The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent is subject to discipline for engaging in practice beyond the scope of opticianry.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action, Dory Gomez-De Rosas has been a licensed optician in the State of Florida, holding License DO 0001724. She was an owner of and employed as a licensed optician at Care Optics, located at 1057 North Homestead Boulevard, Homestead, Florida. On May 16, 1989, Patient #1 went to Care Optics to have her eyes examined after having made an appointment about a week earlier. A complete eye examination was performed on Patient #1 by the only woman who was present in the office. That examination included a glaucoma test. Patient #1 intended to buy her glasses elsewhere. She paid $30 for the examination. Patient #1 received a business card from the woman who performed her eye examination which contained measurements. Those measurements were findings of the refractive indices for Patient #1, which would be used in making eye glasses. The information provided on the back of the card, however, was incomplete. The information was not written on a prescription form, as would an ordinary prescription nor was it signed by anyone. A prescription must be signed by an optometrist or opthalmologist. Patient #1 took the card to her regular optician, Mr. Stellabotte. Because he could not prepare glasses from the information on the back of the card, he attempted to contact the opthalmologist or optometrist who seemingly had prescibed the lenses for Patient #1 at Care Optics. There was no opthalmologist or optometrist at Care Optics when Mr. Stellabotte called. The Department delivered a subpoena duces tecum to Care Optics to obtain the records of Patient #1, but Care Optics was unable to locate any records for Patient #1, and provided an affidavit to that effect. Patient #1 returned to Care Optics and received a refund of the $30 she had paid. She then was examined by another optometrist in Homestead and had the prescription filled by Mr. Stellabotte. Patient #1 identified the Respondent as the woman who performed the total eye examination and glaucoma test on her at Care Optic after seeing a photocopy of the examination photograph which Respondent had provided to the Board as part of her licensure application as an optician. After viewing the Respondent at the hearing, it is obvious that the licensure photograph which Patient #1 identified is a photograph of the Respondent. The Respondent engaged in the diagnosis of the human eyes by performing a glaucoma test on Patient #1, and by determining the refractive power for Patient #1's eyes during the examination which the Respondent performed at the office of Care Optics on May 16, 1989. She also was guilty of deceit by leading Patient #1 to believe that she was an optometrist who was competent to examine her eyes. The Respondent attempted to prescribe lenses for Patient #1 by providing the Respondent with a business card which contained on its back her findings of refractive powers for correction of Patient #1's eyes. This is not an ordinary way to provide a prescription for lenses.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Board finding the Respondent guilty of the violation of Sections 484.013(3), Florida Statutes, and 484.014(1)(f) and (m), Florida Statutes, that a fine of $1,750.00 should be imposed; that the Respondent should be suspended from the practice of opticianry for a period of 90 days, and should be placed on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of January, 1991. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 16th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4970 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: All findings by the Department have been adopted, although they have been edited in the findings of fact made here. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected. The photograph was sufficiently identified as that of the Respondent, and could be readily determined to be a photograph of the Respondent after seeing the Respondent at the hearing. See, Finding 6. Rejected as unnecessary. The identification by Patient #1 of the Respondent was sufficient. The photocopy of the photograph in the Department's files was sufficient for use by the patient in identifying the Respondent. Rejected as insufficiently persuasive. Patient #1 was able to recall, in a general fashion, the test given to her by the Respondent. They were not the type of tests which an optician could perform. Patient #1's testimony has been accepted. See, Finding 4. Patient #1 obviously went to Care Optics to obtain a prescription, since she always intended to buy her glasses from Mr. Stellabotte. Accepted in Finding 3. The information written on the back of the card did not constitute a prescription, but it was given to Patient #1 by the Respondent at Care Optic. Rejected. The testimony of Mr. Stellabotte as to the nature of the card he received from the Respondent is not fully accepted. The card which Patient #1 received from the Respondent is exhibit #3, and any testimony to the contrary by Mr. Stellabotte is the result of imperfect recollection. Rejected as unnecessary. The identification of the photograph of the Respondent from the Department's licensure files adequately identified the Respondent as the person who performed the eye examination. It was not necessary for the Department to produce any handwriting analysis. The testimony of Patient #1 is sufficient on this point. Rejected as argument. The testimony of Patient #1 identifying the Respondent is sufficient. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with the testimony of Patient #1. She had her eyes examined. The information she received from the Respondent was not derived from a mechanical analysis of the glasses she then had. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Garfield & Associates 3500 North State Road 7, Suite 333 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 LouElla Cook, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Opticianry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The charges against Dr. Morton J. Schomer allege the following factual violations: Failure to display his license at the location of his practice of optometry; Failure to have an entry sign at the location of his practice indicating he was an optometrist practicing optometry; Failure to have all equipment required in the office where he engaged in the practice of optometry; and Failure to perform all tests and record the results as required for two patients, Edward Leswing and Steven Bachen. Dr. Schomer was afforded the opportunity by the Board of Optometry for an informal conference to discuss the allegations. This conference was conducted. Dr. Schomer requested the Board for a formal hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Prior to the formal hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings and in support thereof asserted factual matters contrary to those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent asserted that he was working for Dr. Ortelio Olazabal, was under the doctor's control and supervision, and was not engaged in the practice of optometry. Therefore, Respondent asserted that he was not required to display his license or to have an entry sign, and the Board lacked jurisdiction over because his practice with Dr. Olazabal was governed by Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, Medical Practice Act. This motion presented what were essentially affirmative defenses. The motion was denied by an order dated November 19, 1980. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support of his factual assertions at the formal hearing. Respondent also moved for a continuance. This motion was also denied by the order mentioned above. Respondent moved for an order in aid of discovery. The order cited above provided specific dates for the parties to complete various portions of prehoaring discovery and disclosure. The parties were able to comply with the schedule established, and the formal hearing was begun on December 12, 1980. The hearing could not be completed on that date and was continued on February 25, 1981, after which the parties stipulated to submit proposed findings within 30 days. Motions for Directed Verdict by Respondent were made and denied at the close of Petitioner's case and at the conclusion of the hearing. Proposed findings of fact were filed by Respondent. Petitioner did not file proposed findings. The Hearing Officer has read the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. To the extent that the following Findings of Fact do not contain the proposed findings, they have been rejected as not being relevant to the issues or not being based upon evidence adduced at the hearing, or as being inconsistent with evidence which the Hearing Officer deems more credible.
