Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Respondent, Henry J. Petrillo, D.O., has been licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida since July 1, 1973 and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a Doctor of Osteopath. The Board entered an order dated February 18, 1982, in a prior unrelated case, placing respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years commencing February 18, 1982 with the condition, among others, that the respondent " . . . shall obtain/continue counseling with a psychiatrist or psychologist and shall cause progress reports to be submitted to the Board or probation supervisor every three (3) months." In response to that order, respondent began to visit psychologist Sidney T. Merin, Ph.D. for counseling. Dr. Merin submitted progress reports on the respondent to the Board by letter on April 15, 1982, August 5, 1982, October 25, 1982 and January 24, 1983. No progress reports were submitted by Dr. Merin, or any other psychiatrist or psychologist, on the respondent to the Board after January 24, 1983. Based on Petitioner's Exhibit 1 (letter to respondent from Dr. Merin date stamped received March 25, 1984), Dr. Merin continued to treat respondent until his probation was terminated. But, there was a period of time from January 24, 1983 until November 30, 1983 that respondent did not visit Dr. Merin for counseling. Respondent attended counseling sessions with Dr. Merin on November 30, 1983 and January 9, 1984. Respondent petitioned the Board for early termination of his probation by letter dated February 21, 1983. On June 25, 1983 the Board heard respondent's request. On August 6, 1983 the Board entered its order denying the respondent's "request for termination of probation and full reinstatement of his license to practice osteopathic medicine." The Board's order specifically required that respondent was to "continue to be on probation pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the final order dated February 18, 1982." The evidence indicated that the Board was aware that respondent had completed counseling with Dr. Merin in January, 1984 and had been "discharged" other than for visits on a "as needed" basis. On June 25, 1983, at the time of respondent's hearing on his request for reinstatement of license and termination of probation, over three (3) months had expired since Dr. Merin's last progress report to the Board on the respondent. Angela Turner was one of respondent's patients. Between May 9, 1983 and July 30, 1983, the respondent saw Angela Turner eight (8) times on a physician-patient relationship. The respondent's medical records and Angela Turner's testimony indicated that she was suffering from a continuing vaginal infection that resulted in a discharge. Angela Turner's last visit with respondent on July 30, 1983 was for the purpose of bringing in a urine sample for a pregnancy test which respondent had requested on Angela Turner's prior visit of July 26, 1983 and for consultation with respondent as to the results of the pregnancy test. Upon arriving at the respondent's office on July 30, 1983, Angela Turner submitted the urine sample to Janaee Brown, a nurse in respondent's office. Later, Angela Turner was taken to the examination room by Janaee Brown who inquired as to how Angela Turner was feeling, Angela Turner replied, "that she was feeling a lot better, but she had slight dizziness and she thought her yeast infection might be coming back." Janaee Brown then left Angela Turner in the examination room. At this point, there is conflicting testimony concerning whether Janaee Brown relayed instructions from the respondent for Angela Turner to disrobe from the waist down and provided a gown for this purpose. The more credible evidence is that Janaee Brown did not instruct Angela Turner to disrobe from the waist down and that Janaee Brown did not give Angela Turner a gown or robe for this purpose. Although there was some evidence that respondent may have deviated, at one time or another, from his office policy of having someone accompany him at all times while consulting with or examining a female patient, the weight of the evidence shows that respondent did have such an office policy and that no exception to that office policy was made during Angela Turner's visit with respondent on July 30, 1983. Angela Turner's testimony was that respondent came into the room alone, reported a negative pregnancy test, asked how she was feeling, examined her vagina without gloves, or lubricant or device to spread vagina, unbuttoned her blouse and moved her bra and examined her breasts. Respondent then kissed each of her breasts, her stomach, her vagina and tried to kiss her lips but she pushed him away. The respondent denies any impropriety with Angela Turner on July 30, 1983. The weight of the evidence shows that respondent consulted with Angela Turner in the presence of his wife, Vida Petrillo, concerning her pregnancy test, prescribed five (5) douches for vaginal infection and discussed something about abortion. The evidence shows that Angela Turner did mention to Janaee Brown something to the effect that the doctor had done something he shouldn't do and asked if that was office policy, to which Janaee Brown replied "no." The evidence shows that Angela Turner did not appear to be emotionally upset at this time. Angela Turner paid her bill, picked up her douches and went outside and called her husband who in turn contacted the police. Counsel for petitioner stipulated that a civil suit for damages had been filed by Angela Turner and her husband against respondent and presently there was an ongoing lawsuit. The evidence fails to establish sufficiently that the respondent conducted a vaginal examination on July 30, 1983 or made any sexual advances toward Angela Turner by kissing her breasts, stomach, and vagina or attempting to kiss her lips.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found not guilty of the violation of Sections 459.015(1)(k), and 459.014, Florida Statutes (1983) and that Count II and Count III be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating a lawful order of the Board in violation of Section 459.O15(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1983). For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of Reprimand to the respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 1st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Grover C. Freeman and David P. Rankin FREEMAN & LOPEZ, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Warren B. Mulhollan has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida. His license number is OS 0000896. At some time in the recent past, respondent was placed on probation. One of the terms of his probation was that he acquire continuing education credits. The Order of probation was not offered into evidence. In April of 1985, respondent was working in a Chinese acupuncture clinic approximately two days a week performing physical examinations and preparing patient histories. He was not writing prescriptions. At the time of the hearing, he was not practicing osteopathic medicine and does not now desire to do so, though he does wish to maintain his license. The respondent is 77 years of age. The respondent did suffer a stroke and has had several transient ischemic attacks over the past few years. For a period of time, he was unable to concentrate and his attention span was limited. He communicated this fact to the Department and requested that he be excused from compliance with the continuing education requirements of the Board. Apparently, the Board never excused the respondent from such requirements. Respondent was examined by two psychiatric physicians in the latter months of 1985 and in April of 1986. It was their understanding from discussions with respondent that he did not desire to have the ability to maintain a practice in the traditional setting. Both physicians were of the opinion that if respondent is unable to pursue continuing education and stay current in his field, he should not practice osteopathic medicine. According to the respondent, his former lack of concentration was due to eye strain. He states that after getting a new pair of glasses, he has no trouble concentrating. He does not wish to maintain a practice of osteopathic medicine in a traditional setting. However, he does desire to retain his license because he takes pride in his past accomplishments in the community, and he enjoys lunching and associating with other doctors and attending lectures and seminars at the Suncoast Hospital. He is willing to maintain a probationary- type practice, file monthly affidavits with the Board and comply with continuing education requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years, and that the conditions of probation include the requirements that he attend continuing education courses, that any type of practice in which he engages be performed in a supervised, clinical-type setting with other physicians in the immediate area and that he submit to the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners verified, monthly reports setting forth any hours of osteopathic practice engaged in by him, as well as the names of patients and treatment rendered. