The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are whether Respondent committed the violations charged in four Administrative Complaints and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Department has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed chiropractic physicians pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a chiropractic physician after a probable cause panel (PCP) of the Board determines there is probable cause to suspect a licensee has committed a disciplinable offense, and provides direction to the Department on the filing of an administrative complaint. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Dr. Aderholdt has been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 7814. He was first licensed on January 6, 2000. He practices in an office in Bradenton, Florida. Vax-D Therapy Three of the four Administrative Complaints involve patients of Dr. Aderholdt who received Vax-D therapy. The complaints are not directed to the provision of Vax-D therapy itself, or to any other treatments provided by Dr. Aderholdt. In all four cases, the patients generally spoke well of the chiropractic care they received from Dr. Aderholdt and the manner in which they were treated by him and his office staff. Vax-D therapy is a modality using the Vax-D model for decompression of the spinal discs and spinal structure. It is used to treat a range of issues associated with low back pain, including herniated, degenerated, and bulging discs. The Vax-D model is the originator of this technology; it was the first spinal decompression device. It is a large computerized moving table. It can be programmed to provide specific axial or distractive loading. The table moves in and out, pumping nutrients at the discs. Some research shows that it can actually pull discs away from where they are causing irritation on nerves and the spinal cord. The Vax-D model is FDA-cleared for use, and the literature supports its efficacy. The Vax-D model is an expensive piece of equipment. The price range for the initial purchase is between $100,000 and $150,000, with ongoing expense thereafter for maintenance and updates. Vax-D therapy is one of the most expensive forms of therapy, if not the most expensive, in the chiropractic profession. Other models coming out after Vax-D, as well as other tools, arguably can be used for similar purposes. However, as Petitioner’s expert readily acknowledged, Vax-D is the “Rolls Royce. It’s a really nice tool.” Vax-D spinal decompression is not covered by Medicare. In fact, when it comes to chiropractic care, Medicare has never covered anything besides spinal adjustments. Coverage for Vax-D treatment by private insurance companies is rare. In 2012, Dr. Salvatore LaRusso presented a study on spinal decompression to the profession, before the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards, to inform state regulators of issues associated with Vax-D therapy. The one regulatory concern he reported was that some physicians were improperly billing Vax-D as a surgical decompression procedure, when it is plainly not surgery; it is an alternative to surgery, properly billed as a non-surgical decompressive tool or traction device. Dr. LaRusso’s study also made findings on the common methods of packaging and selling the service, and the range of charges observed. He found that most practitioners providing Vax-D therapy were selling the service as a cash item in their practice, with payment up front often required. The common model was to sell a package with a certain number of visits, with or without additional services included. Dr. LaRusso found that the per-visit charges ranged from $150 to $450, depending on the ancillary services added to the decompression. Dr. Shreeve does not have any issue with the use of or charges for Vax-D therapy. Dr. Aderholdt offers Vax-D therapy pursuant to a Vax-D Therapy Payment Plan agreement (Vax-D Agreement), which is comparable to the multi-visit packages that Dr. LaRusso’s study found to be common. After initial consultation, with intake forms, patient history, x-rays, evaluation, and examination, if a patient is determined to be appropriate for Vax-D therapy, Dr. Aderholdt will give his treatment recommendations and then turn the patient over to his office staff to address the financial aspects. If the patient wants to proceed with Vax-D therapy, the Vax-D Agreement will be reviewed and signed. Patients A.M., R.O., and P.D. each received Vax-D therapy, pursuant to signed Vax-D Agreements. The terms of the Vax-D Agreements for the three patients were the same. Patient B.O. wanted Vax-D therapy, but she was determined to not be an appropriate candidate for it. The Vax-D Agreements in evidence for Patients A.M., R.O., and P.D. provided that the named patient committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions, for $250.00 per session. The total amount that the named patient agreed to pay Dr. Aderholdt for 25 to 28 sessions was $5,500.00, which computes to an actual per-session cost of between $196.43 (for 28 sessions) and $220.00 (for 25 sessions). For the agreed price for 25 to 28 sessions, the Vax-D Agreement provided the following treatment package: at each session, the patient would receive 30 minutes of Vax-D therapy, 30 minutes of full range interferential electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), 15 minutes of hydro-massage therapy, and manipulation (adjustments) by the doctor if needed. The first set of x-rays was also included. Dr. Aderholdt requires an up-front payment for the Vax-D therapy package. For patients who want Vax-D therapy but need help coming up with the funds, Respondent’s office staff has put the patients in touch with Care Credit, which is a medical credit program. If a patient applies and is accepted, Care Credit will finance the cost without charging interest to the patient if the loan is repaid within one year. Care Credit apparently charges a fee to Respondent when credit is extended, similar to the fees charged to merchants by credit card companies for credit card purchases. No evidence was presented regarding Care Credit’s approval criteria or how widely this method is used. All that is known about Care Credit from the record evidence is that two patients who received Vax-D therapy applied for Care Credit and were approved. The other Vax-D patient charged half of the agreed price on a Visa credit card the first day of treatment, and charged the other half after 15 treatment sessions. Patient A.M. From the end of July 2013 to early February 2014, Dr. Aderholdt treated Patient A.M., then a 66-year-old female, for lower back pain and hip pain. Patient A.M. had tried other treatments and had seen chiropractors before, but reported that her pain kept getting worse. As shown by A.M.’s medical records, A.M. was first seen by Respondent on July 29, 2013. That day, A.M.’s intake form, patient history, and x-rays were taken and evaluated, and A.M. was examined by Respondent. Respondent then formulated A.M.’s initial treatment plan. Respondent recommended Vax-D therapy, along with chiropractic adjustments, EMS, and hydrotherapy. The initial treatment plan specified a two- session per day protocol for the first two to three weeks. On July 30, 2013, A.M.’s husband, J.M., signed the Vax-D Agreement (in the space for Patient Signature). J.M. did not remember signing the Vax-D Agreement, but both he and A.M. identified his signature on the Vax-D Agreement. A.M. was named in the agreement as the patient who committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions and agreed to pay $5,500.00 for those sessions. Respondent did not require full payment of the agreed price prior to treatment. Instead, he accepted payment of one- half ($2,750.00) of the Vax-D therapy package price, which was charged on A.M.’s or J.M.’s Visa credit card on July 30, 2013. In accordance with the initial treatment plan, Patient A.M. received two treatment sessions per day beginning July 30, 2013, in the morning and afternoon, for nearly three weeks. After 15 treatment sessions--more than half of the 25 to 28 sessions covered for $5,500.00--the balance of $2,750.00 was charged on A.M.’s or J.M’s Visa credit card. Between July 30, 2013, and February 3, 2014, Patient A.M. had more than 60 Vax-D therapy sessions--approximately 64 total sessions. A.M. initially testified with a fair degree of confidence that she thought she had about 30 treatment sessions, until she reviewed her prior statement made to Petitioner. A.M. testified that at every session, she received Vax-D decompression therapy, hydrotherapy, adjustments “up and down” her spine, and ice packs. She left every session feeling better, with relief from her pain. The relief was temporary, however; she said the pain would come back after a few hours. After 29 sessions, having received all of the treatment sessions covered by the Vax-D Agreement, A.M. started paying additional amounts for more Vax-D therapy and the other ancillary services that she continued to receive. For approximately 35 additional treatment sessions beyond those covered by the Vax-D Agreement, A.M. made seven additional payments in the total amount of $2,226.00. In all, A.M. paid $7,726.00 for approximately 64 Vax-D therapy sessions. Rounding down to an even 60 sessions, she paid an average of $128.77 per session. A.M. was covered by Medicare at the time of her treatment. She did not have any private “Medicare supplement” health insurance. At some point, the subject of Medicare coverage came up. The details of what was said, when, and to whom were not clearly established. The only fact clearly established was that Dr. Aderholdt did not bring up the subject. Patient A.M. testified that Dr. Aderholdt did not talk to her about payment when she first visited, but that she and J.M. asked him, “Does Medicare cover this,” and he said, “Yes.” J.M. said that Dr. Aderholdt did talk to them about payment, saying “we need to do so many treatments and we should pay so much money.” J.M. said that they asked, “Will Medicare take care of it?” Dr. Aderholdt answered, “Yes, we will bill Medicare.” J.M could not say whether he asked about billing Medicare before or after he signed the Vax-D Agreement, since J.M. did not remember signing the Vax-D Agreement. When Dr. Aderholdt was asked if he told A.M. her treatments would be covered by Medicare, he answered, “No, I don’t believe I did, no.” As an interesting contrast, Patient R.O. testified that Dr. Aderholdt told him Medicare would not cover treatment under the same Vax-D Agreement; Dr. Aderholdt does not believe he made that statement, either. In the middle of the spectrum, Patient P.D. testified that Respondent never said anything to her about insurance coverage or financial arrangements. He would only talk about treatment, turning P.D. over to the office manager or billing person to address the financial issues. This version is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that he does not address “the money thing” with patients. Instead, he said he assesses x-rays, takes patient histories, performs the evaluation and examination, and ultimately formulates the recommended treatment plans, whether Vax-D or something else. Then he turns the treatment plans over to his staff to address the financial issues with the patients. A.M. and J.M. did not demonstrate a clear and certain recollection of what they asked Dr. Aderholdt or exactly what he answered. Indeed, both J.M. and A.M. could not remember most every other detail about A.M.’s treatments, often confidently stating details that were shown to be wrong by more than a little, including how many treatment sessions, and how much was paid. For example, Patient A.M. initially reported that she had paid $13,179.00 to Dr. Aderholdt, when the total was $7,726.00. The undersigned cannot find--without hesitancy--that Dr. Aderholdt made any representation to J.M. and A.M. regarding Medicare coverage before J.M. signed the Vax-D Agreement by which A.M. committed to the Vax-D therapy package. Dr. Shreeve made the point well that it is difficult to resolve this kind of he said-she said conflict, although he made the point while confusing Patient A.M. (who claimed Respondent said there would be Medicare coverage) with Patient R.O. (who claimed Respondent said there would not be Medicare coverage), in the following exchange: Q: With Patient RO, what’s your understanding of what Dr. Aderholdt told him regarding Medicare reimbursements? A: Counselor, I’m going to tell you that the investigative record shows that the patient stated that Aderholdt told him that they would be paid, is what my recollection is. And, yet, that’s not something that weighs heavily on my mind because I wasn’t there. This becomes a “he said, she said.” He said he didn’t; he said he did. I can’t get into that fight. That’s not an issue for me. (Jt. Ex. 12 at 35). (emphasis added). Respondent (or his staff) may have told A.M. and J.M., when they asked about Medicare, that the office would complete and submit the Medicare claim forms. Respondent (or his staff) may have told A.M. and J.M., when they asked, that Medicare proceeds paid on the Vax-D therapy package would be refunded. But it would be unreasonable, on this record, to find that Respondent misrepresented that Medicare would provide full coverage, or that Respondent schemed to induce A.M. and J.M. to sign up for Vax-D by guaranteeing that Medicare would pay back everything, when Respondent did not even bring up the subject.8/ The Administrative Complaint alleges that on one or more occasions, Respondent did not submit Medicare claims for Patient A.M.’s treatment. Petitioner has apparently abandoned this allegation; its PRO has no proposed finding identifying any dates of service for which claims were not submitted. The Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M. were compiled by Petitioner’s counsel for use in taking Respondent’s deposition, and are attached as deposition exhibit 2. The evidence is difficult to cull through, as there are 84 separate pages of claims and they are not in chronological order; they start out in chronological order, but then jump forward two months, then continue jumping around on dates, back and forth and back again. As best can be determined, all service dates shown in Patient A.M.’s medical records appear to be accounted for by corresponding claim forms. It appears that one claim form may have a clerical mistake, identifying the date of service as August 3, 2013, when there was no treatment session that day; the actual service date may instead be September 4, 2013, which is the date the claim form was submitted. The Medicare claim forms in evidence demonstrate that claim forms for A.M.’s treatments were regularly submitted, either on or very shortly after the dates of service. The evidence is insufficient to prove that Respondent did not submit Medicare claims for Patient A.M.’s treatment.9/ The Administrative Complaint contains no allegations regarding the disposition of the Medicare claims, although it does allege that Patient A.M. received no reimbursement from Respondent for Medicare payments. Petitioner’s expert seemed to be under the impression that Respondent received Medicare payments, because he criticized Respondent for not providing reimbursement to Patient A.M. Respondent testified that he has received no payments from Medicare for A.M.’s treatments, and Petitioner acknowledges in its PRO that Medicare has not made payments to Respondent. Acknowledging that the Administrative Complaint allegation has not been established, Petitioner instead proposed a finding (not alleged in the Administrative Complaint) that all of A.M.’s Medicare claims submitted by Respondent were rejected and payment was denied. No evidence was offered to prove the actual disposition of the 84 pages of Medicare claims submitted for A.M.’s treatments. Instead, the only record evidence of Medicare adjudications on any claims for A.M. is a group of explanation of benefits forms (EOBs) attached to a March 6, 2014, letter from Patient A.M. to Petitioner’s investigator, which is a deposition exhibit. Patient A.M. identified the small handful of EOBs attached to the March 6, 2014, letter as EOBs she had at that time, reporting on the disposition of Medicare claims submitted by other providers during the same time period as her treatments with Respondent. The EOBs reported, as to each claim, whether the claim was covered in whole or in part; and, if covered, what amount was paid, or, if not, why not. There were no EOBs for claims submitted by Respondent’s office. Patient A.M. was not asked for, and did not offer, any additional EOBs at her deposition. If, in fact, all of the Medicare claims submitted by Respondent were rejected and payment denied, then there would be a stack of EOBs explaining why each claim was denied. On this record, the evidence is insufficient to make any finding as to the outcome of the Medicare claims submitted for Patient A.M.’s treatment. There is no evidence proving whether the claims were denied, approved, or simply never acted on by Medicare. A separate allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that Patient A.M. requested copies of the Medicare claim forms submitted by Respondent’s office for her treatment. Patient A.M. said that she made verbal requests to Respondent’s office staff for the Medicare claims on more than one occasion, and the parties stipulated that Patient A.M. made these requests. Respondent’s office should have responded by giving Patient A.M. copies of the Medicare claims. Dr. Aderholdt said that he was not aware that Patient A.M. had requested copies of her Medicare claim. But it is his responsibility to ensure that his staff promptly responds to requests by patients for insurance claim forms. In the course of Petitioner’s investigation, the Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M. were provided to Petitioner (according to the investigator’s report, on May 16, 2014). It is unknown whether a set of the claim forms was provided to A.M. at that time. She is entitled to a copy of the claim forms if she has not already been given a set. Respondent should have verified that Patient A.M. has received the claim forms she requested, or, if not, provided them to her. Finally, the Administrative Complaint alleges that on the Medicare claim forms for A.M.’s treatments on August 6, 2013, and December 11, 2013, Respondent utilized Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 98941, which is the code for adjustments to three or four regions of the spine. However, Respondent’s Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan notes (referred to as SOAP notes) for those dates identify spinal adjustments to L3, L4, and L5, which are in a single region--the lumbar region. Beyond the SOAP