The Issue The issue in this case is whether the license of Allen B. Erde, M.D., should be disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine based upon actions he is alleged to have taken, or failed to have taken, between August and November, 1986, in the care and treatment of his patient, C.W.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a physician in the State Of Florida, having been issued license number ME-0008625. Respondent was C.W.'s obstetrician during her pregnancy in 1986, and initially examined her on August 26, 1986, when she was six weeks pregnant. During this initial visit, C.W. was informed by Respondent that her pregnancy was progressing normally. At her second visit, on September 23, 1986, Respondent detected no fetal heartbeat. However, he informed C.W. that this was not a problem. He requested that she bring her husband with her for her third visit so that they both could hear the heartbeat. Prior to her third visit, C.W. saw Respondent in his office on October 6, 1986, complaining of urinary problems, and a stiff neck and back. Respondent treated her for a urinary tract infection. Later that same day she began to bleed vaginally, passed clots and experienced cramping pains. She then saw Respondent at the Winter Haven Hospital emergency room, but was told that nothing seemed wrong. Respondent advised her simply to go home, put her feet up, and rest. There were several other occasions during October, 1986, when C.W. experienced cramping and vaginal bleeding. She called Respondent each time to express her concerns, but was told simply to lie down, and keep her feet up. On October 22, 1986, C.W. and her husband visited Respondent for her third scheduled visit. No heartbeat was heard. Respondent again told C.W. that there was no cause for concern, the baby was just small and probably behind her pelvic bone. C.W. was presumably 14 weeks pregnant at this time, but Respondent's office records indicate that the fetus was decreasing in size, there was no weight gain, and no heartone. C.W. continued to experience pain and bleeding, sometimes accompanied by clots. She was not gaining weight, and had none of the other indications of pregnancy which she had experienced in her prior pregnancies. C.W. continued to express concern to Respondent, but his advice remained simply to lie down, and keep her feet up. In response to a five day episode of bleeding, C.W. saw Respondent in his office on November 12, 1986. Although she was 17 weeks pregnant at that time, Respondent's office records indicate a fetus 14 weeks in size. Respondent did not order any fetal viability tests, and there is no evidence in his office record that he considered any testing of the fetus. C.W. saw Respondent for her fourth scheduled visit on November 19, 1986, and, again, no fetal heartbeat was detected. She was still experiencing vaginal bleeding. Her uterus was only 10-12 weeks in size, although she was presumably 19 weeks pregnant at this time. C.W. was distraught, and expressed great concern to Respondent that she was presumably almost five months pregnant and no fetal heartbeat had ever been detected. C.W. demanded that Respondent do something. He then ordered a quantitative Beta-subunit Human Chorionic Gonadotropin blood test to determine her hormone level. On November 2l, 1986, Respondent called C.W. at her place of employment, and informed her that her hormone levels were extremely low, and that she might not have a viable pregnancy. He told her she should keep her next regularly scheduled appointment with him, but if she experienced any severe bleeding or cramping to call him. C.W. left work and became increasingly upset. She contacted him later on that same day for a more complete explanation of what she should expect. Respondent told her that the fetus was "reversing itself and was losing weight instead of gaining." C.W. was not informed by Respondent that the fetus was not viable, and she took his advice to mean that if she was extremely careful there was still a chance of carrying the pregnancy to term. Respondent admitted to the Petitioner's investigator, Jim Bates, that he knew the fetus was dead at this time, but he was trying to let nature take its course, and if she did not abort in two or three months, he would take the fetus. Because she was extremely upset and her friends were concerned about the advice she was receiving from the Respondent, an appointment with another obstetrician, Dr. Vincent Gatto, was made for C.W. by one of her friends. Dr. Gatto saw C.W. on or about November 21, 1986, and after examining her he immediately diagnosed her as having had a missed abortion. A sonogram confirmed this diagnosis. A dilation and curettage was performed on C.W., and subsequent pathological reports revealed remnants of an 8-week fetus. The medical records which Respondent maintained of his care and treatment of C.W. are incomplete and contain discrepancies concerning his evaluation of the patient. They do not reflect C.W.'s numerous telephone calls, or that she was increasingly upset over the course of her pregnancy. There is no delineation of a plan of treatment in these records, or any explanation of the type of treatment he was pursuing for her. There is no explanation or justification in these records of Respondent's failure to order a sonogram or test, other than the one Beta-subunit Human Chorionic Gonadotropin, for C.W., although she repeatedly reported vaginal bleeding and cramping, and there was a continuing inability to detect a fetal heartbeat. Respondent failed to carry out the correct tests on C.W., and therefore, he failed to make a correct diagnosis of missed abortion, or to treat her correctly. He allowed her to carry a dead fetus for almost two months. Retention of the products of a non-viable pregnancy can lead to several complications, including infection, blood clotting and psychological trauma. In fact, this experience caused C.W. severe emotional anguish. In his care and treatment of C.W., Respondent failed to meet the standard of care that is required of a physician practicing under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license to practice medicine for a period of five years, and imposing an administrative fine of $3,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 88-4785) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding l. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. 6-7. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding 13. 18-21. Adopted in Finding 12. 22. Adopted in Finding 14. The Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary B. Radkins, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Allen B. Erde, M.D. P. O. Box 1817 Winter Haven, FL 33883-1817 Allen B. Erde, M.D. 198 First Street, South Winter Haven, FL 33880 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to practice medicine at the level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances and, if not, the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0026784. He is Board-certified in radiology. On January 30, 1997, T. D., a 30-year-old female who was eight months pregnant, presented to the emergency room of the Columbia Largo Medical Center complaining of pain in the left flank radiating to the left groin, together with nausea and vomiting. She also reported a prior history of kidney stones. A urologist diagnosed T. D. as suffering from kidney stones and severe hydronephrosis, which is the dilation of the kidney due to an obstruction in the flow of urine. The urologist was unable to pass a stent and catheter by the stones to drain the urine and relieve the pressure on the kidney, so he asked Respondent to perform a left percutaneous nephrostomy. A percutaneous nephrostomy is a procedure in which a physician places a tube through the skin and into the collecting system of the kidney to drain the kidney. The tube remains in place until the obstruction is removed. On February 1, Respondent performed a left