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 17th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Alpert, Josey, Grilli & Paris, P.A. Ashley Tower, Suite 2000 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Warren B. Mulhollan, D.O. 2458 Enterprise Road, Apt. 6 Clearwater, Florida 33515 Rod Presnell, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether Respondent exercised influence within a physician-patient relationship for the purpose of engaging a patient in sexual activity in violation of Subsection 459.015 (1)(l), Florida Statutes; (2) Whether Respondent engaged a patient in sexual activity outside the scope of practice or the scope of generally accepted examination and treatment of the patient in violation of Section 459.0141, Florida Statutes; and (3) If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice as an osteopathic physician.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Osteopathic Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of osteopathic medicine pursuant to Chapters 455 and 459, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed osteopathic physician in the state of Florida, having been issued License No. OS-004450. Respondent has a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in clinical psychology and experimental psychology from Temple University, was an assistant professor of psychology at a community college before studying osteopathic medicine, and taught as an assistant professor of psychiatry in family practice at Southeastern Osteopathic Medical School. Respondent completed a residency program at Southeastern Osteopathic Hospital in North Hollywood, Florida, and also completed a three-year family practice residency program. After completing his residency programs, Respondent moved to Sarasota, Florida, and began as a family practice physician. In December 1998, Patient K.C. (K.C.) was 33 years old, married, and the mother of two children, six and two years old. Before getting married, K.C. had lived with her parents. She had attended community college for two years but did not obtain a degree. K.C. had been employed as a sales clerk and clerical staff person. On or about December 29, 1998, K.C. first presented to Respondent suffering from migraine headaches and neck pain, chronic conditions she had suffered for approximately ten years. From December 29, 1998, through or about October 1, 1999, Respondent provided osteopathic medical treatment for pain to K.C. During this period of time, Respondent treated K.C.'s migraine headaches and neck pain with heat, osteopathic manipulation, and prescription medication. Respondent also diagnosed anxiety and depression for K.C. and prescribed medication, Ativan, for this condition. Throughout the time Respondent saw K.C., he also prescribed up to six tablets per day of a sedative, Fioricet. During the time that Respondent was treating K.C., he saw K.C. once or twice a month, except for April, August, and September 1999. Respondent's records reflect that he saw K.C. four times in April, three times in August, and six times in September. There are several manipulation techniques used by Respondent in treating patients. One manipulation technique used by Respondent involves traction of the neck and movement of the patient’s head while the patient is lying down on her back. Another technique, while the patient is lying on her back, involves Respondent’s using his chest to exert pressure down on the patient’s crossed arms and body through the spine to Respondent’s hands located behind her neck and thoracic spine. Another technique has the patient roll over to the side with the leg up to the side while Respondent adjusts her pelvic bone. During this procedure, Respondent’s hand and forearm arm are placed on the buttocks to effect a pushing or pulling of the pelvic bone. The last technique Respondent provides is for the upper thoracic and lower neck area. For this, the patient places her hands on top of her head. Respondent then brings his hands around the torso from behind, placing them at the back of her neck. While the hands provide traction to the neck, Respondent pushes his chest against the spine of the patient to lift the thoracic vertebrae. It is not uncommon during this procedure for Respondent to brush his hands on the patient’s breast. Respondent’s normal office procedure is to do manipulations on patients in his treatment room with the door closed and no other persons present for 10 to 15 minutes. From December 1998 until August 12, 1999, Respondent provided adjustments to K.C. and prescribed medication and did not engage in any sexual activity or relationship with K.C. Prior to August 12, 1999, during his treatments of K.C., Respondent sometimes engaged in "random conversations." For example, during one treatment Respondent asked what kind of car she drove and when she told him, Respondent asked K.C, if her husband cared about her. Respondent told K.C. that a sports utility vehicle (SUV) was a safe vehicle, especially for someone with her condition and indicated that his wife drove an SUV. Respondent then insinuated that if K.C.'s husband cared about her, he should or would buy her an SUV. During another treatment, Respondent told K.C. that she had a good body and asked if she had been a cheerleader. During another treatment, Respondent, while engaging in conversation with K.C., made an unrelated statement about how many times per week the average married couple has sex. At another time, while treating K.C. at his office, Respondent mentioned that the sex life of people with chronic pain may be affected by their condition and asked if her sex life was so affected. Still, during another treatment, Respondent asked K.C. about her relationship with her husband, specifically inquiring as to how they related to one another. In the summer of 1999, K.C. traveled by car to Canada to visit her husband's family. For K.C., the trip to Canada was stressful and while there, she was in a lot pain. Because of the pain she was experiencing, K.C. called Respondent's office while she was still out-of-town to schedule an appointment for an adjustment upon her return to Sarasota and to request that one of her prescriptions be refilled. After K.C. returned from the trip to Canada, on the morning of August 13, 1999, she went to Respondent's office for her scheduled appointment for an adjustment. When K.C. arrived at Respondent's office, she was in a lot of pain and began to cry. K.C. told the nurse or medical assistant that she was in a lot of pain and had had a "bad trip to Canada." The nurse then escorted K.C. to an examination room. When Respondent came into to examination room, K.C. was sobbing and could hardly talk. Respondent asked K.C. to explain why she was so upset. Respondent proceeded to do an adjustment and, again, asked K.C. why she was so upset. K.C. described her feelings to Respondent, who then told K.C. that he used to counsel with patients, that he had helped a girl just like her, and that he could help her if she were willing to come back to the office and talk with him. After K.C. agreed to come back and talk to Respondent, he asked K.C. how he could reach her. In response, K.C. gave Respondent her pager number. After K.C.'s morning appointment on August 13, 1999, Respondent contacted K.C. on her pager and asked if she had made arrangements for her sons to be taken care of so that she could come back to the office to talk with him. K.C. told Respondent that she had made arrangements for her sons and agreed to return to Respondent's office that afternoon. When K.C. returned to Respondent's office on the afternoon of August 13, 1999, Beverly Carrington (Beverly), a medical assistant in Respondent's office, was vacuuming the office. At Respondent's direction, Beverly took K.C. to an examination room. Several minutes later Respondent came into the examination room and told K.C. that he had to make some calls and that he would be back in a few minutes. Respondent gave K.C. a sandwich that he said he had left over from lunch. After Respondent gave K.C. the sandwich, he left the examination room, closing the door behind him. Respondent eventually returned to the examination room and sat in a chair next to the chair in which K.C. was sitting. Respondent began asking K.C. questions about herself, similar to questions that she had been asked by counselors or psychologists. While Respondent was talking to K.C., Beverly knocked on the door of the examination room and told Respondent that she had finished vacuuming the office. Respondent indicated to Beverly that she could go home and soon thereafter, Petitioner heard Beverly leave the building.1 After Beverly left the office, Respondent continued to ask K.C. questions for the next 15 or 20 minutes. Respondent then asked K.C. to get up from her chair, face the mirror in the room, and look in the mirror. K.C. felt uncomfortable looking in the mirror, so she kept her head down. Respondent then put his hands on K.C.'s face and held her face up so that she was looking in the mirror. While doing this, Respondent asked K.C., "Don't you know you're beautiful?" Respondent placed his hands on K.C.'s shoulders and brushed his lips against her neck. Respondent began rubbing or massaging K.C.'s neck and while doing so told K.C. that she was "real tight in [her] neck" and that he would like to work on her neck again and see if he could loosen it up and help her relax. Respondent then led her to the examination table