Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marianne T. Keim, is a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, holding license number VM 0005113 (Veterinarian). Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine is currently under probation and emergency suspension. At all material times, Respondent practiced veterinary medicine in Tampa, Florida. Findings As To Count I Of The Administrative Complaint On August 18, 1994, the Board of Veterinary Medicine entered a Final Order in settlement of five (5) different cases involving allegations against the Respondent. The Final Order adopted a Stipulation of the parties, and was filed with DBPR on August 22, 1995. The Final Order resulted in the placing of Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine on probation for a period of five (5) years. The Final Order imposed certain conditions on the Respondent's practice of veterinary medicine, and also imposed an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $3,000, payable within 180 days from the date the final order was rendered by the Board. The Final Order provides in pertinent part: The Respondent shall, in the future, comply with Chapters 455 and 474, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent shall be placed on probation for five (5) years. The terms of the Respondent's probation are: Compliance with all requirements of this Final Order. Practice veterinary medicine with direct supervision by a Florida licensed veterinarian for not less than forty (40) hours per month. All other practice of veterinary medicine shall be with indirect supervision by a Florida licensed veterinarian. Personally appear before the Board of Veterinary Medicine at the first meeting after probation commences, semiannually, at the last meeting before probation terminates and at such other times as may be requested by the Board. The Respondent shall be notified by the Board staff of the date, time, and place of the Board meeting whereat Respondent's appearance is required. Failure of Respondent to appear as requested or directed shall be considered a violation of the terms of this Order, and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. The direct and indirect supervisor shall be approved by the Board and shall review all aspects of the Respondent's practice of veterinary medicine. In the event the Respondent desires to change monitors, the Respondent shall notify the Board at least ten (10) days prior to the last date that the former monitor will be available. The Respondent shall allow the monitors access to Respondent's patient records, calendar, patient logs, or other documents necessary for the monitor to supervise the Respondent as detailed below. The responsibilities of the indirect monitoring veterinarian shall include the following: Review 25 percent of Respondent's active patient records at least once a month at the Respondent's office for the purposes of ascertain- ing the appropriateness of the Respondent's treat- ment, medication management, and the thoroughness with which her records are kept. The monitor shall go to Respondent's office once every month and shall review Respondent's calendar or patient log and shall select the records to be reviewed. Submit reports to the Board on a quarterly basis, in affidavit form, at least twenty-eight (28) days prior to each applicable Board meeting and each of which shall include: A description of Respondent's practice (type and composition). A statement addressing Respondent's com- pliance with the terms of probation. A brief description of the monitor's relationship with the Respondent. A statement advising the Board of any problems which have arisen. A summary of the dates the monitor went to the Respondent's office, the number of records reviewed, and the overall quality of the records reviewed. Any other reporting requirements. Maintain contact with the Respondent on a frequency of at least once per month. In the event that the monitor is not timely contacted by the Respondent, then the monitor shall report this fact in writing to the Board. The Respondent's monitor shall appear before the Board at the first meeting following commencement of the probation and at such other times as directed by the Board. It shall be Respondent's responsibility to ensure the appearance of her monitor to appear as requested or directed. Failure of the monitor, with- out good cause shown, to appear as requested or directed shall constitute a violation of the terms of this Order and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. The responsibilities of the direct monitoring veterinarian shall include the following: Submit reports to the Board on a quarterly basis, in affidavit form, at least twenty-eight days prior to each applicable Board meeting and each of which shall include: A description of Respondent's practice (type and composition). A statement addressing Respondent's compliance with the terms of probation. A brief description of the monitor's relationship with the Respondent. A statement advising the Board of any problems which have arisen. A summary of the dates the monitor went to the Respondent's office, the number of records reviewed, and the overall quality of the records reviewed. Any other reporting requirements. The Respondent's monitor shall appear before the Board at the first meeting following commencement of the probation and at such other times as directed by the Board. It shall be Respondent's responsibility to ensure the appearance of her monitor to appear as requested or directed. Failure of the monitor, with- out good cause shown, to appear as requested or directed shall constitute a violation of the terms of this Order and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. The Respondent shall obtain a second opinion, by a licensed veterinarian approved by the Board with respect to surgeries, excluding normal or routine spays, neuters, croppings and treatment of abscesses. The Respondent shall pay an Administrative Fine of three thousand dollars ($3,000). As Respondent has filed for protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court and has filed a plan of reorganization with said Court, the Respondent shall be allowed one hundred eighty (180) days from the rendition of the Final Order by the Board of Veterinary Medicine, to pay the fine. The fine shall be paid by the Respondent to the Executive Director of the Board of Veterinary Medicine, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0750. This time period may be extended by the Board for good cause shown. Any request for extension shall be submitted, in writing, to the Executive Director prior to the expiration of the 180 day time limit, at the address