated that he does not consider it an acceptable diagnosis. Dr. Corwin admitted that some people might consider the laboratory tests and endoscopy ordered by Dr. Colvin to be an adequate work-up, and he stated that he would "hedge a little bit" on his own opinion. All of the remaining witnesses, including Dr. Goggin, the agency's other expert, have heard of the disease and consider it a valid diagnosis. This is a case of reasonably prudent physicians disagreeing as to appropriate pre-surgery work-up of a patient. Other than Dr. Colvin, only one witness was personally familiar with the patient. That witness, Dr. Hilal, the gastroenterologist, unequivocally supported Dr. Colvin's handling of the case. Once Dr. Colvin determined clinically that surgical exploration was necessary through his treatment of the patient and through the process of elimination of alternative diagnoses, the other available tests suggested by Drs. Goggin and Corwin were redundant. Petitioner failed to prove that the means by which Respondent reached his clinical diagnosis violates the applicable standard of care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medicine enter its final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Irving L. Colvin, M.D. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Divisionof Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 4. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. What comprises a "complete history and physical" is not explained, nor is this failure alleged as a violation of Section 458.331, F.S., in the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as cumulative, immaterial (as to elevated alkaline phosphatase level) and contrary to the weight of evidence (as to no evidence of need for exploration). Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Rejected as immaterial, and contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. and Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 4. 17.and 18. Rejected, as to the persuasiveness of the two experts' opinion. Respondent's Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings consist of 2 numbered paragraphs. The first is adopted in Recommended finding #1; the second is argument and commentary on the testimony, rather than proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Francesca Small, Esquire Larry G. McPherson, Esquire DPR 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Gary Siegel, Esquire 6500 S. Highway 17-92 Fern Park, FL 32730 Jack McRay, General Counsel DPR 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director DPR-Board of Medicine 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles P. Shook, M.D., is a medical doctor having been issued license number 0020414, pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. He is board certified in the areas of general and peripheral vascular surgery and practices in those specialty areas in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. He has been practicing in Lee County since 1973. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes and related statutes and rules and imposing disciplinary measures for departure from those standards by physicians licensed in Florida when such are proven. Mrs. Betty A. Fiore, at times pertinent hereto, was an obese, 47-year old female, with a history of thrombo-phlebitis and progressively enlarging and painful bilaterial varicosities of the veins in her right and left legs. She was admitted to Fort Myers Community Hospital on January 28, 1979, by the Respondent, for performance of a bilateral "vein-stripping" surgical procedure. Her medical history reflected that she had had a similar vein-stripping procedure performed over 20 years previously. The patient was operated on by the Respondent on January 29, 1979, beginning at approximately 9:25 a.m. The procedure was quite lengthy due to certain complications and lasted until 1:25 p.m. that day. After normal preparations, under general anesthesia, the Respondent began the operation by performing an oblique groin incision on the left leg just below the inquinal liagment, approximately ten centimeters in length. The incision penetrated the subcutaneous tissue and, as the "fossa-ovalis" was approached, the Respondent noted a significant amount of scar tissue, apparently related to the earlier surgical procedure, which obliterated and concealed much of the normal anatomy and structure in the area of surgery. It was of such a dense nature that only a faintly palpable pulse could be felt in the vessel. The Respondent dissected out the various venous branches in the area and individually ligated them. During his dissection process, the distal common femoral artery was injured by being slightly nicked with the surgical instrument. Repair procedures for the injury to the artery were carried out as will be described below. In any event, the "codman stripper" was employed in carrying out the stripping operation on the vein in question and additionally, several incisions were made around the calf of the leg to alleviate smaller varicosities. One large perforating vein in the malleolar area had to be ligated after the superficial portion had been stripped away. The Respondent then began to perform a similar procedure on the right leg, in spite of the initial difficulties he had had on the left leg, because he did not expect such severe scar tissue involvement with the anatomical structures in the area of incision on both legs. When he carried out the incision on the right leg however, he found that the anatomy of the right leg was essentially the same as that of the left and that substantial scar tissue reaction had occurred, related to prior surgery, with obliteration of much of the normal anatomy, including concealment of the femoral artery. Due in large part to these anatomical changes and complications involved in dissecting out the various venous branches involved in the stripping procedure, the right femoral artery was also slightly nicked by the scalpel. The Respondent attempted to suture the femoral arteries nicked in both legs at the time these injuries occurred, but the sutures would not hold in the arteries due to some then unknown, medical condition. After the same failure to hold sutures was encountered with regard to both femoral arteries, the Respondent sent samples of the arteries to the pathologist for evaluation. The pathologist report indicated that the arteries were "normal." Parenthetically it should he noted that the "complaining witness," Mrs. Fiore, has been found to exhibit symptoms of diabetes mellitus. Her testimony was somewhat evasive concerning the degree to which she may suffer from this malady, which can have a detrimental effect on the vascular system. In any event, when working first on the left leg, the Respondent elected to resect back along the artery for approximately a half-inch on each side of the wound and after that resection, to repair the femoral artery with the insertion of a 6 millimeter gortex graft. Likewise, with regard to the right leg, the Respondent found the sutures would not hold in the damaged artery (which was of a "cheese-like" consistency). He therefore performed a similar resection and insertion of a 6 millimeter gortex graft to repair the injury. The surgical procedure was then successfully concluded. Post-operatively the patient encountered some complications involving infection in the groin area, requiring two additional admissions to Fort Myers Community