and "proceeded to rub [her] neck and then he started to take off [her] clothes." While on the examination table, Respondent helped K.C. take off her shirt, shorts, bra, and shoes and the only remaining clothing that she had on was her underwear. After her clothes were removed, K.C. presumed Respondent would cover her with a towel or give her a robe, but he did not provide K.C. with any covering. Instead, Respondent sat behind K.C., massaged her neck, and talked to her "soothingly" for about ten minutes. Respondent then took his hands and rubbed her arms and then moved his hands to her breasts, and then down to her waist and towards her panties. When Respondent moved toward K.C.'s panties, she would "tense up" and then Respondent would "start rubbing up the top part of her again." Respondent's hands again went toward her underwear and he "put his hand to go under [K.C's] underwear." K.C. was nervous about what was going on and told Respondent that she was uncomfortable. After K.C. told Respondent that she was uncomfortable, he acknowledged that she seemed uncomfortable. Respondent then handed K.C. her clothes, assisted her in sitting up on the examination table, and sat on the table while K.C. dressed herself. After talking to Respondent for about five minutes, K.C. left the doctor's office with a worse headache, feeling distraught. K.C. next saw Respondent a few days later, on a Monday or Tuesday, for an adjustment for a headache and pain. Respondent performed an adjustment on K.C. that day. During this appointment, Respondent, again, told K.C. that he wanted to help and counsel her. He told K.C. about an upcoming gun show and stated that they could talk while driving to the gun show. Later that week, Respondent paged K.C. and asked her to come to his office. In response to Respondent's request, K.C. went to Respondent's office. Once there, Respondent took K.C. to an examination room and talked to her again about the gun show. Respondent again told her that he would like for her to go to the gun show with him so that they could have time to talk. K.C. was in Respondent's office that day about ten minutes and did not receive a treatment. A few days later, on Saturday, K.C. met Respondent at his office to go the gun show. When she got there, Respondent recommended that she leave her car at the office and ride in his Toyota 4-Runner so that they could talk. Respondent stated that he and K.C. were going somewhere in Palmetto, Florida, but they actually ended up at the Manatee Civic Center. While Respondent was driving to the gun show, he told K.C. that he hoped that he was not mistaken as to the dates of the gun show. In fact, when Respondent and K.C. arrived at the Manatee Civic Center, there was no one there. Nevertheless, Respondent pulled his car into a space in the parking lot on the side of the building. Respondent left the car running and took off his seat belt as he talked to K.C. At some point, Respondent kicked his shoes off and loosened his pants and/or pulled them down, reached over toward K.C., took off her seat belt, told K.C. to get more comfortable, and adjusted her power seat in his Toyota 4-Runner to lean back more. Respondent then touched K.C.'s genitals and proceeded to get on top of her and have intercourse. While on top of her, Respondent pointed out that there were police cars in the back of the parking lot. Once Respondent pointed out the police cars, K.C. observed two or four police cars in the parking lot. Even though there were no policemen in the cars, K.C. expressed concern about the police cars to Respondent. Respondent told K.C. that she should not worry because the windows in his vehicle were tinted. Respondent and K.C. were in the parking lot about 20 minutes, although the intercourse was only three to five minutes. After the intercourse, Respondent put his clothes back on or pulled his pants up and drove back to his office. This was the first time that Respondent and K.C. had intercourse. A few days later, K.C. and Respondent engaged in sexual activity in Respondent’s vehicle during lunch while they drove to Marina Jack’s. Respondent picked up lunch at the hospital and then returned to the parking lot of his office, where K.C. met him. K.C. left her car in the parking lot and got in Respondent's Toyota 4-Runner. Respondent gave K.C. her lunch and then "fingered" her while she ate her lunch as he drove to Marina Jack's. During the period between August and October 1999, K.C. went to Respondent's house on Siesta Key. The house was in a gated community, and in order to gain entry, K.C. told the guard at the gate that she was going to Respondent's house and would give the guard her name or another name that Respondent had told her to use. At other times, K.C. would follow Respondent through the gate in her car. Some of these visits were on weekdays during Respondent's lunch break. During some of those visits, K.C. and Respondent would talk and have intercourse. K.C. and Respondent had intercourse at Respondent's house about ten times. One Saturday between August and October 1999, K.C. went to Respondent's house after he invited her to come out and talk to him and go to the beach. That day Respondent met K.C. somewhere in town and drove her to his house. When they arrived at Respondent's house, K.C. took out a bathing suit and went upstairs to change. It is unclear whether K.C. and Respondent had intercourse or engaged in any sexual activity on this day. K.C. contemporaneously reported the sexual relationship with Respondent to her husband and to a minister who had known and counseled her before she met Respondent. K.C. told her minister that the sexual activities with Respondent had occurred in Respondent's office, vehicle, and home. K.C. and Respondent had intercourse a couple of times at the home of a friend of Respondent's, Carole, that was on Tangerine Street and at the home of one of Respondent's friends, Jack Kentish. One Sunday morning in late September, K.C. went to Respondent’s office.2 While there, she went into an examination room to change clothes so that she would have attire appropriate to accompany Respondent to a gun show. About that time, K.C.'s husband showed up at Respondent's office, knocked on the office door, expressed his displeasure at the fact K.C. was there, and had a verbal confrontation with Respondent. K.C.'s husband stopped at Respondent's office after he saw his wife's car parked there. The incident described in paragraph 29, led to Respondent sending a letter dated September 28, 1999, to K.C., advising her that his professional relationship with her would terminate within 30 days. The reason for the 30 days was to allow K.C. time to find another physician. In October 2000, K.C. was admitted to Sarasota Memorial Hospital suffering from major depression, Fioricet dependence, and chronic pain. At or near the time of her admission and at this proceeding, K.C. acknowledged that she had some loss of memory surrounding the events related to the three-month period in which Respondent engaged in improper sexual conduct with her.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Osteopathic Medicine, enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 450.015(1)(l) and Section 459.0141, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 459.015(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1999), now 459.015(1)(pp), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida for one year and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 5th day of August, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida since 1952 and currently holds License Number 959 issued by Petitioner (stipulation, testimony of Respondent). On June 15, 1972 Respondent was convicted of three counts of violation of the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act of 1961, Section 4, Laws of Pennsylvania. As a result of these convictions, Respondent was incarcerated for a two-year period from 1972 to 1974. He was released on bond and again incarcerated from the Spring of 1977 until September, 1977 (stipulation, testimony of Respondent). Subsequent to his release from confinement on parole, Respondent taught several night school courses at Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and also was employed by VISTA for approximately one year. In November, 1978, he commenced an osteopathic practice in St. Petersburg, Florida (testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 2). On November 8, 1973, the Pennsylvania State Board of Osteopathic Examiners revoked Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery in Pennsylvania based on his criminal convictions (stipulation, petitioner's Exhibit 1). In February, 1979, parole supervision of Respondent was transferred from the State of Pennsylvania to the State of Florida. The parole and probation office in St. Petersburg files periodic reports to parole authorities in Pennsylvania. During the period of Florida parole supervision, Respondent has been cooperative with his parole and probation officer and has not been difficult to supervise. The maximum expiration date of Respondent's parole status is September 5, 1983. Release from such status will be determined by the State of Pennsylvania. In April, 1979, Respondent received a hearing before the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons based upon his application for