above. Pursuant to the Final Order, on October 19, 1994, Respondent made a required probationary appearance at the Board meeting in Orlando, Florida. When the meeting commenced, Respondent did not appear with her direct or indirect monitor, and the Board found Respondent in violation of the Final Order in that Respondent had not met the terms and conditions of her probation by failing to have her direct and indirect monitor appear for approval at the Board meeting. Respondent had sufficient time to locate a direct or indirect monitor, or to request an extension of time from the Board. At the October 19, 1994 Board meeting, Respondent represented to the Board that she had experienced difficulty in locating qualified, licensed veterinarians willing to accept the responsibilities of serving as her direct and indirect monitors as required by the Final Order. Prior to the conclusion of the Board meeting of October 19, 1994, Dr. Carlos Piniero, a veterinarian licensed in the State of Florida, and practicing in Hillsborough County, appeared and stated his willingness to serve as Respondent's indirect monitor. Respondent further indicated to the Board that she had obtained the consent of Dr. Robert Adey, a veterinarian licensed in the State of Florida, practicing in Winter Haven, Florida, to serve as her direct monitor. Pursuant to the Board's determination that Respondent had violated the terms and conditions of her probation, Respondent was instructed to discontinue her practice of veterinary medicine pending the Board's approval of her direct and indirect monitor as required by the Final Order. The Chairman of the Board, Dr. Bernard Myers, was given the authority to grant temporary approval for Respondent's direct and indirect monitors until the next meeting of the Board. On October 25, 1994, Dr. Robert Adey was temporarily approved by the Board chairman as Respondent's direct monitor, and Dr. Carlos Piniero was temporarily approved by the Board chairman as Respondent's indirect monitor. By letters dated December 22, 24, and 25, 1994, Respondent wrote individually to the seven members of the Board, Dr. Robert E. O'Neil, Dr. Carlos R. Pereira, Dr. Bernard Myers, Dr. Teresa L. Lightfoot, and Dr. Thomas F. Whitley, Ms. Cynthia Lewis, and Mr. Lewis Jennings, informing each individual member of her attempts to comply with the Final Order, as well as her difficulties in complying with the requirements of the direct monitor relationship. In these letters to the individual Board members, Respondent requested a reduction in her direct monitoring requirement from forty (40) hours per month to twenty (20) hours per month. At the next Board meeting on January 4, 1995, Respondent appeared with counsel, and with her direct and indirect monitors. After inquiring of the monitors and Respondent, the full Board confirmed the approval of Dr. Adey and Dr. Piniero to serve as Respondent's direct and indirect monitors, respectively. The Board did not consider, nor did the Board approve a reduction of the required forty (40) hours per month of direct monitoring of Respondent's practice of veterinary medicine by Dr. Adey. Respondent began her direct monitor relationship with Dr. Adey on October 20, 1994. As agreed to by her direct monitor, Respondent was required to attend Dr. Adey's clinic in Winter Haven, Florida, on each Thursday. From the onset, Respondent experienced difficulty in complying with the terms and conditions of the Final Order with respect to her relationship with her direct monitor, Dr. Adey. Because Dr. Adey practiced in Winter Haven, Respondent was required to travel approximately two hours each way from her office in Tampa, Florida, to Dr. Adey's clinic. Additionally, Dr. Adey restricted Respondent's activities in his clinic and, as a general rule, only allowed Respondent to observe his own practice. Dr. Adey expressed reservations regarding Respondent's abilities as a veterinarian, and accordingly, did not allow Respondent to practice veterinary medicine in his clinic except in very routine cases, and then only under his own observation and supervision, or the supervision of experienced members of his clinic staff. On one occasion, Dr. Adey gave Respondent an assignment on liver disease to complete at her own clinic. Respondent would also on occasion consult by telephone with Dr. Adey; however, Dr. Adey did not at any time monitor Respondent's practice of veterinary medicine at Respondent's Tampa clinic. According to Dr. Adey's records, Respondent was in attendance at Dr. Adey's clinic for approximately 15 hours in October of 1994, for approximately 28 hours in November of 1994, for approximately 32 hours in December of 1994, and for approximately 32 hours in January of 1995. Respondent's travel time, assignment time, or telephone consultation time are not included in the computation of these hours. From October 20, 1994 through the end of January 1995, Respondent missed three of her scheduled days for attendance at Dr. Adey's clinic. Two of the days were cancelled by Dr. Adey, and one day was cancelled by Respondent due to a meeting with her attorney. On January 27, 1995, Dr. Adey wrote a letter to Diane Gossett, an investigator with DBPR, stating that his direct monitor relationship with Respondent was unsatisfactory, and that under the circumstances, he was not able to attain the quality of direct monitoring of Respondent's practice of veterinary medicine that the Final Order of the Board required. On February 8, 1995, Dr. Adey wrote another letter to Diane Gossett expressing his continuing frustration with the direct monitor relationship with the Respondent, and tendering his resignation as direct monitor within ten (10) days. Dr. Adey subsequently agreed to remain as Respondent's direct monitor until March 12, 1995. On March 3, 1995, Respondent wrote to Susie Love, Program Administrator with the Board, expressing dissatisfaction with the inflexibility of the monitor situation, and requesting modifications of the Board's requirements in this regard. Respondent was informed by Susie Love by letter dated March 6, 1995, that approval of a direct monitor to replace Dr. Adey would have to be approved at the next Board meeting by the full Board. No action was taken by the Board with respect to the approval of a new direct monitor prior to the initiation of the emergency suspension proceedings against Respondent's license. The nature of the direct monitoring relationship established by Respondent with Dr. Adey did not satisfy the requirements imposed by the Final Order, in that Respondent did not practice veterinary medicine under the direct monitoring of Dr. Adey, but only was in attendance, and observed Dr. Adey's practice in Winter Haven