Findings Of Fact Counts I, II and V Dr. Morton J. Schomer is an optometrist licensed by the Florida Board of Optometry for approximately the past five years. Until just prior to November, 1979, he was a practicing optometrist in Ohio. At that time he moved to Hallandale, Florida. Dr. Schomer responded to a newspaper advertisement by Dr. Ortelio Olazabal and was hired by Dr. Olazabal to work as an optometrist at 518 NE 167th Street, North Miami, Florida. Dr. Schomer practiced optometry at that address three days per week from late November, 1979, until February, 1980. During that time Dr. Schomer did not have his Florida license displayed and did not have an entry sign at that address indicating he was engaged in optometric practice. (Transcript, Volume II; December 12, 1380 - Page 236.) Count III In January of 1980, Dr. Schomer examined Edward Leswing, a 57-year-old male who is an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation. Dr. Schomer used a keratometer and phoropter to examine Leswing's eyes together with a projector and eye charts. Dr. Schomer asked Leswing about his health and conducted a field test (Transcript, supra - Pages 242 and 254). Dr. Schomer prescribed soft contact lenses and reading glasses for Leswing based on this examination. Dr. Schomer accurately recorded or caused to be recorded the results of the examinations conducted and pertinent personal data. Dr. Schomer did not use a tonometer or retinoscope or perform an unaided visual acuity test on Leswing. (See Leswing's testimony and Dr. Michael Kondell's comments on Leswing's record, Dr. Kondell's Deposition - Pages 39 and 40.) In the opinion of Dr. Michael Kendell (Deposition - Page 59) Dr. Schomer's examination was insufficient to prescribe soft contact lenses for Leswing. Dr. Kondell is a physician specializing in ophthalmology. He is board eligible and is accepted as an expert in diseases of the eye and their treatment, and the examination of the eye for prescribing contact lenses and glasses. Count IV At the time Leswing was examined, Dr. Schomer used a keratemeter, a phoropter, and projector and eye charts, and these items were present in the office (Transcript, Volume II; December 12, 1980 - Pages 238 and 239). Dr. Schomer used his hands to conduct a field test (Transcript, supra - Page 254). At the time Leswing was conducting a covert investigation and did not ask Dr. Schomer to produce or identify any of the equipment present in the office. Dr. Schomer kept his hand-held equipment in a wooden box which he covered with a clipboard. Count VI Steven Bachen, a 14-year-old male, was seen by Dr. Schomer during January, 1980. Dr. Schomer accurately recorded or caused to be recorded the results of his examination of Bachen and his pertinent personal data. Dr. Schomer performed a keratometric and retinoscopic examination of Steven Bachen. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 12 and Deposition of Dr. Michael Kondell - Pages 36 through 38.) Dr. Schomer also used a phoropter to examine Steven Bachen's eyes (Transcript, Volume II; December 12, 1980 - Page 157). Dr. Schomer prescribed soft contact lenses for Bachen as a result of this examination. In the opinion of Dr. Kondell, Dr. Schomer's examination was sufficient to prescribe soft contact lenses for Steven Bachen (see Dr. Michael Kondell's Deposition - Pages 43 and 58). Count VII During the examination of Steven Bachen, Dr. Schomer used a phoropter, keratometer, projector and charts, and retinoscope. These items were present in the office. Count VIII At the time Dr. Schomer examined Steven Bachen he conducted a keratometric examination of Bachen. Bachen's glasses were removed when this examination was performed. Count IX No evidence was introduced concerning prior violations of Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, by Dr. Schomer. The only evidence presented of violations of Chapter 463, supra, was with regard to Counts I through VIII above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law thee Hearing Officer recommends that Dr. Morton J. Schomer receive a letter of reprimand and be placed on probation for a period of one year, during which time his premises and records will be subject to examination by the Board of Optometry to ensure that he is in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 1st day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael B. Udell, Esquire 2020 NE 163rd Street, Suite 204 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed medical doctor holding license number MEOO17343 issued by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. He has a general family practice but also states that he specializes in neurology as well. He is not board certified in any specialty. He has had many years of practical medical experience in Cuba and later in the United States. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and enforcing licensure and the licensure standards for medical doctors in Florida, and enforcing the practice standards embodied in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. In October, 1981, the Respondent employed Manuel Farinas to work in his medical office, specifically for the purpose of performing eye examinations and writing prescriptions for eyeglasses. The Respondent had known Manuel Farinas when they were in Cuba and knew that he had experience also in working with contact lenses and fitting contact lenses and eyeglasses. The Respondent was aware that Farinas did not hold a license to practice any of the medical or healing arts in Florida, but was informed by Farinas that he was then studying to take the foreign medical graduate examination which is a prerequisite to licensure. The Respondent set up a separate eye examination room in his medical offices which contained equipment designed specifically to perform eye examinations. Indeed, as established by Petitioner's composite Exhibit 7, Manuel Farinas has not been and is not licensed as a physician or physician's assistant in Florida and holds no license in Florida authorizing practice of medicine in any form. On March 16, 1982, Dorris B. Bruce, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the Respondent's office to obtain an eye examination. Patient Bruce was examined by Mr. Farinas and was diagnosed as having "hypertension retinopathy." The examination of the "patient" consisted of a cornea examination, an examination for conjunctivitis, the patient's lenses were checked, and a fundus examination was performed. The patient was given a prescription for eyeglasses on the Respondent's prescription blank, which bore his printed name. The blank was unsigned and Respondent's testimony itself establishes that the examination of patient Bruce and the rendering of the prescription for eyeglasses was done exclusively by Manuel Farinas, and Respondent did not examine Dorris Bruce nor supervise the medical care provided by Farinas. Robert Wolf, an investigator employed with the Department, made an appointment for an eye examination with the Eyeglass Emporium for June 1, 1982. This is a business establishment and opticinary owned by one Geoffrey Hullman. It is located next door to, and in the same building with, the