commutation of sentence, but has not received a decision on the application at this time (testimony of Ferriter, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 3). Respondent entered into a brief "physician assistance agreement" with the St. Petersburg Osteopathic Hospital after his arrival in Florida which provided for mutual under-takings designed to assist Respondent in establishing a practice. This arrangement however, lasted only approximately three and one half months. A number of Respondent's current patients or their relatives testified as to his competence and satisfaction in his methods of treatment. Additionally, Respondent submitted various documents concerning lectures he has made on medical hypnosis to various organizations, and letters from Pennsylvania residents and physicians expressing belief that he is rehabilitated and has contributed by social work in the community. A St. Petersburg pharmacist who is located near Respondent's present office and handles his prescriptions, testified that, to his knowledge, Respondent had not prescribed controlled substances with the possible exception of Valium (testimony of Brown, Lewis, Drake, Bishop, Beville, Hodges, Penvel, Respondent's Exhibits 1-3). In June, 1979, Respondent voluntarily took a polygraph examination from a private examiner in St. Petersburg. Although Respondent was under some tension at the time, he was capable of being tested. The results of the examination indicated deception on the part of Respondent in denying his guilt of the offenses for which he had been convicted in Pennsylvania. The results of the polygraph examination were received in evidence at the hearing by stipulation of the parties (testimony of Liens). Respondent testified as a witness at the hearing. He stated that his practice currently consists of natural and preventive medicine, including ortho molecular therapy. He further testified that he does not prescribe controlled substances since his patients do not need the same due to his natural healing methods. He seeks to maintain his license as a practitioner under a supervised probationary period. His practice is small at the present time and he has only one or two patients a day (testimony of Respondent).
Recommendation That Petitioner revoke the license of Respondent, Maurice L. Kaye to practice osteopathic medicine, but that the operation of such revocation be suspended for the period and in the manner stated in Paragraph 8 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Maurice L. Kaye, D. O. Post Office Box 14202 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, has brought an action by Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., charging that on January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, the Respondent issued prescriptions for a substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, and prescriptions for a substance known as Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation which contains Amphetamines; both types of prescriptions being controlled substances within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The complaint further alleges that the prescriptions were delivered to a patient, George DeBella, also known as George J. Conlon, without good faith and not in the course of the Respondent's professional practice, and, therefore, unlawfully. See Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. Finally, the Administrative Complaint alleges that these acts on the part of the Respondent are prohibited by Sections 893.05 and 893.13, Florida Statutes, and are violative of Subsections 459.14(2)(m) and (n), Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and has violated the laws of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint filed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. The Respondent in this cause is George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., who holds license No. 1169 under regulation by the Petitioner. Dr. Frison also held license No. 1169 at all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint is a six-count document, the general nature of which has been outlined in the issues statement of this Administrative Complaint. The specific contentions of the Administrative Complaint will be addressed in the course of these findings of fact. The proof offered reveals that on January 4, 1978, an officer of the Daytona Beach Police Department, one George Joseph Conlon, went to the office of the Respondent in DeBarry, Florida. At the time of this visit, Officer Conlon was operating under the assumed name of George DeBella. The purpose of Officer Conlon's visit was to ascertain if the Respondent was issuing prescriptions for drugs, not as a part of Dr. Frison's professional practice, but merely to satiate the desires of the ostensible patient and to profit from the encounter by charging the patient for the office visit. When Conlon entered the doctor's office on January 4, 1978, he was initially seen by Dr. Frison's nurse, who took the patient's blood pressure end weighed him and had the patient complete a form medical history data sheet. Conlon was then ushered in to see the doctor and he proceeded to tell Dr. Frison that he was not a "doper" and was not there for the purpose of getting Dilaudids. He explained to Dr. Frison that he had two jobs and that he was taking small black capsules to keep him going, to which Dr. Frison replied as an interrogatory, "Biphetamines?". Conlon explained that he didn't know what the substance was but that he had been paying $3.00 apiece to buy them from dealers and that arrangement was stupid and could he get some from the Respondent. Dr. Frison asked if Conlon meant a prescription and Conlon replied in the affirmative, and Frison said that he could get a prescription. Conlon in turn asked if he needed to provide other information. Frison responded by asking Conlon, "How many do you take?" Conlon indicated that he took one in the morning and one around six o'clock p.m. There was further conversation in which Conlon explained that he worked in a nursery in the daylight working hours and as a bartender from 2:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Conlon also made remarks to the effect that he, Conlon, was not a "freak" and that he was trying to be "straight" with the doctor. Dr. Frison inquired if the small black capsules were the only thing that Conlon took and Conlon, in answering the doctor, indicated he had taken several Quaaludes, which helped to put him to sleep at night and that his frequency of using the drug was three times a week, at most. In response to the comments about Quaaludes, Dr. Frison asked Conlon if he would like a prescription for a few Quaaludes, and Conlon agreed. Frison indicated that he would give him a prescription for the Quaaludes, but not in the quantity of the Biphetamines which he was prescribing. There was further conversation about where the patient lived and in answering the Respondent's question, Conlon acknowledged that he lived in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent asked why he didn't ask for a prescription in Daytona Beach and Conlon said it was because someone had mentioned Dr. Frison. There was a final series of remarks about buying drugs from other sources and paying $3.00 and that terminated the conversation. The only other examination or discussion which the doctor had with Conlon on January 4, 1978, involved the doctor taking the pulse of Officer Conlon during their conference. After this meeting between Dr. Frison and Conlon, Dr. Frison prescribed sixty Biphetamines, which is a mixture which contains Amphetamines and is a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893.03, Florida Statutes, specifically a Schedule II item. Dr. Frison also prescribed thirty Quaaludes, also known as Methaqualone, which is a controlled substance within the meaning of Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, and specifically a Schedule II item. A copy of the prescriptions may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Officer Conlon was carrying a concealed transmitter on his person when this visit and the following visits were made to the Respondent's office, and tapes were made of the office conversations which were recorded from Conlon's transmitter. A transcript of the intelligible parts of the conversations between Conlon and the Respondent and Conlon and the Respondent's nurse, that occurred on January 4, 1978, may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. On January 31, 1978, Conlon returned to the office of the Respondent in DeBary, Florida. Again, the nurse weighed Conlon and took his blood pressure. Dr. Frison saw the patient and asked how the patient had been progressing and inquired about the number of tablets the patient had taken. Conlon responded that he took two or three a day. Dr. Frison indicated that that number was too many. Dr. Frison also noted that it had only been twenty-seven days since the last visit. Dr. Frison then determined to issue new prescriptions, but to postdate prescriptions for Biphetamines and Quaaludes to February 3, 1978. In connection with this, he prescribed sixty Biphetamines and sixty Quaaludes. There was some discussion held about the nature of the Quaaludes and how the patient, Conlon, might become dependent on them, leading to potential addiction. Frison also