notes, however, Dr. Aderholdt’s notes for Patient A.M.’s morning session on August 6, 2013 (there were two sessions that day), show multiple adjustments, not only to the lumbar region, but also, to the sacrum and ilium. Dr. Aderholdt’s notes for December 11, 2013, show multiple adjustments to the thoracic, lumbar, and sacrum regions. At hearing, Dr. Shreeve identified the five spinal regions as follows: “a region would be considered cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacrum, ilium.” (Tr. 106, lines 21-22). Based on his testimony, and considering all of Patient A.M.’s medical records, there were multiple adjustments to three spinal regions on both days identified in the Administrative Complaint.10/ The Administrative Complaint has no other factual allegations regarding CPT code issues in connection with Patient A.M.’s treatment. The complaint pointedly identified one specific CPT code that was used on two specific dates, but was allegedly not supported by SOAP notes for either date. At hearing, Dr. Shreeve attempted to expand the factual allegations regarding CPT coding issues by questioning other CPT codes shown on A.M.’s patient ledger. Dr. Shreeve’s criticism was improper, not only because he strayed beyond the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, but also, because the criticism was based on his misunderstanding of what Dr. Aderholdt’s patient ledgers portray. In particular, Dr. Shreeve was critical of CPT code 99212 entries (for focused patient examinations) on A.M.’s patient ledger, without use of modifier code -25. He said that these repeated entries of CPT code 99212 were inappropriate without use of modifier code –25, to indicate they should not be considered for payment, because they are redundant with other CPT treatment codes that include examination. Dr. Shreeve should have reviewed the actual Medicare claim forms to look for the modifier codes, because the CPT code 99212 entries do, in fact, add a modifier of -25. The modifier code conveys information to the third-party payor, as Dr. Shreeve acknowledged, regarding whether or how payment should be made. The modifier codes need to be used, when appropriate, on the Medicare claim forms, and they were used just as Dr. Shreeve said was appropriate. The modifier codes do not appear on Dr. Aderholdt’s patient ledgers because they are not claim forms sent to third- party payors, nor are they bills sent to patients. Instead, a patient ledger, as used in Respondent’s practice, is an internal practice management tool to account for and track everything associated with treating patients: how many examinations, how many adjustments, how many Vax-D treatments, how many ice packs, and so on. Dr. LaRusso explained that this is a perfectly reasonable use of patient ledgers, and is a common practice among physicians. The usage statistics are analyzed for practice management, for such purposes as making changes in the services or treatments and stocking supplies. Dr. Shreeve admitted that he assumed Respondent’s patient ledgers reflected the exact CPT coding used on insurance claims and bills sent to patients. The evidence refuted that assumption. Modifier codes were used on the Medicare claims. And Dr. Shreeve admitted he saw no evidence that Respondent’s patient ledger for A.M. was ever sent to her as a bill, or that any patient ledgers were ever sent to any patients as bills. Dr. Shreeve also admitted that there is no standard for patient ledgers, much less a regulation mandating the contents and use of patient ledgers. As he put it, he could go to 1,000 chiropractic offices and find 1,000 different variations in what is called a patient ledger. Dr. Shreeve would like to see a standard adopted for “patient ledgers,” but his aspiration simply underscores that there is no standard now; Respondent’s practices cannot be judged against or held to conform to a non-standard, non-regulation.11/ In somewhat stream-of-consciousness fashion, untethered from the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Shreeve interjected a number of other comments about Dr. Aderholdt’s practices related to Patient A.M., such as the adequacy and legibility of his medical records and the quality of x-rays. He raised questions about Dr. Aderholdt’s compliance with trust accounting requirements in connection with payments for A.M.’s Vax-D therapy, and Dr. Aderholdt’s compliance with obligations in connection with Petitioner’s investigation. None of these factual matters were alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and none of the corresponding statutory or rule provisions implicated by Dr. Shreeve’s open-ended commentary were charged in the Administrative Complaint. No findings can be made on matters not alleged, and violations not charged, in the Administrative Complaint. Moreover, there is no competent evidence fleshing out any of these matters, because they were not alleged, charged, or identified in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation as issues of fact or law to be litigated. Patient B.O. Between April and June 2013, Respondent treated B.O., then a 78-year-old female, for back and neck pain. B.O. is married to R.O. They both went to Respondent’s office on the same day for their initial consultation. B.O. completed intake forms, had x-rays and patient history taken, and was examined by Respondent, similar to R.O. Whereas R.O. was determined to be a candidate for Vax-D therapy, B.O. was not. Unlike for the Vax-D therapy plan, there was no protocol calling for a certain range of sessions needed and no set payment correlated to a planned number of sessions for B.O.’s recommended treatment plan that called for adjustments, hydrotherapy, and ice packs. At the time of her treatment, B.O. had Medicare coverage and a “Medicare supplement” insurance policy through Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey (Horizon). As was his practice, Respondent had B.O. address the financial aspects of the treatment he recommended with his office staff. Upon review of B.O.’s insurance coverage, B.O. was informed by Respondent’s staff that Horizon would probably cover the cost of her treatment that exceeded her copay. The staff determined that, although it was possible Horizon would apply its lower in-network copay of $15.00 per visit, there was no guarantee that Horizon would not consider Respondent out-of- network, with a copay of $25.00 per visit. Therefore, B.O. was charged $25.00 per visit. She paid that amount per visit, although sometimes she did not pay at all on one or more visits, and would catch up at a subsequent visit. B.O. received treatments on 23 occasions. B.O. experienced some relief from her pain as a result of those treatments.12/ For those 23 visits, B.O. paid a total of $575.00 in copays. After B.O. had stopped going to Dr. Aderholdt for treatment, Horizon determined that its lower in-network copay of $15.00 per visit applied. The total copay amount should have been $345.00 for 23 visits. The difference is $230.00. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “overcharged” B.O., misrepresenting that her copay was the out- of-network charge, to exploit her for financial gain. This allegation was not proven. Respondent made no representation. The representations of his staff, as described by B.O., were not shown to be the product of anything other than a good faith attempt to determine the undeterminable details of insurance coverage. There is no evidence to support the allegation that B.O. was intentionally charged more than she should have been charged, based on the information available at the time. On this point, the expert testimony was in lockstep: figuring out insurance coverage details is a “nightmare.” It is virtually impossible, according to both experts, to obtain sufficient information to make a correct determination for a new patient on such issues as in-network versus out-of-network, because, as they agreed, the insurance coverage details keep changing. “Now, you can be in network today and they can decide you’re out of network tomorrow. And then you can be out of network and then they decide you’re in network, and they don’t tell you.” That’s--that makes no sense.” (Dr. Shreeve, Tr. 131). In fact, when asked how he determines if a patient is out-of-network, Dr. Shreeve responded: “Counselor, I don’t. I leave that to the patient. I run a cash practice. I give them a bill. We’ll help them fill out a health insurance claim form, if they need it. But they pay us when they receive the service.” (Tr. 130). The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent billed Horizon for medical visits by Patient B.O. that did not occur. There is no credible evidence of this allegation; the evidence is to the contrary. Petitioner contends in its PRO that Respondent billed B.O. for treatments received on June 3, 7, 11, and 14, 2013, when B.O.’s appointments were cancelled on those days. The record citations offered by Petitioner fail to support this proposed finding. Instead, B.O.’s bank records directly refute the proposed finding, and corroborate Dr. Aderholdt’s treatment notes and the SOAP notes that detail B.O.’s treatment on those four days.13/ In addition to B.O.’s bank records, B.O.’s patient records include the “merchant copy” receipt for a debit card payment on June 14, 2013. The receipt shows that a $50.00 payment was made at Dr. Aderholdt’s office on June 14, 2013, and it bears the clear signature of B.O. B.O.’s accusation that she did not go to Respondent’s office for treatment on these four days is belied by the documentation that she personally went there and paid the copay charges for her treatments on those four days ($50.00 check on June 7 for two copays; $50.00 debit card payment on June 14 for two copays). Petitioner’s own expert, Dr. Shreeve, conceded that this evidence refutes B.O.’s accusation that her insurer was billed for treatment on four days when she did not go to Respondent’s office for treatment. A separate problem proving this allegation (besides B.O.’s false accusation) is that there is no evidence to prove what was billed to Horizon for B.O.’s treatments. There is no evidence in the record of claims submitted by Respondent’s office to bill Horizon for B.O.’s treatment. In pre-hearing discovery proceedings, shortly before hearing, Petitioner sought to compel production of Medicare claim forms or Horizon claim forms submitted by Respondent’s office. However, Petitioner declined an Order compelling production that was offered along with additional time to pursue this evidence. Instead, Petitioner chose to go forward with the hearing on the basis that there were no such records (as Respondent represented). Another allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that B.O. was not given a copy of her medical records upon request. B.O. testified that she made several verbal requests to two staff persons at Respondent’s office, Lisa14/ and Amanda, for her medical records. She said she was given a copy of her patient ledger, but nothing more. B.O. and R.O. then mailed a letter addressed to Respondent that they jointly wrote on December 31, 2013, requesting their medical records and updated patient ledgers. Respondent said that he was never informed of any verbal requests for records, nor did he believe he ever saw the letter that was mailed to him. Indeed, B.O. handwrote on her file copy of the letter, provided to Petitioner’s investigator: “Letter to Dr. who probably didn’t see – no response to date.” The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent has failed in his obligation to promptly respond to B.O.’s requests for medical records. However, there is no evidence that Respondent was aware of the requests before the investigation and intentionally refused to comply, or that he ever instructed his office staff to ignore such requests. But even though the evidence only establishes that Dr. Aderholdt’s staff failed to promptly respond to requests for medical records, the obligation to ensure these patient requests are promptly addressed remains Dr. Aderholt’s responsibility. It is clear that his office procedures require serious overhauling, as both Dr. Aderholdt and his expert acknowledged. It is unknown if B.O.’s medical records were provided to her when they were produced by Respondent’s counsel during the investigation.15/ In her deposition, when B.O. was asked if she had gotten the records from Respondent’s office yet, she said “not from them.” Among other remedial steps in the aftermath of this proceeding, if B.O. and R.O. do not already have copies of their medical records and updated patient ledgers as they requested long ago, Respondent must provide them. It is concerning that he did not come to this hearing with proof that he had provided B.O. and R.O. with the records they had requested or confirmed that they already had a copy. Lastly, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received payment from Horizon for B.O.’s treatment, but has not provided a refund. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether B.O. is entitled to a refund. The only information regarding the extent to which Horizon covered B.O.’s treatment is the information in the EOBs issued by Horizon after B.O.’s treatment ended, identifying amounts that would be covered and reporting payments to Respondent. For B.O.’s treatments, Horizon paid $1,770.00 to Respondent. What is unknown is whether B.O. owed more for her treatments than what Horizon paid. Dr. LaRusso reasonably opined that the receipt of an insurance payment would not generate an obligation for a patient refund if the payment is applied to a balance due by the patient. No evidence, methodology, or calculation was offered to prove that after Horizon’s payment was applied, a refund was owed to B.O. As noted previously, Respondent’s “patient ledger” is an internal practice management tool that does not function as an accounting of what a patient or insurance company owes. However, the patient ledger for B.O. reflects a total amount of $5,575.00 in services provided to B.O. Application of the Horizon payments of $1,770.00 and B.O.’s payments of $575.00 would reduce the patient ledger amount by less than half. Again, this is not to say that Patient B.O. owes the remaining patient ledger amount, but it is at least a point of reference suggesting the possibility that the Horizon payment did not cover all of B.O.’s treatment costs. Viewed another way, all B.O. paid for 23 treatment sessions was $25.00 per visit. B.O. was informed at the outset that she would not be charged for the full treatments she would be getting, because Horizon would “probably” cover her treatment except for the copay. Although she paid $230.00 more than the amount Horizon ultimately applied as copays, if B.O. owed $230.00 or more for treatment provided that was not covered by Horizon’s payment, then no refund would be due. Patient R.O. As noted previously, Patient R.O. is Patient B.O.’s husband. Like B.O., R.O. was treated by Respondent from April through June 2013. R.O., then a 64-year-old male, sought treatment for severe back pain. R.O. completed the intake form, had x-rays and patient history taken, provided detailed records of recent treatments and surgeries (including back surgery), and was evaluated and examined by Dr. Aderholdt. Dr. Aderholdt determined that R.O. was a candidate for Vax-D therapy. Respondent’s then-office manager, Lisa, took over to address the financial aspects of the recommended treatment. R.O. informed Respondent’s staff that he could not afford to pay $5,500.00 up front. R.O. was given contact information for Care Credit. He called Care Credit, then submitted an application. R.O.’s application was approved, and Care Credit agreed to finance the cost of Vax-D therapy without charging interest if the amount was paid off within one year. R.O. accepted the loan, and the result was that Care Credit paid Respondent $5,500.00 minus a fee absorbed by Respondent, similar to fees by credit card companies charged to merchants for sales using their credit cards. R.O. testified that he has paid off the Care Credit loan. R.O. signed the Vax-D Agreement, by which he committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions at $250.00 per session, for a total payment amount of $5,500.00. His Vax-D Agreement included the treatment package detailed in paragraph 13 above. R.O. testified that during the time of his treatment by Respondent, he had health insurance coverage with Medicare and Horizon (the private Medicare supplement insurance coverage that B.O. also had). He also had Tricare for Life, but said that that coverage would not have been applicable. R.O. recalled that Respondent told him that none of his insurance plans would cover the Vax-D therapy. As previously noted, Respondent does not believe he discussed insurance coverage with R.O., as that is not his standard practice. Regardless, R.O. had no expectation of insurance coverage. R.O. found the Vax-D therapy helpful in relieving his pain. He felt better after every treatment and wanted to continue. Rather than stopping after the 25 to 28 sessions included in the Vax-D Agreement, R.O. had a total of 40 treatment sessions. However, at some point, Respondent’s office manager informed R.O. that he needed to pay for additional sessions. R.O. said he could not afford to pay more, and discontinued treatment. After R.O. discontinued his treatments, he received an EOB from Horizon, stating that Horizon had paid a total of $5,465.84 in claims for both R.O. and B.O. According to the EOB summary, as noted above, $1,770.00 was paid to Respondent for treatments to B.O. The rest--$3,335.84--was paid to two providers for services to R.O. (A minor discrepancy is noted, in that Petitioner’s PRO stated that $3,335.00 was paid to Respondent for treatments to R.O.; however, the EOB reports that $10.84 was paid to a different provider (“Ga Emergency Phys”) for services provided to R.O. Thus, the actual total payment to Respondent for R.O.’s treatment was $3,325.00). The total amount paid to Dr. Aderholdt for R.O.’s 40 Vax-D therapy sessions, including Horizon’s payments, was $8,825.00, an average of $220.63 per session. R.O. believes the insurance payment should be paid to him as reimbursement for part of the $5,500.00 he paid. But that payment was for 25 to 28 sessions. The insurance payment was reasonably applied to the additional amounts due for R.O.’s sessions that were not covered by the $5,500.00 payment. No reason was offered as to why Dr. Aderholdt should not have applied the insurance payment to charges owed for the 12 sessions that were not covered by the Vax-D Agreement. Chiropractic physicians are not required to provide free care. Dr. Shreeve admitted that he does not provide chiropractic care to patients for free. As found above with respect to Patient B.O., R.O. joined