The Issue Whether Proposed Rules 10N-6.002, 10N-6.003, 10N-6.004, 10N-6.005 and 10N- 6.006, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, Medivision, Inc., and Tampa Surgi-Center, d/b/a Ambulatory Surgery Center, have standing to challenge the proposed rules at issue in these cases. See the affidavits of Larry Cyment and Donna McMillan. Intervenor, Florida Hospital Association, Inc., has standing to participate in these cases. See the affidavit of Pat Haines. The following Intervenors have established their standing to participate as intervenors in these cases through testimony or affidavit: Cataract Surgery Center, Cortez Foot Surgery Center, Ambulatory Surgery Center of Bradenton, Tampa Outpatient Surgical Facility, Naples Day Surgery, Ambulatory Surgical Center, Specialty Surgical Center and Tallahassee Single Day Surgery. Eye Surgery Center, The Eye Associates, FW Associates and Cordova Ambulatory Surgical Center have failed to prove their standing to participate in these cases. The Proposed Rules; Purpose and Adoption. The Health Care Cost Containment Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), published Rules 10N-6.002, 10N-6.003, 10N-6.004, 10N-6.005 and 10N- 6.006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rules"), in Volume 16, Number 12, of the Florida Administrative Weekly (March 23, 1990). The purpose of the Proposed Rules is to collect data concerning the provision of ambulatory surgery services in the State of Florida. Data collected by the Board will allow a comparison of patient charges and will create an additional bases for the analysis of trends in the health care field. In particular, data collection will promote the analysis of shifts in the provision of health care from inpatient to outpatient settings. Data concerning patient identity, geographic location, diagnosis, procedures performed and charges for services is required to be collected and submitted to the Board pursuant to the Proposed Rules. In June of 1989, the staff of the Board presented a study to the Board concerning the growth of ambulatory health care services. Staff recommended that the Board direct that steps be taken to explore the possibility of collecting ambulatory surgery data. The Board accepted the recommendation and appointed a Technical Advisory Panel. The Technical Advisory Panel appointed by the Board consisted of nine representatives of various interested groups. Two members were from freestanding ambulatory surgery centers and two members were from hospitals providing ambulatory surgery services. At meetings of the Technical Advisory Panel in July, August, September and October, 1989, the collection of ambulatory surgery services data was considered. The Technical Advisory Panel discussed collection costs, the type of data to be collected, implementation dates, legislative authority, methods of submitting data and the scope of data collection. The Board was made aware of the Technical Advisory Panel's efforts through minutes of the Panel's meetings and other materials provided to the Board. The collection of ambulatory surgery services data was considered by the Board at its October, November and December, 1989, meetings. The Proposed Rules were approved by the Board at its December, 1989, meeting. There is no statutory authority which specifically provides that data may be collected by the Board from "freestanding ambulatory surgical centers." The Board cited Section 407.03, Florida Statutes (1989), as the specific authority for the Proposed Rules. The Board cited Sections 407.003, 407.03 and 407.08, Florida Statutes (1989), as the laws implemented by the Proposed Rules. Scope of the Proposed Rules. Ambulatory surgery services are provided in a variety of settings: hospitals (e.g., acute care, psychiatric and rehabilitation), licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers, physician offices and other unlicensed health care facilities. The Proposed Rules provide that all licensed hospitals included in Groups 1 through 10 and Group 14 of the HCCCB Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual which provide outpatient surgery services and all licensed ambulatory surgery centers in Florida are required to collect and submit 45 data elements to the Board. Psychiatric hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals are not subject to the Proposed Rules. Physicians' offices and other unlicensed health care providers are also not subject to the Proposed Rules. The Proposed Rules are limited to licensed providers of ambulatory surgery services so that the Board's staff can insure that all members of the groups selected data actually collect and report data. The Board cannot insure that all unlicensed providers of ambulatory surgery services, such as physicians' offices, comply with the Proposed Rules. Therefore, if data was required to be collected and submitted by unlicensed providers, the data would be less reliable. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the requirement of the Proposed Rules that only hospitals included in Groups 1 and 10 and Group 14 of the HCCCB Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual and licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers collect and submit data constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specific Data vs. Aggregate Data. The Proposed Rules require the collection and reporting of 45 specific data elements. Aggregate data concerning ambulatory surgery services could be obtained from insurance companies and used by the Board as an alternative to the more specific data required to be collected pursuant to the Proposed Rules. Aggregate data is a compilation of specific data. Aggregate data can be used to comply with the Board's statutorily required functions. If aggregate data is used, however, it is likely that reporting will be incomplete. Not all information is reported to insurance companies concerning outpatient activity. Therefore, aggregate data obtained from insurance companies would not cover 100% of ambulatory surgery services provided by reporting entities, resulting in the potential for presenting an incomplete or inaccurate picture of ambulatory surgery services. The recommendations and conclusions which can be reached from aggregate data are limited. Specific data allows more flexibility for research purposes. Specific data will assure greater accuracy and comparability of data. Recommendations and conclusions reached from specific data should be more accurate. In order to insure comparability of data, specific data concerning patients, geographic location, diagnoses, procedures and charges must be collected. The Board collected aggregate data concerning ambulatory surgery services through a special study. The Board collected the data from hospitals and, on a voluntary basis, from licensed ambulatory surgery centers. "Typical" charges for specified ambulatory surgery procedures was collected. This collection effort was flawed by the lack of specific data. The accuracy of the reports based upon the aggregate data was criticized publicly. The reports were even criticized by one of the witnesses called to testify by Intervenors, Cataract Surgery Center, et. al. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the requirement of the Proposed Rules that specific data be collected and submitted instead of aggregate data constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority. Confidential Patient Data. Some of the data elements to be reported pursuant to the Proposed Rules constitute confidential patient information. Disclosure of confidential patient information is prohibited by Florida law. The Proposed Rules do not require or authorize disclosure of confidential patient information. The manner in which the data collected will be distributed has not yet been decided upon by the Board. The evidence failed to prove that the Board will not comply with prohibitions against disclosure of confidential patient information. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the requirement of the Proposed Rules that confidential patient information be reported to the Board constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority. Computer Use. The Proposed Rules require that data be submitted by computer tape or computer diskette. Therefore, data will have to be input into a computer system. The Proposed Rules specify the format data must be in when submitted. Most of the language of the Proposed Rules is computer terminology. The terminology of the Proposed Rules will require some knowledge of computers to carry out the requirements of the Proposed Rules. The language of the Proposed Rules is intentionally designed to convey technical information. The general purpose and requirements of the Proposed Rules does not take any special knowledge to understand. Requiring the submission of data by electronic means is designed to assure the accuracy and confidentiality of the data. The requirement of the Proposed Rules that data be reported in computer form and the use of computer terminology does not constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Errors in the Proposed Rules. Proposed Rule 10N-6.002(2) defines "Ambulatory Surgery Services" as procedures "provided in a hospital in its dedicated ASC ..." [Emphasis added]. Instead of "ASC" the Board intended to use the terms "operating room." Proposed Rule 10N-6.005 contains a list of the data elements to be collected and reported to the Board. This Proposed Rule contains the following errors or unclear language: Item 20 is "Facility Fee - Pri. Proc." "Pri. Proc." is an abbreviation for primary procedure. Items 21-24, similar to Item 20, contains the abbreviation "Sec. Proc." instead of secondary procedure. Items 25-27 contain a reference to "Page 3". As published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, there is no page 3. Item 35, which deals with expected methods of payment, refers to "Comm. Ins. (incl. BCBS)." This reference is an abbreviation for commercial insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield). Item 44, patient birth date, uses the abbreviation "MMYYYY." This abbreviation should be "MMDDYY." Proposed Rule 10N-6.006 refers to "Primary Diagnosis Code" and "Secondary Diagnosis Code." The Rule should refer to Primary and Secondary "Procedure" Code. The mistakes identified in findings of fact 38-40 are not significant enough to characterize the rule as vague. Nor are these mistakes sufficient enough to otherwise conclude that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Economic Impact. The Economic Impact Statement (hereinafter referred to as the "EIS"), issued with the Proposed Rules provided the following concerning the economic impact of the Proposed Rules on the Board: ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION: The agency will be affected by the costs of rule promulgation and by the demands placed upon staff time to assure compliance with the rules and to analyze the data collected. Costs for these activities are estimated to be approximately $85,000 per year. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this portion of the Board's EIS is unreasonable. The EIS provided the following concerning the economic impact of the Proposed Rules on persons affected by the Proposed Rules: ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation by affected facilities will cost approximately $2.9 to $3.1 million. These funds will be used to develop the programs necessary to collect and submit the data required. On-going compliance will have a much less significant impact. . . . . ESTIMATE OF COST TO ALL PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE RULE: The initial cost to Florida hospitals and freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) would be from approximately $2.9 to $3.1 million to develop the reporting system necessary to generate the necessary data elements. On-going annual cost to the hospitals and free standing ASCs would be substantially less after the first year's start-up procedures are adopted. . . . . The EIS is insufficient because it does not adequately discuss the costs (implementation and ongoing costs) to affected persons or the impact of the Proposed Rules on small business. The weight of the evidence proved that the Proposed Rules will have an economic impact on affected persons. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board did not fully consider the asserted economic factors and impact of the implementation cost affected persons can be expected to incur as a result of the Proposed Rules. As indicated in the EIS, the Board's determination of the estimate of the economic impact on affected persons was based upon surveys the Board distributed to licensed ambulatory surgery centers, an estimate of costs that hospitals incurred in implementing the Board's detailed patient data collection rule, the Board staff's experience with computer costs (including the collection and entry of data) and consultation with a computer expert familiar with the Proposed Rules. The surveys relied upon by the Board were distributed to all licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers. A total of 91 surveys were distributed. The Board requested that the surveys be returned within one week. Forty-one responses to the surveys were received by the Board from licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers. The responses constitute hearsay. Findings of fact concerning whether the information contained in the responses is correct, therefore, have not been made. The responses to the surveys have, however, been relied upon to make findings of fact concerning what information the Board based its EIS on. The Board received the following pertinent responses to the surveys from licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers: (1) 26 of the responders use computers, 12 have no computer capacity and 3 have some computer capacity; 17 or 18 different software programs are in use; and, (3) the costs to implement the proposed collection of data ranged from $0 to $50,000.00. Twenty- six responders indicated that they did not know how long it would take for them to implement the proposed collection of data. The Board determined that the average implementation cost for licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers reported in the responses to its survey was $18,975.00 and that the average implementation time was 13 weeks. The Board rounded up the average cost reported to it in the surveys and estimated that the cost of implementing the Proposed Rules at licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers would be $20,000.00. Based upon the existence of 85 licensed facilities, the Board estimated the total implementation cost for licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers to be $1,700,000.00 ($20,000.00 x 85). The Board estimated that the maximum cost of implementing the Proposed Rules at affected hospitals would be $2.00 per patient record. This estimate was based upon the Board's estimate of the cost of hospital compliance with the Board's detailed patient discharge data rule. Based upon an estimate of 600,000 patient records a year which will have to processed as a result of the Proposed Rules, the Board estimated the total cost of implementation in affected hospitals to be $1,200,000.00. The Board concluded that the total minimum cost of implementing the Proposed Rules will