percutaneous nephrostomy under local anaesthesia. For guidance in placing the tube, Respondent used ultrasound, rather than ultrasound and a flouroscopy. Respondent has performed 100-150 nephrostomies. As is the common practice, he normally does not rely exclusively ultrasound in guiding the placement of the tube in the kidney. In this case, the urologist asked that he not use a flouroscopy, in deference to the patient's pregnancy and the duration of x-ray exposure in a flouroscopy. Respondent was comfortable doing the procedure in this manner, although he decided that, if he encountered any problems in placement, he would resort to flouroscopy. Respondent proceeded to perform the percutaneous nephrostomy in the morning. As is typical, the radiology technician helped position T. D. on the table for the procedure. T. D.'s advanced pregnancy necessitated a slight adjustment to the normal posture of patients being prepared for this procedure, so T. D. lay slightly more up on her side than is usual. However, this did not change the point of entry chosen by Respondent. And, regardless of her precise position, the location of the spinal canal relative to the kidney relative to the point of entry into the skin remains constant: an imaginary line from the kidney to the spinal canal is perpendicular to an imaginary line from the point of entry to the kidney. The point of entry is on the lower back of the patient. T. D. is thin and her pregnancy did not manifest itself on her back, so the length of tube used by Respondent was relatively short. T. D.'s thin build makes it less likely that Respondent would have placed sufficient excess tube into the patient so as to permit the tube to run from the kidney to the spinal cord. Upon placement of the tube, at least 100 cc of fluid drained through the tube. This is well within the range of urine that would be expected under the circumstances. The color was well within the range of color for urine. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the fluid was urine and that Respondent had placed the tube correctly in the kidney. At the end of the procedure, T. D. appeared a lot more comfortable. Late in the afternoon, someone called Respondent and told him that the drainage had slowed to a very small amount or nothing at all. This is not uncommon, as moving the patient or over-energetic nurses may accidentally dislodge the stent in the kidney. It is also possible that the tube has rested in a part of the kidney that does not facilitate maximum drainage. Using ultrasound, Respondent confirmed that the tube remained in place in the kidney, although he could not tell whether the stent had come to rest in a narrow place in the kidney or possibly even against a stone. Even with this uncertainty, Respondent still was able to determine that the stent was predominantly in the collecting system. Because T. D. was resting comfortably, she said that she felt fine, her fever was going down, and the hydronephrosis had decreased, Respondent decided to do nothing until after re-examining T. D. the next morning. However, at about 11:00 p.m. or midnight, Respondent, who was visiting a nearby patient, dropped in on T. D. The nurse said that she was fine and her kidney was draining a little better. T. D. also said that she was feeling fine. About three or four hours later, T. D. reported a feeling of some paralysis. Petitioner's expert testified that this was linked to the misplacement of the stent in the spinal canal, but he was unaware that T. D. had undergone a spinal block for the percutaneous nephrostomy and that a problem with the first anaesthetic procedure had necessitated a second. It is more likely that T. D.'s paralysis was in response to the two spinal blocks. At 9:00 a.m. the next day, Respondent returned and examined T. D. He found that she was still doing better, and her urologist was preparing to discharge her from the hospital. She looked better, and her urine flow had improved. He told her to call him if she had any problems, but he never heard from her again or even about her until he learned from the urologist that T. D. had been admitted to another hospital where a radiologist had inserted contrast material into the tube to locate the stent and found it in the spinal canal. The father of the baby picked up T. D. at the Columbia Largo Medical Center. He picked her up out of the wheelchair and placed her in the car. Her condition deteriorated once she got home. A hospital nurse directed the father to change the collection bag, if it filled prior to the visit of the home health care nurse. In the three or four days that T. D. remained at home, he changed the bag several times. He daily checked the site at which the tube entered T. D.'s skin and noticed that it had pulled out a little bit. However, he testified that he did not try to adjust the length of tube inside T. D., nor did he change the setting on the tube, which had "open" and "closed" settings for the pigtail at the end of the tube. The proper setting was closed, as the pigtail is not to be open once the stent has reached its destination in the kidney. On February 5, the father took T. D. to the emergency room of the Columbia St. Petersburg Medical Center, where she presented with complaints of severe back pain. An ultrasound confirmed the presence of kidney stones, whose removal had been deferred until the delivery of the baby. In an effort to locate the end of the tube, a radiologist inserted radiographic contrast dye, which showed that the end of the tube was in the intrathecal space of the spine. A urologist removed the tube. However, T. D. suffered a seizure. Another physician attempted an emergency C-section, but the baby did not live. There are two alternatives to explain how the stent at the end of the tube found its way into the spinal canal. First, Respondent placed it there during the procedure. Second, it migrated from the kidney, where Respondent placed it, to the spinal canal. If not unprecedented, both alternatives are extremely rare. The drainage during the procedure and initial improvement of the distended kidney are consistent with the proper initial placement of the stent. The difficulty of inadvertently turning a relatively short length of tube 90 degrees from the kidney to the spinal canal also militates against a finding that Respondent misinserted the tube. Problems with the first spinal tap may have contributed to some of the complaints, such as paralysis, that T. D. experienced after the procedure. Although unlikely, the migration alternative would be consistent with well-intended, but incorrect, attempts by the baby's father or a home health care nurse to ensure that the tube did not travel too far in or our of the point of entry. Migration would be facilitated if either the father or nurse misread the "open" and "closed" settings and turned to "open," in the hope of improving drainage, when such a setting opens the pigtail, which would increase the possibility that the stent could migrate into the spinal canal. In a case requiring proof that is clear and convincing, it is impossible to find that Petitioner has adequately proved that Respondent misinserted the tube during the procedure. Likewise, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent should have recognized at anytime prior to T. D.'s discharge from the Columbia Largo Medical Center that something was wrong with the procedure that he had performed or that he needed to confirm by x-ray the location of the stent at the end of the tube.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1999, 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 2nd day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William B. Taylor, IV Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601-1531 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 30, 2000, 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 of Health, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida. Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes (1997). Dr. O'Rourke is, and was at the times material to this proceeding, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 0044786. He has been in private practice in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, since 1985 and was board-certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1987 and re-certified in 1997. Dr. O'Rourke has been the Chief of Surgery at Broward General Medical Center since 1997. In early 1996, R.F., a 65-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. O'Rourke by Dr. Rajendra P. Gupta, a physician who had treated R.F. at the Broward General Medical Center Clinic ("Clinic") in 1995 and early 1996. The purpose of the referral was for a surgical consultation regarding a mass on R.F.'s liver. 1/ Dr. O'Rourke first saw R.F. at the Clinic on February 14, 1996, and on February 21, 1996, R.F. returned to see Dr. O'Rourke for preoperative testing. Dr. O'Rourke examined R.F., took a patient history, and ordered several preoperative tests. Dr. O'Rourke also reviewed R.F.'s medical records from the Clinic and her hospital chart from Broward General Medical Center ("Broward General"). These documents included, among other things, the record of prior consultations with physicians at Broward General, the films from a recent M.R.I. and a recent CT scan, and the results of a CT-guided biopsy, x-rays, sonograms, blood tests, and an esophageal endoscopy. The CT-guided biopsy did not confirm or rule out the possibility that the mass on R.F.'s liver was cancerous. However, because tests showed that R.F.'s alpha-fetoprotein levels 2/ were abnormal, Dr. O'Rourke considered the mass to be a cancerous tumor and, therefore, lethal. Based on the results of the tests ordered by Dr. Gupta and by Dr. O'Rourke and on the information in R.F.'s medical records and hospital chart, Dr. O'Rourke decided that it would be appropriate to perform an exploratory laparotomy on R.F. to evaluate the mass and, if indicated, perform a right hepatic segmentectomy, or resection, to remove the mass. Dr. O'Rourke explained the gravity of the situation to R.F. and told her that he wanted to perform exploratory surgery to determine if the mass on the liver could be removed and to remove it, if possible. R.F. discussed the proposed surgery with her family and notified Dr. O'Rourke that she would have the surgery. In deciding that an exploratory laparotomy was appropriate for R.F., Dr. O'Rourke considered and evaluated the risk that R.F. would have excessive bleeding during the procedure. The presence of significant cirrhosis of the liver is one indication that a patient might bleed excessively during a hepatic resection. 3/ The results of the esophageal endoscopy performed on R.F. in October 1995 did not show the presence of esophageal varices, nor did the results of R.F.'s CT scan show the presence of ascites. Both of these conditions are indicative of portal hypertension, which is increased blood pressure in the portal triad that provides blood to the liver. 4/ Portal hypertension is caused by a slowing of the blood flow through the liver, which is, in turn, caused by cirrhosis of the liver. Because there was no evidence of portal hypertension in R.F.'s test results, there was no conclusive preoperative evidence that R.F.'s liver was cirrhotic. 5/ Nonetheless, based on other indications in R.F.'s medical records and test results, Dr. O'Rourke considered it highly probable that R.F.'s liver was cirrhotic. R.F. was at high risk of cirrhosis because she had a positive hepatitis profile for Hepatitis B and C, because she had a probable primary cellular carcinoma in the liver, and because her outpatient medical records revealed a persistent elevation of cellular enzymes in her liver. However, the extent of R.F.'s cirrhosis could not be precisely determined through preoperative testing; it could only be conclusively determined intraoperatively. The more important consideration in Dr. O'Rourke's evaluation of R.F. as a candidate for an exploratory laparotomy and possible hepatic resection was the functional ability of R.F.'s liver. There was no preoperative evidence that R.F.'s liver function was abnormal; her PT levels and her bilirubin levels, both important indicators of liver function, consistently tested within the normal range. Dr. O'Rourke also considered the possibility that R.F.'s tumor was particularly vascular, 6/ which would also indicate that R.F. would bleed excessively during surgery. It is not possible to determine conclusively before surgery if a tumor is vascular; that determination can only be made once the tumor is visible and can be manipulated. However, there was no preoperative evidence that R.F.'s tumor was particularly vascular. R.F. tolerated a CT-guided biopsy of the liver prior to surgery; there was nothing in the biopsied tissue that indicated the tumor was particularly vascular, nor was there any significant bleeding as a result of the biopsy. This would indicate that R.F.'s tumor was not particularly vascular. Dr. O'Rourke did not request a preoperative cardiology consultation for R.F. because there were no indications of a cardiac risk in her medical records or in her test results. Although R.F. had diagnoses of systemic hypertension and of atrial fibrillation, both of which are very common, the hypertension was controlled by Accupril and a diuretic, and neither the hypertension nor the atrial fibrillation would indicate the need for a cardiology consultation. R.F.'s EKG was interpreted as borderline; and there were no indications in her medical records that R.F. had ischemic heart disease. In addition, the anesthesiologist who was to administer anesthesia to R.F. during the surgery did not request a cardiology consultation. 7/ Had the anesthesiologist been concerned about R.F.'s cardiac fitness to tolerate general anesthesia, he or she would likely have cancelled or deferred the surgery. The only documentation of the location of the hepatic mass that Dr. O'Rourke included in R.F.'s medical records was a notation that the indicated procedure was a right hepatic segmentectomy. However, even though Dr. O'Rourke did not more precisely set forth the location of the mass in the documentation, he knew the exact location of the mass from having examined the film of the CT scan and of the M.R.I. performed on January 3, 1996, which showed an "ovoid solitary mass along the dome of the right lobe of the liver." In addition, the report of the sonogram performed on November 21, 1995, which was available to and reviewed by Dr. O'Rourke, showed a "focal mass on the diaphragmatic surface of the right lobe of the liver." On February 27, 1996, Dr. O'Rourke performed exploratory surgery on R.F. to determine the resectability of the liver tumor. Ultimately, Dr. O'Rourke performed a non- anatomic hepatic resection to remove the tumor. Dr. O'Rourke prepared adequately for the possibility that R.F. would experience blood loss during the exploratory laparotomy. As noted above, however, there were no preoperative indicators that R.F. would experience excessive blood loss. Dr. O'Rourke requested that a cell saver be available in the operating room during R.F.'s surgery, 8/ and the anesthesiologist ordered R.F.'s blood to be typed and screened to identify the correct blood type. Dr. O'Rourke did not order R.F.'s blood to be typed and cross-matched, which provides the most specific information about the particular type of blood required by the patient. Although the better practice is to have the patient's blood typed and cross-matched prior to surgery, it takes only ten minutes to obtain typed and cross- matched blood from the blood bank should the patient lose more blood than can be replaced by the cell saver. 