B.O. in submitting a written request to Respondent for their medical records and updated patient ledgers by letter dated December 31, 2013, although Respondent said that he did not see the letter that was mailed to him. The findings above with respect to B.O., as one party to the joint written request, apply with equal force to R.O. as the other party to the joint written request. The Administrative Complaint also included an allegation that Respondent failed to practice chiropractic medicine at an acceptable level of skill, care, and treatment, charged as a violation under section 460.413(1)(r). This was the only charge in any of the Administrative Complaints that was based on the care provided by Dr. Aderholdt. The allegation was that adjustments indicated as having been performed on R.O. were physically impossible. However, at hearing, Petitioner’s expert retreated from the allegation, agreeing that the procedure in question was plausible. As a result of his concession, Petitioner’s PRO abandoned the charge, stating, “Petitioner is no longer pursuing discipline for the alleged violation of section 460.413(1)(r).” Pet. PRO at 4. Patient P.D. In March and April 2013, Respondent treated Patient P.D., then a 62-year-old female, for back pain. After completing intake forms and patient history, Patient P.D. was x-rayed, then examined and evaluated by Dr. Aderholdt, who determined that P.D. was a candidate for Vax-D therapy. Dr. Aderholdt turned P.D. over to his then-office manager, Lisa, to address the financial aspects of his recommended treatment plan. P.D. confirmed that Dr. Aderholdt never discussed financial issues or insurance with her. P.D. signed the Vax-D Agreement on March 8, 2013, the same day that she completed a Care Credit application that was approved for $5,500.00. P.D. paid off the Care Credit loan in 11 months, at $500.00 per month, so the loan was interest-free. At the time of the treatments, P.D. was not yet eligible for Medicare. She had insurance coverage through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Blue Cross). P.D. said that Lisa, the office manager, told her that she would file claims with Blue Cross. Thereafter, P.D. had 33 Vax-D therapy sessions. P.D. was pleased with the Vax-D therapy. She found it effective in relieving her pain. P.D. learned at some point from Blue Cross that several months after her treatment ended, Blue Cross paid Respondent for a portion of P.D.’s treatment. No evidence was offered to prove the details of the Blue Cross coverage, such as EOBs explaining what was covered and what was not. P.D. said that she contacted Respondent’s office and spoke with staff multiple times before Respondent provided her reimbursement in the full amount of the Blue Cross payment. Respondent refunded $946.45 on April 8, 2015, and $1,046.45 on April 10, 2015, for a total of $1,992.90. P.D. acknowledged that she has been fully reimbursed and is owed nothing further. The Administrative Complaint includes an allegation that Respondent improperly utilized CPT “billing codes” 99204 and 99212 for P.D.’s first session on March 6, 2013. Dr. Aderholdt admitted that for March 6, 2013, P.D.’s patient ledger incorrectly lists both CPT code 99204 (for a comprehensive examination for a new patient), and CPT code 99212 (for a focused examination for an established patient). The first CPT code should have been the only one entered on this day. The second code was entered by mistake. Although Dr. Aderholdt admitted the error made in the patient ledger, there is no evidence that the erroneous CPT code was “utilized” for billing purposes. No evidence was presented that both CPT codes were submitted by Respondent in a claim for payment to Blue Cross (and Petitioner did not charge Respondent with having submitted a claim to P.D.’s insurer for a service or treatment not provided). No evidence was presented of the actual claims submitted to Blue Cross. No evidence was presented to show that P.D. was ever sent a bill utilizing the referenced CPT codes. The error recording an extra CPT code on P.D.’s patient ledger might throw off Respondent’s internal practice management statistics, but there is no evidence that the admitted CPT coding mistake on the patient ledger was repeated in any claim or bill submitted to anyone. Expert Opinions Considering All Four Cases Both Dr. Shreeve and Dr. LaRusso offered their overall opinions, taking the four cases as a whole. Dr. Shreeve’s Oinions Dr. Shreeve testified that, while he might be more understanding of issues he saw in each individual case, “I’ve got four cases that I reviewed together. I received them all at once. So my view on each individual case might be seen as a little more tolerant of something I saw. But when it becomes repeated, it becomes less understanding [sic].” (Tr. 109). In forming his opinions, Dr. Shreeve relied on allegations that have not been proven, his own extension of the Administrative Complaint allegations to add other concerns about use of CPT codes (which were also shown not to be valid concerns), and his observations about a litany of matters nowhere mentioned or charged in the Administrative Complaints. Dr. Shreeve made clear that he elevated his opinion from concerns about sloppy office practices to fraud, misrepresentation, and patient exploitation, because of matters that were either unproven, not alleged or charged, or both. For example, he injected the concern, shown to be based solely on patient ledgers, that CPT code 99212 appeared many times without the -25 modifier when used in conjunction with an adjustment CPT code. Starting with A.M.’s case, he complained of the repeated use of CPT code 99212 without a -25 modifier, when CPT code 98941 (adjustments) was used for the same office visit. He said, “If we were going to bill 99212, an E/M code with that, we would use a modifier of -25.” (Tr. 110). As previously found, however, Dr. Aderholdt did use the -25 modifier with every entry of CPT code 99212 in the Medicare claim forms. In explaining how his opinion was affected by his misimpression from the patient ledgers that CPT code 99212 was not used with the -25 modifier, he said: This is repeated over and over during the record. If it were one off, it occurred in one place in the ledger or on a form, you know, everybody is human. They can make a mistake. If it is the trend, that becomes not a mistake. That becomes, I’m doing the wrong thing. And if I’m doing it over and over again, and I’m then billing for one service two times, two different ways, and I’m – I hope to get paid for it. Then that’s where I start to see the trend of exploiting the patient for financial gain. (Tr. 111). Dr. Shreeve further elevated the significance of not seeing modifiers with the evaluation codes in the patient ledgers, when he spoke about R.O.’s case: If [Dr. Aderholdt] did both codes [for evaluation and adjustments] every visit, if he did, which is not normal, we would have to have a modifier, the -25, to tell us it’s a reduced service because it’s duplicative. A modifier was never present in any record I saw on this patient or any other patient of the records of Dr. Aderholdt. So misusing the codes. This is not standard of care that we expect, and this appears to me exercising influence on the patient to exploit them for financial gain. That’s what it looks like to me. By the time we’re through with the third case that’s what I see. (Tr. 148). Not only was this CPT coding issue not alleged in any of the four Administrative Complaints, but it is a false accusation. If Dr. Shreeve did not see a single use of CPT code 99212 with the -25 modifier in any record he saw, then he did not look at the records very carefully. As found above, the only evidence of actual claims submitted to any third-party payor--the Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M.--shows that CPT code 99212 was never used without the -25 modifier. But Dr. Shreeve only looked at the patient ledgers for modifiers. As also found above, the only two CPT coding issues that were alleged (improper use on two specified dates of CPT code 98941 for adjusting three or four spinal regions for Patient A.M.; and improper use on Patient P.D.’s first day of service of two patient examination CPT codes for billing purposes) were not proven. Dr. Shreeve also relied on the allegation that Patient B.O.’s insurance carrier was billed for treatment that was not provided. He pointed to “notes” written (by B.O.) on the patient ledger stating that the patient cancelled, but CPT codes were entered for treatments that day. He concluded: That’s blatant. I don’t have a way to explain that away. To me that absolutely says, I billed for something that I didn’t do. That’s fraud. Because that’s with intent. That’s not an accident. (Tr. 137). When Dr. Shreeve was shown the $50.00 debit card receipt signed by Patient B.O. on June 14, 2014, he quickly retreated: “That would indicate that they were there, even though they said they were not. So my apologies for that. It’s good to clear that up.” (Tr. 183). Later, he added that the June 14, 2013, payment of $50.00 was for that visit and the prior visit on June 11, 2013. He explained that this was consistent with Respondent’s daily notes, which identified treatments for each visit and also logged the copay charges by visit and B.O.’s periodic payments. Dr. Shreeve did not explain how he would alter his overall opinion after conceding that what he characterized as blatant fraud by Dr. Aderholdt was actually a false accusation by the patient. In formulating his overall opinion that what otherwise might be viewed as mistakes or sloppy office practice were elevated in his mind to fraud and exploitation, Dr. Shreeve also relied heavily on matters that were neither alleged nor charged in the Administrative Complaints, and, as a result, were not fleshed out with competent evidence in the record. Dr. Shreeve repeatedly alluded to issues regarding trust accounting requirements in statute and rule. The four Administrative Complaints that were issued as directed by the PCP on June 19, 2018 (as noted on the Administrative Complaints), contain no allegations related to trust accounting practices. The PCP-authorized Administrative Complaints do not charge Dr. Aderholdt under the trust accounting statute, section 460.413(1)(y), or the trust accounting rule, Board rule 64B2- 14.001. To the extent Dr. Shreeve’s perception of trust accounting issues contributed to his opinion that these four cases rise to the level of fraud and patient exploitation, that was error, and his opinion must be discounted accordingly. Likewise, Dr. Shreeve gratuitously offered critiques of Dr. Aderholdt’s medical records, including complaints about the handwriting, complaints about x-ray quality, questions about the adequacy of justifications for the course of treatment, and suggestions regarding how he would rewrite SOAP notes. Again, the Administrative Complaints are devoid of allegations directed to the quality or adequacy of Respondent’s medical records, and they are devoid of charges under the medical records provision in section 460.413(1)(m) and the corresponding medical records rule, Board rule 64B2-17.0065. To the extent these critiques contributed to Dr. Shreeve’s opinion that these four cases rise to the level of fraud and patient exploitation, that, too, was error, and his opinion must be discounted accordingly. Dr. Shreeve also relied on what he characterized as Respondent’s failure to respond, or failure to respond quickly enough, to investigative subpoenas. He made it clear that his opinion was greatly influenced by his perception that Respondent intentionally failed to meet his obligations in responding to the investigations: I think this is absolute fraud. The doctor is not wanting to do the right thing, has flagrant disregard for the law, and the statutes and the rules for the profession, for the Department of Health by not responding. (Tr. 153). Despite Dr. Shreeve’s view that he thinks it is “very clear” that Dr. Aderholdt did not respond timely during the investigation, the timeline and details of the investigation were not established by competent evidence; there is only hearsay evidence addressing bits and pieces of that history, with huge gaps and many questions about the reasons for those gaps (if the reasons why investigations were so protracted was relevant). But the details of the investigations are not laid out in the evidentiary record because the Administrative Complaints do not contain factual allegations related to Dr. Aderholdt’s actions or inactions during the investigation process, nor are there any charges predicated on what was or was not done during the investigation process. Either these matters were not presented to the PCP in June 2018 for inclusion in the Administrative Complaints, or they were presented and not included. Either way, Dr. Shreeve’s perception regarding whether Dr. Aderholdt met his legal obligations in responding to the investigations cannot be injected now. It was improper for Dr. Shreeve to consider, and give great weight to, circumstances that were neither alleged nor charged in the PCP-authorized Administrative Complaints. As found above, the proven allegations are that Respondent failed to provide Patient A.M. copies of the claims submitted to Medicare for her treatment (although she may have them now); and Respondent failed to provide copies of the medical records of Patients R.O. and B.O. upon their joint written request (although they may have them now). Only by considering allegations that were not proven and by injecting matters not alleged or charged was Dr. Shreeve able to characterize these four cases as involving the same problems again and again. In terms of the proven allegations, however, the only duplicative finding is with respect to the husband and wife team, in that Respondent did not meet his obligation to promptly respond to their joint request for medical records and updated patient ledgers. The matters considered by Dr. Shreeve beyond the allegations and charges in the Administrative Complaints were also improperly used by Dr. Shreeve to buttress his view that two disciplinary actions against Dr. Aderholdt based on facts arising in 2005 and 2006, raised “the same or similar” issues. Dr. Shreeve’s attempt to draw parallels between the prior actions and these four cases was unpersuasive. Dr. LaRusso disagreed with the characterization of the two prior actions as similar to the issues presented here. Dr. LaRusso’s opinion is credited. A comparison of the allegations, ultimately resolved by stipulated agreement in two 2008 Final Orders, confirms Dr. LaRusso’s view in this regard. The first disciplinary action was based on Respondent’s treatment of one patient in February 2005. An administrative complaint alleged that Respondent failed to complete intake forms, take the patient’s history, and conduct a sufficient examination to support the diagnosis. Respondent was charged with violating section 460.413(1)(m) by not having adequate medical records. The same facts gave rise to a second count of violating section 460.413(1)(ff) (violating any provision of chapters 456 or 460, or any rules adopted pursuant to those chapters), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0065, which elaborates on the requirements for adequate medical records. There is no repetition of these statutory and rule violations charged in any of the four Administrative Complaints at issue here. The prior administrative complaint also alleged that Respondent billed the patient he saw in 2005 for neuromuscular reeducation and therapeutic exercises, when neither Respondent’s notes nor the SOAP notes reflected those services. In these cases, the only allegation regarding discrepancies between billing records and physician/SOAP notes is the allegation as to Patient A.M. that on two dates, Respondent used the CPT code for adjustments to three or four spinal regions, whereas the SOAP notes reflected adjustments to only one region. The prior disciplinary action supports the findings above that Respondent’s notes must also be considered, in addition to the SOAP notes, to determine what services A.M. received on those two days. A different kind of billing discrepancy allegation in Case No. 18-4485 is the claim that Respondent billed B.O.’s insurer for treatment on days on which services were allegedly never provided. This allegation was not proven, as found above. B.O.’s accusation that Respondent falsely charged for treatment on several days when no treatment was provided was itself proven to be a false charge. Perhaps Dr. Shreeve was thinking of this allegation, based on B.O.’s false charge, when he characterized the 2005 incident as involving the same or similar problems that he saw here. The allegation in the prior complaint was that the patient was actually billed for services not provided, and a refunded was ordered. At first, Dr. Shreeve believed the same was true in B.O.’s case. However, he later retreated and acknowledged that B.O. had not been truthful in her accusation. The only other allegation of a billing discrepancy in any of the four cases at issue was not a billing discrepancy at all, but rather, a CPT coding error on P.D.’s patient ledger that was not billed to anyone. As Dr. Shreeve noted, in the prior disciplinary action, Respondent agreed to be put on probation with a requirement that he practice with a monitor. Dr. Shreeve explained that the monitor would have worked with Respondent “to help this doctor not do the same behaviors that got them into trouble.” In his view, these four cases show that Dr. Aderholdt did not learn his lesson from the monitor “not to do the same problems again.” As he put it, “That really flips me rather quickly to think there’s a question of fraud.” (Tr. 152-153). To the contrary, whereas Respondent was faulted for not having intake records, patient histories, and appropriate examinations to support his diagnosis and recommended treatment plan in February 2005, no such issues were raised in these Administrative Complaints. Dr. Aderholdt did learn his lesson. The medical records for the four patients at issue include patient intake forms, patient histories, evaluations, and examinations that were not alleged to be inadequate. Nor was there any repetition of the problem with billing a patient for treatment or services that were not documented in the medical records taken as a whole, including Dr. Aderholt’s notes. The other disciplinary action resolved by settlement in a 2008 Final Order involved an advertising issue. The Department alleged that Respondent improperly advertised as a specialist in Vax-D disc therapy when the Board does not recognize any such specialty. The Department also found fault in the failure of the advertising to disclose the usual fee. The Department also critiqued an