one day a week. Respondent's indirect monitor, Dr. Carlos Piniero reviewed at least 25 percent of Respondent's records on a regular basis, consulted with Respondent as to her organization and record-keeping, and in this respect, Respondent was in compliance with the Final Order of the Board. Respondent has not paid the $3,000 fine assessed by the Board which was due 180 days from entry of the Final Order. Payment of the fine is overdue. By letter addressed to Susan Foster, Executive Director of the Board, dated December 5, 1994, Respondent requested an extension of time to pay the $3,000 fine. The letter was notarized by Thurston R. Smith also on December 5, 1994. Thurston Smith is a part-time employee of Respondent. The heading of the letter contains the correct business address of Susan Foster at 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399. Respondent did not personally mail or fax the letter to Susan Foster, or request a return receipt. Dr. Lawrie Glickman, a friend of Respondent's testified that he believed the letter was among several items of mail he posted for Respondent. Thurston Smith testified that he believed the letter was among several items he faxed to DBPR for Respondent. Susan Foster did not receive the December 5, 1994, letter from Respondent by mail or by fax. DBPR has established normal and acceptable business procedures for processing incoming correspondence. In accordance with DBPR's normal business procedures, mailed or faxed letters addressed to the Board's Executive Director, Susan Foster, would routinely be opened and delivered to her office. Ms. Foster was personally familiar with Respondent, and also with the Board's actions relating to Respondent. Ms. Foster had received correspondence from Respondent on several other occasions, and had also received telephone calls from Respondent on several occasions. Any communication received by Ms. Foster from Respondent requesting an extension of time to pay a fine would, in the normal course of DBPR's procedures, have been brought to the Board's attention by Ms. Foster. A second handwritten letter from Respondent dated December 19, 1994, addressed to Susan Foster at the DBPR office in Tallahassee, also requested an extension of time to pay the $3,000 fine. The handwritten letter states that this is Respondent's second request for extension of time. Dr. Glickman testified he mailed and faxed this letter. Susan Foster did not receive the second letter. Respondent did not personally inquire of Susan Foster as to the status of Respondent's request for extension of time, nor did Respondent request that Ms. Foster place this matter on the agenda of the Board's next meeting on January 4, 1995. Respondent appeared, with counsel, at the next Board meeting on January 4, 1995; however, neither Respondent nor her counsel raised the issue of an extension of time in which to pay the fine with the Board. The Board did not consider, or approve an extension of time for Respondent to pay the $3,000 fine imposed by the Final Order. Respondent has not complied with the terms and conditions of the Final Order entered by the Board. Respondent did not satisfy the forty (40) fours per month of required direct monitoring of her practice of veterinary medicine. Respondent did not pay the $3,000 fine imposed by the Board within 180 days as required by the Final Order. Respondent's efforts in this regard do not constitute substantial compliance with a lawful order of the Board. Findings As To Counts II And III Of The Administrative Complaint On or about October 25, 1994, Mrs. Amy Armstrong inquired of Respondent as to performing a declaw procedure (also known as an onychectomy) on Mrs. Armstrong's six-month old English Springer Spaniel, Tilly. Mrs. Armstrong was concerned because her dog was digging in the yard, and scratching inside the house. Mrs. Armstrong was also concerned that her dog's digging and scratching would upset her landlord, and that she would be financially responsible for the damages caused by the dog. Mrs. Armstrong had initially contacted Respondent because Respondent's clinic advertised low-cost rates, and Mrs. Armstrong had been satisfied with Respondent's spay and neuter procedures previously performed on Mrs. Armstrong's cat and another dog. Mrs. Armstrong again called Respondent's clinic in mid-November 1994, and spoke with Daryl Dunnisch a member of Respondent's clinic staff regarding the declawing procedure. In late December of 1994, Mrs. Armstrong called again and Respondent personally discussed the declawing procedure with her. Respondent informed Mrs. Armstrong that the procedure required the dog to be anesthetized, but that the procedure should not be complicated for a young dog, that the recovery period would be a few days during which the dog would be sedated, and that the procedure should solve the digging and scratching problems Mrs. Armstrong was experiencing. Respondent also offered Mrs. Armstrong the alternative of filing down the dog's nails. Respondent's records reflect that Mrs. Armstrong was forewarned of the severe pain the dog would experience, as well as the lengthy recovery period. Respondent quoted Mrs. Armstrong a price of $65.00 for the declawing procedure. Mrs. Armstrong did not represent to Respondent or to a member of Respondent's office staff that she would euthanize the dog unless the declawing procedure were performed, but stated that she would need to consider other options about keeping the dog. As to this issue, the testimony of Mrs. Armstrong is deemed more credible. In regard to the declawing of her dog, Mrs. Armstrong also contacted another veterinarian, Dr. Robert Titus, at the Kingsway Animal Clinic, Brandon, Florida, to whom Mrs. Armstrong had, on occasion, previously taken her pets. Mrs. Armstrong inquired of the cost of the declawing procedure. Dr. Titus does not perform declawing procedures on healthy dogs, and told his staff to quote Mrs. Armstrong a price in excess of $285 to discourage her from seeking the procedure. After considering the price quoted by Respondent, Mrs. Armstrong made an appointment with Respondent to perform the declawing procedure on January 12, 1995. A declawing procedure on a healthy dog is not a normal or routine surgical procedure. This surgical procedure, which is more complicated in an animal with nonretractible claws, involves the removal of the third phalange, which is either a total or subtotal removal of the nail and the complete nail bed along the bone. The procedure results in severe pain in the dog which usually lasts for two or three weeks during which the dog should be medicated and closely examined for possible infection. Declawing of a healthy dog is rarely performed, although