9/ R.F.'s blood pressure was monitored during the surgery by an arterial line, and good access was provided for the introduction of fluids into R.F. through two intravenous lines placed by the anesthesiologist, one 16-gauge line and one 18-gauge line. Dr. O'Rourke did not place a "central line," or central venous pressure ("CVP") line, 10/ into R.F. preoperatively. The anesthesiologist usually makes the decision to insert a CVP line preoperatively, and, in R.F.'s case, Dr. O'Rourke agreed with the anesthesiologist that it was not necessary. Some surgeons routinely insert CVP lines preoperatively when performing an exploratory procedure such as Dr. O'Rourke was performing on R.F.; other surgeons prefer to wait until they are sure that they will perform the hepatic resection because there are a multitude of risks attendant to the insertion of a CVP line, a bleeding pneumothorax being the most common. 11/ Dr. O'Rourke began the exploratory laparotomy by opening R.F.'s belly and removing scar tissue that resulted from prior surgery. He dissected into the abdomen, down to the fascia, and again removed scar tissue that resulted from prior surgery. He divided the falciform ligament and removed it at the point where it attaches to the liver, a procedure that is necessary before the liver can be mobilized. Dr. O'Rourke moved the falciform ligament further up to its diaphragmatic attachment so that he could have full access to the dome of the liver, where R.F.'s tumor was located. Once the falciform ligament was separated from the liver, Dr. O'Rourke palpated the tumor and determined that it was very fragile and tended to crumble. Dr. O'Rourke then mobilized R.F.'s liver. 12/ When he did so, the tumor ruptured, and R.F. started to bleed from the posterior of the liver. R.F.'s blood pressure fell dramatically, a condition known as hypotension, and she became unstable. Dr. O'Rourke's first priority was to stop the bleeding and stabilize R.F.'s blood pressure, and he decided to pack the liver, the most extreme technique used to stop bleeding in or around the liver. Unfortunately, once a patient undergoing hepatic surgery begins to bleed, it is very difficult to stop the bleeding. 13/ The Pringle maneuver is one technique that can be used to control bleeding in and around the liver. This technique requires dissecting around the portal triad and clamping the hepatic artery and the portal vein in order to stop temporarily the blood flow from the portal triad into the liver. Dr. O'Rourke's decision to pack R.F.'s liver rather than attempt the Pringle maneuver was based on several factors. First, R.F. had a significant amount of scar tissue on her anterior abdominal wall, and Dr. O'Rourke anticipated that, given her rapidly deteriorating condition, it would take too much time to dissect through the scar tissue to expose the portal triad. Second, the Pringle maneuver provides only a temporary solution because the portal triad can be clamped and the blood flow into the liver stopped for no more than 15 minutes at a time; the maneuver can be repeated if necessary when working with a healthy liver but it is very risky to do so when working with a cirrhotic liver such as R.F.'s. Third, although it can be helpful to a surgeon trying to find the source of bleeding to temporarily stop the blood flow from the portal triad, Dr. O'Rourke already knew that the bleeding originated in the posterior of the liver, behind the tumor. At the same time that Dr. O'Rourke was packing the liver, the anesthesiologist was resuscitating R.F. with fluids and calling the blood bank to order cross-matched blood. After packing the liver, Dr. O'Rourke observed the site of the bleeding for 15 to 20 minutes, during which time the bleeding decreased slightly but not significantly. R.F.'s parameters did not improve, and Dr. O'Rourke decided to close the abdomen. After closing the abdomen, Dr. O'Rourke inserted a CVP line; the CVP line was inserted primarily for the purpose of more quickly introducing fluids and blood products into R.F. Once he had placed the CVP line, Dr. O'Rourke assisted the anesthesiologist in attempting to resuscitate R.F. by the rapid infusion of fluid and blood. At this point, Dr. O'Rourke anticipated that R.F. would stabilize, and, once she had stabilized, Dr. O'Rourke intended to wait 24-to-48 hours, reopen the abdomen, remove or replace the lap packing, and close the abdomen without removing the tumor. He decided that, when he re-opened the abdomen, it would be too risky to proceed with the tumor resection because of the likelihood that R.F. would again begin bleeding. Dr. O'Rourke's plans changed because R.F.'s blood pressure did not significantly improve after approximately 20 minutes, and the degree of her hypotension was out of proportion to her actual blood loss, which Dr. O'Rourke estimated as 300- to-400 cubic centimeters. Under these circumstances, Dr. O'Rourke felt that he had two alternatives: to do nothing and let R.F. die or to re-explore the liver. He, therefore, re- opened the incision, removed the packing, and confirmed that the packing had not controlled the bleeding. When packing fails to control the bleeding, the surgeon has a serious problem and a limited number of options: The surgeon can temporarily stop the flow of blood into the liver by using the Pringle maneuver; the surgeon can extend the incisions under the ribs or into the side and fully mobilize the liver 14/ to expose its posterior and possibly locate the source of the bleeding; or, the surgeon can remove the tumor to try to gain access to the vessels that are bleeding so that they can be suture-ligated. Dr. O'Rourke had already rejected the Pringle maneuver as too time-consuming and unlikely to be successful in stopping the bleeding. He decided not to fully mobilize the liver because R.F.'s liver was cirrhotic, and therefore somewhat brittle, so that, had he attempted to mobilize the liver fully, he risked exacerbating the bleeding. In any event, the tumor was completely accessible to Dr. O'Rourke without fully mobilizing the liver. Dr. O'Rourke decided that, under the circumstances, the best chance of saving R.F. was to remove the tumor, thereby gaining access to the posterior of the liver and to the hepatic veins, which he suspected were the source of the bleeding. Once the tumor was removed, he could suture-ligate the blood vessels from which the bleeding originated. Accordingly, Dr. O'Rourke performed a non-anatomic hepatic resection. He found that the tumor resection itself was easy and presented no problems. He individually suture-ligated the vessels that provided the tumor's blood supply and brought the bleeding down to a low level. Dr. O'Rourke felt that he had controlled the bleeding, and R.F.'s hepatocrit level was brought back to a low-normal, but acceptable, level. Nonetheless, R.F.'s blood pressure did not improve and actually deteriorated. Despite the successful efforts to control the bleeding and the efforts to resuscitate R.F. by transfusing blood and fluids, her condition continued to deteriorate, and she was pronounced dead at 6:23 p.m. on February 27, 1996. Dr. O'Rourke spoke with R.F.'s family and told the family members that the amount of R.F.'s blood loss did not explain why her blood pressure fell so low or why her condition continued to deteriorate in spite of his having controlled the bleeding and in spite of the efforts to resuscitate her with blood and fluids. He asked the family for permission to do an autopsy to determine what had happened. The family refused, although they later had a private autopsy done at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida. The cause of death stated in the autopsy report was "[e]xsanguination post subtotal hepatic resection." The evidence submitted by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Dr. O'Rourke failed to keep adequate medical records to justify the course of his treatment of R.F. Because R.F. was a Clinic patient, Dr. O'Rourke had access to the medical records kept since her first consultation with Dr. Gupta in October 1995, as well as access to all of the results of the tests performed on her from October 1995 through the date of surgery. In the record of his examination of R.F., Dr. O'Rourke included her surgical history, her medical history, a list of the medications R.F. was taking, and the results of his physical examination of R.F. His proposed treatment of R.F. was identified in the documentation as a right hepatic resection. Taken altogether, the documentation in this case adequately justifies Dr. O'Rourke's decision to do an exploratory laparotomy and a right hepatic resection, if indicated, and there is no evidence that additional documentation was required. 