be $2,900,000.00 ($1,700,000.00 cost for freestanding ambulatory surgery centers plus $1,200,000.00 cost for affected hospitals). The Board discussed the cost of implementing the Proposed Rules with J. Thomas Solano, an expert in computers. Mr. Solano estimated that the cost of modifying an existing computer system (small to mid-range computer) to comply with the Proposed Rules would be $4,000.00 to $10,000.00. The Board used the highest estimate, $10,000.00, and multiplied this cost by the number of affected persons (85 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers and 220 hospitals x $10,000.00). This resulted in a rounded-up estimated implementation cost of $3,100,000.00. The Board concluded that the total maximum cost of implementing the Proposed Rules will be $3,100,000.00. Some of the data to be collected and reported pursuant to the Proposed Rules is already being collected by affected persons. Therefore, the primary cost of complying with the Proposed Rules will be associated with modifying existing computer software and/or hardware. The cost of modifying an existing computer system can fluctuate widely. As a general rule, computer users with existing software must rely upon their existing software provider to make modifications. The cost of modifying software can, therefore, be much higher than Mr. Solano estimated. As an alternative to modifying existing systems, affected persons can acquire a freestanding personal computer and software which can be used to comply with the Proposed Rules. The cost of such an acquisition should be approximately $2,500.00 to $5,600.00. Intervenor, T.S.D.S., Inc., d/b/a Tallahassee Single Day Surgery Center, estimated that it will have to spend approximately $14,000.00 to $20,000.00 to implement the Proposed Rules. This estimate is based upon a letter purportedly from the Intervenor's computer company. The information contained in the letter is hearsay. The estimated implementation costs are, therefore, not supported by admissible evidence. The estimate, even if supported by competent substantial evidence, is within the Board's estimated implementation costs and, therefore, fail to prove that the Board's EIS is unreasonable or that the Board failed to fully consider the economic factors or impact. Intervenor, Cataract Surgery Center, estimated implementation costs of $1,900.00. This amount is limited to additional maintenance fees, supplies and personnel costs. Cataract Surgery Center believes there will no charge from its computer vendor to modify its software. Cataract's estimated costs are reasonable and within the Board's estimates. Ambulatory Surgical Center of Lake County (hereinafter referred to as "Lake"), does not own a computer. It uses the computer system of its physician owners. Lake considered more than one method of complying with the Proposed Rules. It considered buying a personal computer and estimated it would cost $5,000.00. This cost is consistent with the estimates of the Board. Lake also considered purchasing an integrated hardware and software package. It estimated that such a system would cost $40,000.00 to $50,000.00. The estimate is based upon hearsay. Even if the evidence concerning the cost of an integrated system is accepted as correct, the evidence fails to prove that such costs are necessary to comply with the Proposed Rules. The estimate for this system is based upon Lake's decision that it would perform other functions with the computer system, including storing management information and performing billing functions. These functions are not required in order to comply with the Proposed Rules. Lake currently treats approximately only 300 patients annually. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority because of the implementation cost which will be incurred by affected persons. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the inadequate treatment of implementation costs in the EIS was fully considered by the Board. Therefore, the treatment of implementation costs in the EIS constitutes harmless error. Although the primary costs to affected persons caused by the Proposed Rules will be associated with implementation of the Proposed Rules, there will also be certain costs associated with ongoing compliance with the Proposed Rules. There will be ongoing costs for the collection of data, entry of the data into a computer and reporting data to the Board. Ongoing costs caused by the Proposed Rules will be greater if an affected person with an existing computer system acquires a freestanding computer system instead of using the existing system. The Board's statement in the EIS concerning ongoing costs was not based upon information from affected persons. The statement concerning ongoing costs does not indicate what the ongoing costs of compliance with the Proposed Rules will be. It only indicates that it will be less than the initial implementation costs associated with the Proposed Rules. Although the weight of the evidence did not prove the estimated total amount of ongoing costs to affected persons from the Proposed Rules, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that ongoing costs will be greater than the estimated total amount of implementation costs. T.S.D.S., Inc., d/b/a Tallahassee Single Day Surgery Center, estimated that it would incur ongoing costs of approximately $6,000.00. This estimate is reasonable. Cataract Surgery Center estimated that it would incur ongoing costs of $41,600.00, or $20.00 per case, to comply with the Proposed Rules. Cataract Surgery Center's estimated costs include the following costs: reel purchase; handling; reel preparation; collection of billing data; process of sending information to the Board; clarification of errors; additional record production; and response to public inquiries. Cataract Surgery Center's estimated costs are not reasonable. The estimated time to comply with the Proposed Rules is excessive and some of the tasks, i.e., collection of billing data, are not required by the Proposed Rules. Cataract Surgery Center's conclusion that it may have an increase in maintenance fees is reasonable. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board did not fully consider the asserted economic factors and impact of the ongoing costs affected persons can be expected to incur as a result of the Proposed Rules. Therefore, the treatment of ongoing costs in the EIS was harmless error. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority because of the ongoing cost which will be incurred by affected persons. The EIS contains a statement that the Proposed Rules should have no economic impact on small business. In reaching this conclusion the Board failed to take into account the legal definition of "small business" contained in Florida Statutes. The Board did, however, actually consider the impact the Proposed Rules would likely have on small ambulatory surgery centers subject to the Proposed Rules. The Board attempted to reduce the economic impact on small ambulatory surgery centers by allowing affected persons to file data on computer tape or on diskette. By allowing the use of diskettes for reporting data, the Board made it possible for affected persons to use personal computers to comply with the Proposed Rules. Delayed submission of some data elements was also allowed in order to reduce the impact on small facilities. It is unlikely that the Board would have made further modifications of the Proposed Rules had the legal definition of "small business" been considered. The weight of the evidence failed to prove what, if any, reasonable modifications should have been taken by the Board to accommodate any economic impact on small business. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether any of the entities that participated in the proceeding were small businesses. Those entities, although meeting the definition of small business with regard to the number of employees they have and their net worth, failed to prove whether they are "independently owned and operated." See Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The weight of the evidence failed to prove if any person affected by the Proposed Rules is a small business. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board did not fully consider the asserted economic factors and impact of small business which can be expected to incur as a result of the Proposed Rules. Therefore, the treatment of the impact on small business in the EIS was harmless error. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because of the impact on small business. The Petitioners and Intervenors presented evidence concerning a number of actions which the Board did not take during its consideration of the economic impact and factors of the Proposed Rules and its preparation of the EIS. This evidence proved only that there were other steps which the Board could have taken during its preparation of the EIS. The Petitioners and Intervenors failed to prove, however, that the steps which the Board did take were not sufficient. The Petitioners and Intervenors therefore failed to prove that the steps which the Board did not take were required or necessary.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B- 9.0092(2)(f), 64B8-9.0092(4)(a), and 64B8-9.0092(4)(c) constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority as defined by Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact In Florida, physicians who perform certain surgical procedures in their offices are required to register the office with DOH. Additionally, DOH must inspect such offices unless a nationally recognized accrediting agency or an accrediting organization approved by the Board inspects and accredits the offices every three years. See § 458.309(3), Fla. Stat. and Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B8-0.0091. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092, entitled "Approval of Physician Office Accrediting Organizations," establishes requirements that FLACS must meet in order to achieve the Board's approval to operate as an accrediting organization. FLACS is the only organization that the Board has ever approved as an accrediting organization. FLACS is a not-for-profit corporation, organized for the following purposes: (a) to promote office safety through its accreditation activities; (b) to promote cosmetic surgery; and (c) to provide continuing education courses related to office surgery. FLACS was formed in 1999 and, since that time, has participated actively in office surgery issues considered by the Board. FLACS began operating as an approved office surgery accrediting organization early in 2001. In January 2003 FLACS filed a complete renewal application, seeking the Board's approval to continue operating as an office surgery accrediting organization. The Board denied the application and, after a formal administrative hearing, entered a Final Order denying FLACS's application. See Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc. v. Board of Medicine, Case No. DOH-04-0661-FOF-MQA (Final Order, June 18, 2004)(adopting Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-3349, April 15, 2004.) FLACS filed a new application for approval as an office surgery accrediting organization on July 12, 2004. The Board never advised FLACS whether its application was complete or incomplete. There is evidence that a member of the Board's staff, Melinda Grey, reviewed the application, finding it incomplete in many respects. On August 5, 2004, Ms. Grey prepared a spreadsheet entitled "Board of Medicine Staff Issues Regarding FLACS Application." The spreadsheet compared the application with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, including Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092. Larry McPherson, the Board's Executive Director, was aware that Ms. Grey was reviewing FLACS's application. She did not tell Mr. McPherson that the application was incomplete. Instead, she informed the Board's legal counsel that FLACS had filed the application. Subsequently, Ms. Grey placed the application on the Board's next scheduled meeting agenda. On August 7, 2004, the Board voted to deny the new application. On August 23, 2004, the Board entered an Notice of Intent to Deny FLACS's new application on the following grounds: When participating in accrediting activities in the past, the applicant violated Section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with rules of the Board in the following manner: The applicant failed to provide copies of accreditation reports and corrective action plans to the Board office within 30 days of completion of accrediting activities in violation of Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to immediately report to the Department conditions in physicians' offices that posed a potential immediate threat to patients in violation of Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(f), Florida Administrative Code. When inspecting and accrediting facilities the applicant ignored its written accreditation standards and failed to provide the Board office with accreditation standards under which it was actually operating. Such facts reveal that the applicant operated in violation of Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(g), Florida Administrative Code. When inspecting the facilities, the applicant operated with inadequate or applied inconsistently its quality assurance program in violation of Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to provide evidence of an adequate quality assurance program as required by Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to provide evidence of an adequate ongoing anesthesia related accreditation and quality assurance processes as required by Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to submit copies of all incident reports filed with the state that originated at FLACS accredited facilities as required by Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 64B8-9.0092(2)(f)--Incident Reports Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(2)(f) requires an application for approval as an office surgery accreditation organization to include copies of all incident reports filed with the state. The incident reports are defined by Section 458.351(4), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: (4) For purposes of notification to the department pursuant to this section, the term "adverse incident" means an event over which the physician or licensee could exercise control and which is associated in whole or in part with a medical intervention, rather than the condition for which such intervention occurred, and which results in the following patient injuries: The death of a patient. Brain or spinal damage to a patient. The performance of a surgical procedure on the wrong patient. 