one text, General Small Animal Surgery, edited by Ira M. Gourley, D.V.M. and Philip B. Vaseur, D.V.M., which is an accepted treatise used in the practice of veterinary medicine, states that an onychectomy on a healthy dog is indicated to prevent digging or property damage. Performing an onychectomy is not completely prohibited under all circumstances in the practice of veterinary medicine. Under the terms and conditions of the Final Order, Respondent was restricted from performing any surgery other than "normal and routine spays, neuters, croppings and treatment of abscesses" without obtaining a second opinion by a licensed veterinarian approved by the Board. The Final Order did not, however, require Respondent to abide by the second opinion. Respondent consulted by telephone with her direct monitor, Dr. Adey, regarding performing the declawing procedure. Dr. Adey strongly advised Respondent against performing the procedure. After "shouting out" his objection to the procedure, Dr. Adey, nonetheless, reviewed with Respondent the appropriate incisions to be made in performing the surgery. Dr. Adey did not forbid Respondent from performing the surgery because he did not believe that as Respondent's direct monitor he had the authority to do so. Respondent also discussed the declawing procedure with her indirect monitor, Dr. Piniero. Dr. Piniero advised Respondent that he did not believe in performing a declawing procedure on a healthy dog, and that in his opinion, such surgery was indicated only when there was a medical basis for the procedure, such as a cancer or a tumor present in the paw. Despite the advice of her direct and indirect monitors, Respondent on January 12, 1995, performed an onychectomy on Mrs. Armstrong's dog. Dr. Piniero was present at Respondent's clinic when Respondent began the operation; however, Dr. Piniero did not supervise, or otherwise participate in the surgery, and left before the surgery was completed. Respondent had not previously performed an onychectomy. The surgery on the Armstrong dog lasted more than two hours. Following the surgery, the Armstrong dog remained at Respondent's clinic. The next day, January 13, 1995, Amy Armstrong called Respondent and was informed that her dog was doing well, but would be in severe pain for a while and that the recovery period would be approximately two weeks. On January 14, 1995, Mrs. Armstrong's husband visited the dog at Respondent's clinic. The dog's paws were heavily bandaged, but the dog was able to ambulate at that time. On Sunday, January 15, 1995, the Mr. Armstrong brought the dog home. At the time the dog was released, Respondent prescribed an antibiotic, Keflex, for the dog. Mrs. Armstrong spoke to Respondent by telephone, and was told to bring the dog back the following Wednesday or Thursday, to change the bandages. Respondent also informed Mrs. Armstrong that there would be additional charges for the care of the dog in excess of the original price of $65.00 for the surgical procedure. Mrs. Armstrong did not agree to the additional charges. When the dog returned home, Mrs. Armstrong became very upset. The dog was in severe pain, and could not ambulate. That evening Respondent called Mrs. Armstrong to check on the dog. Mrs. Armstrong expressed her concern for the dog's painful condition, and Respondent suggested the dog be given aspirin or Ascriptin. On Monday morning, January 16, 1995, Mrs. Armstrong observed a thick substance which she believed to be blood oozing through the dog's heavy bandages. Mrs. Armstrong became extremely concerned. She took the dog back to Dr. Robert Titus, at the Kingsway Animal Clinic, in Brandon, Florida. Dr. Titus observed what was determined to be serum seepage coming through the bandages on the dog's front paws, and noticed a "foul odor" similar to rotten meat coming from the paws. At that time, the dog's temperature was elevated to 104 degrees from a normal range of 100-102 degrees. Dr. Titus attempted to remove the bandages; however, because of the dog's severe pain, Dr. Titus was required to anesthetize the Armstrong dog in order to remove the bandages. Dr. Titus observed that the dog's front paws were swollen more than twice the normal size, and found serum leakage and serum blisters over the paws. Serum is a bodily fluid typically found at sites of inflammation. Dr. Titus also noticed a dehissing, or coming apart, of some sutures. Dr. Titus cleansed the surgical areas with antiseptics and antibiotics, and then rebandaged the paws. Dr. Titus sprayed an alum solution on the bandages to deter the dog from chewing on them. Dr. Titus also prescribed a systemic antibiotic (tetracycline) to fight any infection which might have been present, and also Tylenol 3 for pain. Dr. Titus sent the dog home with instructions to keep the dog as comfortable as possible, and to bring the dog back in two days to again cleanse the paws and rebandage them. On January 18, 1995, Mrs. Armstrong brought the dog back to Dr. Titus. The dog still was in severe pain, and the dog's temperature remained elevated at 104 degrees. Dr. Titus again was required to anesthetize the dog to remove the bandages. Dr. Titus observed more serum seepage, and cleansed the surgical areas, rebandaged the paws, and sent the dog home with the same instructions regarding care and medication. On January 20, 1995, Mrs. Armstrong called Dr. Titus to inform him that the dog was still having difficulty walking. Dr. Titus advised Mrs. Armstrong to continue the same care and medication procedures for a few more days, and then to bring the dog back. On January 23, 1995, Dr. Titus again examined the dog. The dog's temperature was 101 degrees. Dr. Titus cleansed and again rebandaged the dog's paws. At that time the swelling was greatly diminished, and no serum leakage was observed. The paws appeared to be healing, and Dr. Titus discontinued the antibiotics and pain medication. Mrs. Armstrong was informed when to take the bandages off, and to return to Dr. Titus only if the dog showed severe pain. Dr. Titus expressed no opinion as to whether the surgery on the Armstrong dog was performed in accordance with the standard of care acceptable in the practice of veterinary medicine. On January 27, 1995, Mrs. Armstrong called Dr. Titus to inform him that the dog was doing well, and was able to run. The Armstrong dog has now recovered from the surgery; however, the declawing procedure on the dog's front paws has not stopped the digging problem. Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong have kept the dog. Dr. Gary W. Ellison, Associate Professor at the College of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Florida, was qualified as an expert witness for Petitioner. Dr. Ellison testified that an onychectomy is not a common veterinary procedure. Unlike the declawing of an animal with retractable claws, such as a cat, declawing of an animal with nonretractible is a more complicated and difficult procedure and, in Dr. Ellison's opinion, should not be performed unless there is a medical necessity. Dr. Ellison, after reviewing the records, and hearing the testimony in this case, concluded that Respondent did not comply with the minimum standard of care and treatment in performing an onychectomy on the Armstrong dog. Specifically, Dr. Ellison testified that Respondent failed to properly consult with the owner, failed to recommend alternatives to the procedure, and should not have performed the onychectomy except for medically necessary reasons. Dr. Ellison further opined that Respondent was not prepared to do the surgery, which he considered improperly done, resulting in abnormal swelling, bleeding and infection of the paws. Dr. Ellison, however, acknowledged that General Small Animal Surgery, edited by Ira M. Gourley and Philip Vaseur, is an accepted treatise used in the practice of veterinary medicine, and that this treatise states that onychectomy is indicated to prevent digging and property damage. Dr. Ellison also acknowledged that the medication prescribed by Respondent for the Armstrong dog was acceptable under the circumstances, and that it is not unexpected for an onychectomy to produce swelling, bleeding and potential infection. Dr. Richard Goldston, a veterinarian qualified as an expert witness for Respondent, testified that in his opinion performing an onychectomy on a healthy dog was not an acceptable procedure unless there was no alternative and the dog would be euthanized. Dr. Goldston also recognized that accepted treatises state that an onychectomy is indicated to prevent digging. Dr. Goldston further testified that even a properly performed onychectomy produces inflammation and swelling, and that there would be a likelihood of infection. According to Dr. Goldston, normal post-operative recovery is two or three weeks, and a recovery period of less than two weeks would be considered successful. The recovery period of the Armstrong dog was acceptable. Another veterinarian, Dr. Edward Dunham, testified that in his twenty- five years of practice, he had performed an onychectomy on three occasions, and that while the procedure was not common, the procedure did not violate the ethical standards of the practice of veterinary medicine. Dr. Dunham further testified that he would not perform an onychectomy again.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: As to Count I, that Respondent's license be SUSPENDED for six months, that Respondent's probation be continued for five (5) years, with additional requirements for direct supervision. It is further recommended that Counts II and III be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. - 30. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as irrelevant. - 54. Accepted and incorporated. 55. - 61. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted, but Dr. Ellison further acknowledged that there is no prohibition on the procedure. Accepted, but Dr. Ellison further testified there is no prohibition on the procedure. Accepted, but Dr. Goldston and Dr. Dunham further testified that they had performed declawing operations, and that there is no prohibition on performing the procedure. As to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. - 7. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted, except for second sentence which is rejected as irrelevant. - 11. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted as to the number of hours. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted to the extent that on one occasion Dr. Adey gave Respondent an assignment. Accepted as to dates cancelled, rejected as to reasonableness of effort. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted, except for second sentence. and 21. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected. - 28. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted, except date is October 25, 1994. Rejected, the initial inquiry was regarding the surgery and fee. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Armstrong elected not to pursue nail filing. and 34. Rejected. 35. - 38. Accepted. Accepted except Dr. Ellison testified that the resultant swelling was abnormal. Rejected. - 44. Accepted. Accepted, except as noted in finding 39. and 47. Accepted. Accepted, to the extent that there are other publications on onychectomies. - 53. Accepted. Accepted, except that Dr. Dunham testified he does not now perform the procedure. Accepted, except that infection is a possibility, not an expectation. Accepted, except as to date. Rejected. See Finding 30. Accepted. Accepted. See Finding 32. and 61. Rejected. 62. - 65. Accepted. See Finding 39. Accepted. Accepted, except that Dr. Piniero left before the surgery concluded. Rejected. - 73. Accepted. See Finding 45. and 76. Accepted. See Finding 48. - 82. Accepted. See Finding 54. See Finding 55. Accepted, to the extent that Dr. Piniero responded in a letter to DBPR that Respondent was qualified. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire James E. Manning, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Edward M. Brennan, Esquire 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1600 Post Office Box 3429 Tampa, Florida 33601-3429 Dr. Marianne T. Keim 800 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33606 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Susan Foster Board of Veterinary Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, having been duly issued license number VM 0002694. In April of 1988 Respondent practiced veterinary medicine from an establishment located in Dade County, Florida, that had not been licensed by Petitioner. Upon receiving a notice of violation, Respondent executed a cease and desist agreement, which he did not violate. Within thirty days of the notice of violation an application for licensure of the establishment was filed with Petitioner. Accompanying the application was a check which included the amount of the application fee and the amount of the late payment. On or about April 22, 1988, Respondent performed surgery on Yahara, a female dog owned by Arcadio Rolon. The purpose of the surgery was to spay Yahara. On or about April 25, 1988, Respondent informed Arcadio Rolon that Yahara had died on April 22, 1988. On April 27, 1988, Arcadio Rolon took the carcass of Yahara to Dr. David T. Wise, Jr., D.V.M., to have an autopsy performed. The autopsy revealed that the dog had recently been spayed. One ligature adjacent to the right