Respondent's medical office. Upon arriving at the Eyeglass Emporium, Mr. Wolf was directed to the Respondent's adjoining medical office where the "patient" completed a patient information form. Mr. Wolf was then taken by one of Respondent's office assistants to the examining room for the eye examination mentioned above. Shortly thereafter, an office assistant entered the room accompanied by a man who was introduced as the doctor who would perform the eye examination. The "doctor" was actually Manuel Farinas. Notations in the medical record prepared on patient Wolf at the Respondent's office (Exhibit 3 in evidence) establish that the patient had a visual eye examination without glasses and was examined for conjunctivitis and also had cornea, lens and fundus examinations. Farinas examined Mr. Wolf by shining a flashlight type device into his eyes, having him read a wall chart, and by having him look through a lens in a machine that flashed charts on the wall until Farinas got the best subjective reading of visual acuity from the patient. The patient was also given a chart to read. Farinas diagnosed the patient as having a mild case of conjunctivitis and gave him a prescription for eyeglasses and a prescription for Vicollirum. Both prescriptions were written on blanks bearing the Respondent's name and office address. Upon completion of the eye examination, the prescriptions were written by Manuel Farinas for patient Wolf and were placed in a folder and given to the patient. The prescriptions were not signed by either Farinas or the Respondent. At no time during the patient's presence in the Respondent's office, did the Respondent either examine the patient or review and approve the medical prescriptions written for the patient, or supervise the medical examination activities of Farinas. The patient was then directed by Farinas through a door adjoining the Respondent's office to the Eyeglass Emporium to have the prescription for eyeglasses filled. Investigators for the Petitioner then re-entered the Respondent's office at that time and interviewed Farinas who was still in the room where the patient Wolf had been examined. After identifying themselves as investigators for Petitioner, Farinas was asked for identification. He identified himself as Dr. Manuel Farinas and admitted that he had written the prescriptions for patient Wolf. Respondent entered the room at that point and the Petitioner's employees identified themselves as investigators. In the presence of the Respondent, the investigator elicited statements from Farinas that he had examined patient Wolf and that he had written the two prescriptions for that patient as well as eliciting the statement that he was not licensed. The Respondent did not comment on any of those responses by Farinas at that time. Farinas then produced for Petitioner's investigators documents purporting to show that he had received medical training in Cuba. The Petitioner established through expert testimony of Dr. Lawrence T. Reese, who is a board certified opthalmologist, with a sub-specialty in retinal muscular disease, that a medical doctor does not receive the appropriate training in a general M.D. degree course of study to qualify him to either perform a thorough eye examination or to prescribe eye-wear for patients. Dr. Reese practices in Dade County, Florida and is affiliated with Parkway Regional Medical Center and Humana Hospital. He holds a voluntary faculty appointment at the University of Miami School of Medicine in Opthalmology. Dr. Reese is aware of the general standard of instruction in opthalmology in a medical school curriculum for the general M.D. degree granting institutions. This instruction, consists of from three to four hours of instruction, and is basically a laboratory study where the medical students examine each others' eyes. Thus, the general medical student who fails to pursue a specialty in opthalmology, receives only a bare minimum amount of training in patient eyecare and examination. A general or family practitioner would thus only have minimal involvement in the area of eye-care. Dr. Reese is aware of the generally prevailing standard of care of general practitioners in Dade County, Florida. Dr. Reese thus established that the extent of eye-care provided by general practitioners in that medical community is to visually look into the patient's eyes as a part of a general medical examination. This is a cursory eye examination at best. The visual examination consists of looking into the patient's eyes with an opthalomoscope in order to get a view of the optic nerves and surrounding fundus. If such a general practitioner/family practitioner examination shows that the patient's eyes appear to be normal, this is the extent of the visual examination performed. If problems are apparent, the general prevailing standard of practice dictates that the general practitioner or family practitioner refer the patient to a board certified opthalmologist. John Handwerker, M.D., is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida who has practiced medicine in Dade County for 33 years. His testimony corroborates that of Dr. Reese. Dr. Handwerker is not aware of any eye-care training provided by medical schools in M.D. degree granting programs. He is aware of the generally accepted prevailing standards of practice of medicine by general and family practitioners in Dade County and established that a family practitioner would not typically perform a refraction of the eyes for the purpose of prescribing eyeglasses. That standard would be the same for a general practitioner even if he has a sub-specialty in neurology, which is not a relevant sub-specialty to questions of eye-care. This type of practitioner would not have either the training or experience to perform such an examination. As established by both of these expert witnesses, a person who takes a patient's history, makes an examination of the patient's eyes and prescribes either medication or an optical lens or both, is engaged in the practice of medicine. Both medical experts established that if a licensed medical doctor authorizes an unlicensed person to take the medical history of a patient, perform the eye examination and write prescriptions for medication, or for optical lenses for that patient, and the extent of the licensee's participation in the process is either to merely sign the prescription or at most to review the patient's medical records, then that licensed medical doctor is not properly supervising an unlicensed person and is permitting an unlicensed person to practice medicine. As established by Dr. Reese, a thorough eye examination would consist of determining if the patient has a family history of eye disease, determining whether the patient is experiencing any particular visual problem, determining the refractive state of the patient's eyes (that is, visual acuity), and would include a check of various eye systems of the patient, such as the pupils and their reaction to light as well as the ocular motor system for eye movement (musculature). Additionally, a properly examined patient, should be checked for visual defects, have a slit lamp examination to determine the medical condition of the eyes (which consists of examining the upper and lower parts of the pupils under the eyelids), the patient's cornea should be checked for material in the eye fluid and in most instances a dilated examination of the pupil should be done to diagnose its condition. When all of these examinations and checks are performed the doctor can then reach a cogent conclusion concerning the overall health of the patient's eyes and make appropriate recommendations concerning care and treatment. A medical diagnosis that a patient's fundus is normal, cornea is normal and the lens is normal can only be made if the patient's eyes have been dilated. The fundus can be examined without dilating the patient's eyes, although dilation would give increased ability to examine it. Dilation of a patient's eyes is effected by the use of a prescription drug by