1. The performance of a wrong- site surgical procedure; The performance of a wrong surgical procedure; or The surgical repair of damage to a patient resulting from a planned surgical procedure where the damage is not a recognized specific risk as disclosed to the patient and documented through the informed- consent process if it results in: death; brain or spinal damage; permanent disfigurement not to include the incision scar; fracture or dislocation of bones or joints; a limitation of neurological, physical or sensory function; or any condition that required transfer of the patient. A procedure to remove unplanned foreign objects remaining from a surgical procedure. Any condition that required transfer of a patient to a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, from any facility or any office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine which is not licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The incident reports are further defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.001(1)(a), which states as follows in relevant part: . . . an event over which the physician or other licensee could exercise control and which is associated in whole or in part with a medical intervention, rather than the condition for which such intervention occurred, and which results in the following patient injuries: The death of a patient. Brain or spinal damage to a patient. The performance of a surgical procedure on the wrong patient. The performance of a wrong-site surgical procedure, the performance of a wrong surgical procedure; or the surgical repair of damage to a patient resulting from a planned surgical procedure where the damage is not a recognized specific risk as disclosed to the patient and documented through the informed-consent process and if one of the listed procedures in the paragraph results in: death; brain or spinal damage; permanent disfigurement not to include the incision scar; fracture or dislocation of bones or joints; a limitation of neurological, physical or sensory function; or any condition that required transfer of the patient. A procedure to remove unplanned foreign objects remaining from a surgical procedure. Any condition that required transfer of a patient to a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, from any facility or any office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine which is not licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. FLACS understood that the "incident reports" referenced in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(2)(f) are the same as the "reports on adverse incident" defined by Section 458.351, Florida Statutes. FLACS's application specifically references adverse incident reports as defined by Section 458.351, Florida Statutes. FLACS filed two such adverse incident reports with its new application. FLACS has several methods to use in collecting incident reports. First, FLACS requires its accredited physicians and office surgery facilities to attest and acknowledge that they are required to provide FLACS with any and all adverse incident reports related to or following surgery in the accredited offices. Second, FLACS requires the staff of accredited offices to perform self-evaluation surveys after the first and second year of accreditation, said surveys to include such incident reports. Third, FLACS watches for information about adverse incidents as reported by news media or complaints from the public. Most important, FLACS can make quarterly public record searches even though the state system of record keeping for adverse incident reports is not computerized. There is no persuasive evidence that FLACS ever made an oral or written public records request for copies of incident reports related to its accredited practices. There is no statutory or rule requirement for physicians to file copies of incident reports with their accrediting organization. However, at least two of the nationally recognized accrediting agencies, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) and American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (AAAASF), have provisions in their accreditation manuals related to adverse incidents. JACHO's "Accreditation Manual for Office-Based Surgery Practices," Second Edition (2005), defines a "sentinel event" as follows: A sentinel event is an unexpected occurrence involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or the risk thereof. Serious injury specifically includes loss of limb or function. The phrase "or risk thereof" includes any process variation for which a recurrence would carry a significant chance of a serious adverse outcome. Such events are called "sentinel" because they signal the need for immediate investigation and response. The terms "sentinel event" and "medical error" are not synonymous; not all sentinel events occur because of an error, and not all errors result in sentinel events. JACHO requires each accredited practice to define "sentinel event" for its own purposes in establishing mechanisms to identify, report, and manage these events. JACHO encourages, but does not require, its clients to report "sentinel events" to the accrediting agency within 45 days of the event or of becoming aware of the event. The report should include a root cause analysis and an action plan. If JACHO becomes aware of an unreported "sentinel event," JACHO will advise the accredited practice to prepare and submit the report within a certain time frame. If the accredited practice fails to file an appropriate report within that time frame, JACHO will not revoke accreditation, but will place the accredited practice on an "Accreditation Watch" list. AAAASF's "Standards and Checklist for Accreditaion of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities" contains forms for accredited surgery facilities to use in reporting "unanticipated sequela." The forms refer one to AAAASF's "Quality Assurance and Peer Review Manual" for questions relative to their completion. The record indicates that "unanticipated sequela" are the equivalent of adverse incident reports, including but not limited to, events that result in unplanned hospital admissions. In Florida, physicians are required to file adverse incident reports with DOH's Consumer Services Unit (CSU), which is part of DOH's Medical Quality Assurance Program. On at least a quarterly basis, the Board's staff requests CSU to provide it with copies of adverse incident reports filed during a certain time frame. The staff of the CSU has access to medical consultants who review the incident reports to determine whether there might have been a violation of law or a violation of a standard of care. If so, the matter is referred for further investigation, determination of probable cause, and possible disciplinary prosecution by the Board. The Board's staff places the incident reports in physician registration files and in office surgery inspection/accreditation files. The Board's staff also places copies of incident reports involving physicians or facilities in the respective file of their accrediting agency or accrediting organization. The Board's staff provides copies of adverse incident reports to DOH's state inspectors before they make office inspections of non-accredited facilities or facilities formerly accredited by a national agency or FLACS. The state inspector/risk manager uses the incident reports during inspections to recommend improvements so that such incidents can be avoided in the future. The Board's Surgical Care Committee, uses the incident reports for statistical purposes. The Surgical Care Committee reviews the reports to determine whether changes need to be made in administrative rules, including but not limited to, rules related to standard of care or physician registration. It is important for FLACS to be aware of adverse incident reports filed by its accredited physicians and office- surgery facilities. Such reports are an essential part of any accreditation program. Without such knowledge, FLACS cannot be assured that its accredited physicians and offices are taking steps to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future. Moreover, if FLACS is not aware of the adverse incidents occurring in the offices it inspects, FLACS cannot implement changes in its policies to improve the accreditation process. The Board has no policy or practice for routinely sharing incident reports with accrediting organizations. Nevertheless, requiring FLACS to file copies of incident reports with the Board could alert the Board to incidents that were known to FLACS but never reported to the state and vice versa. As stated above, FLACS could make routine public records requests for copies of reports filed with the Board but not reported directly to FLACS. Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(a)--Quality Assurance Program Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(a) requires an accrediting organization to "have a mandatory quality assurance program approved by the Board of Medicine." Though it is not apparent on the face of the rule, this provision relates to an "internal" quality assurance program used by the accrediting organization, not a quality assurance program implemented at a physician's office. The rule does not define a quality assurance program or describe the required contents of a quality assurance program necessary to achieve the Board's approval. There are no forms or instructions to provide guidance in designing an such a program. Mr. McPherson testified that FLACS could have used the quality assurance programs of national accrediting agencies as a reference when designing its own program. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the "internal" quality assurance programs of national agencies are proprietary and not available to the public. Public information from JACHO and AAAASF relates to the ways that they monitor the quality assurance programs of the offices they inspect. For example, JACHO's manual discusses quality management issues for accredited practices, including standards, elements of participation, and the rationale that supports each. There is no evidence to show what internal steps the national agencies take to assure the quality of their programs apart from monitoring the programs of the accredited practices. Therefore, the Board could not have compared FLACS's "internal" quality assurance program and processes with the "internal" quality assurance programs and processes of the national accrediting agencies. During the hearing, the Board presented expert testimony about quality assurance programs in general. The expert testified that a generic quality assurance program for healthcare providers requires the following: (a) identification of positive outcomes that one desires; (b) identification of undesired negative outcomes based on the service and risk profile of the facility; (c) evaluation of accrued adverse incidents to identify trends; and (d) identification of ways to prevent future problems. The Board's quality assurance expert based his testimony on the standards published by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The description of a quality assurance program in the CMS document forms a skeleton for national accreditation programs such as the AAAASF, JACHO, and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC). The rule does not reference CMS, JACHO, AAAASF, or AAAHC as having established models for an "internal" mandatory quality assurance program that the Board would approve. FLACS's office quality improvement plan compares favorably to the one established by AAAASF in some respects. For instance FLACS requires its accredited physicians and offices to perform a random chart screen of five cases on a quarterly basis. AAAASF requires a minimum of six cases per surgeon utilizing a facility or two percent of all cases in a group practice every six months. AAAASF requires its clients to engage in a peer review process at least every six months. The review is done by a recognized peer review organization or a medical doctor other than the operating room surgeon. FLACS does not require peer review evaluations due to concerns that peer review documents would be subject to discovery in legal proceedings in Florida. Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(c)--Ongoing Anesthesia-related Accreditation and Quality Assurance Processes Involving the Active Participation of Anesthesiologists Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(c) requires an accrediting organization to have "ongoing anesthesia-related accreditation and quality assurance processes involving the active participation of anesthesiologists." The Board did not base its denial on FLACS's anesthesia-related accreditation standards and quality assurance processes required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(b). Instead, the denial is based upon the requirement for "active participation of anesthesiologists." The Board has no standards that describe or define the "active participation of anesthesiologists." There is no evidence that shows how the Board applied this requirement to FLACS's application. There are no forms or instructions to provide guidance for an applicant attempting to show the ongoing active participation of anesthesiologists. There is no evidence regarding the participation of anesthesiologists in ongoing anesthesia-related accreditation and quality assurance processes of national accreditation agencies. FLACS has an Anesthesia Review Committee, which is made up of three participating anesthesiologists, FLACS's inspectors, and FLACS's Executive Director. The committee meets quarterly to discuss current issues involving office surgery anesthesia, any anesthesia incidents involving FLACS's accreditees, new pharmacological agents available for outpatient anesthesia and, when available, additional information such as incident reports involving anesthesia mishaps of physicians who are not FLACS's accreditees. The Anesthesia Review Committee keeps written minutes. FLACS's Board of Directors reviews the minutes during regularly scheduled meeting. The Anesthesia Review Committee is responsible for updating FLACS's Anesthesis Parameters of Care on an annual basis. They also attend FLACS's educational meeting to update members on current practice in outpatient/office surgery anesthesia. The Board's quality assurance expert testified that he could not determine exactly how FLACS's anesthesiologists participated, i.e. what they did and how they came to conclusions. The expert could not say whether the participation of FLACS's anesthesiologists resembled the participation of anesthesiologists in the programs of national accreditation agencies. The expert acknowledged that for a relatively small number of physician's offices with a small number of anesthesia- related problems occurring within those offices, an evaluation of such problems on a quarterly basis might be quite adequate.