15/ The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Dr. O'Rourke's preoperative examinations, testing, or planning fell below that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. R.F.'s medical records and chart establish that she was given a battery of pre-operative tests, and the Department's expert witness could not identify any additional pre-operative test that should have been given. Dr. O'Rourke examined the patient and noted the results of his examination, as well as the medications she was taking, on the Outpatient/Short Stay Record. Dr. O'Rourke knew the exact location of the mass on R.F.'s liver, he adequately noted the location of the tumor as the right posterior lobe of the liver, and he knew that, although R.F.'s liver was most likely cirrhotic, her liver function was normal, albeit low normal. A pre-operative cardiology consult was not indicated by R.F.'s medical records or test results. It is uncontroverted that Dr. O'Rourke's decision to do an exploratory laparotomy on R.F. was not inappropriate. Dr. O'Rourke anticipated that R.F. would suffer blood loss during the surgery, and he planned for the anticipated blood loss by ordering a cell saver for the operating room. Although Dr. O'Rourke perhaps should have had R.F.'s blood typed and cross-matched prior to the surgery, his failure to do so did not appreciably delay the delivery of additional blood to R.F. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Dr. O'Rourke's intraoperative efforts to control R.F.'s bleeding fell below that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Dr. O'Rourke's decisions to pack the liver to control the bleeding and then, when that failed, to remove the tumor in an effort to expose the vessels that were bleeding were not inappropriate under the circumstances. Although there were options other than packing available to help control the bleeding, Dr. O'Rourke rejected these options as too time- consuming, as temporary solutions, as unnecessary, or as unlikely to be successful. Dr. O'Rourke's decision to remove the tumor to gain access to the vessels that were the source of the bleeding and to attempt to stop the bleeding by suture- ligating these vessels was a decision that could only have been made intraoperatively, based on all of the information available to Dr. O'Rourke at the time. Although R.F. was very unstable, the cell-saver was recycling the blood she was losing and re- infusing it, and R.F. was receiving other blood products and fluids. Given the available options, Dr. O'Rourke's decision was not inappropriate.
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 the Administrative Complaint against Aiden Matthew O'Rourke, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 26th day of January, 2001.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2004),2 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Roush is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. ME 83992. He is board- certified in general surgery by the American Board of Surgery. On February 8, 2005, V.R. presented to the emergency department at Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. Her chief complaint was “near syncope,” which means near fainting. She had fallen and hit her left ribs. She denied hitting her head and stated that she never “went completely out.” She complained of feeling dizzy when she stood. While in the emergency department, V.R. had a CT which indicated an abnormality. She was admitted to the hospital by Ernesto J. Perez, M.D., who was the attending physician. V.R.’s medical history included hypertension, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. A brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a carotid magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) were ordered for V.R. After the MRI and MRA were completed, V.R. was seen by Juan L. Joy, M.D., who reviewed the test results. Dr. Joy found that both studies were “unremarkable.” Specifically, Dr. Joy found that the MRI showed no posterior fossa lesions. The radiographic report of the MRA showed that there was “approximately 70 to 80 percent luminal narrowing of the proximal left ICA." Because of the abnormal MRA, Dr. Perez consulted with Dr. Roush. Dr. Roush examined the patient and felt that V.R.’s symptoms were consistent with inner ear cochlear malfunction. However, he determined that V.R. had left-sided 70 to 80 percent carotid stenosis. His assessment of V.R. was that she was “a 66-year-old female with probable asymptomatic high-grade stenosis in the left carotid internal artery." He recommended a carotid endarterectomy, which is a procedure that removes plaque from the lining of the carotid artery. An MRA is used to diagnose blockages or stenosis in the carotid arteries. An MRA can overestimate the degree of blockage. Other studies such as ultrasound, carotid Doppler studies, and standard arteriography are used to diagnose carotid stenosis. Roush did not order or perform any additional diagnostic studies to confirm the results of V.R.’s MRA prior to making the surgical recommendation. Dr. Roush performed the carotid endarterectomy on V.R., but no carotid stenosis was found. An ultrasound of the right carotid artery was ordered to determine if the original MRA had been of the right carotid rather then the left. The ultrasound showed that there was “no hemodynamically significant stenosis” and “no plaque” in the right carotid. The Department presented Dr. Michael J. Cohen as its expert witness. Dr. Cohen is board-certified in vascular surgery. It was Dr. Cohen’s opinion that an MRA, alone, was not sufficient to diagnose carotid stenosis and that Dr. Roush fell below the standard of care by not ordering additional diagnostic tests prior to recommending surgical intervention. Dr. Cohen's opinion is credited. The MRA showed a blockage of 70 to 80 percent. Dr. Cohen credibly opined that most vascular surgeons would not have operated on an asymptomatic patient such as V.R. with that level of stenosis without additional testing. It was Dr. Cohen’s credible opinion that the carotid endarterectomy which Dr. Roush performed on V.R. was an unnecessary surgical procedure; thus, Dr. Roush fell below the standard of care when he performed the surgery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Roush violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; requiring 25 hours of community service; requiring Dr. Roush to take no less than five hours of Risk Management Continuing Medical Education coursework; and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documented evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In General Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0016786. On February 27, 1984, Florida Medical license of the Respondent was suspended for a period of one year in Department of Professional Regulation vs. Teotimo D. Bonzon, M.D., Case Number 82-799. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was the primary care physician for Mary T. Upton, a patient with a history of bronchial asthma. Valium On January 11, 1985 the patient, Mary T. Upton, developed onset of acute respiratory distress and was seen by the Respondent, first in his office and then as an outpatient. On the second occasion, Respondent gave the patient valium, a Schedule IV Controlled Substance. On January 12, 1985, Upton was admitted to Methodist Hospital of Jacksonville, Florida, with a complaint of Acute Asthmatic Bronchitis. Bronchial Asthma is a condition that affects the respiratory drive. Valium relaxes the muscles and sedates the central nervous system and respiratory drive of a person and, as such, is not a drug to be administered in an outpatient setting under the circumstances that Respondent administered valium to Upton. Theo-Dur After admission and initial treatment, the patient continued to experience respiratory distress, and the Respondent was notified. Respondent ordered the drug Theo-Dur to be given orally. This was after Upton was given Theophylline, but before she was stabilized on Theophylline. Theo-Dur is a long sustained action form of Theophylline, which takes twelve hours to have an appreciable affect and, as such, is used primarily for maintenance and should not be used in acute situations such as Upton's until the patient is stabilized. Theophylline At the time Upton was admitted to the hospital on January 12, 1985 and Respondent started her on Aminophylline (also called Theophylline I.V.), Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline for her asthma condition and that she had a prescription to obtain such medication. Although Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline, Respondent did not inquire of Upton, or in any other manner determine, if she had ingested any form of Theophylline before administering the Aminophylline I.V. upon admission to the hospital on January 12, 1985. Upton had taken Theophylline before the Theophylline I.V. was administered. It is the recognized standard of care for a physician to obtain the level of Theophylline in the patient's body before administering Theophylline and, to periodically check the level of Theophylline to assure the best therapeutic level is achieved. Upton was on the hospital floor at approximately 11:20 a.m. on January 12, 1985 and the first time a physician ordered the Theophylline level checked was between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on January 12, 1985 after Respondent consulted with Dr. Libao. Before the Theophylline level was checked, Respondent had already administered Theo-Dur. Toxicity of Theophylline occurs when the content of the blood exceeds 20 milligrams per 100cc and any level over the 20 milligrams per 100cc may cause the patient to have gastrointestinal side affects such as nausea, vomiting and nervousness which may be life threatening. Respondent's failure to monitor the Theophylline level resulted in the patient receiving a toxic level of 24 milligrams per 100cc of Theophylline; however, there was no evidence that Upton suffered any side affects. D. Thoracostomy On January 17, 1985, routine chest x-rays confirmed a pneumothorax in Upton's left lung which was reported to the Respondent by the radiologist, Dr. Victor Saenz, by telephone between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on January 17, 1985. Without reviewing the x-rays, Respondent proceeded to treat the left pneumothorax with a chest tub (or Thoracostomy) in Upton's right lung. There was sufficient time to review the x-rays since the Thoracostomy was not performed until between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on January 17, 1985. Respondent did not order follow-up x-rays the day of the surgery to determine the effectiveness of the surgery. It is accepted medical practice for the physician, particularly a surgeon who performs an invasive procedure such as a thoracostomy, to order x- rays immediately following the surgery to make sure the procedure is working By placing the chest tub in the wrong side of the lung, Respondent created a situation wherein another pneumothorax might occur; however, by removing the chest tub from the right lung and placing it in the left lung alleviated this possibility. Respondent failed to realize that the chest tub had been placed in the wrong side of the lung (the right side) until the morning of January 18, 1985 when he was advised by the nurse that Upton had a pneumothorax on the left side rather than the right side where the chest tub had been placed by Respondent. Respondent's error was discovered as a result of routine x-rays performed by Dr. Walkett at 7:45 a.m. on January 18, 1985, the day following surgery. These follow-up x-rays also revealed Subcutaneous Emphysema throughout Upton's chest. Placing the chest tub in the right lung will not re-expand the left lung. Upon being informed of his error, Respondent proceeded to the hospital and removed the chest tub from Upton's right lung and placed it in her left lung. As a result of Respondent's error, Upton's heart beat increased around 3:00 a.m. on January 18, 1985 causing cardiac distress. Allergies At the time of the patient's admission it was noted that she was allergic to iodine. However, Respondent having treated Upton for some time prior to this admission, had knowledge that she was not allergic to iodine. Prior to the Thoracostomy and Tracheostomy, Respondent used Betadine scrub on Upton. Betadine contains iodine. Other solutions are readily available at Methodist Hospital that are not iodine-based. Tracheostomy On January 17, 1985 at or about the same time he performed the Thoracostomy, the Respondent performed a surgical procedure known as a Tracheostomy on Upton. Following the Tracheostomy, performed by the Respondent, the patient's condition did not improve and she continued to experience complications, including Subcutaneous Emphysema. Subcutaneous Emphysema occurs when air pockets form under the patient's fat tissue layer which cause swelling and can compromise the patient. On January 18, 1985, the Respondent's temporary admitting and consultation privileges at Methodist Hospital were suspended in a letter from Dr. Wallace Walkett, the president of the Medical and Dental Staff. The treatment of Upton was turned over to other physicians. Dr. Frederick Vontz, a Board Certified Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeon was called in by Dr. Walklett to repair the problems with Upton's trachea. When Dr. Vontz first saw Upton she was in moderate to severe distress and her body was swollen from the Subcutaneous Emphysema. On January 26, 1985, Dr. Vontz performed a Bronchoscopy on Upton that showed granulation tissue, which is scar tissue that may be an obstacle to breathing. The cause of this granulation tissue was the tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent. Due to Upton's difficulty in breathing and the continuing Subcutaneous Emphysema, she was taken to the operating room on January 31, 1985. In the operating room, Dr. Vontz discovered a tear in the trachea that extended to six and one-half centimeters above the carina. Dr. Vontz also discovered that the air causing the Subcutaneous Emphysema was escaping from a false channel in the trachea. The damage to the posterior wall of the patient's trachea was caused by the improper tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent on January 17, 1985. Upton died at 12:00 noon on March 6, 1985 and, although there is evidence that the tear in Upton's trachea may have contributed to Upton's death, there is insufficient evidence to show that it was clearly the sole cause of Upton's death. The record is clear that the level of care, skill and treatment provided Upton by the Respondent, fell below that which would be recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances by a prudent similar physician.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and Rule 21M- 20.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent, Teotimo D. Bonzon's license to practice medicine in the state of Florida for a period of two (2) years with condition for reinstatement determined by the Board as it deems appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-3022 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner In General 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Valium 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 8, 7 and 6, respectively. Theo-Dur 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Theophylline 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 13, respectively. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 16. 7.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 17, respectively. Thoracostomy 1.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. 15.-l6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Allergies 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. 3. Rejected as not being material or relevant. Tracheostomy 1.-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31-39 Unnecessary in reaching a conclusion in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 12.-13. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent A. General 1.-3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 1 and 4, respectively. B. The Use of Betadine 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but clarified. Theophylline Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13 that Respondent had ordered Theophylline intravenously before checking the Theophylline level in the patient. Theo-Dur Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Valium Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Thoracostomy Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18-27, otherwise rejected. Tracheostomy Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 32 and 33, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. The first sentence and the first phrase of the second sentence are adopted in Findings of Fact 38 and 39. The balance is rejected as being a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact. However, even if the last sentence was stated as a finding of fact, it would be rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: MARK A. SIERON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 855 ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32067 JOHN R. WEED, ESQUIRE 605 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET PERRY, FLORIDA 32347 STEPHANIE A. DANIEL, ESQUIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 KENNETH D. EASLEY, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 DOROTHY FAIRCLOTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF MEDICINE 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue At issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the "Florida Equal Access to Justice Act." Also at issue is whether, as contended by Respondent, there is "a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by [Petitioner's claim]" and, therefore, Respondent should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Finding related to the underlying disciplinary action The Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Board of Chiropractic (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of chiropractic pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 460, Florida Statutes.3 At all times material hereto, Petitioner, Robert Frankl, D.C. (Dr. Frankl), was licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 0002560. On August 6, 1997, the Department filed a two-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Frankl (agency case number 94-20261). Count I charged Dr. Frankl violated Subsection 460.413(l)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written chiropractic records justifying the course of treatment of a patient, including patient histories, examination results, test results, X-rays, diagnosis of a disease, condition or injury. Count II charged Dr. Frankl violated Subsection 460.413(l)(v), Florida Statutes, by violating Rule 59N-17.0065(2), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that adequate patient records be legibly maintained, and that initial and follow-up services (daily notes) shall consist of documentation to justify care. For such violations, the Department proposed that one or more of the following penalties be imposed: . . . suspension of . . . [Dr. Frankl's] license, restriction of . . . [Dr. Frankl's] practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of . . . [Dr. Frankl] on probation, and/or any other relief that the Board [of Chiropractic] deems appropriate. Dr. Frankl disputed the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct a formal hearing. The matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-4109, and a hearing was duly scheduled for December 17, 1997. Shortly prior to hearing, the Department filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction that was denied by the administrative law judge. Pertinent to this case, the reaction of Dr. Frankl's counsel to the Department's maneuver was memorialized in a letter of November 20, 1997, from Dr. Frankl's counsel to the Department's counsel, as follows: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of today in which you advised me that the Administrative Law Judge denied the AHCA's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction. At this point you are contemplating whether or not to voluntarily dismiss Count I and II of the Administrative Complaint. Thereafter, the AHCA may decide to re-charge Dr. Frankl if the Chiropractic Probable Cause Panel finds cause after re-reviewing this case. In the event that the AHCA recommends that this case be re-presented to the Probable Cause Panel for purposes of re-charging him, please be advised that Dr. Frankl will be prosecuting the AHCA and/or the Chiropractic Probable Cause Panel for attorney's fees especially given the potential dismissal of the pending charges against him. Dr. Frankl is willing to waive his claim for attorney's fees if the AHCA and/or the Panel consider immediate dismissal with prejudice of any and all charges arising out of this matter, including the charges alleged in the investigative report. From the beginning of the Panel's investigation of Dr. Frankl almost two years ago, they would have certainly pursued all potential violations against him for purposes of bringing the subsequent Administrative Complaint. Notwithstanding their investigation of all potential violations against Dr. Frankl, as identified in their investigative report, the AHCA chose only to prosecute two of those charges in the form of a two count Administrative Complaint against him. Certainly at that time counsel for the AHCA would have been aware of all of the charges in the investigative report when they filed the two count Complaint against him. By counsel for the AHCA's own actions in prosecuting only these two charges in the Complaint and not the remainder of the charges in the investigative report proves that the remaining allegations in the report are meritless (even though the AHCA would like to now have these same charges re- presented to the Probable Cause Panel for purposes of potentially re-charging him). Dr. Frankl has had to spend considerable monies, time, costs and attorney's fees in defending this matter. The situation is tantamount to a witch hunt by the Panel to find anything to hang over Dr. Frankl's head. Further, the last minute attempts by the AHCA on the eve of trial, presently set for December 17, 1997, to have the Judge relinquish jurisdiction because they realized the counts were meritless in view of their own experts' reports proves that the Panel and/or the State seek to prolong the process and harass Dr. Frankl and thereby deny him his day-in-court to defend these charges and bring this matter to a final resolution. Subsequently, counsel for the Department and counsel for Dr. Frankl reached an agreement whereby counsel for the Department would recommend to the Board of Chiropractic that the investigation against Dr. Frankl be closed. In exchange, Dr. Frankl, through counsel, agreed, provided the investigation was closed, to waive any action for attorney's fees related to the case. The parties agreement was memorialized in a letter, dated December 19, 1997, from Dr. Frankl's counsel to the Department's counsel, as follows: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of