medical practitioners who are experienced and who practice in the area of eye examinations and eye-care. Both patients Bruce and Wolf were diagnosed by Farinas as having normal fundus, cornea and lenses. But this diagnosis was made without a thorough eye examination because Farinas did not dilate their eyes to adequately check these systems. Although it is true that ready-made eyeglasses can be purchased at commercial department stores with or without a prescription, where a patient has visited a medical doctor's office and had his eyes examined and is given a written prescription for glasses, the patient then believes that he has received a proper, competent medical eye examination and is being prescribed glasses for valid medical reasons. Where an inadequately trained or unlicensed person performs visual examinations and writes medical prescriptions for glasses, a patient is being deceived or at least potentially deceived as to the correct assessment of the condition of his eyes. The testimony of the Respondent himself as well as Mr. Hullman, the operator of the Eyeglass Emporium, establishes that Farinas was known and referred to as "Dr. Farinas" during the time he was employed in Respondent's office. Farinas was introduced to Mr. Wolf as "Dr. Farinas" at a time when he was not (and still is not) licensed in Florida. Both Drs. Reese and Handwerker opined that where a general practitioner with a specialty in neurology permits an unlicensed person to conduct medical examinations and write medical prescriptions for eyeglasses or for medicinal drugs, and the extent of the licensee's contact with the patient is to sign prescriptions or review the patient's medical records, the licensee has failed to conform to generally accepted and prevailing standards of care recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under similar conditions and circumstances. The Respondent is not board certified in opthalmology and has had no residency training or other formal training in opthalmology outside the minimal general training described above, received in the course of preparing for his M.D. degree. The Respondent maintained that he has extensive experience performing medical visual examinations, but this testimony is not deemed credible because, as revealed by Petitioner's Exhibit 8 in evidence, during the informal proceeding before the Board where Respondent was also testifying under oath, he acknowledged that he had not performed medical visual examinations or refractions and had not written a medical prescription for eyeglasses in over 13 years, thus, his testimony that he has had extensive experience in performing medical visual examinations recently and during the period under consideration in the Administrative Complaint is not deemed credible. Although Respondent contends that he supervised the practice of Farinas, his testimony conflicts with competent evidence indicating otherwise. The supervision consisted of the Respondent allegedly reviewing the patient's records and signing prescriptions for eyeglasses or drugs written by Farinas. Although expert testimony has established that this does not constitute adequate supervision by a licensed medical doctor, in the case of both patients involved in this proceeding the eyeglass prescriptions were actually never signed. Although use of unsigned prescriptions is not necessarily illegal, it shows that Farinas was not supervised to any significant extent at all in his examination, care and treatment of patients who presented themselves to the Respondent's office for an eye examination. When patient Wolf was in the Respondent's office he was never examined by Respondent, nor was his prescription given him by Farinas ever reviewed by the Respondent, nor did the Respondent review his medical history, which he had provided in writing on a form provided by Respondent's office. Additionally, as established by witness Hullman, that witness returned unsigned prescriptions to the Respondent's office for the Respondent to sign after the prescriptions had already been filled by the opticianry and after the investigation into this matter had commenced. The Respondent signed the previously unsigned prescriptions and returned them to Hullman and thus it is established that at the time the prescriptions were executed and filled, the Respondent did not supervise the prescribing by Farinas nor the examinations to which the prescriptions related, both as to prescriptions of eyeglasses or drugs. Finally, it should be pointed out that Respondent was aware in April of 1982 that his use of Farinas in performing visual examinations and prescriptions as to eye-care patients was improper because of the visit to his office by Investigator Dorris Bruce. Two months later, however, patient Wolf went to the Respondent's office for an eye examination and was also examined by Farinas and tendered prescriptions by Farinas with no signature, supervision or other review of the procedure performed or prescriptions given by the Respondent. This was some nine months after Farinas first became employed in these capacities at the Respondent's office.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent, Orlando C. Ramos, M.D., guilty, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, of violations of Section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1981); Section 453.331(1)(w), Florida Statutes, (1981), as well as a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1981), and that a fine of $2,000 be imposed and the Respondent's license to practice medicine be suspended for a period of three months. It is further recommended that the Respondent's licensure status be probationary for a one year period commencing at the conclusion of the three month's suspension, during which such probationary period his medical practice should be monitored by the Petitioner to ensure that such violations of the Medical Practice Act do not recur. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1984.
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. Essentially, they are whether, in connection with his care and treatment of two patients, R.B., and D.T., the Respondent, who is an opthalmologist, violated Section 458.331(1)(t) and (m), Fla. Stat. (1993), by: gross or repeated malpractice, or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; or (m) failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patients.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Carlos A. Solorzano, M.D., is licensed to practice medicine in Florida. He holds license ME 0041368. The Respondent practices in the field of opthalmology. He is not Board-certified. Patient R.B. The patient, R.B., a 92 year-old female, was referred to the Respondent and was seen for the first time on February 2, 1988. The Respondent diagnosed chronic uveitis (inflammation) in both eyes, secondary cataracts in both eyes, and secondary glaucoma in the right eye. The Respondent prescribed two medications (inflamase and atropine). When R.B. was next seen by the Respondent on February 11, 1988, the Respondent prescribed a third medication (betagan) and recommended a YAG laser iridotomy on the right eye to relieve high pressure. In performing an iridotomy, the opthalmologist bores a hole in the iris to relieve abnormal pressure in the eye (glaucoma). Sometimes, especially when glaucoma is caused by active uveitis, a patient can be treated effectively by controlling the inflammation solely with medication and later dilating the pupil. If successful, medical treatment obviates the need for surgery. In the case of R.B., medical treatment was not and would not be successful. As a result of chronic uveitis, R.B. had a history of abnormally high pressures in the eye. In addition, and of even more concern, the pressures were subject to "spiking" seriously high pressures. Whereas pressures of 21 mm of Mercury (Hg) are considered high normal, R.B. had readings of 38 mm Hg in both eyes on January, 24, 1988. On her first visit to the Respondent on February 2, 1988, the readings