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a medical doctor in Florida by examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, following which he did a rotating internship at Abington Memorial Hospital before reporting for active duty in the U.S. Navy. Upon release from active duty in the Navy in 1959 he entered a residency program in general surgery at Hospital of University of Pennsylvania followed by thoracic surgery which he completed in 1965. Petitioner was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1965 and by the Board of Thoracic Surgery in 1966. From 1965 to 1986 Petitioner was engaged in the practice of general, cardiac, thoracic and vascular surgery. In the latter part of this period, he headed a cardiothoracic surgery team at Lankenau Hospital, Philadelphia, which performed some 700-800 open-heart surgeries per year. It was during this period that most of the malpractice suits were filed against Petitioner, the hospital and other doctors on his team. As head of the surgical team Petitioner did the definitive surgery (bypass grafts) while other members of the team opened and closed the chest cavity. Petitioner is currently licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Arizona. At the time he first applied for licensure in Florida in 1988, he was licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Arizona. No licensing agency has brought any charges against Petitioner's license. Petitioner took and passed the FLEX examination in 1988 scoring 84 and 83 on the two parts of the exam. In the past twenty years, 19 malpractice suits have been filed against Petitioner. Of those suits 9, have been dismissed by Plaintiffs without any recovery from Petitioner, and two were settled on behalf of Petitioner, one in 1979 for $50,000 and one in 1989 for $25,000. Those settlements represented little more than nuisance value. The hospital defendant settled one case for $225,000 and another for $2,500. Of the remaining eight suits the complete medical records of those cases were reviewed by another cardiothoracic and vascular surgeon who opined that five are without merit. For the remaining three, additional evidence is needed to fairly appraise the merits of those suits. This additional information will not be available until discovery is completed. Petitioner's testimony, that these remaining three cases did not involve a failure on his part to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, corroborates the Affidavit of the risk manager (Exhibit 3) and letters in the file (Exhibit 1) stating those cases are deemed to be without merit and will be vigorously defended. All of these suits were brought in Pennsylvania where the backlog of civil cases is such that civil cases are not scheduled for trial until approximately seven years after the suit is filed. Furthermore, the complaints filed in these cases contain general allegations that the Respondent's negligence, inattention, failure to adequately apprise the plaintiff of possible complications of the surgery, along with the negligence of the hospital and others involved with the surgery, directly resulted in the plaintiff's death, injury, etc. These are catch- all allegations and the specific nature of the malpractice claim cannot be discerned from these pleadings. Cardiothoracic and vascular surgery is a high risk field of medicine in that the patients are frequently very sick and elderly. Accordingly, the success rate for this type surgery is lower than for most surgeries, and this leads to a higher incidence of suits alleging malpractice. Many of these earlier suits were brought before the doctors began paying attention to documenting that they fully explained the risks of the surgery to the patient and thereafter the patient gave informed consent to the operation. Petitioner has been more assiduous in this regard in recent years than he was several years ago. This practice will have the effect of reducing the incidence of malpractice suits against surgeons. It is noted that several of the suits alleged the plaintiffs were not adequately advised regarding the risks involved and, therefore, they did not give informed consent to the surgery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Horace MacVaugh III be granted a license to practice medicine in Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except: 8. Accepted only insofar as consistent with HO #5 and 6. 15. Rejected. No evidence was presented in this regard. Respondent's proposed findings are accepted except: 17. Second and third sentences rejected as not supported by any competent evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger Lutz, Esquire Robin Uricchio, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Allan Grossman, Esquire The Capitol, Suite 1602 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Florida Board of Medicine Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of deviating from the applicable standard of care, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and failing to keep adequate medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty the Board of Medicine should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0066606. Respondent has been board certified in plastic surgery since 1983 and is also board certified in hand surgery. Respondent has previously practiced in Kentucky. He relocated to Florida in 1994 to join a former physician colleague, Dr. Bolt, who had developed cancer and later died in early 1995. Respondent joined the Center for Cosmetic Surgery (Center), which Dr. Bolt had sold to two persons, including Jeff Davis. The record does not disclose whether Mr. Davis is a physician, but Respondent described him and the other principal/owner as felons. The Center held out Respondent as the medical director. This representation was obviously with Respondent’s knowledge and at least tacit consent. After Dr. Bolt’s death, Respondent recruited three more physicians for the Center, but none of them was board certified in plastic surgery. Mr. Davis served as the patient coordinator at the Center. The position of patient coordinator had significant marketing responsibilities. Typically, a prospective patient would contact the Center and schedule a free consultation. At the appointed time, the prospective patient would visit the Center and speak with a physician, such as Respondent. No physical examination would take place. During the discussion, the physician would make notes on a Physician’s Report, which the prospective patient would take to Mr. Davis, whose job was to sell the surgery. Using incentives such as free nose jobs, Mr. Davis was responsible for pricing surgical procedures and scheduling surgery, once the prospective patient agreed to have a Center physician perform the agreed-upon surgery. Mr. Davis was also responsible for collecting money from patients in payment for their surgery. Typically, one of Respondent’s patients would schedule surgery two to three months from the date of making the appointment. Before surgery, Respondent would see the patient before surgery for a physical examination and preoperative testing. Respondent determined what preoperative testing was necessary on a patient-by-patient basis. Following this visit, Respondent would dictate the findings from the physical examination and the treatment plan. A transcribing service was responsible for transcribing the dictation and filing it in the patient’s chart. In May or June of 1996, Respondent provided notice to the principals of the Center that he would be terminating his employment. He terminated his employment on November 1, 1996. After his departure, Respondent learned that Center employees had misinformed his patients as to Respondent’s nonavailability due to illness or surgery. It is unclear whether this situation existed before Respondent’s announced departure. Tensions developed between Respondent and the principals of the Center. Respondent determined that he could lawfully contact those patients still needing care, so he sent those patients an announcement that he was associating himself with the American Institute of Plastic Surgery. Litigation between Respondent and the Center principals followed, including a legal action by Respondent to obtain patient records. The litigation over the records concluded with the agreement by the Center to provide records as needed, but they have provided Respondent with incomplete records. A. S. first contacted the Center in June 1995 after seeing an advertisement on television. She chose the Center and two other facilities for plastic surgery that she was considering. At the time, A. S. was 48 years old. Wanting to improve her appearance, A. S. wanted a face lift and work on her lower eyelids. She had had her lower eyelids done in 1978 or 1979 and had had a “mini-lift” in 1984. A. S. met Respondent during her first visit to the Center. A. S. and Respondent spoke for 15-20 minutes. Respondent asked her what procedures she wanted done, and she said that she wanted a face lift and work on her lower eyelids. He showed her a copy of his resume and marked a picture of a face, as they discussed procedures. A. S. did not fill out any forms or questionnaires. Respondent did not explain much concerning the procedures that A. S. was contemplating. He mentioned that she would have a thin line, which would not be noticeable, under her eyes and told how long the stitches would remain in place. He did not discuss the possibility of scarring or other risks associated with the surgery. Following her visit with Respondent, A. S. saw Mr. Davis. They discussed costs and financing. Mr. Davis gave her an estimate of the cost of the surgery that she was considering. A. S. had already checked another plastic surgery center and, later on the same day that she visited the Center, she visited the third, and last, plastic surgery facility that she was considering. The next day, Mr. Davis called A. S. and asked if she had made a decision. Mr. Davis said that Respondent had told him that Respondent wanted to do A. S.’s nose, evidently for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Davis offered the nose work at no additional charge. Although Respondent had not offered to do A. S.’s nose for free or for a charge, he was aware that Mr. Davis would offer free additional work of this kind as an incentive to the patient to select the Center for the work that she was already considering. A. S. talked the matter over with her daughter. A. S. decided to have the surgery at the Center. She then informed Mr. Davis of her decision. Three to five days later, A. S. visited the Center to discuss payments with Mr. Davis because she did not have all of the money necessary for the surgery. During this visit, Mr. Davis suggested a brow lift. He said that Respondent was good at this procedure and would be working in this area anyway. At the end of this visit, a nurse gave A. S. some paperwork prohibiting her from smoking for two weeks before the surgery due to the anticipated bleeding. A. S. had smoked one pack of cigarettes a day since she had been a teenager. A. S. discussed the effect of smoking on the surgery with the nurse, but not with Respondent. As directed, she stopped smoking and never resumed smoking again. A. S. next visited the Center on June 26, 1995, for the surgery. No one performed a physical examination of A. S. On this date, Respondent performed a browlift, rhinoplasty, and facelift. After A. S. awoke from the general anesthesia, she did not receive any instructions from Respondent or staff regarding the care of her bandages, which extended across a large part of her face and top of her head. She was scheduled to return to the Center two days later. A. S.’s daughter drove her home. Once they got there, she noticed that her mother’s face seemed grey. A. S. told her to call Respondent. The daughter informed his answering service of her mother’s condition. She then waited one-half hour for Respondent or his staff to contact her. After hearing nothing, the daughter called the answering service again and waited another half-hour. After a third call and another half-hour wait, Respondent called A. S. and told her to cut the bandage under her neck. By cutting the bandages, A. S. revealed an open cut on her neck. When she returned for her followup visit two days later, A. S. asked Respondent about the cut, which extended along the right side of the neck below the ear. Respondent assured her that it would close up, which it did. When Respondent expressed concerns about her eyes and a dent in her nose, Respondent assured her that they would discuss these matters after the swelling went down. About one week later, Respondent returned to the Center for a second followup visit. During the second followup visit, Respondent removed the stitches. Now that some of the swelling had gone down, A. S. discovered that Respondent had not performed the surgery on her lower eyes. A. S. could not recall Respondent’s explanation for not performing this surgery. A. S. complained to Respondent that, since the surgery, her right eye had become smaller than her left eye, the right eyebrow had become lower than the left eyebrow, and the right side of her face from the eye down had become looser. Also, she complained about the extensive marks, scarring, loose skin, redness, and a dent under her chin; the dent in her nose and a misshapen right nostril; a swollen bump on her left cheek; a big chunk of skin gone from her hairline; and a gully on the left side of her face. Respondent assured her that he would fix these problems with revisions to the eyes and nose and the area under the neck. He did not offer any revisions to hair line, whose appearance worsened as the swelling reduced. Respondent later performed some relatively minor revisions to the right side of A. S.’s face at no cost to A. S. He reset the remaining revisions for a date in mid-December, 1995. Despite A. S.’s persistence at trying to obtain the additional revisions, Respondent failed to perform them. Repeatedly, Center employees canceled scheduled surgery dates, claiming that Respondent was ill or busy with unscheduled surgery. They rescheduled the December surgery to a date in mid- February, 1996. When she reported on this date, a Center employee took her to Mr. Davis, who informed her that the Center had lost money on her surgery and would not perform revision surgery until she paid additional money. They rescheduled her surgery for a date in late March. When A. S. reported on the date for her surgery in March, Mr. Davis told her that they would not do the revision surgery until she paid another $300. A. S. charged this sum on her credit card, so they would do the surgery. Mr. Davis told her that Respondent was too busy, and he rescheduled the surgery for April 8. On April 8, when A. S. reported for surgery, a Center employee sedated A. S., but, after A. S. waited a couple of hours, another Center employee informing her that the surgery could not take place either because Respondent was not coming into work that day or he was in emergency surgery. When A. S. called from home later that day to reschedule the surgery, a Center employee told her that Respondent was in surgery. The employee advised A. S. to call the Center each morning to see if Respondent had any cancellations. A. S. did as advised, but the Center was never able to accommodate her. Subsequently, A. S. sent Respondent two or three letters and left telephone messages for him to contact her on at least ten occasions. Realizing that Respondent and the Center would not perform the revision surgery, A. S. went to another plastic surgery facility in 1998 for work on her right nostril and under her neck. A surgeon repaired the nostril, but, due to financial constraints, could not do all of the work required to repair the damage under A. S.’s neck, which would require about $4000 in surgery. In the meantime, Respondent sent A. S. a card announcing the relocation of his practice to the American Institute for Cosmetic Surgery. A. S. wrote Respondent a letter at his new address, but Respondent never responded. A. S. never sued Respondent. All she wanted was that he perform the revisions that she could not afford to purchase elsewhere so as to reduce or, if possible, eliminate the deformities that Respondent caused surgically. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in several ways. First, preoperatively, his evaluation of A. S. was scanty. He did not take an ample history, and he did not adequately evaluate her medical status. He did not prepare a surgical plan with a description of all risks and a discussion of these details with the patient. Perhaps most importantly, Respondent never performed a physical examination of A. S. before surgery. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care operatively. The results in this case are so substandard in number and degree as to preclude assigning the outcomes to bad luck, as opposed to a hurried, careless surgery. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care postoperatively. He did not adequately the many problems that he caused. Perhaps most obviously, he failed to adequately treat the open wound in the neck, and he failed to form a plan to address the many revisions necessitated by his careless surgery. The Board of Medicine has previously disciplined Respondent for, among other things, his deviation from the applicable standard of care in treating three plastic surgery patients whose surgery he performed in 1995-96 and 1998.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in his treatment of A. S. and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Bin C03 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim M. Kluck Carol Gregg Senior Attorneys Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jerry C. Lingle 1419 Northeast 16th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Findings Of Fact Manatee Eye Clinic owns land adjacent to its existing offices and in close proximity to Manatee Memorial Hospital, on which it proposes to construct a freestanding ambulatory surgery center for ophthalmic surgery. On December 13, 1983, Manatee Eye Clinic filed an application for a certificate of need with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for approval of a capital expenditure in the amount of $627,640 for construction of a freestanding ambulatory surgery center for ophthalmic surgery. On April 27, 1984, Petitioner received written notice that the Department had denied the application. Manatee Eye Clinic consists of five practicing ophthalmologists in Manatee County, each of whom are [sic] duly licensed and provide quality ophthalmic care in the area. Manatee Eye Clinic, and the members thereof, have available sufficient resources, including health manpower, management personnel, as well as funds for the capital and operating expenditures for the project. Petitioner's proposed medical facility would be constructed in a sufficiently cost-effective manner and makes adequate provision for conservation of energy resources and incorporates efficient and effective methods of construction. Should this certificate of need be granted, Manatee Eye Clinic will accept Medicaid, Medicare, third-party pay, private pay, and charity care. The relevant service area for the proposed facility is Manatee County. The five ophthalmologists at MEC perform approximately 1,200 eye surgeries per year involving cataract removal and lens implant. At present all of these surgeries are performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital. The founder of MEC, Dr. Robert E. King, has twice served as chief of surgery at Manatee Memorial. He is presently a director on the board of directors of the company that recently purchased Manatee Memorial Hospital and removed it from its former status of a not-for-profit hospital to its current status as a for-profit hospital. If this application is granted, Manatee Memorial Hospital will lose all of these patients. Cataract eye surgery, as it is performed today, is ideally performed in an outpatient surgery setting. The five ophthalmologists currently perform an additional 600 outpatient surgical procedures per year in the existing clinic. These procedures would be performed in the freestanding surgery facility if this application is approved. Manatee Memorial Hospital is located one city block from MEC. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital, some seven miles from MEC, has five operating rooms available for outpatient surgery but is not currently used by any of the doctors at MEC. Additionally, Ambulatory Surgical Center/Bradenton was licensed in December, 1982. This facility has not been used by MEC doctors. During the latest reporting period, 1983/1984, Manatee County and the Ambulatory Surgery Center performed the following procedures; Hospital Inpatient Outpatient Total L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital 8,800 2,752 11,552 Manatee Memorial Hospital 6,766 1,654 8,420 Ambulatory Surgery Center -- 1,525 1,525 TOTALS 15,566 5,931 21,497 (Exhibit 19) There is no shortage of operating rooms in Manatee County available for outpatient surgery. Petitioner's primary argument against using the operating rooms at Manatee Memorial Hospital are: operating room nurses are rotated and this results in nurses not being as well qualified as they would be if their duties were limited to ophthalmic surgery; eye surgery is generally elective and such surgery may be bumped from a scheduled operation by emergency general surgery; the patients are generally older than 65 and are less comfortable in hospital surroundings than they would be at an outpatient surgical facility; access to the ambulatory surgical center would be easier for these elderly patients than is access to the existing hospitals for the same outpatient surgery; the hospital charges for the outpatient surgery are approximately twice the charges proposed by Petitioner; and Medicare will pay 100 percent of the charges in a freestanding surgical facility (up to a maximum) but only pays 80 percent in a hospital setting, thereby making the use of a freestanding facility cheaper for the patient and for Medicare. MEC doctors currently use their own scrub nurses during eye surgeries performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital leaving only the circulating nurse to be provided by the hospital. No incident was cited wherein one of Petitioner's patients was "bumped" from a scheduled operation. The complication rate for cataract surgery has dropped from 10 percent to 0.1 percent in recent years as surgical procedures have improved. As proposed, the partnership owning MEC will erect and own the surgery center, will lease the equipment, most of which is presently owned by MEC, to the Petitioner; and the rent for the building will be a fixed amount per month plus 50 percent of the net operating profits of Petitioner. Proposed charges by the freestanding surgery center will be $904 per patient (for cataract removal and lens implant) This does not include the surgeon's fee. There are no methodology rules to determine need for a freestanding outpatient surgery facility. DHRS has consistently determined need for ambulatory surgery centers by taking the most recent number of surgical procedures performed in all inpatient and outpatient facilities in the county and dividing it by the county's base population for the latest year, here 1983. This gives the rate of surgeries per 1,000 population for the latest year for which statistics are available and is projected forward to the second year of operation (here 1987). The same is done for outpatient surgeries. DHRS uses the figure of 29 as the percentage of surgeries that can be performed in an outpatient setting to determine the need for outpatient surgery facilities in 1987. From this is subtracted the number expected to be performed in existing hospital and freestanding outpatient facilities to determine net need through 1987 for freestanding outpatient facilities. Applying this procedure, to which Petitioner generally concurs, except for the 29 percent factor, the following need is shown. The 1983 population of Manatee County is 162,997. 21,497 surgeries performed in 1983 x 1000 4 162,997 131.9 surgeries per 1000 population. The 1987 projected population of Manatee County is 182, 120. Multiplying this population by 131.9 per 1000 equals 24,061 surgeries expected to be performed in Manatee County in 1987. HRS estimates that 29 percent of these surgeries could be performed in an outpatient setting in 1987. Multiplying 24,051 by .29 equals 6,978 outpatient procedures possible. In 1983 there were 4,406 outpatient surgeries performed in a hospital setting in Manatee for a rate per thousand of 27. Multiplying this rate by the projected population for 1987 yields 4,931 outpatient surgeries that can be performed in a hospital setting in 1987. Subtracting from this number the projected outpatient surgeries to be performed in a hospital setting in 1987 (6,978 - 4,931) shows 2,047 to be performed in a freestanding facility. Ambulatory Surgery Center performed 1,525 procedures from June, 1983, to May, 1984. When this is projected to 1987, Ambulatory Surgery Center is expected to perform 1,715 surgical procedures. Substracting this from 2,047 leaves 332 procedures as a net need through 1987. This is below the pro forma break-even point of Petitioner and indicates the project is not financially possible. The 29 percent factor was obtained from American Hospital Association report of 1981. In 1981, 18 percent of the total surgeries were done on an outpatient basis while it was estimated that 20 to 40 percent of all surgeries could be performed on an outpatient basis. DHRS averaged the 18 percent and the maximum of 40 percent to arrive a mean of 29 percent to project need for outpatient surgery facilities. The latest figures from the American Hospital Association report is for 1982 and this shows the latest percentage of surgeries performed on an outpatient basis to be 20.8 percent. If this figure is averaged with 40 percent, the mean would rise to 30.4 percent. This is the percentage Petitioner contends should be used. Using this figure, the outpatient surgeries possible in 1987 would rise to 7,315 and a need for 669 procedures would exist in 1987. This would meet the higher break-even number presented by Respondent of 556 procedures for the second year of operation. It is noted that the experts' estimated surgical procedures that could be performed in an outpatient setting varied from 20 to 40 percent. In arriving at the 29 percent used DHRS averaged the latest actual percentages available in 1981 with 40 percent to obtain an arbitrary figure of 29 percent to use in calculating need for outpatient facilities. It is further noted that between June of 1983 and May Of 1984 Manatee Memorial Hospital performed 1,654 outpatient surgery procedures and 6,766 inpatient surgery procedures (Exhibit 14) and Blake Memorial Hospital performed 2,752 outpatient surgery procedures and 8,800 inpatient surgery procedures (Exhibit 15). Accordingly, 23.8 percent of Blake's surgery procedures are done as outpatient surgery and 19.6 percent of the surgeries performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital are done as outpatient surgeries. If the 1,200 outpatient surgeries per year performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital by MEC had been removed during this period, the percentage of outpatient surgery would have been reduced to 6.3 percent for Manatee Memorial Hospital. No evidence was presented regarding the number of ophthalmic surgeries that were performed at Blake Memorial Hospital during this period. Regardless of the potential loss of outpatient surgery cases at Blake if this application is granted, the percentage of outpatient surgeries performed in a hospital setting in Manatee County is, according to the latest data available, 22.1 percent (combining Blake and Manatee Memorial). Using 29 percent of the total surgeries projected for 1987 in Manatee County to obtain an estimate of the outpatient surgery that can be expected to be performed in a hospital setting in 1987 results in a much higher figure than the current growth rate in outpatient surgeries would suggest. Accordingly, I find a 29 percent factor more credible than a higher percentage would be in forecasting need for outpatient surgical facilities in 1987. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that most ophthalmic surgery today is performed in an outpatient setting. This was not true only a few years ago. Accordingly, there can be little additional growth resulting from ophthalmic surgery procedures going from inpatient to outpatient procedures. As a consequence, future growth in outpatient surgery must come from other surgical procedures.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care in the practice of medicine by inserting the wrong intraocular lens during cataract surgery, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, or failed to maintain adequate medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0030598. Respondent graduated from medical school in 1976 and completed a three-year residency in ophthalmology in 1980. Board-certified in ophthalmology since 1981, Respondent is the medical director of the Treasure Coast Center for Surgery in Stuart (Surgery Center). The Surgery Center is an ambulatory surgery center licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Since 1980, Respondent has performed over 20,000 surgeries, including over 10,000 cataract surgeries. In that time, he has never previously misidentified a patient, operated on the wrong site, or inserted the wrong lens. This case involves a wrong lens that Respondent inserted into an 80-year-old patient on October 17, 2000. A local optometrist had referred the patient to Respondent for evaluation of cataracts in both eyes. Respondent performed successful cataract surgery on the patient's right eye on August 22, 2000. A cataract is a partial or complete opacification, or clouding, of a natural lens or its capsule. Typically associated with aging, the cataract is a major cause of a slow loss of vision, making it more difficult for the patient to read or drive, especially at night with the glare of lights. Twenty years ago, conventional cataract surgery comprised an intracapsular cataract extraction with the lens implant placed in the front of the eye. In the last 20 years, the predominant mode of cataract surgery comprises an extracapsular cataract surgery or phacoemulsification with the lens implant placed behind the iris of the eye. In the phacoemulsification process, the surgeon, using a smaller incision than that used in the older procedure, dissolves the cataract-involved natural lens using ultrasound and removes the cataract in smaller pieces than the single-piece removal characteristic of the intracapsular extraction process. The patient was scheduled for phacoemulsification of the cataract-involved lens in her left eye at the Surgery Center as the first patient of the day on October 17, 2000. Respondent handled her case as he handles all of the other cases. Prior to the surgery, Respondent reviews the patient's office chart and brings it, together with the office charts of the other patients scheduled for surgery that day, from his office to the Surgery Center. At the Surgery Center, Respondent delivers the office charts to circulating nurses, who remove each chart, read it to determine the lens to be implanted, find the lens specified in the chart for implantation, and insert the packaged lens into the chart. A nurse then stacks the office charts in a stand in the order of the patients' surgeries scheduled for the day. From the patient's perspective, she is greeted by a receptionist upon arrival. The receptionist pulls the already- prepared materials, including an identification bracelet or armband, and has the