indicated that addiction to Biphetamines is one of the worst addictions and that Conlon should cut down the use of them. There was a further inquiry by Dr. Frison about why the patient did not get the prescriptions in Daytona Beach, to which Conlon replied that he was nervous about that. Frison terminated the conversation by telling Conlon not to take too many of the tablets and agreeing to write the prescriptions. There was no further physical examination of the patient or other discussion of the patient's condition. A copy of the prescriptions dated February 3, 1978, may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence and a copy of the transcript of the conversation between Conlon and the Respondent to the extent the conversation was intelligible, may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. Conlon made another trip to Dr. Frison's DeBary, Florida, office on February 28, 1978. He again was weighed and had his blood pressure taken by the nurse. Conlon was seen by Dr. Frison, who checked his pulse and chest. In the course of the visit, the Respondent inquired about Conlon's health and about his job at the bar. Then Frison stated that he would give Conlon prescriptions for that date, but would not be able to give him prescriptions for Quaalude and Biphetamine in the future. He explained to Conlon the reason for termination of the practice was that he was having problems of an unspecified nature. There was some brief discussion about a skin infection which the Patient had and that ended the conversation between the Respondent and Conlon. (Frison did not treat the patient for the skin condition.) Frison prescribed sixty Biphetamines and sixty Quaaludes and copies of these prescriptions may be found as part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. As before, the intelligible parts of the conversation, as transcribed, may be found in the copy of that transcribed conversation which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. In view of the events which occurred on January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, involving George J. Conlon, the ostensible patient of the Respondent, the Petitioner has brought the Administrative Complaint. Counts I and II deal with the events of January 4, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count I dealing with the Quaalude and Count II dealing with the Biphetamine. Counts III and IV deal with the events of January 31, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count III dealing with the Quaalude and Count IV dealing with the Biphetamine. Finally, Counts V and VI deal with the events of February 28, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count V dealing with the Quaalude and Count VI dealing with the Biphetamines. In each of the counts, the Respondent is accused of delivering drugs without good faith and not in the course of professional practice and thereby unlawfully distributing and dispensing a controlled substance described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. According to the allegations, the acts of the Respondent in those instances are prohibited by Sections 893.05 and 893.13, Florida Statutes, and such acts constitute a violation of Subsections 459.14 (2)(m) and (n), Florida Statutes, in showing that the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and has violated the laws of the State of Florida. The substantive provisions dealing with disciplinary action against the Respondent are found in Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes. The former provision states: 459.14(2)(m) A finding of the board that the individual is guilty of immoral or unprofes- sional conduct. Unprofessional conduct shall include any departure from, or failure to conform to, the minimal standards of accept- able and prevailing osteopathic medical prac- tice, without regard to the injury of a patient, or the committing of any act contrary to hon- esty, whether the same is committed in the course of practice or not. The evidential facts shown indicate that the substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and the substance known as Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation which contains Amphetamines, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes; were not prescribed in good faith and in the course of the Respondent's professional practice, as required by Section 893.05, Florida Statutes, if the Respondent is to avoid the penalties of the provisions of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. This lack of good faith constituted unprofessional conduct, in the sense that the Respondent was departing from and failing to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing osteopathic medical practice, set out in Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes. In particular, the departure from and failure to conform to those minimal standards is evidenced by the Petitioner's act of prescribing the controlled substance for Conlon when there was no specific complaint of a physical problem. This finding is made in spite of the witnesses who testified in behalf of the Respondent, who claimed that you could prescribe medication for compassionate reasons, and notwithstanding the Respondent's false entry into the medical chart of the patient, Conlon, indicating that the patient was being treated for the condition of being overweight. The Respondent further violated the standards of his professional community by failing to take an adequate history of the patient's condition on the occasions the patient was seen; failing to make an adequate physical examination of the patient on the occasions when the patient was seen; and by not placing reasonable controls over the drugs that were prescribed for the patient, particularly in his failure to warn the patient not to drive or use heavy machinery while under the influence of the medications. The Physician's Desk Reference manual creates a necessity for these cautionary instructions referred to above, and the Respondent should have warned the patient of the medications' possible effects. The Respondent also violated medical practice by postdating the prescriptions which were issued on January 31, 1978. Finally, the Respondent violated the minimum standards of his profession by prescribing Quaaludes and Biphetamines in combination when these drugs are known to have an antagonistic effect in combination. These findings of violations pertain to each date that the patient was seen; January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, involving both the substances, Quaalude and Biphetamine. The other substantive grounds of a violation alleged by the Petitioner deal with Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: 459.14 (2)(n) Violation of any statute or law of this state or any other state or terri- tory of the United States or any foreign country, which statute or law relates to the practice of medicine. To establish this violation, it would be necessary for a court of competent jurisdiction to have found the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. This determination cannot be made by an administrative tribunal and in view of the fact that no court of competent jurisdiction has found such a violation, the Petitioner's claim under Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes, has not been sustained.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, suspend the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., for a period of one (1) year for the violations established in Counts I and II; for one year for the violations established in Counts III and IV, to run concurrently with the penalty imposed for Counts I and II; and for one (1) year for the violations established in Counts V and VI, to run concurrently with the penalty imposed for Counts I and II. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Respondent is charged, pursuant to Count I with a violation of Section 459.015(1)(h) in that he allegedly failed to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician by his alleged violation of Section 459.0154 Florida Statutes, which statute sets forth requirements of physicians who treat with the substance dimethyl sulfoxide ("D.M.S.O."), pursuant to Count II, with a violation of Section 459.015(1)(o) in that he allegedly exercised influence on a patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain, pursuant to Count III, with a violation of Section 459.015(1)(t) in that he allegedly committed gross or repeated malpractice or failed to practice medicine with that level of care; skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, pursuant to Count IV, with a violation of Section 459.015(1)(u) in that he allegedly performed a procedure or prescribed a therapy which, by the prevailing standards of medical practice in the community would constitute experimentation on human subjects; pursuant to Count V, with a violation of Section 459.015(1)(n), in that he allegedly failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient, including but not limited to patient histories, examination results and test results; and pursuant to Count VI, with a violation of Section 459.015(1)(1); in that he allegedly made deceptive untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of osteopathic medicine or employed a trick or scheme in the practice of osteopathic medicine when such trick or scheme fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment. Counts VII and VIII, were severed, to remain pending in the instant action until such time as Petitioner should file a voluntary dismissal thereof or a notice that same were ready for hearing. Petitioner had every opportunity to resolve this state of the pleadings and did not do so. PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY MATTERS At formal hearing, Respondent and Gregory D. Seeley, Esquire, were examined pursuant to Rules 22I-6.05 and 28-5.1055 F.A.C. and Gregory D. Seeley, an Ohio attorney, was determined to be a qualified representative of Respondent for purposes of this cause only. Respondent thereafter attempted to file a formal written answer, which request was denied pursuant to Rules 22I- 6.04 (5) and 25- 5.203 F.A.C. Petitioner presented the live testimony of Frank R. Laine, Lloyd D. Gladding, D.O., Jeffrey Erlich, M.D., William Pawley, Respondent Wilfred Mittlestadt, D.O., Mark Montgomery, Ph.D., and the deposition testimony of Wilbur Blechman, M.D. Petitioner offered 12 exhibits, all of which were admitted in evidence. Deposition of Dr. Blechman is Petitioner's Exhibit 4 and Petitioner's Requests for Admission with extensive Answers thereto are Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, within the twelve. A request of Petitioner for judicial notice was denied. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent also was permitted to late-file the depositions of Garry Gordon, M.D., and Stanley Jacobs, M.D. Inasmuch as the transcripts of those depositions were timely filed, they are admitted in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively. Respondent offered 3 exhibits in evidence; all were excluded. Exhibits not admitted or at least proffered were not retained as part of the record. A number of requests for judicial notice by Respondent were also denied. In the course of formal hearing, Respondent also made several motions for mistrial and/or recusal of the undersigned due to admission in evidence of what Respondent characterized as "prejudicial material." None of these motions was meritorious and all were denied, but a discussion of these rulings is also incorporated within this recommended order. By agreement at hearing and without subsequent objection, copies of those matters actually judicially noticed by the undersigned were attached by the parties to their respective post-hearing proposals. The parties' pre-hearing stipulation (H.O. Exhibit 2 as interlineated) also included stipulations as to many facts and has been extensively utilized in preparation of this recommended order. At the close of Petitioner's case in chief Respondent moved to dismiss the pending charges as unproved. This motion was taken under advisement for resolution within this recommended order. The motion was renewed within Respondent's post-hearing proposals with written argument. The Motion to Dismiss within Respondent's post-hearing proposals also renews all previous motions to dismiss, incorporating by reference what may be read as previous arguments concerning procedural and pleading irregularities as to Counts VII and These issues are also disposed of within this recommended order. Transcript of formal hearing was provided by Petitioner, who filed its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law beyond the 10 day limitation. Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed. The late-filing of Petitioner's proposals without objection by Respondent are deemed a waiver of the 30 days for entry of this recommended order pursuant to Rule 22I-6.31 F.A.C., but all proposals have been considered and Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and Respondent's proposed findings of fact are ruled on in the appendix hereto.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number 05 0001510. He has practiced approximately 40 years. On April 4, 1983 Frank R. Laine went to Bio-Equilibrium Testing located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Laine complained of pain in his hands, feet, knees, and shoulders. On five different visits, Laine saw a Diane La Berge. At all times material hereto, Diane La Berge was not licensed to practice either medicine or osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida but held herself out as a homeopathic physician and Director of Bio-Equilibrium Testing. She conducted a series of "tests" and made "evaluations" regarding Laine's condition. Among the tests performed was a metal analysis based on a cutting of Laine's hair sent to Biochemical Concepts, a testing laboratory. Based on her evaluation of the results of the hair analysis for metal La Berge diagnosed Laine as suffering from "heavy or acute copper poisoning". As treatment therefore La Berge recommended chelation therapy, acupuncture, and numerous "supplements", presumably vitamins. Laine understood, based on his conversations with La Berge, that chelation therapy would "cure" his condition. Laine attempted, on a couple of occasions, to obtain chelation therapy from a physician recommended by La Berge; however, there was never anyone at that physician's office. Therefore, Laine went to Respondent's office after being referred by Dr. Harvey Frank, Laine's personal chiropractor. There is absolutely no proof of any connection or relationship of any kind between La Berge or Bio-Equilibrium Testing and Respondent. About two months prior to his seeking out Bio- Equilibrium, Laine, a boat captain, had sanded the hull of a boat coated with a copper-based paint. He performed this type of work approximately once a year, always outdoors with adequate ventilation. Laine informed Respondent that he had been scraping the hull of a copper boat and brought a copy of the hair analysis to their initial office consultation on May 16, 1983. Laine initially presented himself to Respondent seeking chelation therapy on May 16, 1983. He complained of constant pain in his hands, feet, knees, and shoulders. Respondent obtained a medical history based in part on responses to a Cornell Medical Index Health Questionnaire (CMI), a health questionnaire on Respondent's stationery, and another history form, which contained a description of symptoms, family history, and personal history. Some of these responses were filled in, not by Laine, but by his wife. Respondent also got a brief verbal history from Laine but did no extensive one-on-one questioning of Laine or verification of prior physicians and diagnoses listed by Laine and/or his wife. He did no questioning concerning all of the responses or even significant relevant responses. The significant relevant responses include a "yes" response to the question: "Are you crippled with severe rheumatism (arthritis)?" Laine's symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis but Respondent only recorded "inflamed joints onset following scraping copper bottom of boat." There is no recorded physical examination of Laine by Respondent at this initial office visit or at any time thereafter. On May 16, 1983, Respondent diagnosed Laine as having "Copper poisoning as told by hair analysis," wrote this in his records, and administered intravenous chelation with 5cc. dimethyl sulfoxide (D.M.S.O.), intramuscular injections of zinc; and an intravenous injection of Phillpott's formula and sulfur cyl. Apparently, an oral dose of zinc was also prescribed. Respondent also obtained a urine specimen for analysis by tests which would be helpful in determining kidney function. Although there is clear evidence that Laine specifically requested chelation therapy of Respondent, there is no evidence that he ever requested administration of D.M.S.O. or any other substance specifically. Chelation therapy in general involves the use of certain chemicals called chelation agents to bind, immobilize, and in some instances to increase the excretion of a target molecule, in most cases heavy metals, so that the free amount in the blood is decreased more rapidly than the body would do absent the chelation therapy. Vitamin C and D.M.S.O. are not generally recognized as effective chelation agents. Both Vitamin C and D.M.S.O. have only weak binding properties. Phillpott's formula is an I.V. for allergies and a nutritional supplement containing Vitamin C and other vitamins and minerals. Among those testifying, only Dr. Gordon and Respondent, members of the American Academy of Medical Preventics, even recognized its name, absent a list of ingredients. Sulfur cyl is a salycilate useful in the treatment of inflamed joints and arthritis. D.M.S.O. is an organic solvent with the potential to dissolve the vascular system. At no time did Respondent obtain a written release from Laine, releasing Respondent from any liability for the administration of D.M.S.O. intravenously through chelation therapy. At a May 17, 1983 office visit, Respondent administered intravenous chelation with 5cc. D.M.S.O. and an intravenous injection of sulfur cyl to Laine. No further testing was done by Respondent on that day. On this date Laine indicated that he was subjectively feeling better. On May 19, 1983, Respondent administered intravenous chelation with D.M.S.O. and an intravenous injection of Phillpott's formula and sulfur cyl to Laine. D.M.S.O. was also prescribed topically for skin and shoulders as needed. Respondent also ordered copper