were 30 mm Hg in the right eye and 20 mm Hg in the left eye. On her second visit to the Respondent on February 11, 1988, the readings were 29 mm Hg in the right eye and 19 mm Hg in the left eye. Clearly, the Respondent's recommendation that R.B. have an iridotomy performed on her right eye was within that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The Respondent's records indicate that, instead of an iridotomy, the Respondent performed an iridoplasty on R.B. on March 23, 1988. In an iridoplasty, the opthalmologist treats the surface of the iris with laser energy to cause some shrinkage and change of shape in the iris but does not bore a hole through the full thickness of the iris. The Respondent's medical records do not explain why an iridoplasty was performed on March 23, 1988, instead of the recommended iridotomy. The Respondent has no independent recollection of which procedure he performed and can only speculate that, if in iridoplasty was performed, perhaps it was because he was unable to complete the iridotomy and did an iridoplasty instead in preparation for a subsequent iridotomy. In that respect, the Respondent's written medical records were insufficient to justify the course of treatment of the patient. On March 28, 1988, the Respondent saw R.B. again and recommended an iridotomy on the left eye. The patient's left eye pressure reading on that day was 14 mm Hg, well within normal range. Other left eye pressure readings also were within normal range, although closer to high normal: 20 mm Hg on February 2, 1988; and 19 mm Hg on February 11, 1988. But there also was the history of a 38 mm Hg "spike" on January 24, 1988, and the history of abnormally high pressures in the patient's right eye. Despite the normal readings for the left eye, taking all of the pertinent factors into consideration, it was not proven that the Respondent's recommendation of an iridotomy for the left eye was below that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. (A subsequent "spike" 76 mm Hg in April, 1990, further validated the recommendation.) The Respondent performed an iridotomy on R.B.'s left eye on April 20, 1988. The Respondent's medical records do not reflect the absence of cells or flares until an entry on June 6, 1988. The Respondent does not always record what he considers to be "negative findings." "Negative findings" should sometimes be recorded if they are pertinent and necessary, but these "negative findings" are subsumed in the diagnosis of chronic, rather than active, uveitis. Patients undergoing an iridotomy procedure should be seen for follow- up care within one to three days to ensure that the opening is patent, that the symptoms are relieved, and that no secondary inflammation is present. As indicated, the Respondent saw the patient, R.B., on March 28 and on April 25, 1988. The Respondent's records for those visits indicate intraocular pressures, but otherwise the Respondent's written medical records for any follow-up care on those dates were insufficient. (The March 28, 1988, records indicate an evaluation and recommendation for a iridotomies for both eyes but do not address the March 23, 1988, procedure on the right eye. The April 25, 1988, records do not address the April 20, 1988, procedure on the left eye.) The records for both of those visits indicate prescriptions for atropine, betagan, and inflamase. The next visit indicated in the Respondent's records for R.B. was June 6, 1988. At that time, the Respondent recommended a lensectomy and vitrectomy for the left eye, which he performed on August 30, 1988. A lensectomy is the removal of the lens. A lensectomy is indicated under several different circumstances. It is appropriate when a less involved cataract procedure cannot be performed, or when the anterior approach to removing a cataract cannot be utilized. A vitrectomy is the removal of the vitreous, the jelly-like material in the globe of the eye. A vitrectomy also is indicated under various different circumstances, including: biopsy; infection; blood in the eye; inflammation; and retinal repair. In the case of the patient, R.B., there was no improvement in the patient's vision (hand movement, only, in the left eye), despite the use of a strong corticosteroid, a beta blocker, and a strong pupil dilator. The patient continued to suffer from the effects of chronic uveitis. Synequies, or adhesions, continued to prevent fluid from escaping. The patient also had thick cataracts and membranes in the vitreous that were obscuring vision. Under these facts, it was not proven that the lensectomy and vitrectomy on the left eye were below that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The lensectomy and vitrectomy were safer than ordinary cataract surgery in this patient and safer than not doing anything. But the Respondent's written medical records were insufficient to justify the course of treatment of the patient. They did not adequately explain the reasons for the Respondent's recommendations. Patient D.T. The patient, D.T., was referred to the Respondent for evaluation regarding a detached retina at the seven o'clock position in the right eye. On September 28, 1988, the Respondent performed a procedure known as cryopexy to reattach the patient's retina. In cryopexy, the opthalmologist applies liquid nitrogen to the area of detachment. The low temperature of the liquid nitrogen (minus 60o centigrade) causes inflammation and scarring. The scarring reattaches the retina. It was the Respondent's responsibility to check the pressure in the liquid nitrogen tank supplied by the hospital facility the Respondent was using. He failed to check the pressure and, unfortunately, it was low. The Respondent attempted the procedure despite the low pressure in the liquid nitrogen tank but was not sure if it would be effective. The Respondent wanted to proceed with a follow-up procedure using a laser to be sure the reattachment succeeded, but the patient declined. In part in order to further facilitate reattachment pending the laser procedure, the Respondent injected air into the eye to serve as an internal tamponade to put pressure on the point of reattachment to hold it in place. (Other reasons for injecting air in the eye were to maintain proper intraocular pressure and to keep fluid away from the point of reattachment for access and visibility during the subsequent laser procedure.) Unfortunately, due to gravity and the inferior position of the retinal detachment, the internal tamponade only would be effective if the patient maintained a face-down position. On follow-up the next day, the patient was maintaining proper position and the laser procedure was scheduled for the following day. But on preop evaluation on September 30, 1988, the patient was found to be in sitting position, and it was not possible to perform the laser procedure. Instead, the Respondent recommended redoing the operation. The patient declined, preferring to "wait a few days." During follow-up evaluation on October 4, 1988, it was determined that the cryopexy had been at least partially successful after all, despite the low liquid nitrogen pressure. Pigment 1+ was seen, indicating inflammation and scarring, and the area of detachment of the retina appeared to be smaller. The macula remained attached. During another evaluation October 7, 1988, it was noted that the macula still remained attached. Although the Respondent urged the patient, D.T., to have the cryopexy procedure on the right eye repeated more quickly, the patient wanted to wait, and the Respondent repeated the procedure on October 14, 1988. It was not proven that the delay in repeating the procedure was below that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The initial procedure apparently was at least partially successful, and the macula remained attached. In addition, inferior retinal detachments usually do not extend quickly, and it was not proven that there was any urgency in repeating the procedure. The Respondent's medical records do not include any indication that he advised or encouraged the patient not to wait until October 14, 1988, to have the cryopexy procedure repeated, but it was not proven that this omission was below that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The Respondent testified that he saw the patient at her home on several occasions but his medical records make no mention of any such visits. It became apparent from participating in the final hearing (and can be surmised to some extent from the Respondent's "proposed findings of fact") that the Respondent's biggest difficulty in the practice of medicine may be the difficulty he has in communicating (at least in English). It is possible that patients and other physicians perceive incompetence when they do not understand what the Respondent is telling them, whether orally or in writing. His difficulty with written English may contribute to the inadequacy of some of his medical records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(m), but not (t), Fla. Stat. (1993); (2) reprimanding him; and (3) imposing a $1,000 administrative fine. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5118 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 18.-20. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. (The diagnosis was chronic, not active, uveitis.) Rejected as not proven. (Cells and flares indicate active uveitis.) Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. See 21., above. 24.-26. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence as to intraocular pressure. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 29.-32. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 33.-35. Accepted and incorporated. 36.-37. Accepted and incorporated. However, there also are other indications. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence as to "indications"; accepted and incorporated as to "discussion." Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated as to inadequate medical records; otherwise, rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. 42.-44. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. (It was at least partially successful and may have been completely successful, but the Respondent was unsure due to the low pressure and wanted to repeat the procedure to make sure.) Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. (The medical records were written before subsequent follow-up evaluation showed successful cryopexy.) 47.-48. Accepted and incorporated. (As to 48., there also were other reasons for it.) Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that it was "necessary due to insufficient freezing." (The Respondent thought it was appropriate due to questions he had about the efficacy of the cryopexy and for other reasons.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The Respondent did not perform a pneumatic retinopexy.) Rejected as not proven that it would not be "viable." Accepted that it was not appropriate, but subordinate and unnecessary. See 50., above. Also, rejected as not proven that "the patient could not be positioned to cause the desired effect." Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that "the Respondent was advised." (The Respondent made the determination.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 53.-54. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. 57.-58. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. See 45., above. 61.-65. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 66.-67. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (The Respondent's "proposed findings of fact" were presented in an unorthodox fashion that makes ruling difficult. He introduced a subject on a sheet of paper, sometimes commented on the subject, and attached copies of medical records in evidence that relate to the subject. These rulings are restricted to the Respondent's comments and attempt to follow the format chosen by the Respondent. No rulings are made on the attached copies of medical records as they are accepted but subordinate.) FACTS RELATED TO PATIENT #1, RB LASER PROCEDURES. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. REGARDING HIGH INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE. Accepted but subordinate. (Only copies of medical records.) REGARDING A VERY HIGH SECOND EPISODE OF INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE. Accepted but subordinate. (Only copies of medical records.) POINT REGARDING THE APPOINTMENTS. As to R.B., accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. As to the other patients, rejected as not supported by any evidence. PATIENT RB DIDN'T HAVE ACTIVE UVEITIS . . .. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence (regarding slit lamp), accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (AHCA apparently has dropped the charge that the Respondent did not use a slit lamp and that his records did not reflect its use.) THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE LENSECTOMY VITRECTOMIE [sic]. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. REGARDING SLIT LAMP EXAMINATIONS. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Based on its proposed findings of fact, the AHCA apparently has dropped the charge that the Respondent did not use a slit lamp and that his records did not reflect its use.) FACTS RELATED [TO] PATIENT #2, DT PAGE# 5. Accepted and incorporated. PAGE# 6. Accepted and incorporated. PAGE# 7. Accepted (assuming "denied to" means "refused to") but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Only "home visits" comments are incorporated. PAGE# 8. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Based on its proposed findings of fact, the AHCA apparently has dropped the allegation that the proliferative vitreous retinopathy occurred between the two surgeries.) PAGE# 9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. PAGE# 10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. PAGE# 11. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Based on its proposed findings of fact, the AHCA apparently has dropped the charge that, after the second surgery, the Respondent did not advise the patient concerning alternatives such as pars plana vitrectomies.) PAGE# 12. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Based on its proposed findings of fact, the AHCA apparently has dropped the charge that the Respondent went on vacation in October, 1988.) COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre - Legal A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Carlos A. Solorzano, M.D., pro se 7211 North Dale Mabry Highway, #101 Tampa, Florida 33614 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, by committing the acts alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed optometrist in the state, holding license number OP 1513. Background Respondent performed optometry examinations on patient S.R. on September 12, 1988, and on September 22, 1988. The examinations were performed at Linsey Eyecare, 2021 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is a subcontractor for Dr. Steven Venokour who manages Linsey Eyecare. Linsey Eyecare advertises that it is a ". . . department store that . . . " fills ". . . 