patient sign the necessary paperwork. At this point, an admission nurse takes the patient to the preoperative area where the patient lies down on a gurney. The nurse identifies the patient and confirms the eye to be operated on and the procedure to be performed. After verifying this information, the nurse places the identification bracelet on the patient's wrist. In cases such as this, in which an anaesthesiologist administers the anaesthesia, the anaesthesiologist meets with the patient to confirm the identity of the patient, the eye to be operated on, and the procedure to be performed. The Surgery Center's policy requires: "the attending physician and/or anesthesiologist, along with the responsible nurse, will review the patient's medical record, the armband and the Surgery Schedule to confirm the correct operative site. The operative site will also be confirmed by the patient or parent/guardian." The cited language, as well as the surrounding context, reveals a policy to ensure that the correct site--here, left eye--is the subject of the actual surgical procedure; nothing in the policy explicitly requires anyone to match the correct lens with the patient. After completion of the preoperative procedure, the circulating nurse takes the patient from pre-op. Among the nurse's other duties is to check the patient's bracelet against the office chart and to ask the patient if she is the person named on the office chart and bracelet. Accompanying the patient into the operating room are the office chart and Surgery Center chart. Once in the operating room, the circulating nurse places the office chart on a side table used by the scrub nurse and the Surgery Center chart with the anaesthesia equipment. Transferred into the operating room, the patient is scrubbed by a scrub nurse, who drapes the patient from just below her knees to above her head with a gown that opens only at the site of the eye to be operated on. The purpose of the gown is to maintain a sterile field, so no one can lift the gown in the operating room, such as to identify the patient by face or bracelet with the name on the chart, without exposing the patient to a risk of infection. When Respondent enters the operating room, he is already scrubbed and wearing gloves. A stand holds the patient's office chart with the packaged lens implant at the side table. Respondent checks the power of the lens, as disclosed on the package, against the power specified on the office chart. In this case, the two powers matched, as the office chart and the lens implant were for another patient. To maintain sterility, Respondent cannot touch a chart while he is in the operating room; if the necessity arises, a nurse may touch the chart. Before proceeding with surgery, Respondent reads the name of the patient on the office chart. Respondent does not verify that the names on the bracelet and either of the charts are the same. Nor does Respondent confirm with the circulating nurse that she has done so. To check the identity of the patient, Respondent says, "Good morning, Ms. . I'd like you to put your chin up for me." However, patients often have fallen asleep from the three preoperative sedatives that they have already received. Respondent conceded that the patient in this case may not have been alert when he addressed her by name. For whatever reason-- reduced consciousness, unconsciousness, nervousness, or inability of the patient to hear Respondent or Respondent (or others) to hear the patient--the patient in this case did not effectively communicate to Respondent that she was not the patient whose name he stated. Respondent proceeded with the surgery and implanted the wrong lens into the patient's left eye. Respondent had specified a lens with a 21.5 diopter refractive power and implanted a lens with a 20.5 diopter refractive power. The circulating nurse discovered the error when she went to get the next patient and found the office chart of the patient on whom Respondent had just completed surgery. The next day, when the patient visited Respondent at his office for a routine post-operative examination, Respondent informed her that he had placed the wrong lens in her eye and recommended that he recheck her vision in a few days and then decide whether to perform a corrective procedure. Three days after the initial surgery, Respondent found an increased degree of anisometropia, which is the difference in refraction between the two eyes. At this time, the patient complained to Respondent about imbalance. Respondent advised corrective surgery, and, on October 26, Respondent performed surgery to replace the implanted lens with another lens. Although the initial surgery was sutureless, the corrective surgery required sutures. The corrective surgery was generally successful, although two and one-half months later, the patient was complaining that her left eye was sore to the touch--a complaint that she had not made following the initial surgery to the left eye. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's medical records are deficient in two respects: inaccurately describing the treatment and failing to justify the corrective surgery. Respondent dictates his operative reports prior to surgery, even though they bear the date of the surgery--here, October 17, 2000. To accommodate contingencies, Respondent dictates three conditional notes, one of which itself contains two alternatives. As found in the patient's operative report, these conditional notes state: The corneoscleral wound was enlarged, if necessary. * * * If necessary, an interrupted suture was placed for pre-existing against-the-rule astigmatism or to help maintain the water- tightness of the wound. If a suture was placed, the wound was retested to be water- tight. Although Respondent's pre-dictated operative notes for the patient are detailed, they omit a salient element of her surgery--that Respondent inserted a lens of the wrong power. Respondent did not try to conceal this fact. To the contrary, as soon as the nurse informed him of her error, he directed her to attach the sticky label on the lens package, which records the power of the lens, to the patient's chart. He also directed her to prepare an incident report, which prompted Petitioner's investigation. The expert testimony in this case was conflicting. Respondent's expert witness was originally contacted by Petitioner and asked for an opinion on the standard-of-care and medical-records issues described above. The witness opined that Respondent met the applicable standard of care and the medical records justified the course of treatment. Respondent then retained this physician as his expert witness. Respondent's expert witness opined that an ophthalmologic surgeon necessarily must rely to a "large extent" on staff for a "certain amount of identification" before the patient is transferred into the operating room. Respondent's expert witness did not explain in detail the qualifications inherent in these statements. Finding an error by the Surgery Center in the insertion of the wrong lens, Respondent's expert witness admitted that Respondent had some control over the circulating nurse, but stated that the nurse administrator basically directs the nurses. Expressing no problem with the conditional notes, Respondent's expert witness testified that it is not unusual for a surgeon to predictate an operative report and then change it if something unusual happens. Petitioner retained another expert witness to replace the expert witness who became Respondent's witness. Petitioner's expert witness opined that Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care and the medical records did not justify the course of treatment. Petitioner's expert witness opined that it was never within the applicable standard of care to insert the wrong lens and admitted that he was unaware of the procedures of the Surgery Center and Respondent to avoid this occurrence. Petitioner's expert witness explained that the surgeon is the captain of the ship and ultimately bears the responsibility for the insertion of the wrong lens. Petitioner's expert witness also opined that all pre- dictated operative notes were not "the standard of care" and likewise criticized the conditional notes. Petitioner's expert witness admitted that nothing included in or omitted from the operative notes would adversely affect the future management of the patient's medical care. Respondent's proposed recommended order identifies various deficiencies in the testimony of Petitioner's expert witness, although Respondent's assertion that the expert relied on a not-yet-effective strict-liability statute is not accurate. Most of these deficiencies pertain to the earlier allegations that Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care in performing cataract surgery on an 80-year-old patient and in performing the corrective surgery. Citing the recent case of Gross v. Department of Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(Orfinger, J., concurring), Petitioner's proposed recommended order invites the Administrative Law Judge to be guided by common sense in assessing the standard-of-care issue. This invitation may arise from a well-placed concern with the means by which Petitioner's expert reached his conclusion that Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care. Petitioner's expert witness has opined that the insertion of the wrong lens violates the applicable standard of care, without regard to the safeguards or precautions that a physician may employ to avoid this mishap. In finding a deviation from the applicable standard of care, the Administrative Law Judge relies on inferences and logic not explicitly identified by Petitioner's expert witness. In addressing the standard-of-care issue, Respondent's expert witness adopted the proper approach, which features a close analysis of the facts to determine the reasonableness of the surgeon's acts and omissions. Under that approach, however, the record establishes that Respondent failed to take all reasonable precautions necessary to prevent this mistake. Although the likelihood of the insertion of the wrong lens seems low, based on Respondent's experience, the burden of additional, effective safeguards would be minor. Both parties focused on the location of the bracelet relative to the length of the protective gown. However, an anklet would be in plain view in the operating room because the gown would not extend that far below the patient's knees. Even if the patient identification remains on a wrist bracelet, the surgeon himself could check the patient's name on the bracelet with the name on the office chart just prior to the surgeon and patient entering the operating room. Either practice would add a few seconds to the overall process and would prevent this type of error. On the other hand, the categoric rejection of Respondent's records by Petitioner's expert witness is correct. The date of the operative record is incorrect; it was not dictated on October 17, 2000, but on an earlier date. The three conditions and one alternative present a confused operative history. The operative record fails to indicate if there was a corneoscleral wound; if there was an interrupted suture; if so, if the suture was for a pre-existing astigmatism or for wound protection; and if there was a suture placed at all. With these conditions and alternative, the operative report fails to memorialize accurately material elements of the surgery. Additionally, the operative report omits an indisputably material element of the surgery--the insertion of the wrong lens. Respondent recorded this fact in an office note a few days later, but never amended his predictated operative report to reflect this important fact. Lastly, the justification for the corrective surgery ultimately was the patient's complaint of imbalance, not the difference in refractive power between the lens implanted and the lens specified. Respondent nowhere recorded any such complaint in any records. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care in inserting the wrong lens and failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of treatment with respect to the deficiencies noted in the operative record and post-operative records preceding the corrective surgery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $10,000, and remanding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for findings concerning costs, pursuant to Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes, if the parties cannot agree as to an amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Bruce A. Campbell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brian A. Newman Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell, & Dunbar, P. A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed July 7, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See § 455.225, Fla. Stat. (2006). The Board is the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. See § 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). Dr. Edison is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 44240. Dr. Edison received his medical degree from the University of Massachusetts; did his residency in general surgery at the Kaiser Foundation in Los Angeles, California; and did a residency in plastic surgery, with specialties in reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery. Dr. Edison is certified in plastic surgery by the American Board of Plastic Surgery and is a lifetime diplomate of that Board. Dr. Edison was also certified in Advanced Cardiac Life Support ("ACLS") at the times material to this proceeding. Dr. Edison has been practicing plastic surgery in Florida for 22 years. Prior to the time material to this proceeding, Dr. Edison performed approximately 150-to-200 breast augmentation surgeries each year and approximately 100-to-150 liposuction procedures each year. Dr. Edison practices at the Cosmetic Surgery Center, which is an office that contains two operating rooms, a recovery room, and an overnight recovery facility that is staffed by an ACLS-certified nurse for patients who undergo procedures such as stomach tucks or facelifts. Dr. Edison's surgical practice is limited to Level II office surgery, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009, Standard of Care for Office Surgery, in pertinent part as follows: Level II Office Surgery. Scope Level II Office Surgery is that in which peri-operative medication and sedation are used intravenously, intramuscularly, or rectally, this making intra and post- operative monitoring necessary. . . . Level II Office Surgery includes any surgery in which the patient is placed in a state which allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining adequate cardiorespiratory function and the ability to respond purposefully to verbal command and/or tactile stimulation. Patients whose only response is reflex withdrawal from a painful stimulus are sedated to a greater degree than encompassed by this definition. Standards for Level II Office Surgery. * * * 4. Assistance of Other Personnel Required. The surgeon must be assisted by a qualified anesthesia provider as follows: An Anesthesiologist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, or Physician Assistant qualified as set forth in subparagraph 64B8- 30.012(2)(b)6., F.A.C., or a registered nurse may be utilized to assist with the anesthesia, if the surgeon is ACLS certified. An assisting anesthesia