ovarian string and artery had been partially attached to fat and was partially free floating. Another ligature was attached to fat mesentery in the caudal abdomen adjacent to the uterine strings and artery. Several sutures had been attached primarily to fat. There was a great deal of clotted blood in the abdominal cavity. The cause of Yahara's death was internal hemorrhaging, followed by shock and eventual death. The internal hemorrhaging was caused by Respondent's failure to properly tie off the severed ovarian and uterine arteries during the spay procedure. Yahara was a healthy dog before the spay procedure. The spay procedure on Yahara was not performed properly by Respondent in view of the standard of care exercised in the practice of veterinary medicine in the State of Florida There was no direct evidence that the premises utilized by Respondent in the practice of veterinary medicine were maintained in an unsanitary condition. The inspection reports were the only evidence that the premises had been kept in an unsanitary condition. These inspection reports were compiled by persons who were not witnesses at the hearing. None of Petitioner's witnesses had observed the premises before the Administrative Complaint was filed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Veterinary Medicine, enter a final order which finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 474.215, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, which finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 474.214(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, which finds Respondent not guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 474.214(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, and which further finds Respondent not guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 474.214(1)(v), Florida Statutes, as alleged-in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. For his violation of Section 474.214(1)(o), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of ten days, that Respondent's license be thereafter placed on probation for one year, and that an administrative fine in the sum of $1,000.00 be imposed against Respondent. It is further recommended that there be no additional penalty imposed for Respondent's violation of Section 474.215, Florida Statutes, because of the action taken by Respondent following the notice of violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-642 The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. The proposed findings relating to the inspection reports are rejected because the contents of the inspection reports are hearsay. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Addressed in paragraph 9. The proposed findings of subparagraphs A., B., C., and E. are rejected as being speculative and as being unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. The proposed findings of subparagraph D. are addressed in paragraph 7 and are subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 9. The proposed findings of subparagraph F. are rejected because Petitioner failed to establish that the medical record introduced as Petitioner's exhibit 1 constituted all the records kept by Respondent on this matter. Addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. Rejected as being based only on hearsay evidence. Rejected as not being a finding of fact. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-4. Addressed in paragraph 2. Rejected as being irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as being recitation of testimony. 7-9. Rejected as being conclusions of law and as being unnecessary to the results reached. 10. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 11-14. Rejected. Dr. Wise's report identified the dog upon which Dr. Wise performed the autopsy as being the dog Mr. Rolon brought to him. 15-16. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 17-20. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 21-22. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Juan C. Elso, Esquire 1331 Southwest 85th Court Miami, Florida 33144 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Biedermann, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Veterinary Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 ================================================================= AGENCY AMENDED FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs DPR CASE NUMBER: VM 0098214 DOAH CASE NUMBER: 89-0642 SALVADOR ALDEREGUIA, D.V.M., LICENSE NUMBER: VM 0002694 Respondent. /
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine, license number VM-2404, based on the violations of Section 474.214(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in three separate Administrative Complaints filed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in these cases, Respondent was a licensed veterinarian, having been issued license number VM-2404, by the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine. On March 18, 2000, Respondent performed a spay on Rudy, a six-year-old cat owned by Sharon and James Leonard. Respondent discharged Rudy to Sharon and James Leonard on March 18, 2000. On the following day, when Rudy was not feeling well, the family took Rudy to the emergency clinic where she was seen and treated by Dr. Mark Erik Perreault. When seen by Dr. Perreault, Rudy was wobbly and disoriented, and had pale mucous membranes. In addition, Dr. Perreault observed hair sewn into Rudy's incision site. Because the cat was very tender, it was anesthetized, and a careful examination of the incision was made. That examination revealed the incision had been closed with very large suture material. Because of the cat's condition and his observations, Dr. Perreault recommended and received approval to re-open the incision, and conduct an exploratory operation. This surgery revealed Respondent sutured Rudy’s uterine stump leaving approximately one and a half inches of tissue below the suture. This amount of "stump" is excessive and leaves too much material to become necrotic. Respondent had closed the skin and body wall incisions with excessively large suture material. Respondent secured the body wall and skin incisions with only two throws (knots) in each closing suture. Both Dr. Perreault and Dr. Jerry Alan Greene testified regarding standard of care. It is below the standard of care to sew hair into an incision site or allow hair to become sewn into the incision site because it contaminates the surgical site. It is below the standard of care for veterinarians to use oversized suture material to close the incision site because an excessively large suture leads to excessive inflammation as the body absorbs the excessively large