levels to be obtained from blood and urine specimens. Laine provided a 24 hour urine specimen which Respondent had tested. The specimen analyzed at 74.8 micrograms per liter. The normal copper values for the laboratory in question were .00-60.00 micrograms per liter. The greater weight of the direct credible expert testimony is that Laine's test showed a mild elevation not diagnostically significant for acute copper poisoning, however some rheumatoid arthritis sufferers show elevated copper levels. Respondent received the results of this urine test on May 22, 1983. On May 23, 1983 Respondent administered chelation with D.M.S.O. and intravenous injection of sulfur cyl to Laine. D.M.S.O. 99.9 was prescribed topically for shoulders. No further testing was performed on that date. On May 24, 1983, Laine was administered intravenous chelation with D.M.S.O. and an intravenous injection of sulfur cyl by Respondent. A blood sample was drawn for testing. On May 25, 1983, Respondent administered an intravenous injection of sulfur cyl to Laine. At this visit, Respondent used a plethysmograph to study Laine's entire body. Plethysmography is used to measure pulse pressure, usually in the venous system, for determining impeded blood flow in the veins and was apparently done because of a response on Laine's medical history involving angina and prior myocardial infarctions and because of a protocol or teaching of the American Academy of Medical Preventics. The blood sample drawn on May 24, 1983 was tested. The tests performed included serum copper levels, a SMAC profile, and r.a. latex titer results. The results showed a serum copper level of 135 micrograms per deciliter (normal values 70-155) and an r.a. latex titer of 1/1280. The greater weight of the direct credible expert testimony is that these results are not indicative of significant copper poisoning but were one significant indicator of rheumatoid arthritis. The results were reported to Respondent on May 26, 1983. On May 26, 1983, Respondent administered intravenous chelation with D.M.S.O. with sulfur cyl and calcium disodium edetate (E.D.T.A.) added. Chelin was also prescribed, apparently orally. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels were also obtained that day. E.D.T.A. is most often used in the treatment of mild to severe lead poisoning. Although E.D.T.A. will chelate other heavy metals, including copper, it is not the treatment of choice by the majority of medical and osteopathic physicians for treatment of either copper poisoning or rheumatoid arthritis. D- penicillamine is preferred over E.D.T.A. because it is more effective and because E.D.T.A. has significant side effects, including primarily kidney failure. E.D.T.A. also has a problem permeating cell membranes. On May 27, 1983, Respondent administered intravenous chelation with D.M.S.O. and sulfur cyl to Laine. In Respondent's discussions with Laine between May 16 and May 27, 1983, Respondent suggested that a reduction of Laine's copper level would improve his symptoms. Respondent did not fully inform Laine of any of the potential side effects of E.D.T.A. chelation therapy or intravenous D.M.S.O. Respondent told Laine that his treatment was not completely accepted in the general medical community but he believed in it and it would be acceptable. This falls far short of fully informing Laine as to alternative methods of treatment and their potential for cure of his condition. In total, Respondent billed Laine $1,350.00 for office visits, various tests, examinations, and treatments. At each visit, Respondent provided Laine with bills and health insurance claim forms. These do not reflect a diagnosis until May 26 and then only the single diagnosis of "toxic metal poisoning". The bills were never paid by Laine whose wife complained to the Department of Professional Regulation concerning Respondent's treatment of Laine when Laine's insurance declined to pay for Respondent's treatment of him. Despite Respondent's oral testimony to the contrary, the patient records do not reflect that Respondent diagnosed Laine as having rheumatoid arthritis or cardiovascular disease, they show only copper poisoning of various degrees as reflected in the above findings of fact. Respondent maintains that the many tests were necessary and conservative for the purpose of confirming or rejecting his initial diagnosis of copper poisoning, to determine the presence of rheumatoid arthritis, and to guard against potential kidney failure before E.D.T.A. chelation was attempted. Since Respondent never performed any "hands on" physical examination and did no one-on-one questioning of Laine concerning the medical history forms, the tests may appear excessive, particularly in light of the probability that E.D.T.A. was used on Laine before Respondent received the final test results, but the characterization of Dr. Blechman is accepted that the type and spectrum of tests including plethysmography actually ordered by Respondent do not demonstrate significant fault. Respondent's office staff regularly took readings of Laine's bloodpressure and pulsed and measured his height and weights but the patient records do not reflect any "hands on" physical examination by Respondent of Laine on any of the eight office visits. The greater weight of the expert testimony is that a minimal physical examination for a new patient with unverified complaints should entail a complete hands-on physical which palpates the head, eyes, ears, nose, throat, neck, chest, abdomen, and the extremities and joints, listening to the heart and lungs and examining the skin, plus a rectal examination. If only joint diseased arthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis were suspected or being investigated for treatment, a minimal physical examination should emphasize evaluating all joints (including peripheral joints) by palpation, determining the range of motion of affected joints, listening to the heart and lungs, taking blood pressure, and evaluating length and duration of symptoms. According to physicians board- certified or with a majority of their practices in rheumatology or internal medicine, it is particularly important in joint disease cases for the physician to feel the joint to determine which element thereof is swollen and to see if it is warm to the touch i.e. inflamed. Respondent admits his initial physical examination of Laine was merely observation of Laine's movements and his general ambulatory motion with his clothes on, examination of tophi in his ears, and listening to his heart and lungs. Respondent is vague about whether he observed Laine's hands. Respondent's type of initial physical examination, if it can be called that, and lack of follow-up examinations fall short of the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. On May 27, 1983 Laine also went to see Jeffrey Erlich, M.D. He was in pain and getting no relief from Respondent. On that date Dr. Erlich took a history from Laine, performed a complete "hands on" physical examination, reviewed laboratory data provided him by Laine from Respondent and tentatively diagnosed Laine as having rheumatoid arthritis. Laine's condition was such that, at formal hearing, Dr. Erlich characterized Laine as "the second sickest rheumatoid arthritis patient" he had seen. Because of the severity of Laine's condition Dr. Erlich began Laine on oral predisone which is the conservative treatment of choice among the majority of medical physicians and osteopathic physicians for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Laine was subsequently hospitalized for what may have been side effects of the predisone itself or aggravation of a pre-existing ulcer by the predisone. From this hospitalization, Respondent desires that the inference be drawn that Dr. Erlich was less close to prevailing standards of treatment than was Respondent because Erlich's prescription for predisone constituted an error of Erlich based on failed physical examination and history-taking, which error Respondent knowingly avoided by electing chelation therapy over the predisone treatment. Respondent's argument is not persuasive, and that leap of the imagination cannot be made upon the credible competent substantial evidence in the record. Faulty judgment calls of Dr. Erlich, even if any existed, are non-issues advanced by Respondent to draw attention from relevant and material issues. Further, while in the hospital, Laine was seen by a rheumatologist and a gastroenterologist who essentially confirmed Erlich's diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Laine has since been administered several types of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, including but not limited to D-Penicillamine, by both Erlich and the rheumatologist without much success, but Laine continues to tolerate predisone and to receive some pain relief therefrom. In light of the foregoing, it is found that Laine had rheumatoid arthritis which Respondent failed to diagnose principally because of Respondent's persistent reliance on the previous hair analysis and his failure to use "hands-on" physical examination contrary to the prevailing level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent's reliance on hair analysis performed by a non-physician was misplaced and did not conform to the practice of medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent osteopathic physician under similar facts and circumstances. Not only is the greater weight of all credible expert evidence that hair analysis has little or no clinical value in diagnosing elevated copper levels or anything else because hair analysis indicates not only endogenous (internal or ingested) but also exogenous (external) sources of copper, but Respondent's own testimony further reveals that he merely assumed that the hair sample had been properly taken from the nape of Laine's neck and properly washed prior to testing. In making this finding of fact, the undersigned has not overlooked the testimony of Respondent's expert, Dr. Garry Gordon, who considers hair analysis to be a valuable diagnostic tool when laboratories meet all protocols. However, even Dr. Gordon admits that hair analysis is only relied on by a "distinct clear cut minority" nationwide; it is not required by the American Academy of Preventics; and the particular hair analysis of Laine in this case would probably show his most recent exogenous exposure to the copper boat hull. Respondent is a member of the American Academy of Medical Preventics and considers himself a holistic practitioner and an expert in the use of chelation therapy for prevention and cure of disease. /1 He administers chelation therapy to an average of 32 persons per week for one ailment or another. The American Academy of Medical Preventics is a group with a nationwide membership of 500-1000; of whom perhaps 100 are certified physicians. A protocol of this group requires extensive testing to verify the presence of various diseases, commends the least invasive approaches to testing and treatment, and favors chelation therapy for a number of ailments as well as hair analysis as a testing device. According to Respondents the D.M.S.O. was administered for the purpose of aiding the cell permeability of the vitamin C and later to aid the cell permeability of the E.D.T.A., E.D.T.A. was administered one time for the purpose of treating rheumatoid arthritis; the Phillpott's formula (primarily vitamin C) was for chelation of copper allergies and improving nutrition; and sulfur cyl was for inflammed joints. This treatment conforms to the American Academy of Preventics' protocol. It is stipulated by the parties that Respondent did not use D.M.S.O. as a treatment or cure for copper poisoning or as a treatment or cure for rheumatoid arthritis. (Pre-Hearing Stipulation paragraphs 33 and 34; H.O. Exhibit 2). Expert testimony was permitted to be elicited from Lloyd D. Gladding, D.O., Jeffrey Erlich M.D., Mark Montgomery, Ph.D., Wilbur Blechman, M.D., Garry Gordon, M.D., and Stanley Jacobs, M.D. Respondent objected to any testimony by Petitioner's witnesses, Dr. Gladding, D.O. (the only Florida licensed osteopathic physician other than Respondent to testify), Jeffrey Erlich, M.D., Mark Montgomery, Ph.D. in toxicology and instructor of both medical and osteopathic physicians, and Wilbur Blechman, M.D. because they were not "similar health care providers" in that none were physicians specializing in holistic and preventive medicine upon grounds that only reasonably prudent similar physicians may properly evaluate Respondent's performance. Dr. Blechman's testimony by deposition was further objected to by Respondent upon the ground that a medical physician may not testify to the statutory standard required of a "reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances" as specified in Section 459.015(1)(t) F.S. This position was not consistent with Respondent's relying heavily on the testimony of Dr. Jacob, also a medical physician (M.D.) or Dr. Gordon, trained as an osteopath but accredited through a merger of schools as an M.D. Upon authority of Wright v. Schulte 441 So.2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) 2/ upon the definition of "physician" contained in Section 459.0514(1) embracing both medical physicians and osteopathic physicians, upon the statutory language contained in Section 459.015(1)(t), specifying "The board shall give great weight to the provisions of Section 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph," and upon each witness' specialized education, training, and experience as evident from the records the undersigned overruled Respondent's objections and qualified the witnesses as experts pursuant to their respective qualifications. This ruling is also in accord with the history of Chapter 21R F.A.C., of which judicial notice has been taken, and which shows holistic and preventive medicine has never been recognized as a sub-speciality by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. This evidentiary ruling is here reaffirmed and reiterated as clarification of the weight and credibility of the experts' opinions accepted, relied upon, or rejected in this recommended order. The Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) is the federal agency charged with the enforcement of the federal Food and Drug Acts which includes the regulation of the manufacture and distribution of drug products. As part of its regulatory powers, the F.D.A. approves or disapproves drugs for human consumption. It does not approve or disapprove uses or treatments of drugs. Once the drug has been approved as a prescriptive agent, physicians are not limited by the F.D.A. in their utilization of approved drugs to the specific indications set forth in the F.D.A. package inserts. D.M.S.O. has been approved for human consumption. The package insert for D.M.S.O. as reported in the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), a standard reference used by practicing physicians, recognizes it as indicated for treatment of the condition of interstitial cystitis only, a condition Laine did not have. E.D.T.A. has also been approved by the F.D.A. for human consumption. Its package insert as reported in PDR recognizes it as indicated for treatment of the conditions of digitalis toxicity, hypercalcemia, lead, and other heavy metal toxicities. The undersigned has considered the testimony of all the experts qualified in this case subject to differing weight and credibility considerations of their education, training, and experience. The definition of "experimental treatment" as that type of treatment which has not been shown to be effective or safe under clinical studies conducted after F.D.A. approval of the drug involved is accepted. With some minor variation of choice of words, that is the definition advanced by Dr. Gladding, D.O., Dr. Blechman, M.D. and by toxicologist Mark Montgomery, even though clinical tests also precede F.D.A. approval. D.M.S.O. and E.D.T.A. in the quantities and treatments used by Respondent are experimental and not approved or recognized as acceptable for treatment of either copper poisoning or rheumatoid arthritis by a respectable minority of the medical profession. The opinions of the Florida physicians board certified or with a majority of their practices in rheumatology or internal medicine and of Mark Montgomery, who teaches both medical physicians and osteopathic physicians the physical and physiological operation of various drugs, are considered more credible on this issue than that of Dr. Gordon, drafter of the American Academy of Preventics' protocol using E.D.T.A. and D.M.S.O. together in chelation. Dr. Gordon admits that in many ways all D.M.S.O. and E.D.T.A. treatments are practiced only by members of the American Academy of Medical Preventics, which has not yet been recognized by the American Medical Association and which represents a minority of physicians nationwide. Even by the construction of the evidence most favorable to Respondent, that is, the testimony of Dr. Jacob, Respondent's expert in D.M.S.O., the small quantities of D.M.S.O. administered by Respondent in the course of eight treatments would not have been therepeutically effective in reducing the copper levels in Laine's body and would not have been therepeutically effective in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A stronger solution than that used by Respondent would have been necessary to have either a positive or negative effect upon Laine. Dr. Jacob does not use D.M.S.O. for chelation but when using it by intravenous injection requires a release be signed. Laine was not physically harmed by the treatments administered by Respondent. The most that can be said is that the Respondent's misdiagnosis and useless treatments delayed his obtaining appropriate treatment. There is no recognized cure for rheumatoid arthritis and it has been shown that any of the numerous treatments utilized for rheumatoid arthritis will work on some individuals while not working on others. The symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis may alleviate without any treatments or conversely may get progressively worse regardless of any treatment utilized or they may clear up for no apparent reason.
Recommendation That the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Count I [sections 459.015(h) and 459.0154], Count III [Section 459.015(1)(t)], Count IV [Section 459.015(1)(u)], Count V [Section 459.015(1)(n)], and Count VI, (section 459.015(1)(1)], suspending Respondent's license for a total period of one year therefor, and dismissing Count II [Section 459.015(1)(o)] with prejudice and dismissing Counts VII and VIII without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of May, 1986.