90% of most prescriptions . . . in about one hour. . ." and offers ". . . a complete and comprehensive visual diagnosis . . ." in which ". . . your eyes are screened for glaucoma." S.R. went to Linsey Eyecare because she saw its advertisement in the local newspaper. Respondent knew that S.R. had a family history of glaucoma. S.R. informed Respondent when she gave her ocular history to Respondent at the outset of her eye examination on September 12, 1988, that her father had lost his eyesight due to glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma may be at a greater risk of having glaucoma than a patient without such a history if the family history of glaucoma is hereditary rather than the result of an accident or disease. Respondent knew that his assistant had not performed a non-contact tonometer on S.R. Respondent did not perform a non-contact tonometry test (a "tonometry test") on S.R. during eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. A tonometry test is one of the tests used to screen for glaucoma. It is used to take a pressure reading using a machine that blows a puff of air in the patient's eye. The puff of air creates a startling sensation in the patient's eye that the patient does not easily forget. The machine used to give the tonometry in Linsey Eyecare was malfunctioning on September 12, 1988, and that particular test was not given to S.R. However, S.R. was given additional tests for glaucoma. S.R. discovered through conversations with a third party that a tonometry test is one of the tests customarily used to screen for glaucoma. S.R. recalled that she had not received a test using a puff of air in her eye. S.R. called Linsey Eyecare and scheduled another eye examination for September 22, 1988. A tonometry test was given to S.R. during her second eye examination on September 22, 1988. 3/ Negligence The minimum standard of medical care requires that a patient with a family history of glaucoma receive a complete glaucoma screening. The examination of such a patient should be more extensive than the examination given to a patient without a family history of glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma, at a minimum, should receive a tonometry test. If a tonometry test cannot be performed, intraocular pressure should be measured using the Goldman applanation tonometry. 4/ Irrespective of the method used to measure intraocular pressure, the cup to disc ratio should be measured to determine if cupping has occurred. Cupping is another clinical sign that increases the risk of glaucoma. The anterior angle should also be examined under a biomicroscope to determine if the angle is opened or closed. If a narrow angle is detected, fluid may not be draining properly and a gonioscopy should be performed to more accurately determine if the anterior angle is opened or closed. If all of the findings from the foregoing tests are positive, the patient should be given a visual field evaluation. Respondent failed to conform to the minimum standard of care when he did not measure S.R.'s intraocular pressure by either a non-contact tonometry or an applanation tonometry during his patient's initial visit to Linsey Eyecare. Some type of tonometry test is the minimum requirement for glaucoma screening. For a patient with a family history of glaucoma, it is essential that the tonometry test be performed during the initial examination and not during a follow-up examination. Respondent did not dilate S.R.'s eyes for further examination during her initial visit because S.R. had no other person available to drive her home. Respondent dismissed S.R. without performing any tonometry test, knowing that his patient had a family history of glaucoma. Respondent did not reschedule S.R. for a follow-up examination nor advise S.R. to arrange such an examination with Respondent's office or any other optometrist. The patient returned to Linsey Eyecare for a follow-up examination at her own insistence and not at the direction of Respondent. Respondent conformed to the minimum standard of care for S.R. during her follow-up examination on September 22, 1988. Respondent performed both a non-contact tonometry and an applanation tonometry. Respondent measured the cup to disc ratio, the depth and angle of the anterior chamber, and performed a visual field screening using confrontation fields. All of the test results were within normal ranges. Based upon the absence of positive findings, a gonioscopy was not appropriate and was not done. The only act of negligence committed by Respondent was the failure to perform some type of tonometry during S.R.'s initial eye examination on September 12, 1988. Medical Records Respondent failed to keep adequate written optometric records (the "records") for the initial eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. Respondent failed to document the reasons for omitting a tonometry from S.R.'s eye examination. In all other respects, the records maintained for the initial eye examination were adequate. The only notation in the family history is glaucoma. While the family history documented in the records was incomplete, the patient was unresponsive or uncooperative in providing such information. The reason for the incomplete family history was sufficiently documented with the notation "N". 5/ Respondent kept adequate records for the second eye examination given to S.R. on September 22, 1988. The notations in the records were difficult to read and the copies used by Petitioner's expert witness were of poor quality. Upon cross examination by Respondent, however, it was uncontroverted that proper and adequate records were maintained by Respondent for S.R.'s second eye examination. The records of the second examination reveal that the cup to disc ratio was sufficiently documented by the notations "CD" for clear and distinct and ".3N" in both eyes. Color of the optic nerve head was adequately described by the notation "WNL". The depth and angle of the anterior chamber was adequately documented by the notation of "3/3+" (three over three plus). The confrontation fields were adequately documented by the notation of "full OU". Adequate records were maintained by Respondent even though they contained sloppy penmanship and the copies reviewed by Petitioner's expert were poor in quality. Advertisement Respondent did not advertise goods or services in a manner that was fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading in form and content ("misleading"). The advertisement in question was not misleading. Even if it was misleading, the advertisement was placed by Linsey Eyecare under the direction of Dr. Venokour. Respondent was a subcontractor for Linsey Eyecare and had no control over the placement and content of advertising for that entity. 6/ Repeated Violations Respondent is guilty of repeated violations of applicable provisions of Florida law. In a Final Order entered on November 10, 1982, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, Respondent was found guilty of having failed to remove all of the metal fragments found in a patient's eye during repeated attempts at removal on December 24, 25, and 28, 1981, in violation of Section 463.016(1)(g). Respondent was fined $500 and placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to provide a tonometry during the patient's initial presentation and failing to document the patient's records as the omission and the reason for such an omission in violation of Sections 463.016(1)(g) and 463.016(1)(k), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order should impose an administrative fine in the aggregate amount of $4,000 and place Respondent on probation for one year subject to reasonable terms of probation to be determined by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 24th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Antonio R. Gasset, M.D. (Dr. Gasset), is and has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license number is ME 0015074. Dr. Gasset specializes in opthamology. Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. In April 1986, Dr. Nelvis Velazquez, worked with Dr. Gasset at the Miami Eye Institute, Inc., which was owned and operated by Dr. Gasset and his immediate family. On April 14, 1986, Dr. Velazquez saw Patient #1 who was complaining of not seeing well. She performed an eye exam which consisted of checking his vision, checking his eye pressure, and dilating his pupils. She diagnosed his problem as cataracts. On April 23, 1986, she performed cataract surgery on Patient #1's right eye. She saw him again on April 24, 25, and May 2 and removed the stitches on May 16. On June 6, 1986, Dr. Velazquez did a slit lamp examination and a fundus exam on Patient #1. On July 18, Patient #1 saw Dr. Velazquez, complaining that his eye lids were coming down so far that they interfered with his vision. She examined his eyes and determined how much the lids were interfering with his vision. On September 26, she did the pre-op for lid surgery. On October 8, she performed lid surgery and saw Patient #1 for post-op on October 9. Dr. Velazquez removed the stitches on October 13. On October 27 she again saw Patient #1 and noted the wrinkling of a membrane which is left behind after cataract surgery. On October 31, she performed a yag laser capsulotomy to remove the membrane. Patient #1 returned to the Miami Eye Institute on November 7 and was seen by Dr. Gasset. A slit lamp eye examination was performed. He noted a cataract in the left eye, which was the same diagnosis made by Dr. Velazquez on Patient #1's initial visit to the Miami Eye Institute. On December 19, Dr. Gasset saw Patient #1 for a routine checkup after laser treatment. Patient #1 was complaining of a floater. A slit lamp examination was performed. Patient #1 did not appear at the Miami Eye Institute again until July 14, 1987, at which time he was seen by Dr. Velazquez. His vision had decreased. Dr. Velazquez performed a vision test, a slit lamp examination, and dilated his eyes. On July 21, Patient #1 had an infection in his eyelid. On August 4, he was seen again but his vision was 20/40 with no explanation for the decrease in the vision. Dr. Velazquez told Patient #1 to return, which he did on August 11. He still had an eyelid infection, and Dr. Velazquez drained the lid. On August 25, 1987, Patient #1 came in for a fluorescein angiogram. As a result of the test, Dr. Velazquez diagnosed a macular edema. On September 1, she performed a slit lamp examination and a vision test, injected a cortiocosteroid, and placed him on Pred Forte, cortiocosteriod drops, for the macular edema. On September 15, Dr. Velazquez gave Patient #1 another injection and told him to continue with the Pred Forte drops. He was again seen on September 29 at which time his vision had improved a little. Dr. Velazquez again told him to continue with the Pred Forte. Based on financial and operational disagreements, Dr. Velazquez terminated her working relationship with Dr. Gasset on October 9, 1987. On October 23, 1987, Patient #1 returned to the Miami Eye Institute and was seen by Dr. Gasset. The patient complained of decreased vision. Dr. Gasset performed a slit lamp examination. Patient #1's next visit to the Miami Eye Institute was on May 13, 1988, when he was seen by Dr. Gasset. The patient complained of poor night vision. He was given a slit lamp examination and a pressure check and was told to return in six months. On October 10, 1989, Patient #1 came to Dr. Gasset for a routine checkup. A slit lamp examination was performed as well as a pressure check. The patient's visual acuity was 20/25 OD and 20/60, left eye. Patient #1's next visit to Dr. Gasset was on August 28, 1990. Patient #1 came to the office complaining that he had lost his reading glasses. Having judged the credibility of Patient #1, I find that Patient #1 did not tell Dr. Gasset that he was seeing "a black ball" in his eye or in any way indicate that he was experiencing floaters. Based on Patient #1's complaint, Dr. Gasset performed a pressure check, noted a cataract on the left eye, and wrote "status quo" on the patient's chart. Patient #1's vision was 20/20 minus in his right eye and 20/60 minus in his left eye. Dr. Gasset did not dilate Patient #1's eyes during his examination. On the same date, Dr. Gasset prescribed glasses for Patient #1, and Patient #1 obtained eyeglasses from the optical department at the Miami Eye Institute. Dr. Gasset did not dilate Patient #1's eyes from October 23, 1987, through August 28, 1990. On September 17, 1990, Patient #1 went to see Dr. Velazquez, complaining that he had had decreased visual acuity in his right eye for approximately 20 days. An eye examination was performed and Patient #1's visual acuity was 20/100 in the right eye and 20/70 in his left eye. A pressure check was also performed. Dr. Velazquez dilated Patient #1's eyes and discovered a retinal detachment. A retinal detachment refers to a condition wherein a tear or hole develops in the retina and the fluid dissects, causing the retina to bulge forward, affecting the vision. Patient #1 had a horseshoe tear in the superior nasal quadrant of his eye. The detachment was bullous, meaning that it was billowing out like a sail. Because of the location and nature of the tear, the retinal detachment most probably occurred very rapidly. Additionally, it is more likely than not, the tear was not present when Dr. Gasset saw Patient #1 on August 28, 1990. Dr. Velazquez sent Patient #1 to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (Bascom Palmer) that same day. Patient #1 had retinal detachment surgery at Bascom Palmer on the following day. The next time Dr. Velazquez saw Patient #1 was on December 10, 1990. His best corrected vision was 20/200. He was still being seen by the doctor at Bascom Palmer. Patient #1's next visit to Dr. Velazquez was on January 28, 1991. Dr. Velazquez did a slit lamp exam and a vision check and dilated his eyes to check his retina. On March 18, 1991, Patient #1 was again seen by Dr. Velazquez. He was complaining of distorted vision. The best that she could get him to see was 20/100. Patient #1 was rather nearsighted in the right eye and farsighted in the other eye. The disparity between the visual acuity in his eyes bothered him. Based on the testimony of Drs. Segall and Velazquez, the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in the instant case would be dilation of Patient #1's eyes at least once each year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the portion of Count One of the Administrative Complaint which alleged that Respondent failed to reach an appropriate diagnosis, finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to dilate Patient #1's pupils on a timely basis, issuing a reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 2nd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3887 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Based on the credibility of the witnesses, it is rejected. Paragraphs 5-7: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 9-12: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 13-17: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 19-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 22-23: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 25: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26: Accepted to the extent that it states the standard of care but rejected to the extent that it implies that Patient #1 complained of floaters to Dr. Gasset. Paragraph 27: Accepted in substance but rejected to the extent that it implies that Patient #1 told Dr. Gasset that he had decreased vision and floaters. Paragraphs 28-29: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 30: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 31: Having judged the credibility of Patient #1, I reject the portion which states that Patient #1 told Dr. Gasset that he was having difficulty in reading because he could see a little black ball while reading. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 32-34: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 35-40: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 41: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 42: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 43: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary and constituting argument. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraphs 16-17: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20: Rejected as recitation of testimony and constituting argument. Paragraph 22: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 22-23: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 24-25: Rejected as recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos J. Ramos, Esquire Kenneth J. Metzger, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Dittmar, Esquire Roland Continental Plaza, Suite 400 3250 Mary Street Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