advertisement for identifying a different practice location than Respondent’s practice address of record. The charges were under section 460.413(1)(d), (cc), and (ff); rule 64B2-15.001(2)(e) and (i); and rule 64B2-10.0055. Quite plainly, this prior action bears no similarity to the four Administrative Complaints at issue here. No such allegations or charges were raised here. Dr. Shreeve did not contend that this prior action bears any similarity to the four cases here. Dr. Shreeve was never asked for his opinion as to the type or level of discipline he believes is warranted in these cases. However, his “flip” to “fraud,” due to the perceived repetitive nature of the issues in the four cases (whether charged or not)--which he characterized as the “same problems” in 2005 that resulted in discipline--was the basis for Petitioner proposing the most severe penalty available: license revocation, plus substantial fines and assessments of fees and costs. Dr. LaRusso’s Opinions Dr. LaRusso served as a Board member for multiple terms, and is a past-chair. After leaving the Board, he continued to serve on probable cause panels as recently as 2017. Having reviewed and been involved in thousands of disciplinary matters, he was of the strong opinion that nothing in the four Administrative Complaints warrant discipline at the level being sought here. Imposing a severe penalty in these four cases would be out of line with the Board’s prior practice in disciplinary matters. Dr. LaRusso’s studied review of all of the depositions and records in this case led him to opine that there is no evidence that Dr. Aderholdt deceived his patients, committed fraud, or engaged in double-billing or overbilling. Instead, Dr. LaRusso saw evidence of sloppy office practices, which he attributed to Dr. Aderholdt’s poor management skills. He has seen many doctors like Dr. Aderholdt over the years who just want to deal with taking care of patients. They do not want to have anything to do with administrative and clerical responsibilities. Instead, they leave everything besides patient care to their office manager and staff. In Dr. LaRusso’s view, Dr. Aderholdt’s office protocols and procedures require serious fine-tuning. He believes that Dr. Aderholdt would benefit from re-education in billing and collection practices, as well as laws and rules. He needs to ensure that procedures are in place, and followed, for prompt responses to patient requests for medical records or for claims sent to third-party payors. At the same time, however, Dr. LaRusso reasonably characterized the four cases as involving billing, clerical, communication, and correspondence issues. It bears emphasis that Dr. Aderholdt’s patient care is not in question. There are no issues of endangering the public, where a doctor is doing things that will hurt people, doing something dangerous or sexually inappropriate. Those are the cases where it is appropriate to go after someone’s livelihood, when the person does not belong in the profession. Dr. LaRusso observed that, rather than endangering the public, Dr. Aderholdt was helping his patients by relieving their pain, according to their own testimony. Dr. LaRusso agreed to become involved in this case because he found it so incongruous that the Department would be pursuing this action apparently to try to take Dr. Aderholdt’s license. Dr. LaRusso noted that the four investigations against Dr. Aderholdt were originally being spearheaded by a prior prosecutor for the Department (to whom Respondent’s counsel mailed CDs of patient records in 2014), and that the cases were assigned to Dr. Willis, who was a favored expert witness for the Department. Dr. LaRusso alluded to “inappropriate issues” with the prosecutor and expert that led to the Board having to pay a large award of attorneys’ fees and costs for pursuing discipline against Dr. Christian. According to Dr. LaRusso, those issues ultimately led to the prosecutor and expert being discharged from these cases. There is no evidence as to when or why Dr. Willis was replaced with Dr. Shreeve. Dr. Willis apparently was involved long enough to prepare an expert report. But then, according to Dr. LaRusso, the cases went dormant for a long period of time. The bits and pieces of hearsay evidence in the file comport with this understanding: there were four investigations that began upon complaints in 2014 by the four patients about billing and records issues; documents were collected from Respondent and from the patients; and Investigative Reports were issued, all before 2014 was over. It is unknown when Dr. Willis was involved, when he prepared his expert report, or when he was discharged from the cases. It is unknown when Dr. Shreeve was retained, but there was plainly some duplication of work, in that Dr. Shreeve prepared his own expert report. Neither expert report is in evidence. There is no evidence of any additional investigation or follow-up documentation from the patients or otherwise. There is no evidence of what was presented to the PCP--just that the panel met on June 19, 2018, and authorized the four Administrative Complaints issued on June 20, 2018. While this background is a bit of a curiosity, without impermissible speculation, the most that can be said about this history is that the protracted period of time from investigation to the PCP submission that resulted in issuance of the Administrative Complaints is apparently due, at least in large part, to the turnover in the prosecution-expert witness team assignments. Dr. LaRusso did not persuasively demonstrate grounds to cast nefarious aspersions on the Department for continuing forward with its investigation. One might reasonably question whether the Department dropped the ball, so to speak, in not updating its investigation, given the extended period of dormancy. For example, the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 18-4487 incorrectly alleged that P.D. was not reimbursed, when any cursory check with P.D. would have revealed the “news” that she had been repaid in April 2015, more than three years before the Administrative Complaint was authorized by the PCP. Dr. LaRusso may reasonably debate, as he did, whether the charges lodged against Respondent are inappropriate. And Dr. LaRusso may certainly question, as he did in convincing fashion, whether the discipline apparently being sought is unduly harsh, uncalled for, and way out of line with Board practice. But there is no basis in this record for attributing bad motives to the Department for prosecuting the Administrative Complaints. Dr. LaRusso’s opinions regarding the nature of the violations proven and the appropriate discipline in scale with those violations were more persuasive that Dr. Shreeve’s opinions. Dr. LaRusso’s opinions are credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine: In Case No. 18-4484PL: Dismissing Counts I, II, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(aa), as charged in Count III; In Case No. 18-4485PL: Dismissing Counts I, III, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0055(1), as charged in Count II; In Case No. 18-4486PL: Dismissing Counts II, III, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0055(1), as charged in Count II; In Case No. 18-4487PL, dismissing Counts I and II; Placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years, with conditions deemed appropriate by the Board; Imposing a fine of $3,000.00; Requiring continuing education deemed appropriate by the Board; and Requiring payment of the costs of investigation and prosecution of the charges on which violations were found. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2018.
The Issue Whether the amount sought to be recovered from Petitioner for Medicaid overpayments by the Agency is correct.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed pediatrician who provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries. Petitioner voluntarily signed a Medicaid Provider Agreement, and was subject to all of the duly-enacted statutes, rules, and policies pertaining to Medicaid providers. On January 10, 2001, the Agency issued a Final Agency Audit Report (Audit Report), requesting Petitioner to reimburse the Agency $42,713.15, for certain services Petitioner rendered to Medicaid recipients between October 19, 1997, and October 19, 1999. (R-4, pg. 1) The determination of overpayment was based upon audit findings that the services provided by Petitioner did not meet the Medicaid criteria. These criteria include: lack of medical necessity; lack of documentation for the services rendered to support the higher level of office visit billed; medical records inappropriately maintained; the required elements for early periodic screening for diagnosis and treatment services not performed; services erroneously coded on submitted claims; evaluation and management services improperly documented in the medical records; laboratory tests improperly billed; two billing codes used in instances in which one code incorporates the elements of the other; new patient billing codes used for patients who did not meet the requisite new patient criteria; and evaluation and management services billed absent the requisite face-to-face encounter. (R-4, pgs. 2-3) Testimony of Brenda Turner Brenda Turner testified at hearing on May 22, 2001, in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Turner is a human services program specialist employed by the Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity at the Agency. As a human services program specialist, Ms. Turner's primary responsibility is to conduct audits of Medicaid providers. The Agency performed an audit of Petitioner's Medicaid billings for the period October 1997 through October 1999. As part of this audit, the Agency generated a list of 31 Medicaid recipients (cluster sample) rendered services by Petitioner during the audit period. These medical records (R-6) were examined by Ms. Turner, Ms. Johnson, and Dr. Deeb. In addition, the Agency generated work papers of the total amount Petitioner billed during the audit period, the total number of recipients Petitioner rendered services to during the audit period, and the total times Petitioner billed any claim. (R-11) Ms. Turner completed a summary report of her on-site visit. The primary finding of her report was that Petitioner did not have on-site the appropriate equipment for certain services for which Petitioner had submitted claims. Subsequent to an on-site visit of Petitioner's office in December 1999 by Agency staff, Petitioner was asked to provide the Agency with answers to a questionnaire and medical records relating to the cluster sample. Petitioner submitted medical records for the cluster sample as requested by the Agency. These records were given to an Agency registered nursing consultant, Margerite Johnson, and physician consultant, Dr. Larry Deeb, for review. After their review, Ms. Johnson and Dr. Deeb provided Ms. Turner with worksheets outlining their review findings and a medical record review report. (R-16) Based upon the information contained in the worksheets and medical record review report, including the total claims, the total amount billed, and the total amount disallowed, Ms. Turner used a statistical program to calculate with a computer the amount Petitioner was overpaid during the audit period. The statistical methodology utilized by the Agency in determining the overpayment amount was not contested and was not an issue. Petitioner was sent a preliminary letter notifying him of the calculated overpayment amount. Subsequent to his receipt of the preliminary letter, Petitioner submitted additional documentation to contest the audit findings. Petitioner's additional documentation was submitted to Ms. Johnson and Dr. Deeb for review. Ms. Johnson and Dr. Deeb produced a second medical record report review containing findings which they gave to Ms. Turner. (R-16) Based upon the conclusions of the second medical record report, Ms. Turner recalculated the amount Petitioner was overpaid during the audit period. (R-10) The Agency sent Petitioner a final agency action letter on January 10, 2001, setting forth the recalculated overpayment amount of $42,713.15. Testimony of Margerite Johnson Margerite Johnson testified at hearing on May 22, 2001, in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Johnson is a registered nursing consultant employed by the Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity at the Agency. As part of her duties with the Agency, Ms. Johnson reviews medical records to determine whether they are compliant with the current Physician's Procedural Terminology Manual and Medicaid policies, including the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 and Child Health Check-Up, the Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook, and the EPSDT Coverage and Limitations Handbook. Ms. Johnson received medical record review sheets listing all of the claims submitted by Petitioner for the cluster sample during the audit period. She also received the medical records submitted by Petitioner pertaining to the cluster sample. Ms. Johnson reviewed these materials to ensure that documentation was provided for each service listed on the review sheets and that the medical records complied with Medicaid policy. Ms. Johnson wrote a report of the policy violations she observed during her review of the medical record review sheets and corresponding medical records. She then transmitted to Dr. Deeb for further review, her report, the medical record review sheets, and the medical records provided by Petitioner. Subsequent to Dr. Deeb's review, the medical records and medical record review sheets with Dr. Deeb's comments were returned to Ms. Johnson. Based on Dr. Deeb's notations on the medical record review sheets, Ms. Johnson indicated on the medical record review sheets whether a claim should be allowed, adjusted, or denied. For those claims on which a determination was made that the claim should be adjusted or denied, Ms. Johnson indicated the difference between the amount the Agency paid for the claim and the amount the Florida Medicaid Management System providers should have been paid for the type of service rendered. Ms. Johnson also indicated the reason for the denial of the claim on the medical record review sheets. Using the information from the medical record review sheets, Ms. Johnson prepared a report that sets forth the policy findings by Ms. Johnson and the medical necessity and level of care findings by Dr. Deeb. (R-16) As indicated on the medical record review report (R-16), Ms. Johnson identified several claims from the cluster sample where the medical records maintained by Petitioner did not contain appropriate documentation of the billed services. (R-46) After reviewing all of the documentation provided by Petitioner, including the additional documentation that was not contemporaneous with the actual date of services, Ms. Johnson determined that there were no records in the files for the claims set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 46. An examination of the entries on R-46 for the Patients 1, 3, and 7, and comparison with the record of visits in R-6 reveal that there are records present for all the visits except those for Patient #1 and Patient #7 on 9-1-98. Having discovered so many records which were supposedly present, R-46 was determined to be grossly inaccurate as a listing of visits without records and rejected. Because Ms. Johnson determined that there were no records in the files for the claims set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 46 as required by the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbooks, she concluded that said claims should be denied. This was clearly an error in fact. In addition, Ms. Johnson identified ten claims that were an early and periodic screening diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT), or well-child examinations. Chapter 3 of the EPSDT Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides regarding EPSDT reimbursement that, "The fee includes all the screening components and the diagnosis and treatment of problems that can be diagnosed and treated during screening, such as early otitis media." However, it goes on to say, "Under federal law, Florida must provide medically necessary treatments, as described below, for all medical conditions that are diagnosed during EPSDT screening. Once the recipient is screened, any further diagnoses and treatments are provided through the applicable Medicaid program, such as physician services." See Page 2-2, Chapter 2. There are numerous components in the EPSDT screening. If the provider "vaguely mentions" the required components, Ms. Johnson will approve the corresponding claims. Ms. Johnson's three claims involved lead screenings, which were not performed during an EPSDT visit. Page 2-13, Chapter 2, states regarding required laboratory tests for lead, "Providers must perform lead poisoning and risk assessment, blood lead testing, and counseling and document the results in the recipient's medical record." Regarding Blood Lead Testing, Page 3-2, Chapter 3 of the EPSDT Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides regarding EPSDT Reimbursement, "Certain providers may also be reimbursed for blood lead testing and other laboratory services." On the same page, Chapter 3, goes on to state, "In addition to the EPSDT screening, certain providers may be reimbursed blood lead testing through their provider specific Medicaid programs, such as physician services." Petitioner pointed out without contradiction that his clinic was too far from the laboratory to perform a blood test for lead because the test is time critical. He could assess risk and could counsel patients, but he could not submit a valid test for blood lead. Petitioner referred patients to the Health Department for lead testing. The fee for the EPSDT examination was reduced by $40 to pay an amount equal to the 213 service code. There is no suggestion that the value of the lead blood test is $40. The EPSDT screening requires taking various examinations, extensive history, and counseling of the parent. As pointed out elsewhere, the examinations are part of and compensated as part of the EPSDT screen. Although the visit fee was reduced, there is no evidence that Petitioner was compensated for audiometry, and similar tests included in the EPSDT screen fee. The audit revealed EPSDT screening billed on the same date as evaluation and management services or office visit. (R-51) Page 2-62 of the November 1997 Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that Code W9881, the code for an EPSDT screening, is considered a visit code and is "not reimbursable in addition to an office, home, or hospital visit." (R-27, pg. 4) Page 2-3 of the July 1997 EPSDT Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that "[b]ased on his medical discretion, a provider should not perform an EPSDT screening on an obviously sick recipient, because the illness may distort the screening results." If the patient is sick when he or she presents for an EPSDT visit, the provider should treat or refer the recipient for the illness and reschedule the screening appointment. (R-32, pg. 3) Dr. Deeb reviewed the records submitted by Petitioner for those claims where an EPSDT screening and evaluation and management services were simultaneously billed, and determined that both procedures were not medically necessary. Ms. Johnson gave Petitioner credit for the more expensive of the two billed procedures when an EPSDT and an office visits were billed for the same recipient on the same date of service, but not both. As stated above, the record does not reflect Petitioner was similarly credited with tests normally included in EPSDT screens which are not part of an office visit. (R-16, pg. 1, 3) Ms. Johnson identified 12 claims from the cluster sample that were erroneously coded. (R-49, pg. 1) However, the Agency concedes and withdraws its allegations that the 12 claims listed in Respondent's Exhibit No. 49 were in error. Ms. Johnson also identified two claims from the cluster sample where Petitioner billed for an office visit when immunizations were the only documented services rendered. Page 2-37 of the Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that "[e]valuation and management (E&M) services are reimbursable in addition to the injectable medicine service, provided the visit is for a separate and identifiable service and the services are documented in the medical record." There was no indication in Petitioner's records that a separate and identifiable service was also rendered on the date the immunizations were provided. (R-41) Accordingly, the claims for an office visit where immunizations were the only documented services rendered should be denied. (R-16) Ms. Johnson identified four claims from the cluster sample where Petitioner billed for hemoglobin and hematocrit tests as procedures separate from the general office visit. (R-43) These were improper billings since the costs for the hematocrit and hemoglobin procedures were included in the amount of money Petitioner was already reimbursed for an office visit. Page 2-49 of the January 1996 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that ". . . fingerstick hemoglobin and hematocrit performed as part of a physician visit are not reimbursed in addition to the physician visit. The provider may not bill for them as separate procedures." This same language appears on page 2-63 of the November 1997 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook. Page 2-73 of the January 1999 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that ". . . hemoglobin and hematocrit performed as part of a physician visit are not reimbursed in addition to the physician visit. The provider may not bill for them as separate procedures." Petitioner submitted claims for a pure tone audiometry, procedure code 92552, on the same day and for the same recipients that he submitted claims for EPSDT. (R-48) EPSDT, or early and periodic screening diagnosis and treatment, is a multiple component comprehensive exam of a well-child, and includes a standardized hearing test. Pure tone audiometry is included in the billing code for an EPSDT screening, and the audiometry and EPSDT screening should not be billed simultaneously. Page 2-12 of the December 1996 and the July 1997 EPSDT Coverage and Limitations Handbooks provide that a Medicaid provider "must perform a hearing screening on all recipients at each EPSDT screening." (R-32, pg. 11) Accordingly, Ms. Johnson concluded that the claims for a pure tone audiometry submitted simultaneously with the EPSDT screenings should be denied. (R-16, pg. 2, 4) Ms. Johnson identified one claim in which Petitioner billed for a new patient visit for a patient who had been previously seen by Petitioner. (R-42) The Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook defines a new patient as "one who has not received any professional services from a physician or another physician of the same specialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years." An established patient "is one who has received professional services from a physician . . . within the past three years." The Handbook provides that only "[o]ne new patient visit may be reimbursed once per recipient." Accordingly, Ms. Johnson concluded that the claim for a new patient who was previously rendered services should be denied. (R-16, pg. 4) However, Ms. Johnson treated the visit as a relatively simple doctor's visit, a 213. The records reveal the patient, an infant, presented holding both ears, spitting up since its formula was changed, and had continual constipation. Petitioner spent a great deal of time diagnosing and treating the patient. Under the criteria stated by Dr. Deeb, the patient presented with more than one problem involving more than one body system, and required a complex diagnosis. This visit was not a simple 213 office visit. In her Medical Record Review Report, Ms. Johnson determined that Petitioner had billed Medicaid "for dipstick urine, which is all-inclusive in the office visit." (R-16 & 44) Page 2-49 of the January 1996 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that "[d]ipstick urine . . . performed as part of a physician visit are not reimbursed in addition to the physician visit. The provider may not bill for them as separate procedures." This same language appears on Page 2-63 of the November 1997 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook. Page 2-73 of the January 1999 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that "[m]annual or automated dipstick urine . . . performed as part of a physician visit are not reimbursed in addition to the physician visit. The provider may not bill for them as separate procedures." Accordingly, Ms. Johnson concluded that the claims for dipstick urine in addition to the physician visit should be denied. (R-16, pg. 4) Ms. Johnson identified one claim in which Petitioner billed Medicaid for a test performed by an independent lab. (R-47, pg. 1) Page 2-45 of the January 1996 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that services for specimens sent to an independent laboratory are reimbursed to the independent laboratory. (R-47, pg. 2) This same language appears on Pages 2-57 of the November 1997 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook and Pages 2-67 of the January 1999 Physician's Coverage and Limitations Handbook. (R-47, pg. 3, 5) Accordingly, Ms. Johnson concluded that the claim for the test performed by the independent laboratory should be denied. (R-16, pg. 4) Ms. Johnson identified one claim in which Petitioner billed Medicaid for an office visit where no patient contact was documented. (R-16, pg. 2; R-45) However, the Agency concedes on this issue, and would adjust its claim accordingly. The Medical Record Review Report, Respondent's Exhibit No. 16, reflects the sum of Ms. Johnson's conclusions after conducting two reviews of Petitioner's records regarding why certain claims should be denied. The totals stated in R-16, which is a compilation of the other exhibits including R-46, are wrong. Testimony of Dr. Larry Deeb Dr. Larry Deeb testified at hearing on May 22, 2001, in Tallahassee, Florida. In addition, the deposition of Dr. Deeb on January 31, 2002; February 4, 2002; February 14, 2002; and February 15, 2002, was offered in lieu of trial testimony. (Notice of Continuing Deposition, 2/7/02) Dr. Deeb is a licensed pediatrician, certified by the American Board of Pediatrics in both pediatrics and pediatric endocrinology. (R-1) Dr. Deeb currently practices pediatric medicine. Dr. Deeb is a peer of Petitioner. In addition, Dr. Deeb has served as a consultant for the Medicaid program since 1981. Dr. Deeb testified that he has conducted peer reviews of Medicaid providers for the Agency for 20 years. Medical records of the audited patients were introduced. Testimony from the auditors indicated that some records were initially obtained from Petitioner, and in reply to their initial letter, additional records were provided. There was also testimony that only contemporaneous records could be considered in substantiating whether a procedure or services were medically necessary. All materials included in Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, to include those documents indicated to be "Additional Documents," were examined and considered. Dr. Deeb was provided a set of documents, which were entered into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, by the Agency. Dr. Deeb was asked by Ms. Johnson to review Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 and determine "the level of service provided for the actual visits, and . . . the medical necessity of the visits and/or the ancillary services provided." After conducting his initial review of Petitioner's records, Dr. Deeb reviewed all of the additional documentation Petitioner provided to rebut Dr. Deeb's initial conclusions. After Dr. Deeb concluded his review of the documents included in Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, he returned the documents, his notations on the medical record review sheets, and a short memo of his conclusions to Ms. Johnson. (R-16) In reviewing Petitioner's records, Dr. Deeb determined that the claims submitted to Medicaid reflected a "significant inflation of the level of service," included charges for "prolonged physician attendance" without justification, and contained "wholesale billing for tympanometry." Dr. Deeb observed that "[v]irtually every patient had a tympanometry," regardless of the condition or symptoms the patient demonstrated to Petitioner. A tympanogram is a graph of how well the ear drum moves and is used to diagnose inner ear infections or otitis media. Dr. Deeb concluded that Petitioner repeatedly billed Medicaid for tympanometry services when the documentation in the medical records did not indicate that the services were medically necessary. Petitioner admitted that he gave a tympanogram to nearly every patient he saw without regard to their presenting complaint based upon his experience with young patients. Dr. Deeb testified concerning medically appropriate conditions for billing tympanometry. It is medically necessary to confirm a diagnosis when one is not sure, and to confirm if the patient has improved. A review of the 31 patient records reveals that 211 tympanograms were performed. Of these, the Agency found that seven were reimbursable. The Agency would deny compensation for 17 of 18 tympanograms performed during well-child visits because they are included in the services and fees to be provided. It would approve one procedure which was performed during a well- child visit and reveal the patient had an inner ear infection. A careful review of the 211 tympanograms performed reveals 98 other instances in which the tympanogram performed revealed a child had an inner ear infection or in which the procedure was performed to respond to a specific complaint related to the patient's ears, and was appropriately billed and paid under the principles outlined by Dr. Deeb. See Vol. I, Page 93 of Transcript of Proceedings. When making a determination about level of service, Dr. Deeb relies on the current Procedural Terminology Handbook published by the American Medical Association. The current Procedural Terminology Handbook is used by the medical community, the Agency, the Health Care Financing Administration, and most private insurers "as the methodology for billing and payment." The level of service codes varies according to the complexity of the office visit. The level of service code depends upon three elements: "the complexity of the history, the detail of the physical examination, and the medical decision-making complexity." There are five levels of service for repeat office visits, ranging from 99211 through 99215, depending upon the complexity of the visit. A 211 is a visit in which the patient is seen by staff and a 212 would be a very simple case, i.e., taking out stitches and checking a wound. In Dr. Deeb's experience, "the vast majority of visits in a pediatrician's office are 213s." Dr. Deeb observed "there were significant numbers of 99214s and 215s billed where the complexity and the data provided didn't justify" in the records he examined. Mentioned specifically and emphatically was the failure to take a detailed history on a follow-up visit. A review of the records indicates that Petitioner took careful histories on his patients' past medical involvement, family histories, and social histories upon initially examining a patient or when the patient presented with a complaint. His notes frequently reflect detailed interaction with a patient presenting with a sore throat regarding the patients hyper- activity, behavior in school, and grades. The records also reveal patients who developed over time more complex medical problems. Further, these records indicate time spent was spent on some medical condition the patient had and which was mentioned in the clinical notes maintained by Petitioner. This conforms to Dr. Deeb's working definition provided for "medical necessity." Dr. Deeb testified that Petitioner's records contained no documentation that Petitioner spent additional time with the patient. The Physician's current Procedural Terminology Handbook "allows the physician to charge when they are there for additional time." The records contained in R-6 reveal that in the overwhelming majority of cases Petitioner documented additional time spent with his patients. The treatment by the Agency of Petitioner's billing for Patient #8 is particularly at odds with the standards which the Agency maintains that it follows. Patient #8 was a nine- day-old infant who presented for an EPSDT visit. The visit revealed a cardiac problem which resulted in its transfer to Shand's Emergency Room by ambulance. All Petitioner's notes apparently were not copied because they state "over," indicating added notes were made on the back of the form; however, there are sufficient notes contained in the record to support Petitioner's claim for extra time and for a complex visit. Continuing with Patient #8, the record reflects a patient with significant continuing problems who was transported to the emergency room on two more occasions, once after the infant stopped breathing. The Agency wants to reduce this code for this patient's visits to 214 on the occasion of its transport to Shand's and again after it stopped breathing. The Agency wants to reduce the code for the visit when cardiac testing was repeated from 215 to 213. The notes reflect that the child was in for testing, but presented with a cough it had had since birth and was still prone to super ventricular tachycardia. In sum, Patient #8 was a complex patient with complex problems requiring high level thinking, the criteria for a high level visit. Dr. Deeb indicated in his testimony the scale ran from 212, a re-check visit, to 213, a simple medical problem, to 214, a more complex medical problem or multiple medical problems, to 215, which were very complex problem or problems. The reductions proposed in the billing codes for many of Petitioner's patient visits are inconsistent with the standards expressed by Dr. Deeb, as evidenced by the audit recommendations with regard to Patient #8. A similar pattern occurs with other patients generally or with regard to specific visits. It should be remembered that some patients' conditions changed over time to become more complex. Others presented on one occasion with several things occurring at the same time. In either instance, they presented a situation beyond that of a simple patient. See Patients 9(4-12-99), 12, 15, 16(6-8-99), 17, 23, 24, 25, 26(1-21-99 & 4-6-99), 27, 28(5-28-99 & 6-17-99), 29(9-3-99), and 30(4-21-97). The auditors proposed to reduce not only the code applicable to the visit, but to deny the claim for additional time. A review of the record reveals instances in which, even if a reduction in the code were warranted, there was a medical need for spending additional time with the patient and it was documented in Petitioner's records. This included time spent counseling patients, obtaining added history about their behavior and performance in school, and discussing referrals with parents. In most instances, Petitioner's spending extra time coincided with a complex patient presenting with more complex medical problems. The auditors conclusions regarding Patient #26's visit of 5-11-99 is consistent with Dr. Deeb's testimony. Unfortunately, the audit conclusions with regard to treatment of Patient #26 on other dates are consistent with Dr. Deeb's testimony regarding the standards of review, as are the conclusions reached with regard to other patients. Using the standard applied to the visit of 5-11-99 of Patient #26, very few of the proposed reductions would be as deep as the agency would propose, and others would not be reduced at all.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent recompute the claim and re-file against the Petitioner, who would have a limited right to contest the new claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Tony C. Rich 1710 Northwest 42nd Street Gainesville, Florida 32605 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner on the basis of alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act, Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. In an eight-count Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been charged with four violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license number is ME0022079. Facts regarding Patient #1 The Respondent provided medical treatment to Patient #1 from April 20, 1987, through April 12, 1988. During the period of that treatment Patient #1 was approximately 92 years old and was diagnosed as having organic brain syndrome. Respondent obtained a brief past medical history of the patient and failed to document the patient's current complaints or review any prior medical records of the patient. On May 26, 1987, Respondent diagnosed the patient with pedal edema and ordered Hygroton 25 mg., but failed to document in the medical records the number of times per day the patient was to take the medication or the dosage for the medication. On June 6, 1987, the patient presented with shortness of breath and a blood pressure of 110/80. Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On July 14, 1987, and September 22, 1987, the patient again presented with shortness of breath and pedal edema and Respondent only recorded the lungs as clear and took her blood pressure. Respondent did not perform any other tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On October 26, 1987, when the patient presented with shortness of breath, Respondent noted an arrhythmia and blood pressure of 136/82. However, Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the course of the symptoms. When the patient presented with arrhythmia, the applicable standard of care 5/ required Respondent to perform an EKG, to check her digoxin levels, and monitor her electrolytes and renal functions. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not meet the applicable record-keeping standards 6/ because the records were incomplete, inadequate, and illegible. Specifically, the records did not have diagnoses, did not have a plan of treatment, and did not include thorough examinations or histories, making it impossible to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #2 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #2 from July 11, 1978, until September 13, 1988. Patient #2, a male, was seventy-one years old when such treatment began. The patient had a history of gastric ulcers. Nevertheless, Respondent prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications which exacerbate or increase difficulties with gastric ulcers and bleeding without obtaining a complete history or conducting a full examination. Respondent's medical records did not document whether Respondent assessed the risk to the patient, discussed the risk with the patient, or made any determinations that the risks outweighed the benefits for the patient. In 1978, the patient presented with a chronic cough and chronic bronchitis. However, Respondent did not perform any chest x-rays to determine the origin of the cough or to rule out lung carcinoma. Over the years, the cough persisted and in 1982-1983, the patient experienced shortness of breath and increased ankle edema. Respondent prescribed diuretics without determining the etiology of the edema and without conducting renal status or electrolyte monitoring. In 1985, the patient was hospitalized with severe ankle swelling. Respondent did not aggressively treat the possibility of deep vein thrombosis or cellulitis, nor did he treat the patient with anticoagulants to lessen the risk of a blood clot going to the lung. The applicable standard of care required anticoagulant treatment under these circumstances. In 1987, the patient suffered a severe weight loss with the chronic cough. The Respondent's records do not reveal any attempt to make a diagnosis. On December 15, 1987, the patient complained of abdominal problems, which could have related to the steroidal anti-inflammatory medications prescribed. The Respondent's records fail to document any laboratory tests or examinations by Respondent to determine the cause of the complaints. Respondent breached the applicable standard of care by failing to perform an EKG on the patient when he presented with dizziness, light-headedness or syncopal episodes from September 1987, until July 12, 1988. When the patient presented on August 30, 1988, and September 13, 1988, with very serious complaints of precordial chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations, a reasonably prudent physician would have suspected that the patient was having a heart attack. Despite the symptoms, Respondent made a psychiatric diagnosis, rather than fully evaluating the heart and cardiac status. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not comply with the applicable record-keeping standards in that they did not contain thorough examinations or histories, and did not have diagnoses or plans of treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #3 Respondent provided care to Patient #3 from November 17, 1987, until May 16, 1989. Patient #3, a female, was eighty-five years old when such treatment began. Respondent should have been aware from the patient's initial presentation, that the patient did not qualify to reside in an adult congregate living facility and should have taken steps to have her admitted to a skilled nursing facility. Respondent's failure to do so is a breach of the applicable standard of care. Respondent's initial examination of the patient was limited and Respondent failed to conduct an EKG to reveal the origin of the patient's pedal edema or irregular heartbeat. Respondent also failed to diagnose, treat, or refer the patient for a consult to evaluate her vision and hearing loss. Even though the diagnosis was not made in the Respondent's records, it is apparent from the medications prescribed by Respondent that the patient was being treated for congestive heart failure. She also had pedal edema, shortness of breath, and cardiac arrhythmia. Respondent failed to perform or conduct the appropriate tests and examinations to make a diagnosis of the patient's condition or to provide effective treatment. The patient had frequent episodes of high blood pressure for which Respondent prescribed diuretics. Respondent's prescribing of Tenormin violated the applicable standard of care and subjected the patient to serious cardiac risks. Respondent's medical records for the patient were illegible for the most part and in many instances omitted information about the diagnosis and course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding Patient #4 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #4 from April 1985 until January 5, 1988. Patient #4, a male, was seventy-four years old when such treatment began. When the patient originally presented to Respondent, he was on cardiac medications, had complaints of possible arrhythmias, and had a history of organic brain syndrome and tardive dyskinesia. Respondent was required by the applicable standard of care to evaluate the patient's cardiac condition, renal status, and potassium level. Respondent breached the standard of care by failing to conduct these evaluations and examinations. On October 1, 1985, the patient presented with back pain. Rather than conducting a physical exam to determine the source of the pain, Respondent violated the standard of care and treated the pain symptomatically. The patient was prescribed an anti-psychotic drug, Mellaril, and throughout Respondent's care exhibited side effects, including falls with resulting abrasions. Respondent failed to discontinue the drug or take appropriate measures to determine the extent of the patient's condition and implement a course of treatment. On July 23, 1987, Respondent prescribed an amount of Dalmane considered excessive for geriatric patients. These inappropriate prescriptions constitute a departure from the applicable standard of care. Respondent's medical records for the patient were replete with omissions of physical exams, diagnoses, and plans of care, and were inadequate as to patient history and justification for course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding prior discipline Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine. The prior disciplinary action was based on deficiencies in Respondent's record-keeping. The prior disciplinary action does not appear to have improved Respondent's record-keeping in any significant way.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of all of the following: (a) an administrative fine in the total amount of $4,000.00 (representing a $500.00 fine for each of the eight counts); (b) a one-year period of suspension of the Respondent's license; and (c) a one-year period of probation following the suspension, during which probation period the Respondent shall be required to have his records reviewed by a supervising physician approved by the Board, such supervising physician to provide quarterly reports to the Board regarding the sufficiency of the Respondent's record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 February 1995.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Moheb Ishad Girgis El-Far was licensed as a physician in Florida under license number ME 0026895, and the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing and monitoring of physicians in this state. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent practiced medicine with a specialty in obstetrics at his clinic located a 401 East Olympic Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida. Patient 2, C.L., first went to see Respondent at his office in Punta Gorda in January, 1989 because she was pregnant and had heard he was delivering babies in his office. She was referred to the Respondent by the Sarasota Health Department when she indicated she wanted to have her child in a birthing center. During that first visit, the doctor and patient agreed on a treatment plan which would culminate with the baby's being delivered in his office and C.L. paid for this pursuant to their agreement. During the period of the patient's prenatal care with the Respondent, he told her her baby was due on August 30, 1987, and when labor began, she was to come to his office and bring her own sheets. On August 24, 1987, C.L. began her labor and went to Respondent's office as agreed. By the time she got there, she was about ready to deliver and a few minutes after her arrival, she did so in a birthing room with her husband present. At the time of the delivery, both Respondent's wife and Ms. L.'s boss, neither of whom played any part in the proceedings, were standing in the doorway to the birthing room. No nurse was present and C.L. cannot recall seeing any sterilization or resuscitation equipment in the room. C.L. experienced little pain during the delivery, which appeared to go smoothly. Afterwards however, Respondent told her she had sustained an inverted uterus and when Respondent attempted to remove the afterbirth, she started to hemorrhage. When this happened, Respondent gave her a shot and towels with which she was to try to stem the bleeding while he tried to correct the uterine problem. He was unsuccessful and thereafter called the paramedics who came to his office and took C.L. to St. Joseph's Hospital in Punta Gorda for treatment. Respondent did not treat her at the hospital because he had no hospital privileges. While there she required 6 units of blood and 2 units of plasma. At no time during the course of her prenatal care did Respondent advise her to go to the hospital. She fully recovered. C.L. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by Department investigators at some time subsequent to her delivery. With the exception of the fetal monitor which she had seen in his office, the pictures she saw bore little similarity to the condition of the office whenever she was there. Though the office was not as messy as the pictures show, she was, nonetheless concerned about its condition at the time of her delivery. The carpet was dirty and so was the aquarium. She could not do anything about it at that time, however, and it was not so bad as to cause her to feel unsafe. S.K., Patient 1, first went to the Respondent for her pregnancy care in November, 1987 on a referral from a friend. They agreed on a fee of $1600.00 for prenatal care and delivery in his office. During these initial discussions, Respondent did not discuss in detail with the patient the possibility of complications. He stated only that if there were complications, they could probably be treated in the office. S.K. went to Respondent's office about 6 times after that initial visit. During this period, on an early visit, Respondent gave her some medicine samples and a prescription for vitamins. When she asked about the cost, he said he would include the cost of the samples when he billed her insurance company. During these visits, she also saw his personal office, an examining room, and a small room where the patient's blood pressure was taken. She noted that the office was not as clean and orderly as others she had seen, and in fact, was usually in a state of disarray. On one occasion when Respondent examined her, he was wearing a wrinkled shirt with a blood spot on it. The next time she went for a visit, Respondent was wearing the same shirt. S.K. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by investigators and several were similar to conditions she observed there. His personal office was not well organized and there was clutter about but not as aggravated as appears in the photos. Based on her experience with other doctors, Respondent's office was far more untidy and in disarray but not necessarily nonsterile or unsafe. On February 5, 1988, S.K. went to Respondent's office because she was having pains and thought she was in labor. When she called him and explained her symptoms, he told her to come in and he examined her when she did. He gave her something to calm her and to try to stop her labor in an attempt to save her baby. He gave her a shot of demerol and put her in an examining room to lie down. She slept there for quite a while with her husband present. When she awoke she again began to have pains but Respondent would not give her any more medicine. After a while, the baby spontaneously delivered while Respondent was sleeping in another room. He was called but by the time he came in, the baby was dead. He asked S.K. if she wanted to see the fetus but she declined. After a period of recovery, she was released to return home. When this patient came into the office that day and it appeared she was going to deliver, her husband asked Respondent if he thought she should be in the hospital. Respondent replied that it was up to her because the baby, if delivered, was too premature to survive. The decision not to go to the hospital was hers. Respondent did not try to dissuade her from going. In fact, in most ways she considered Respondent's treatment of her to have been satisfactory. During the period she was in his office Respondent was in and out of the room checking on her. The only complaint she has relates to his handling of the fetus she delivered. About 2 weeks after delivery she again went to see Respondent at his office where he showed her her baby which he had preserved in a jar of formaldehyde. This was a strange and sad experience for her. Mr. K. basically confirms that testified to by his wife. While she was in labor or sleeping prior to the delivery, he wandered about the building into other parts of the clinic. He also rested in one of the examining or birthing rooms and observed the general state of cleanliness of the facility was poor. For example, the floor and rugs were spotted throughout with a dark stain and the examining table also had a dark stain on it. These stains looked to him like blood. In addition, the hallway carpets were dirty, there were bags off debris laying out, spare pieces of wood were stacked in the halls, and medical instruments were left out in the birthing and examining rooms. In his opinion, many of the pictures shown to him displayed scenes similar to what he saw when he was there with his wife. Both Dr. Borris and Dr. Marley agreed that Respondent's treatment of Ms. K. had no relationship to her miscarriage. By the same token, neither claims that his treatment of Ms. L.'s inverted uterus was inappropriate. Both agree, however, that other factors in Dr. El Far's operation of his practice as regards both patients failed to conform to generally accepted standards of care in providing obstetrical services. Specifically, he failed to have a nurse present during the delivery; he failed to have emergency equipment in the form of resuscitative and lifesaving equipment available to handle potential surgical complications which might have arisen; he had no emergency backup care available; and he had no hospital privileges in Punta Gorda, the area in which he was engaged in an obstetrical practice. Without those privileges, it was not prudent for him to undertake a delivery in the office. While the prenatal care of patient 1 was within standards, the balance of Respondent's practice was below standards because: the patient was not monitored while in the office; if the conditions as appearing in the pictures existed at the time he was seeing patients, he did not meet sanitation standards because of the general disarray.; he attempted a delivery in his office when a hospital was only 1.5 miles away, (not prudent in light of the patient's condition when there was no emergency to justify it); and his records were not complete. The standard of a reasonably prudent physician is the same regardless of the locality. Acceding to the wishes of a patient, when to do so is not in the patient's best interests, is not necessarily acceptable medical care. Mr. Cook, the Department's investigator, inspected Respondent's office on September 16, 1988, in the company of investigator Clyne, as a result of a call he received from an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who was then on the premises. When they arrived, they observed a female sitting on the couch in the waiting room changing a baby's diaper. From conversation he had with Respondent at the time, Mr. Cook inferred the lady was a patient. In addition to the previously mentioned lady and the state investigative personnel, Cook also noticed two children, who Respondent indicated were his, running freely about throughout the building. Cook examined the patient log maintained by Respondent for that day and noted that two patients were scheduled. Nonetheless, while he was there, there were no nurses, receptionists or office staff present. Though Respondent claims he did not have any patients that day, and though Cook did not see any other than the lady aforementioned, from the patient log and the fact that at least one patient was there, it is found that Respondent was engaged in at least a minimum practice and was available to see patients. Mr. Cook observed conditions in Respondent's office on the day in question that were inconsistent with a proper medical practice. Trash was not contained, food was left open, and dust and dirt were in evidence, all in the area where medical services were or would be rendered. Mr. Cook took photos and a video tape of the condition of Respondent's office. The photos were those shown to the two patients who testified herein and to Mr. K. Though he looked throughout the office, Mr. Cook could find no sterilization equipment, no general anesthesia equipment, no blood transfusion equipment, and no emergency resuscitation equipment. When asked about his sterilization capability, Respondent stated his "heater" was broken and in for repairs. When during a visit to Respondent in October, 1988, Ms. Clyne told him he needed sterilizer equipment, he indicated it had recently been purchased. On that visit, Respondent had a patient in the office. Ms. Clyne again went to Respondent's office on February 15, 1989 and observed it to be still in a state of disarray. Ms. Hampton, another Department investigator, visited with Respondent in his office on January 11, 1989 and found it to be unsatisfactory. The waiting area was cluttered, the carpet was dirty, the walls stained, and magazines were laying around. The clinic area was piled up with mail leaving no counter space. Respondent took Ms. Hampton on a tour through the office during which she observed the computer, patient records, and the typewriter to be unclean. Her examination of the halls, examining rooms, birthing rooms, and the like revealed that in one room, a sink had an unclean speculum in it and others were lying about. The paper on one examining table was soiled and when Respondent saw that, he quickly tore it off. The spread in one of the birthing rooms was soiled and the floor needed sweeping. Trash cans were not lined and needed cleaning. The covering on the baby examining table was soiled and there were bloody cotton balls on a table in the room. She, too, saw no evidence of any sterilization, anesthesia, or emergency resuscitation equipment. On this visit, Respondent indicated he was not seeing any new patients; only those former patients who were still pregnant. Respondent indicates that during the period from July 4 through September 16, 1988 he had closed up his office for an extensive vacation and was living in his office on that latter date. He does not deny that his office was in the condition as depicted in the photos when they were made but contends he has since cleaned it up and put new carpet down. During the period his office was closed, he referred his patients to other doctors and has not been actively practicing while waiting for his malpractice insurance to come through. Respondent also does not deny that the Certificate of Education form he signed and submitted to the Board was in error. He contends, however, that at the time he signed it he believed it to be a certificate of regular continuing education hours, not a certification used for approval for dispensing drugs. He also claims that at no time did he intend to defraud the Board, and when Ms. Clyne brought the error to his attention, he wrote to the Board explaining what had happened. He contends that when he affirmed the statement that he had the appropriate hours, he considered the "a" in "affirm" to be a negative prefix indicating he did not have the required hours. This contention is both ingenuous and unbelievable. It is found that Respondent well knew the meaning and effect of the certification he signed and his affixing his signature thereto was both false and with intent to mislead.