Hospital. Subsequently, she was transferred to Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas, where she underwent two additional surgical procedures. The Petitioner presented the opinions of two expert witnesses, Dr. Alexander Braze and Dr. E. William Reiber. Dr. Braze's expert opinion is predicated on the review of Mrs. Fiore's office records from the Respondent's office, the hospital charts for her three admissions to Fort Myers Community Hospital, and summaries of her two admissions to the Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. His opinion is not based on any examination of the patient involved. Dr. Braze thus opined that because of the previous surgery on the greater saphenous vein, bilaterally, there would be obvious and considerable scarring and scar tissue in the subcutaneous area which would distort and conceal the individual anatomical structures. He himself has never nicked a femoral artery while doing a vein-stripping operation but, although he acknowledges it is an "uncommon complication, he has heard of it occurring. He was unable to render an opinion concerning whether or not the operation was performed properly because this was not a typical vein ligation and stripping procedure, due to the presence of extensive scar tissue, and resulting difficulty involved. The dense scar tissue precluded identification of the structures in the area of the surgical incision and meant that the Respondent had to proceed slowly and very meticulously with a careful dissection, deviation from which careful procedure could cause difficulty. The doctor's procedure was slow and meticulous. The procedure (for both legs) took approximately four hours. Although the Respondent proceeded with care, he nicked the arteries anyway. Dr. Braze could not state that such a complication, albeit uncommon, constituted a departure from standards normally recognized in the medical community. With regard to the doctor's judgmental decision to proceed to the right leg after nicking and repairing the artery in the left leg and completing the vein stripping procedure in the left leg. Dr. Braze opined that he was acting as a reasonable physician in proceeding to the other leg since he had already corrected the initial injury, especially since it was the leg in which she was having her chief complaints. In any event, Dr. Braze was unable to render an opinion as to whether or not the procedure up to the point of nicking the artery was properly or improperly done, although he acknowledged that the lengthy time taken to perform the total procedure indicates that the doctor was proceeding slowly and with greater than normal difficulties. In any event, after the arteries were nicked, the procedure followed by the Respondent was excellent and the repair work was competently and efficiently performed. Dr. Reiber, Petitioner's other expert witness, testified by deposition, which was stipulated into evidence. His expert opinion was based on a review of the deposition of the Respondent, the Fort Myers Community Hospital records of the patient, and the depositions of the patient, Betty Fiore, Arnold Flare and Quillen Jones. Additionally, he reviewed the records dealing with Mrs. Flare's treatment in Houston, Texas. He thus opined that the Respondent made two technical errors when he injured the arteries in each leg and he felt that it was an error in judgment to have performed the procedure on the right leg after having encountered difficulty in the initial procedure on the left leg. He was unable to opine however, that the treatment rendered the patient by Respondent fell below the appropriate standard of care accepted by similar physicians in the community. Moreover, he also opined that the Respondent's treatment after nicking the arteries affirmatively met the standard of care for reasonably prudent physicians in such circumstances. The expert witnesses presented on behalf of the Respondent were Drs. Peter M. Sidell and Luis A. Ruilova. Both witnesses opined, in effect, that, given the obesity of the patient and the difficult surgical process that alone entailed, coupled with the significant involvement of scar tissue in the area of the incision, that the complications associated with this procedure could occur in the hands of even the most renowned surgeon. The fact that the Respondent experienced these complications does not render his practice in this regard to be below the standard of care for vascular surgeons in that community or area of practice. They further opined that it is a matter of personal judgment on whether to proceed to the other leg after encountering these difficulties. A reasonable judgment would have been to explore the groin area on the other side, after accomplishing repair of the first injured artery, which was done. The initial arterial injury having been repaired in a successful manner, both of the Respondent's experts opined that, the patient then being stabilized, the Respondent was justified in proceeding to the other leg and performing the procedure on that side. The main purpose of the operation was to remove the veins of the patient since the patient was symptomatic with varicosities. It therefore would be poor judgment to simply repair the nicked artery and proceed no further, since the symptomatic vein would remain uncorrected. In short, both experts for Respondent opined that neither the vein-stripping procedure, the repair of the damaged arteries nor post-operative management for which Respondent was responsible were performed in a manner below the appropriate standard of care of reasonably prudent physicians in the community. Thus, although the patient unfortunately experienced difficulties during a procedure involving the accidental nicking of her femoral arteries and, after the grafts repairing those injured arteries were performed, later suffered an infection at the operative site necessitating further hospitalization, no expert witness could describe the treatment and care afforded this patient as being below the appropriate standard of care exercised by a reasonably prudent physician performing such vascular surgical practice in the Fort Myers community or area. The Respondent has never encountered this difficulty either before or since this occasion in his practice, which is characterized by frequent vascular surgical procedures. Additionally, Dr. Ruilova established that the nicking of the femoral arteries during such a procedure, although not a common occurrence, is well documented in the literature and not at all unheard of. Indeed, Dr. Ruilova, when assisting a distinguished surgeon who was chief of surgery at the Mayo Clinic at the time, observed that expert surgeon nick a femoral artery in a vein- stripping procedure on two occasions. Finally, it is noted that the Respondent's practice has been characterized by a high level of professional expertise, competence and compassion in caring for his patients, both before and since the occasion in question. He has never before been subjected to disciplinary action.
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 a Final Order be entered by the Board of Medical Examiners dismissing the complaint in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 11th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara K. Hobbs, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick Geraghty, Esquire HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES & HOLT Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