provider cannot function in any other capacity during the procedure. If additional assistance is required by the specific procedure or patient circumstances, such assistance must be provided by a physician, osteopathic physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or operating room technician. . . . The level of pain and anxiety management achieved under Level II sedation is determined by the type of drugs administered and the dosages in which they are administered. Dr. Edison was ACLS certified and was, therefore, authorized to use the services of a registered nurse to administer the drugs that bring patients to Level II sedation. He does not use the services of an anesthesiologist or of a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist in his surgical facility. Patient P.L. P.L. first consulted with Dr. Edison on July 5, 2005. P.L. filled out a portion of a Patient Information form, and Dr. Edison took a general medical history from P.L., but he did not weigh P.L. during this initial visit, and the Patient Information form does not include her blood pressure, height, or weight. Dr. Edison found P.L. to be a healthy 29-year-old female, the mother of three children, who had no known allergy or adverse reaction to any medication. P.L. wanted breast implants, and, upon examination, Dr. Edison found that P.L. would be a good candidate, anatomically, for the surgery. Dr. Edison spent the majority of time during this initial consultation talking with P.L. and her husband, A.A., about the various breast implant options. He also discussed with them the risks and possible complications of the surgery. After her visit to Dr. Edison's office on July 5, 2005, P.L. notified Dr. Edison's office that she had decided to have the surgery. Dr. Edison had a cancellation on July 7, 2005, and P.L. was scheduled for surgery for 8:00 a.m. on that date. P.L. returned to Dr. Edison's office on July 6, 2005, for a pre-operative examination. At that time, Dr. Edison did an examination during which he checked P.L.'s heart, lungs, blood pressure, and pulse rate, and he noted the results in his examination notes dated July 6, 2005. He found nothing abnormal and concluded that P.L. was a 29-year-old patient in perfect health, with no known allergy or adverse reaction to any medication. Dr. Edison also had blood drawn during the July 6, 2005, office visit, which was sent to a laboratory for testing. The laboratory report was completed at 8:21 a.m. on July 7, 2005, and showed nothing abnormal. P.L. presented herself at Dr. Edison's office on July 7, 2005, at approximately 8:00 a.m. She was examined by Dr. Edison at 8:10 a.m., and he stated in his office notes that she had decided on the 300 cubic centimeter implant. There were no notations of her vital signs in his office notes. Dr. Edison intended for P.L.'s breast augmentation surgery to be Level II office surgery, and he noted this on P.L.'s Immediate Pre-Op Evaluation, which he completed on July 7, 2005. He also decided to use the transaxillary technique, making incisions under the arms through which to insert the implants under the muscle in P.L.'s chest. Dr. Edison was assisted during surgery by Michelle Hoff, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, who administered the sedatives and other drugs to P.L. under Dr. Edison's direction. Dr. Edison was also assisted by Liliana Gabor, a surgical technician. Ms. Hoff is not a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, nor has she received any formal training in administering sedative drugs or anesthesia. She has a significant amount of experience administering drugs for pain and anxiety management. Her experience administering drugs to achieve Level II sedation consists of an externship with Dr. Edison while working on her master's degree in nursing and extensive on-the-job training while working in the operating room with Dr. Edison, which she has done every day since beginning to work with Dr. Edison full-time in November 2003. At some point immediately prior to surgery, Dr. Edison asked P.L. her weight, which she reported as 95 pounds, or 43 kilograms, on the morning of surgery. Dr. Edison needed to know P.L.'s weight in order to calculate the correct dosage of the drugs she would be given, and he wrote "95 lbs" on the outside of P.L.'s folder. Dr. Edison noted P.L.'s weight on the outside of the folder so it would be plainly visible to Ms. Hoff when she had the chart on the anesthesia stand.4 Dr. Edison did not enter P.L.'s weight in his examination notes, and the only other mention of P.L.'s weight in the medical records maintained by Dr. Edison is the notation "<100 lbs" on a sheet containing the contact numbers for P.L. and for her husband, who would be picking her up after surgery. At approximately 8:20 a.m. on July 7, 2005, P.L. walked to the operating room. Working under Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff hooked P.L. up to various monitoring devices, so that her heart, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation level could be monitored during surgery. Her vital signs were noted on the anesthesia chart by Ms. Hoff; at 8:20 a.m., P.L.'s heart rate was approximately 104. At 8:20 a.m., Ms. Hoff began to administer drugs to P.L. to achieve Level II sedation in accordance with directions from Dr. Edison; she documented the name of the drugs she administered, together with the time and dosage administered; she monitored and documented P.L.'s vital signs, including heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation level; and she maintained anesthesia notes. At 8:20 a.m., Ms. Hoff administered two milligrams of Valium; one gram of Ancef, and 0.2 milligrams of Robinol at Dr. Edison's direction. At 8:25 a.m., she administered 10 milligrams of Ketamine and 10 milligrams of Talwin and started the administration of Diprivan by microdrip at the rate of approximately 25 micrograms per kilogram of weight per minute. Ms. Hoff's notes do not indicate the manner in which she administered the Diprivan, nor the dosage or rate of administration. Ms. Hoff also administered nitrous oxide and oxygen at 8:25 a.m., and she noted that Dr. Edison also began administering local anesthetic by injection at 8:25 a.m. Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. was responding to verbal stimuli. Ms. Hoff was not involved with the preparation or administration of local anesthetic to P.L. Dr. Edison prepared a dilute solution of 70 cubic centimeters of 1% Lidocaine with epinephrine with 350 cubic centimeters of saline solution and 10 cubic centimeters of 1/2% marcaine. At approximately 8:25 a.m., Dr. Edison began injecting the Lidocaine solution, which totaled approximately 700 milligrams or approximately 14 milligrams of Lidocaine per kilogram of P.L.'s body weight and 50 milligrams of marcaine, into the tissue surrounding P.L.'s breasts. At 8:30 a.m., Ms. Hoff, at Dr. Edison's direction, administered another 10 milligrams of Talwin. At 8:35 a.m., P.L.'s heart rate was 112 beats per minute and her blood pressure was 142/102. At Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff administered 1/4 cubic centimeter of Labetalol to help control P.L.'s blood pressure. Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. tolerated the Labetalol well and was responsive to verbal stimuli. At 8:45 a.m., Ms. Hoff noticed a brief facial twitch on P.L.'s face, which is an indication of a possible seizure. At Dr. Edison's direction, she immediately stopped administering all sedatives, and the surgery was cancelled. At Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff administered 2.5 milligrams of Valium to keep P.L. sedated and to help control the seizure, together with three liters of oxygen by mask. At 8:55 a.m., Ms. Hoff administered another 2.5 milligrams of Valium at Dr. Edison's direction,5 and she noted that P.L.'s status was unchanged, by which Ms. Hoff meant that P.L.'s airway, breathing, and circulation were maintained, that her vital signs were stable, and that she remained responsive to verbal stimuli. Between 8:55 a.m. and 9:15 a.m., P.L.'s status was unchanged. According to Ms. Hoff's notes, P.L.'s airway, breathing, circulation, and vital signs were maintained at normal levels, and she responded well to the Valium and oxygen. Ms. Hoff observed during this time that P.L. was lethargic and appeared to be a little more deeply sedated than typical Level II sedation. P.L. continued breathing on her own and responding to verbal stimuli. During this interval, Dr. Edison was waiting for P.L. to come out of sedation, and he intended to send her home and recommend that she see her doctor about the twitch. Ms. Hoff noticed a second facial twitch between 9:15 a.m. and 9:20 a.m., and Dr. Edison directed Ms. Hoff to call Emergency Medical Services to transport P.L. to the hospital. Ms. Hoff continued to monitor P.L.'s airway, breathing, circulation and vital signs until the Emergency Medical Services team arrived at 9:30 a.m. During this time, Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. responded to verbal stimuli by moving her head a little bit and attempting to open her eyes. P.L.'s oxygen saturation rate was consistently maintained at 99% to 100% between 8:20 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., when Emergency Medical Services arrived. During this time, P.L. was breathing independently and did not need any assistance with her airway. Emergency Medical Services received the call from Dr. Edison's office at 9:21 a.m. and arrived at 9:26 a.m. At that time, P.L. was receiving oxygen, her airway was normal, and her perfusion was good. Her blood pressure was 102/68, her pulse was strong and regular at 120 beats per minute, her respiratory rate was 20, her respiratory effort was normal, and her breath sounds were clear. She was, however, non-responsive: She was not able to open her eyes, she had no motor response, and she was not able to give a verbal response. She appeared to be having seizure activity in the form of twitching on both sides of the jaw line. P.L. was transported to Memorial Regional Hospital at 9:31 a.m., and she arrived at the hospital at 9:36 a.m. A notation on the EMS Report for the incident states that a "[l]ist of sedation medication [was] given to ER staff." Dr. Todd Gardner was the emergency room physician who treated P.L. on her arrival at Memorial Regional Hospital. His diagnosis on admission was status epilepticus and hypoxia. Status epilepticus is seizures that are unrelenting to normal therapeutic intervention, and hypoxia is low oxygen level. Dr. Gardner did not attribute a cause to the status epilepticus. Dr. Gardner's intake notes reflect that, prior to presenting at the emergency room, P.L. had received Ketamine, Labetalol to lower her blood pressure, and Valium to relieve the seizures. Nothing on the intake sheet indicates that P.L. had received Lidocaine, and there is no list of the medications given by Dr. Edison in the hospital file. Dr. Gardner intubated P.L. at 10:02 a.m. and placed her on a ventilator in the emergency room because she was unable to breathe on her own. He also treated her with Valium, Dilantin, and Diprivan, which is used to sedate patients in the intensive care unit. Dr. Robert Alterbaum, an internist specializing in pulmonary medicine and critical care, provided care to P.L. in the intensive care unit of Memorial Regional Hospital. P.L.'s chest X-ray was abnormal and showed pneumonitis, or an inflammation of the lungs, caused by fluid being aspirated into the lungs. Based on the emergency room chart, Dr. Alterbaum diagnosed P.L. with status epilepticus, or seizures, related to the administration of Ketamine during the pre-operative procedure for breast augmentation surgery. There was no objective medical evidence to support Dr. Alterbaum's conclusion that Ketamine was the cause of the seizures; he reached this conclusion because Ketamine was the only medication noted on the chart as having been administered to P.L. Dr. Alterbaum was not aware that P.L. had also received Lidocaine; had he been aware of this, it might have been information he would have considered in reaching his conclusion regarding the cause of P.L.'s seizures.6 P.L. was discharged from Memorial Regional Hospital on July 12, 2005. She had difficulty walking at first, but has fully recovered except that she sometimes experiences a little memory loss. Drugs administered to P.L. Valium Valium is a benzodiazopene used to control anxiety, and the standard dosage ranges from two to 20 milligrams for conscious sedation. Valium is a controlled substance. Ancef Ancef is an antibiotic. Ketamine Ketamine is a disassociative non-barbiturate analgesic used for sedation and general anesthesia; the maximum dosage is 4.5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. Ketamine causes a large amount of secretions, and its effects last only five to 10 minutes. Ketamine is a controlled substance. Robinol Robinol is an anticholinergic medication used to prevent bradycardia, a heart rate of less than 60 beats per minute, and to help dry out secretions in mucous membranes. Robinol is contraindicated for a patient with tachycardia, or a heart rate of more than 100 beats per minute, however, because it could make the patient's heart rate increase. In a healthy 29 year-old patient such as P.L., however, it was not a violation of the standard of care to administer 0.2 milligrams of Robinol to P.L. even though her heart rate was 104 beats per minute at the time it was administered; a healthy 29-year-old patient could easily sustain a heart rate of 140 beats per minute without ill effects. Dr. Edison administered Robinol to P.L. as a drying agent, to control secretions brought on by the use of Ketamine. Although other drugs can be used to control these secretions, Robinol is the best drug for this purpose and the one most commonly used. Dr. Edison had ample justification for using Robinol under the circumstances, and he did not violate the standard of care by ordering Ms. Hoff to administer the drug even though P.L.'s heart rate slightly exceeded 100 beats per minute. Talwin Talwin is an opiate analgesic that is used to control pain, and the standard dosage is 30 milligrams. Talwin is a controlled substance. Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide is an anesthetic gas that is used for analgesia and sedation; it was administered to P.L. by nasal cannula, which delivers a relatively small amount of gas. Diprivan Diprivan is a sedative hypnotic medication used both for intravenous sedation and for general anesthesia; the package insert recommends a dosage from 100 to 150 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per minute. Diprivan's clinical effects wear off approximately three minutes after its administration is discontinued. The total dose of Diprivan administered to P.L., 25 milligrams, was included in Dr. Edison's medical records, but the manner of administering the Diprivan and the rate of infusion are not recorded. Diprivan, together with other sedative drugs, may be administered in Florida by a registered nurse at the direction and under the supervision of a surgeon during Level II office surgery.7 Dr. Edison did not deviate from the standard of care in Florida by delegating responsibility to Ms. Hoff, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, for administering the various drugs to P.L., under his direction and supervision. Based on her training and experience, Ms. Hoff was qualified to administer these drugs to P.L. to achieve Level II sedation under Dr. Edison's direction and supervision. The combination of sedative drugs Dr. Edison ordered administered to P.L., specifically Diprivan, Ketamine, Talwin, Valium, and nitrous oxide, was appropriate to induce Level II sedation in P.L., and the dosage of each of the drugs administered to P.L. was well below the maximum dosage recommended for each of the drugs. These drugs work synergistically, however, and, depending on the patient and the circumstances, the same combination of sedative drugs could induce Level III sedation. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009 defines Level III office surgery and sets forth the standards that must be met, in pertinent part, as follows: Level III Office Surgery. Scope. Level III Office Surgery is that surgery which involves, or reasonable should require, the use of a general anesthesia or major conduction anesthesia and pre- operative sedation. This includes the use of: Intravenous sedation beyond that defined for Level II Office Surgery; General Anesthesia: loss of consciousness and loss of vital reflexes with probable requirement of external support of pulmonary or cardiac functions: or Major conduction anesthesia. * * * Standards for Level III Office Surgery. In addition to the standards for Level II Office Surgery, the surgeon must comply with the following: * * * 4. Assistance of Other Personnel Required. An Anesthesiologist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, or Physician Assistant qualified as set forth in subparagraph 64B8- 30.012(2)(b)6., F.A.C., must administer the general or regional anesthesia and an M.D., D.O., Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, Physician Assistant, or Operating Room Technician must assist with the surgery. . . . One difference between Level II and Level III sedation is the degree of alertness of the patient. At Level II sedation, the patient must be able to respond to verbal and/or tactile stimuli. If a patient's only response is a reflexive withdrawal from a pain stimulus, the patient is sedated beyond Level II. A primary indication that a patient has slipped from Level II to Level III sedation is the loss of the ability to breathe without assistance, and the patient's airway must be partially or totally managed. In Level II sedation, the need for management of the airway is minimal compared to that required at Level III sedation. P.L.'s blood pressure, pulse rate, oxygenation, and mental state were consistent with Level II sedation until P.L. had her first seizure and all medications, except for the one- half therapeutic dose of Valium, were discontinued. She remained responsive to verbal stimuli after the second 2.5 milligram dose of Valium was given to control the seizure activity, even though she was more lethargic than normal under Level II sedation. P.L. was non-responsive when examined by Emergency Medical Services personnel, but she was breathing independently and was not at Level III sedation. Her lack of response was more likely than not the result of the seizures, after which a patient can go into a postictal state, or a trance of sleepiness.8 Dr. Edison did not violate the standard of care for office surgery in ordering the amounts and combination of drugs used to sedate P.L. because P.L. did not reach Level III sedation. In accordance with the standard of care for Level II office surgery, Ms. Hoff, as a registered nurse, was qualified to administer anesthesia to P.L., including Diprivan, Ketamine, and the other sedative drugs used in P.L.'s surgery, at the direction and under the supervision of Dr. Edison. Dosage of Lidocaine As stated above, Dr. Edison injected a dilute solution of Lidocaine with epinephrine and marcaine into the tissue around P.L.'s breasts between 8:25 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., before P.L. had her first seizure at 8:45 a.m. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic used to numb nerves and tissue. In breast augmentation surgery Dr. Edison always uses Lidocaine with epinephrine because epinephrine is a vasoconstrictor that causes intense vasoconstriction, or closing of the small blood vessels, which slows the rate of absorption of the Lidocaine and virtually eliminates bleeding at the site of surgery. Marcaine is also a local anesthetic similar to Lidocaine, but it is slow to take effect and lasts four to six hours and helps control pain after surgery is completed. Marcaine is commonly used with Lidocaine. It is Dr. Edison's practice to perform breast augmentation surgery using the tumescent infiltration technique to infuse a relatively large volume of dilute Lidocaine solution into the breast area as a local anesthetic. Dr. Edison uses this tumescent infiltration technique in breast augmentation surgery because he can deliver a large volume of Lidocaine that is evenly distributed throughout the breast area, which results in more effective pain reduction. The injection technique Dr. Edison uses for tumescent infiltration in the breast area is very specific, and it takes between 20 and 30 minutes to complete the injections. The needle cannot penetrate close to the pectoral muscle, especially in a woman as small as P.L., because of the danger of puncturing a lung. Dr. Edison injects the solution under pressure into the subcutaneous tissue between the breast and the pectoral muscle. Lidocaine is absorbed faster in areas that are highly vascular. The tissue in the aerolar space between the breast and the pectoral muscle does not contain many blood vessels, so Lidocaine injected in this tissue is absorbed more slowly than it would be if injected into highly vascular tissue. In Dr. Edison's experience, because the epinephrine in the Lidocaine solution causes intense vasoconstriction in the tissue surrounding the injection sites, the Lidocaine stays in place and numbs the area in which the surgery is to be performed. The Lidocaine solution is absorbed slowly over approximately 24 hours, and the peak serum concentration of Lidocaine occurs approximately 10 to 12 hours after it is administered. In this case, Dr. Edison prepared approximately 400 cubic centimeters of solution, which contained 700 milligrams of Lidocaine and 50 milligrams of marcaine, together with a small, non-therapeutic dose of epinephrine. According to his surgical notes, Dr. Edison began the injections of Lidocaine at 8:25 a.m. and had completed the injections by the time P.L. had the first seizure at 8:45 a.m., although it is his recollection that he had not used all of the Lidocaine solution he had prepared. Dr. Edison did not, however, record in the medical records the amount of Lidocaine solution he injected, and any remaining solution was discarded without being measured, so he does not know the dosage of Lidocaine P.L. actually received. Had he injected all of the solution, P.L. would have received approximately 14 milligrams of Lidocaine per kilogram of body weight. According to the package insert that accompanies a bottle of Lidocaine, the maximum dosage of Lidocaine without epinephrine is five milligrams per kilogram of body weight, and the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine is seven milligrams per kilogram of body weight. There is nothing in Dr. Edison's medical records to indicate that the Lidocaine he used in P.L.'s surgery included epinephrine or that he calculated the amount of Lidocaine to administer to P.L. based on her body weight Using the maximum dosage specified on the package insert, the maximum dosage of Lidocaine without epinephrine for P.L. would have been 215 milligrams, and the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine would have been 301 milligrams, using the traditional method of administering the drug. Based on the standard established by the package insert, Dr. Edison exceeded the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine injected into P.L. by approximately 400 milligrams, which constituted a toxic dose of Lidocaine when measured by the maximum dosage stated on the package insert. The maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine stated on the package insert is routinely exceeded by surgeons performing liposuction, which involves suctioning fatty tissue. The tumescent infiltration technique using Lidocaine with epinephrine in a dilute solution is commonly used with liposuction, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 9.009(2)(d), which sets out the standards of care for office surgery, specifically provides that a "maximum of fifty (50) mg/kg of Lidocaine can be injected for tumescent liposuction in the office setting." Large dosages of Lidocaine can be safely used in liposuction because Lidocaine is metabolized more slowly by fatty tissue than by muscle or skin, and approximately 20% of the Lidocaine solution is suctioned out of the body with the fat that is aspirated during liposuction. As a result, it is possible to administer what would otherwise be toxic doses of Lidocaine under the maximum dosages specified in the package insert. Dr. Edison has used the tumescent infiltration technique many times in performing breast augmentations without his patients' suffering any ill effects. There is, however, no rule in Florida equivalent to that relating to liposuction that permits the use of high dosages of Lidocaine as local anesthetic in breast augmentation surgery. Furthermore, Dr. Edison has failed to submit persuasive evidence of a standard of care in Florida among plastic surgeons that would permit the use of dosages of Lidocaine with epinephrine in excess of the seven milligrams per kilogram specified on the package insert for breast augmentation surgery.9 Dr. Edison violated the standard of care by injecting approximately of 700 milligrams of Lidocaine with epinephrine into the tissue surrounding P.L.'s breasts when the maximum allowable dosage, according to the insert packaged with the drug and based on P.L.'s weight, was approximately 300 milligrams. Dr. Edison's previous discipline10 Dr. Edison was charged in an Administrative Complaint dated February 21, 1995, with having committed medical malpractice in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. He executed a Consent Agreement in which he neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations in the complaint but agreed that, if proven, the facts would constitute a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. The Agency for Health Care Administration entered a Final Order dated August 20, 1995, adopting the Consent Agreement in relevant part. This Final Order does not establish that Dr. Edison committed a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. In a Final Order entered January 4, 2007, the Board adopted the recommended disposition in the Recommended Order in Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Richard B. Edison, M.D., DOAH Case No. 06-0598PL (Recommended Order August 25, 2006), that Dr. Edison be found guilty of a single violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order Dismissing Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint; Finding Dr. Edison guilty of a single violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and of two violations of Section 458.331(1)(t)1., Florida Statutes; Suspending Dr. Edison's license for a period of 90 days, followed by four years' probation under such terms as shall be imposed by the Board; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of an (ophthalmological) ambulatory surgical center in Palm Beach County, Florida. Subordinate issues are: Whether the proposed facility satisfies the CON criteria of Sections 381.494-499, Florida Statutes, as implemented by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS) rule and non-rule policy; Whether the proposed facility will result in unnecessary duplication of services, underutilization of existing services and increased health care costs to the community; Whether adequate resources are available for the construction and operation of the proposed facility; and Whether the proposed facility is financially feasible.
Findings Of Fact (Numbering corresponds to numbering used in proposed findings.) Preliminary findings: 1-4. Approved. On issue of compliance with applicable criteria: 1-7. Approved. 8. Approved, with caveat that this is subject to supplying an adequate record basis for the policy at hearing. 9-13 Approved. Approved but no presumption of correctness attaches to HRS earlier or more recent evaluation of the application. See, Boca Raton, supra. Approved. Approved but modified to more accurately reflect that HRS takes HMO's into account, but this factor was not used or relied on (in connection with the non-rule policy or standing alone) as the basis for granting Petitioner's application. Approved. 18-32. Approved, in the sense that an HRS expert witness at hearing offered conclusions as to compliance with each statutory criteria; rejected, in that his conclusions (except for those concerning quality of care, financial feasibility, the inapplicability of some criteria, and the cost advantages of modifying an existing facility instead of constructing a new one) are rejected as unsubstantiated by the facts. On the Issue of Need: 1-8. Approved. Approved. Modified to reflect that this is one estimate among several offered by experts. Rejected as unsupported by the credible evidence of record. Approved. Approved. First sentence, approved, in that this is the stated "attempt" of HRS' challenged non-rule policy. Second sentence, rejected as unsupported by the credible evidence; the profitable performance of outpatient surgery at a physician's office does logically compel a conclusion that his office should be licensed as an ambulatory surgical facility. On the issue of adequate resources: 1-8. Approved. On the issue of financial feasibility: 1-19 Approved. 20. Rejected as argumentative. RULINGS ON INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1-4. Approved. 5. Approved except for reference to equipment costs, of which there will be none. 9-16 Approved. 17. Such broad-brush incorporation of all facts asserted in argument is not susceptible to explicit rulings. RULINGS ON POST-HEARING MOTIONS. Intervenor's "Motion to Stay Issuance of Recommended Order" is denied. Intervenor's "Request for Hearing Officer to Take Official Recognition" of the Final Order of Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton II, in consolidated DOAH Case Nos. 85-2962R, 85-2963R and 85-3193R (attached to a "Notice of Supplemental Authority" dated November 1, 1985) is granted. The order is made a part of the record of this proceeding. A final order entered by another hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings the authenticity of which is not in question, is an appropriate document to be accorded official recognition. See, Health Quest Realty XII v. HRS, 10 FLW 1729 (Fla. 1st DCA July 16, 1985, pet. for reh. pending). COPIES FURNISHED: Eric B. Tilton, Esquire 104 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee Florida 32301 William B. Wiley, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Recommendation Based on the foegoing it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of an ambulatory surgical facility at his offices in Palm Beach County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of January, 1986.