suture material. It is below the standard of care for veterinarians to secure the skin and body wall incisions with less than 5 to 6 throws on their sutures to ensure that the sutures do not loosen or become untied. The potential problems of not using enough throws are exacerbated by using larger suture material which is more likely to loosen. It is below the standard of care to leave an excessive amount of "stump" in the body cavity. An excess of necrotic tissue causes excessive inflammation. Pertaining to Rudy, Respondent’s records contain the notation, "0.6 Ket." Respondent testified that this indicated that he administered Ketaset. Respondent’s records do not indicate whether the administration was intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously. Respondent testified that he administered the Ketaset intramuscularly. It was below the standard of care for Respondent to fail to indicate the amount of medication administered, i.e., milligrams, cubic-centimeters, etc.; and to fail to indicate the method of administration. Respondent is the owner of V.I.P. Baseline clinic, a veterinary establishment located at 505 Northeast Baseline Road, Ocala, Florida 34470. On August 31, 2002, Teresa McCartney presented her male, white Maltese dog, Puffy, to Respondent at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic for neutering. Teresa McCartney owned no other male, white Maltese dogs. Respondent performed a neuter on Puffy at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic on August 31, 2002. On August 31, 2002, V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic was not licensed to operate as a veterinary establishment by the State of Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine. Teresa McCartney picked up Puffy from V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic on August 31, 2002. Puffy bled for approximately four days after the neuter was performed. On September 4, 2003, Teresa McCartney presented Puffy to Dr. Mark Hendon for treatment. Upon examination, Puffy was bleeding from the prepuce and from the site of the surgical incision. In addition, there was swelling subcutaneously and intra-dermal hemorrhage and discoloration from the prepuce to the scrotum. The animal indicated pain upon palpation of the prepuce, the incision site, and the abdomen. Dr. Hendon presented the owner with two options: to do nothing or to perform exploratory surgery to determine the cause of the hemorrhage and bleeding. The owner opted for exploratory surgery on Puffy, and Dr. Hendon anesthetized and prepared the animal for surgery. The sutures having been previously removed, upon gentle lateral pressure, the incision opened without further cutting. A blood clot was readily visible on the ventral surface of the penis, running longitudinally the length of the penis and incision area. Dr. Hendon immediately went to the lateral margins of the surgical field, where the spermatic vessels and cord were ligated, and found devitalized and necrotic tissue on both sides of the surgical field which appeared to be abnormal. He explored those areas and debrided the ligated tissues, exposing the vessels and the spermatic cord which he ligated individually. He then proceeded to examine the penis. Dr. Hendon found upon examination of the penis a deep incision into the penis which had cut the urethra, permitting urine to leak into the incision site, causing the tissue damage which he had debrided. Dr. Hendon had not used a scalpel in the area of the penis prior to discovering the incised urethra in the area of the penis, and he could not have been the cause of the injury. Dr. Hendon catheterized Puffy, and closed the incisions into the urethra and penis. Puffy recovered and was sent home the following day. Drs. Hendon and Greene testified about the standard of care in this case. It is below the standard of care to incise the penis or urethra of a male dog during a neuter because neither the penis nor the urethra should be exposed to incision during a properly performed surgery. Respondent’s medical record for Puffy did not indicate the type of gas which was administered to Puffy or that Ace Promazine was administered to Puffy. Respondent's anesthesia logs reflect the animal was administered Halothane and administered Ace Promazine, a tranquilizer. Rule 61G18-18.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, requires that a patient’s medical record contain an indication of the drugs administered to a patient. On September 13, 2002, Department Inspector Richard Ward conducted an inspection of V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic. The inspection revealed that Respondent failed to provide disposable towels. It was further revealed that Respondent provided insufficient lights in the surgical area of the premises. Finally it was revealed that Respondent did not have an operational sink in the examination area of the premises. Rule 61G18-15.002(2)(a)4.c., Florida Administrative Code, requires that all veterinary establishments have sinks and disposable towels in the examination area. Rule 61G18-15.002(2)(b)2.d., Florida Administrative Code, requires veterinary establishments that provide surgical services to provide surgical areas that are well lighted. On September 4, 2002, Elaine Dispoto presented her male cat Cinnamon to Respondent at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic, located at 505 Northeast Baseline Road, Ocala, Florida 34470. On September 4, 2003, Respondent practiced veterinary medicine at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic by providing veterinary medical services to Cinnamon. On September 4, 2003, V.I.P. Baseline Clinic was not licensed by the State of Florida to operate as a veterinary establishment. Cinnamon was presented to Respondent with complaints of vomiting and dilated eyes. The owner expressed concern that the animal had been poisoned. Respondent apparently accepted that the animal had been poisoned, and formulated a plan of treatment, because he gave the animal an IV and administered one cubic centimeter of atropine to the animal, a common antidote for organophosphate poisoning. Respondent administered subcutaneously the IV's of Ringer's lactate to the cat. The owners picked up Cinnamon from Respondent, having heard a television news report which was unfavorable about Respondent. Respondent gave the cat to Mr. James Dispoto, who observed that the cat was not doing well, although Respondent indicated that the cat was doing better. Mr. Dispoto was sufficiently concerned about the status of the cat that he took the animal immediately to Ocala Veterinarian Hospital. There the cat was examined by Dr. Fleck. Dr. Fleck found that Cinnamon was in extreme