Friday, December 19, 1997 this letter will confirm that upon your recommendation to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Chiropractic on Monday, December 22, 1997 at 12:30 p.m. that you will be requesting on behalf of AHCA that the instant investigation in regards to Dr. Frankl be closed (given the Voluntary Dismissal)4[.] Dr. Frankl, in turn, agrees to waive any action for attorneys' fees related to this case so long as the Probable Cause Panel elects to close their investigation against Dr. Frankl on December 19, 1997 (sic) [December 22, 1997] at the hearing. A memorandum of the Probable Cause Panel, Board of Chiropractic, for the Probable Cause Panel meeting of December 22, 1997, notes that the panel resolved that "PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT FOUND IN THIS CASE." (Respondent's Exhibit 3.) That finding resulted in the entry of a formal "CLOSING ORDER" on January 16, 1998, which provided: THE COMPLAINT: The Complaint alleges that the Subject is in violation of Section 460.413(l)(m), Florida Statutes, for failing to keep written chiropractic records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. THE FACTS: On or about June 18, 1995, Patients A.M. and J.M. voluntarily withdrew their complaint against the Subject; and stated that no violations occurred. On or about November 7, 1995, an Agency expert opined that the Subject's records on Patients A.M. and J.M. contain "adequate initial history and examination records" and "they seem to correspond with dates of services as are noted in billings." On or about April 3, 1996, probable cause was found that a violation of Section 460.413(l)(m), Florida Statutes, occurred. On or about April 4, 1997, another Agency expert opined "that legible written chiropractic records were kept on both patients J.M. and A.M. justifying treatment." THE LAW: Based on the foregoing, although probable cause had previously been found by the panel to exist, in light of the foregoing, the case shall be dismissed. It is, therefore, ORDERED that this matter be, and the same is hereby, DISMISSED. Findings relating to Dr. Frankl's claim for attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes Pertinent to Dr. Frankl's claim for attorney's fees and costs under the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the "Florida Equal Access to Justice Act," the Department has, by its response to the application, conceded that the underlying action was initiated by the Department, or its predecessor, that Dr. Frankl prevailed in the underlying case, and that the claim for attorney's fees and costs was timely filed. Accordingly, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs would be appropriate provided Dr. Frankl can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was a "small business party," as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and the Department fails to establish that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust. Addressing first Dr. Frankl's status, the proof demonstrates that at the time the underlying proceeding was initiated, and at all other times material hereto, Dr. Frankl practiced chiropractic through a professional service corporation, as authorized by Chapter 621, Florida Statutes. The principal (sole) office of the corporation was located in Hollywood, Florida, and at the time the underlying action was initiated by the Department, the corporation had not more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than two million dollars. Dr. Frankl was, and continues to be, the sole owner of the corporation. Given the proof, for reasons more fully stated in the Conclusions of Law, Dr. Frankl was not a "small business party," as defined by law, when the underlying proceeding was initiated.5 As for the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs claimed, it is observed that, with regard to attorney's fees, Dr. Frankl offered no proof that any attorney time or fee was incurred in the underlying proceeding. Consequently, there is no record basis upon which to assess a reasonable fee. Standard Guarantee Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990); Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985); and Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, 633 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). With regard to costs, Dr. Frankl did offer testimony that, at the attorney's request, he provided his attorney in the underlying case with four copies of his office file at a cost of $118. There was, however, no showing as to why the documents were requested (their need), and, therefore, no showing that the costs were necessarily incurred. Fundamentally, copying costs are generally not recoverable, and there was no showing in the instant case that Dr. Frankl's claim met any recognized exception.6 Florida Rules of Court, Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions. Findings relating to the Department's claim for attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes Pertinent to the Department's claim for attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, the Department claims that there was a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact to support Dr. Frankl's claim or application for an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the "Florida Equal Access to Justice Act." The gravamen of the Department's position is its contention that, as evidenced by the letter (of December 19, 1997) from Dr. Frankl's counsel, he waived any claim for attorney's fees and costs when the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Chiropractic closed their investigation (dismissed the case). In contrast, Dr. Frankl contends that there was never an agreement to waive costs. As for the waiver of attorney's fees, Dr. Frankl contended: . . . It is not clear whether the probable cause panel meeting at which the referenced case was reconsidered and closed was held on December 22, 1997. The minutes of the meeting reference both "December 22, 1997" and "Tuesday, December 23, 1997". The tape recording of the referenced reconsideration maintained by the Board of Chiropractic does not reference a date upon which the meeting was held. Dr. Frankl agrees that if the panel voted to close the case on December 22, 1997, he has agreed to waive attorney fees.7 (Emphasis in original.) Addressing first the issue of attorney's fees, the only proof of record reflects that, at the Probable Cause Panel meeting of December 22, 1997, the Panel voted no probable cause or, stated differently, to close the case. Consequently, by the terms of their agreement, Dr. Frankl waived any claim for attorney's fees. Moreover, whether the Panel had voted on December 23, 1997, as opposed to December 22, 1997, to close the case is immaterial or, stated differently, a distinction without a meaningful difference. Consequently, Dr. Frankl's claim for attorney's fees was lacking any justiciable issue of law or fact. While Dr. Frankl's claim lacked merit with regard to his claim for attorney's fees, the same cannot be said for his claim for costs. In this regard, it is observed that while the Department alleged the waiver was for attorney's fees and costs, the parties agreement (as evidenced by the letter of December 19, 1997) states otherwise, and the Department offered no proof that the parties intent was other than that evident from the express language of the parties' agreement. Given the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Department failed to demonstrate that Dr. Frankl's claim was entirely without merit. More importantly, for reasons appearing in the Conclusions of Law, the Department was not, as a matter of law, entitled to attorney's fees under the provisions of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes. Finally, like Dr. Frankl, the Department failed to present competent proof to demonstrate what attorney's fees, if any, were necessarily and reasonably incurred.8