distress; lying on his side and non-responsive to stimuli. A cursory examination indicated that the animal was very dehydrated, approximately 10 percent, and passing yellow, mucousy diarrhea, uncontrollably. His pupils were pinpoint and non-responsive. Upon calling Respondent, Respondent told Dr. Fleck that on the first day he had treated Cinnamon, he had given the cat atropine, dexamethasone, and lactated Ringer's subcutaneously. On the second day, he had given the cat another injection of dexamethasone, penicillin, and lactated Ringer's subcutaneously. Based upon her assessment of the animal, Dr. Fleck wanted to get some blood work to establish what kind of state the rest of the body was in and to start an IV. The owner's consented, and blood was drawn and an IV drip started of normal saline at 25 mils per hour. While the blood work was being started, the cat had a short seizure, and within five minutes, had another bad seizure, going into cardiac arrest and died. A necropsy was performed which was unremarkable. The only significant findings were that the cat was dehydrated. There were indications the cat had received fluids along the ventral midline. The bowels were totally empty and there were no substances within the stomach, intestines, or colon. There was slight inflammation of the pancreas. Samples were taken of the pancreas, liver, kidney, and lung. Analysis of these samples was inconclusive. A cause of death could not be determined. The clinical presentation was very indicative of organic phosphate poisoning. Organophosphates are the active ingredient in certain common insect and garden poisons. However, there were no findings that pin-pointed poisoning as a cause of death. Dr. Greene testified concerning his examination of the files maintained on Cinnamon by Respondent. They reflected Respondent administered one cubic centimeter of atropine on the first day and another cubic centimeter on the second day. Dr. Greene's testimony about the administration of atropine is contradictory. He testified at one point that, based on the cat's weight, a proper dose would be about 2.5 cubic centimeters and Respondent did not give enough; however, his answer to a question on cross-examination later indicated that the amount of atropine given was more in line with what was administered. Respondent faced a bad set of alternatives in treating Cinnamon. The cat presented with poisoning symptoms and suggestions of poisoning by the owners. He could run tests and try and determine exactly what was ailing the cat. However, if he did this without treating the possible poisoning, the cat might have died from the poison before he determined what was wrong with the cat. He could begin to treat the cat for poisoning based upon the owner's representations, and perhaps miss what the cat's problem was. He cannot be faulted for treating the most potentially deadly possibility first. It is noted that a full necropsy could not pinpoint the cause of the animal's problem(s). While Respondent may have run additional tests, they would not have been any more revealing. Atropine is the antidote for organophosphate poisoning and is helpful in controlling vomiting. It is clear from the file that Respondent's working diagnosis was poisoning. He treated the cat with the appropriate drug in approximately the correct dosage. Dr. Greene testified that it was a deviation from the standard of care not to administer fluids intravenously to Cinnamon because an ill patient may not absorb fluids through subcutaneous injection. Based upon Dr. Fleck's discussion of the issues involved in administering fluids intravenously, it does not appear nearly so clear cut as Dr. Greene suggests, but is a matter of professional judgment. Dr. Greene testified it was a deviation from the standard of care to administer lactated Ringer's solution to Cinnamon instead of sodium chloride or normal saline. Again, the choice of normal saline versus lactated Ringer's is one of professional judgment and not standard of care. Dr. Greene opined that it was a deviation from the standard of care to administer only 300ml of fluids to Cinnamon because 300ml is an insufficient amount of fluids to treat for dehydration or to even sustain Cinnamon under the circumstances. Dr. Greene assumed that the all of the hydration was via "IV." The testimony was that the cat did take some water orally; therefore, Dr. Green's predicate was flawed. Respondent administered dexamethsone to Cinnamon. Respondent failed to indicate that he administered dexamethasone in Cinnamon’s record. It is a deviation from the standard of care to fail to indicate the administration of dexamethasone in a patient’s record. Respondent administered penicillin to Cinnamon. Respondent’s records for Cinnamon indicate that he administered penicillin-streptomycin to Cinnamon. Respondent's records for Cinnamon indicate that Respondent did not check on the animal frequently, which, given his condition and the multiple problems which the cat was suffering, was a failure to render the standard of care necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter its final order: Finding that Respondent violated the standard of care in treating Rudy, Puffy, and Cinnamon, contrary to Section 474.214(1)(r), and imposing an administrative fine upon Respondent of $2,000 for each violation; Finding that Respondent violated the requirement to keep adequate records with regard to Rudy, Puffy, and Cinnamon, contrary to Section 474.214(1)(ee), and imposing an administrative fine upon Respondent of $1,000 for each violation; Finding that Respondent violated the requirement to obtain a license for a premises, contrary to Rule 61G18- 15.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, which is a violation of Section 474.214(1)(f), and imposing an administrative fine upon Respondent of $2,000; Finding that the record of Respondent's previous violations and the violations found above reflect that he is unqualified and unfit to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida, and revoking immediately his license, without leave to reapply; Requiring Respondent to pay costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of these cases in the amount $5,697.96, plus the costs incurred at the final hearing; and Opposing any effort by Respondent to practice veterinary medicine while an appeal in this case is taken. 28 DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 14th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Tiffany A. Short, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire 180 South Knowles Avenue, Suite 7 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 29 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 2399-2202