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida be suspended for two years and that he thereafter be placed on probation for an additional period of three years under such terms and conditions as are imposed by the Board of Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1507 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1.- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected in so far as it editorializes on the condition of the clinic. While below standard, there was no evidence of health hazard to patients. 6.-8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted. For the Respondent: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of expert testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as it finds that Respondent's performance of medical procedures was within standard. Rejected as to the finding that overall care and practice was within standards. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David K. Oaks, Esquire The Professional Center 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 205, Box 3288 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine DPRB 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK CLARK 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 23rd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and holds license number ME 0043566. Respondent has never been the subject of a previous complaint from the Department of Professional Regulation (now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation). No patient involved in this proceeding incurred injury as a result of any procedure performed by Respondent or as a result of any medical record kept by Respondent, nor did any patient claim injury or make a complaint against Respondent. Respondent derived no financial gain from any act or omission alleged in the administrative complaint. All events pertaining to this proceeding occurred in 1987 or 1988. Prior to February 8, 1988, the effective date of Chapter 88-1, Laws of Florida, Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross 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", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Section 25 of Chapter 88-1, Florida Statutes, became effective February 8, 1988, and amended the pertinent provisions of Section 458.311(1), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered, and reports of consultations and hospitalizations. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross 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", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that a physician be incompetent to practice medicine in order to be disciplined pursuant to this paragraph. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner had adopted no rules pertaining to the keeping of records by a licensed physician. Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point) is a hospital located in Broward County, Florida. Unless otherwise indicated, all hospital records referred to in this matter are from Imperial Point. PATIENT #1 (C.S.) On August 8, 1988, Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #1, a male, who was 44 years old at the time of the procedure. This procedure was performed at Imperial Point on an outpatient basis. An upper endoscopy is the viewing of the mouth, the pharynx, the esophagus, the stomach and portions of the duodenum with a fiber optic instrument that allows direct visualization of the lining of these structures and allows therapeutic maneuvers. The records kept of this procedure performed on Patient #1 on August 8, 1988, include an outpatient hospital record entitled "Operative Report". The description of the procedure portion of this report includes the following: ". . . The gastric portion was infiltrated with 1:1,000 adrenaline . . ." Adrenaline, also known as epinephrine, is a vasoconstrictor that can be used to control minor bleeding and oozing. It is used regularly in gastroenterology to treat actively bleeding lesions or ulcers with evidence of recent bleeding prior to performing a more permanent type of hemostasis. Dr. Goldberg testified that epinephrine was usually injected into these areas by a needle. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that epinephrine should not be used in cases of trivial bleeding or oozing or after routine biopsies unless there is an imminent danger of a significant arterial bleed. The testimony of Dr. Cerda and Dr. Singh established that spraying epinephrine over an area that is subject to bleeding is a precautionary technique some gastroenterologists follow. Dr. Singh and Dr. Cerda have both either used this technique, or have observed its use by other physicians. The expert witnesses agreed that the injection by needle of epinephrine into the gastric wall would be a procedure that falls below an established standard of care. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to how the term "infiltrated" should be interpreted. Petitioner contends that the term "infiltrated" is synonymous with the term "injected", and that the medical records should be construed to mean that Respondent injected the gastric wall with a needle, and therefore practiced below the standard of care. This contention is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Respondent asserts that the medical record should be construed to mean that Respondent sprayed the gastric wall as a precautionary measure. This contention is consistent with the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent. This dispute is resolved by finding that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and does not prove that Respondent injected Patient #1's gastric wall with a needle. This conclusion is based, in part, on the definition of the term "infiltrate" and on the context in which epinephrine is sometimes administered by gastroenterologists during this type procedure. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the term "infiltrate" means to pass a liquid or a gas into something through its interstices or to permeate with a liquid or gas passed through interstices. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Twenty Sixth Edition (Dorland) has a similar definition of the term "infiltrate". According to Dorland, an "interstice" is small interval, space, or gap in a tissue or structure. According to Dorland, the term permeate means to penetrate or pass through, as through a filter. Also according to Dorland, the term inject means the act of forcing a liquid into a part, as into the subcutaneous, the vascular tree, or an organ. Based on these definitions, it is found that the use of the term "infiltrate" is more consistent with the practice of spraying epinephrine onto the gastric wall, and that the use of the term "infiltrate" does not prove that Respondent injected the epinephrine into the gastric wall with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #1 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. A pathology report dated August 8, 1988 contained in the medical file provided a pathological diagnosis as follows: "esophageal brushings: no evidence of malignancy." Brushings are the result of passing a small brush through the biopsy channel of an endoscope, rubbing it over an area of concern that might have either a malignancy or a fungal infection, taking the brush out of the scope, wiping it on a microscopic slide, and sending the slide to the pathologist for cytological examination. The reference to the "esophageal brushings" in the pathology report was error. The brushings taken from Patient #1 during the procedure on August 8, 1988, came from the stomach, a fact obvious to all of the expert witnesses in light of the operative report and operative drawing made by Respondent. Because Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent took esophageal brushings from Patient #1, its charge that he failed to properly document his reasons for doing so must also fail. 1/ Petitioner proved that Respondent's medical records, including his office notes as to Patient #1 failed to contain an adequate medical history for Patient #1 and failed to reflect the findings of any physical examination of Patient #1 by Respondent. Petitioner further proved that such failures fall below an established standard of care as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. PATIENT #2 (R.B.) Patient #2 was a 70 year old male seen by Respondent for a consultation because of the patient's history of hematemesis, which is the vomiting of blood. Respondent prepared a formal consultation note dated September 25, 1988. The consultation note contains a description of the patient's condition, references a rectal exam, which was positive for blood, and indicates that a physical examination of the patient was made. Respondent again saw the patient on September 27, 1988 and performed an upper endoscopy. Dr. Goldberg was critical of the medical records kept by Respondent as to this procedure and was of the opinion that the medical records were inadequate. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedure. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records pertaining to this patient were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. The records kept of this procedure reflect that Respondent "infiltrated" Patient #2 with epinephrine. This is the identical dispute over the meaning of the term "infiltrated" that pertained to Patient #1 as discussed above. For the reasons given in resolving the dispute as it pertains to Patient #1, it is found that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and that the use of the term does not prove that Respondent administered the epinephrine by injecting Patient #2 with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #2 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. PATIENT #3 (B.B.) Patient #3, a 65 year old female was admitted to Imperial Point with chest pains by her physician, a Dr. Fanfan. Patient #3 had a history of cancer which included the prior surgical removal of a tumor. On October 3, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy of Patient #3. A colonoscopy is an examination of the colon from the anus to the ileocecal valve using a fiber optic instrument. A colonoscopy is indicated to evaluate abnormal X-rays, changes in bowel habits, evidence of bleeding, suspicions of inflammation, tumors, or polyps. Respondent adequately performed the procedure on Patient #3. The colonoscopy detected that Patient #3 had polyps. Subsequent laboratory results established that these were hyperplastic polyps that required no follow-up. Had the polyp been an adenomatous polyp, which is a true neoplasm with malignant potential, a follow-up for recolonoscopy would have been appropriate in one year. Prior to receiving the pathology reports, on the polyp, Respondent recommended a six month follow-up for the patient. This follow-up recommendation was appropriate at the time it was made. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that a follow-up be performed was below an established standard of care. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that the follow-up for this patient with a history of cancer be in six months as opposed to one year fell below an established standard of care. The barium enema for this patient was originally scheduled by the attending physician, Dr. Fanfan. Dr. Fanfan clearly wrote a note on the same day following Respondent's report of the colonoscopy that the barium enema was pending, yet the attending physician did not cancel the barium enema. There is no disagreement among the experts that the barium enema was unnecessary in light of the findings of the colonoscopy. It is medically unnecessary and inappropriate for both tests to be performed on the same day. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent was responsible for the patient once he began his consultation and that Respondent should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Cerda, Dr. Eberly and Dr. Singh were of the opinion that the attending physician was responsible for scheduling the barium enema and that the attending physician or the radiologist should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Eberly testified that as the primary care physician, the admitting physician is the "captain of the ship" and has the responsibility to make final determinations with respect to tests of this nature. Because of the conflicting testimony from equally credible expert witnesses, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care by not cancelling Patient #3's enema. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #3 were inadequate. He had several criticisms of the records. Dr. Goldberg opined that there should have been a formal consultation note on Patient #3's chart that included past history, present illness, review of systems, allergies, pertinent laboratories, a thorough organ specific or system examination, an impression, an adequate discussion of the consultant's impression and the consultant's plans. He opined that the indications for Patient #3's procedure were inadequately dictated on the procedure notes and that Respondent's history pertaining to Patient #3 was inadequate because there was no pertinent review of systems or past history, no mention of the previous tumor, no mention of allergies, and an extremely scant examination. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of this patient's medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #4 (E.K.) On October 4, 1988, Patient #4, a 92 year-old female, was admitted to the hospital with an acute onset of vomiting, dehydration, and abdominal pain. Respondent was asked by Patient #4's attending physician to evaluate Patient #4 for a potential small bowel obstruction following an X-ray that was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #4 on October 7, 1988. An obstruction of the intestines is a blockage in the large or small intestine. The bowel behind the blockage may become inflated with fluid or air and may be seen on X-ray. The obstruction may result from a variety of abnormalities. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the upper endoscopy was contra- indicated and potentially dangerous to the patient because of the X-ray indicating a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that an upper endoscopy should be used only under compelling circumstances if there is a partial bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did the right tests on Patient #4, but in the wrong order since he did not first rule out an obstruction. Prior to performing the upper endoscopy Respondent monitored the patient for several days. During that time period, examinations indicated that the patient was having bowel movements. Both the attending physician's notes, Respondent's notes, and the nurse's notes indicate positive bowel signs on October 5 and 6, indicating that there was not a complete bowel obstruction. Respondent ordered a Golytely preparation administered to the patient, which usually consists of one or two liters of non-absorbable solution that basically washes the bowel out. That preparation would have been improper with a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the use of a Golytely prep in this patient was a gross judgment error. Dr. Singh was of the opinion that there was no contra-indication for using the preparation in this situation. Petitioner failed to prove that Patient #4 had a complete bowel obstruction or that the procedure, including the use of the Golytely preparation, violated an established standard of care. It is found that Respondent was acting within the scope of his discretion as the consulting physician to order the administration of the Golytely preparation and to perform the upper endoscopy. On October 11, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #4. Respondent stated on the operative report that the colonoscopy was indicated because of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis was not mentioned in any of Respondent's notes concerning Patient #4, and there was no notation as to the reasons Respondent thought the patient had diverticulitis. Although Respondent failed to document why he felt that diverticulitis was an appropriate indication for the colonoscope, there is no dispute that a colonoscope was, in fact, indicated. Further, the colonoscope established that the pretest diagnosis of possible diverticulitis was not incorrect. The colonoscopy revealed areas of colitis, and the pathology report noted an ulcer with acute and chronic inflammation. Respondent's experts testified that they were of the opinion that Respondent violated no established standard by listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscopy. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent practiced below an established level in listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscope. During the colonoscopy, Respondent found several mildly bleeding areas and infiltrated Patient #4 with epinephrine. For the reasons discussed pertaining to Patient #4, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care in administering epinephrine to Patient #4. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation report was inadequate. Dr. Goldberg bases his conclusion on the following observations. The report was difficult to read and failed to include any significant historical events concerning Patient #4. In his consultation report, the Respondent failed to note anything about having done a rectal examination on this patient, whether or not the abdomen was distended, and whether there were active or inactive bowel sounds. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that these findings would help to distinguish between an obstruction and an ileus or paralysis of the bowel. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that the patient's records of the upper endoscopy performed October 7, 1998, fail to reveal any significant findings. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #5 (J.T.) Patient #5, an 89 year-old male, was admitted to Imperial Point with a history of peptic ulcer disease and arthritis. This patient was seen by Respondent on a consulting basis. The patient was vomiting blood and Respondent was asked to see the patient to determine the source of the bleeding. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on October 13, 1988, and found a significant outlet obstruction. On October 17, 1988, a G.I. series was performed and a repeat upper endoscopy and pyloric dilatation was performed. The procedures performed by Respondent were properly indicated and had a beneficial result to the patient. Back-to-back pyloric dilatations were appropriate and clinical judgment was properly exercised. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the upper endoscopy of October 13, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report failed to document Respondent's findings in detail. Dr. Goldberg testified that an essential endoscopy report that physicians are trained to do should include the following: indications for the procedure, medication used to sedate the patient, identification of instrument used, description of the anatomical landmarks and their condition as visualized by the physician passing the endoscope, the removal of the scope, the physician's impressions and what the physician plans to do about those impressions, how the patient tolerated the procedure and what the patient's condition was after the procedure, and that the patient was sent to the recovery area. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the procedures performed on this patient on October 17, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report did not document Respondent's findings in detail and did not indicate if the scope was passed through Patient #5's dilated pylorus into the duodenum. In Respondent's impressions on the second endoscopy, he noted pyloric stenosis and duodenal ulcer. In his procedure note Respondent does not mention whether he passed the scope into the duodenum or how he knew there was a duodenal ulcer. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did not properly document what he did. On October 18, 1988, Respondent performed a repeat pyloric dilation on Patient #5. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to record the reasons for the second procedure and to document his findings. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the third endoscopy note did not adequately detail the examinations of the esophagus and stomach. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that every procedure note stands alone, and that if a physician does an endoscopy on day one and repeats it on day two, the physician still must make that report complete because it is not always going to be part of a document. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's records did not stand alone. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation note was sketchy and should have contained a history of allergies because of the need to give the patient medications for sedation. Dr. Goldberg's criticisms of Respondent's medical records do not prove that the medical records kept by Respondent were inadequate as measured by an established standard. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedures and that the records were adequate. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #6 (D.Y.) From October 19, 1988, until October 22, 1988, Respondent was consulting physician to Patient #6, a 72 year-old male, who was admitted to Imperial Point with rectal bleeding. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to Patient #6 because a formal consultation note was lacking. The medical records which were reviewed by Dr. Goldberg were incomplete when reviewed by him. A specific reference is made to a consultation note that is not contained in the hospital records. Respondent established that other medical records were missing from the hospital records. In light of the specific reference to the consultation note, it is found that the absence of this consultation note from the hospital records is insufficient to prove that there existed no consultation note. On October 20, 1988, Respondent performed an colonoscopy on this patient and a biopsy was taken in the segmental descending colon area. The colonoscopy could not be completed because the colonoscopy could not pass to the patient's cecum. The following recommendation was made by Respondent (the original is in all capital letters): IN VIEW OF NOT REACHING TO THE CECUM, THE PATIENT WOULD NEED BE (this is an abbreviation for barium enema) AND ALSO IF EVERYTHING IS NEGATIVE, RECOLONOSCOPY IN ONE YEAR AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IN THE BIOPSY OF THE POLYP, THEN ACCORDINGLY WILL PLAN. On October 21, 1988, the follow-up barium enema was performed by Dr. Nicholas M. Arfaras, a radiologist. The radiology report reflected the following finding: "Also in the sigmoid there is an approximately 1 cm. rounded filling defect identified near the junction with the descending colon. This is felt to be secondary to a polyp." The possible polyp detected by the barium enema should have been followed up. However, it was not established that Respondent was consulted by the attending physician about the results of the barium enema. Dr. Lipton, as the attending physician, would have had the responsibility for following up the recommendations made by Respondent and for bringing Respondent or another gastroenterologist in for further consultations following the barium enema if Dr. Lipton had believed it necessary to do so. This patient was discharged from Imperial Point by Dr. Lipton on October 22, 1988. The final page of the discharge summary for this patient reflected the following notation: "Condition was improved. The patient is to have a follow up in one week in the office with Dr. Lipton and with Dr. Gupta in two weeks." The evidence presented in this proceeding, including Respondent's office notes, does not reflect that Respondent had any involvement with this patient after October 21, 1988, until 1990, when he performed on the patient at North Broward Medical Center a procedure described as a "multiple colonoscopy with multiple biopsies and cauterization." This procedure in 1990 revealed multiple polyps. The polyp removed on colonoscopy in 1988 was an adenomatous polyp, a polyp with significant malignant potential. This patient needed a follow-up colonoscopy in one year. Respondent was the consulting physician and recommended reevaluation of the patient in one year. Follow-up care was not the responsibility of Respondent, but of the treating physician. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records in that Respondent failed to adequately document the indications for the colonoscopy performed on Patient #6 and why the colonoscope could not be passed to Patient #6's cecum. Dr. Goldberg opined that a physician doing a colonoscopy needs to tell why he did not get to the cecum so that the next physician colonoscoping this patient can take appropriate precautions. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #7 (C.R.) Respondent was a consulting physician to Patient #7, a 64 year old male who was hospitalized with rectal bleeding. Respondent saw this patient because of a possible colonic fistula, which is a connection with any piece of the intestine and some other structure. Respondent recommended a barium small bowel X-ray and a barium enema, both appropriate clinical recommendations. On November 11, 1987, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #7. Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the aforementioned procedure in that Respondent failed to document an adequate history as an indication of Patient #7's colonoscopy. This contention is rejected based on the testimony of Dr. Singh. The medical records provide adequate justification for the procedure. Dr. Goldberg was critical of Respondent's records pertaining to this patient and considered the records inadequate. He was of the opinion that the records should have better detailed his findings and should have recorded any follow-up plans for a repeat colonoscopy on the patient. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide a history or physical examination for Patient #1 as alleged in Count Two, which reprimands Respondent for that violation, and which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 against the Respondent for that violation. It is further recommended that all other charges against Respondent contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue Should Respondent's license to practice podiatric medicine be disciplined for failure to keep required written medical records, for prescribing or dispensing legend drugs other than in the course of his professional podiatric practice, for failing to practice as a reasonably prudent podiatric physician, and for practicing beyond the scope of his license?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of podiatric medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 461, Florida Statutes. Dr. McNally has been licensed without interruption to practice podiatry in the State of Florida since October 22, 1996. He has not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Podiatry. Dr. McNally was licensed as a podiatrist in the State of Florida by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) in October 1996. He was born on June 19, 1969. Ms. Sara Helen Lowe, a pharmacist, is an inspector for AHCA. She conducted a survey of pharmacies in the vicinity of Destin and Ft. Walton area and discovered that Respondent had written multiple prescriptions for legend drugs which were in the name of Patient B.R. She also determined from her survey that Respondent had prescribed the legend drug Phentermine for six of his patients. A legend drug is a drug for which a prescription is required and includes Schedule II controlled substances under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. A Schedule II controlled substance is a pharmaceutical which has medical uses and also has a potential for being abused. Mrs. B.R. is the wife of Patient B.R. She was aware that her husband received numerous prescriptions from Dr. McNally for multiple drugs including oxycodone and methadone in 1998 and 1999. Mrs. B.R. was aware that her husband had an open wound on his foot for several years. She was also aware that he suffered chronic and severe pain from this condition. Mrs. B.R. was concerned about the amount of drugs being consumed by Patient B.R. and discussed this matter with Dr. McNally. During this conversation, Dr. McNally told her that, "B.R. was in chronic pain, and that the amount of medication that B.R. took was basically B.R.'s problem." Mrs. B.R. was angry with regard to the amount and type of drugs which were prescribed by Dr. McNally. However, she thought that during this time his foot wound was improving. Mrs. B.R. was aware that Dr. McNally brought drugs to patient B.R.'s hospital room when patient B.R. was hospitalized in November of 1998. Mrs. B.R. was aware that her husband was hospitalized on an emergency basis for an overdose of Tegrital, a drug designed to combat seizures. This drug was not prescribed by Dr. McNally. It was prescribed by another doctor. The pain that patient B.R. suffered caused a hardship in Mrs. B.R.'s home but she preferred that he take the pain medication rather than see him suffer. Patient B.R. lives in Destin with his wife. He is receiving disability payments due to a hip replacement, a knee replacement, and an ulcer on his right foot. In an effort to relieve the pain in B.R.'s foot Respondent prescribed Oxycodone, Endodan, Endocet, Methadone, Roxicet, Roxiprin, Percocet, Oxycontin, Morphine Sulfate Er, MS Contin, Oramorph SR, and Roxicodone. All of these are forms of oxycodone, methadone, or morphine, alone, or in combinations with acetaminophen. Dr. McNally prescribed approximately 8,705 units of oxycodone, 250 units of methadone, and 510 units of morphine for patient B.R. during the eighteen-month period he treated him. These drugs were prescribed to him subsequent to his first visit to Dr. McNally in 1997. All of the foregoing drugs are Schedule II controlled substances pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Patient B.R. obtained prescriptions during office visits and by telephoning Dr. McNally. When B.R. called Dr. McNally the doctor would ask him what drugs he wished to have and B.R. would tell him. Dr. McNally would then provide the prescription to a pharmacy telephonically. On at least one occasion the prescription was left inside the screen door of Dr. McNally's dwelling for Patient B.R. to pick up. Office visits were on some occasions made at the offices of Dr. Haire from which Dr. McNally occasionally practiced. During office visits Dr. McNally would sometimes take B.R.'s temperature. He checked B.R.'s vital signs approximately every six months. Patient B.R. got prescriptions from Dr. McNally when Dr. McNally was on an extended trip to Europe in early 1998 or 1999. While Patient B.R. was a patient in the local hospital, Dr. McNally brought him drugs because the pain medication provided by the hospital was inadequate. Dr. McNally brought the drugs to his hospital room four or five times. He bought these drugs with patient B.R.'s credit cards. Patient B.R. was in the hospital November 9 through 17, 1998. Dr. McNally submitted insurance claims for patient B.R. for a portion of the time he was treating patient B.R. but eventually stopped. Patient B.R. stopped seeing Dr. McNally. Subsequently, a therapist, Sherry Levitis, recommended that patient B.R. attend a pain management center in New Orleans. As a result of his attendence there he experienced a decrease in needle-like pains. The pain management succeeded in getting B.R. to gradually reduce the amount of pain-killing drugs that he was ingesting. Patient B.R. never received any drug rehabilitation. The pain management clinic taught him that he could get by without the aid of drugs. Patient B.R. went to different pharmacies to have his prescriptions filled because he thought they would question the amount if he received too many drugs from the same business. He was advised by Dr. McNally to avoid making frequent visits to the same pharmacy. Patient B.R. never shared the drugs he obtained with others. The use of these drugs changed patient B.R.'s personality and caused domestic difficulties. He became dependent on the drugs. Buying the drugs was a financial strain. At the time of the hearing patient B.R. still was suffering from the ulcer on his right foot. Though he has had surgery on the ulcer three times, it has not healed. Patient B.R. believes his emergency trip to the hospital was the result of his taking Tegrital which is an anti- seizure medicine. He believes he should have coordinated the taking of this medicine with Dr. McNally and that his failure to do so was the cause of the medical event which resulted in emergency hospitalization. The medical doctor who prescribed the Tegrital never asked him if he was taking other medications. Numerous efforts were made by Dr. McNally to address patient B.R.'s foot condition and the resultant pain, including surgery, orthotics, and pain management efforts. The drugs prescribed by Dr. McNally enabled patient B.R. to get off of his couch and live a more normal life. Patient B.R. had better results in addressing his pain and treating his ulcer with Dr. McNally than with any other doctor. At the insistence of Petitioner, Dr. McNally supplied to Petitioner what he claimed to be patient records in the case of B.R. Petitioner believed these records to be phony. Dr. McNally prescribed Phentermine to patients and asserted that he believed it would enhance circulation in the lower extremities. Dr. McNally has been out of the country often and has prescribed drugs for patients in the United States while he was physically located in Italy. Dr. McNally prescribed drugs for patient B.R. while in Europe. He provided patient B.R. with numerous prescriptions for limited amounts because he did not want him to have too many drugs in his possession at once. Dr. McNally, at the time of the hearing, was not accepting new patients but was continuing to treat some old ones. He no longer carries malpractice insurance. Dr. McNally claimed that the medical records in the case of patient B.R., records which he supplied to ACHA at ACHA's request, were prepared by him either at the time of patient B.R.'s visits, a few days after a visit, or several days after a visit. Dr. McNally used the word "analgesic" when preparing records on patient B.R. He did not enter the actual names of the drugs. "Analgesic" could encompass all drugs which relieve pain. Dr. McNally turned to pharmaceuticals in B.R.'s case because he had tried all available alternative treatments without success. Dr. McNally prescribed drugs for the benefit of patient B.R. in the belief that he was doing what was best for his patient. Barry C. Blass, D.P.M., testified. He is an expert in the field of podiatry. Dr. Blass reviewed the evidence with regard to Dr. McNally and his treatment of patient B.R. and with regard to Dr. McNally's prescriptions of Phentermine for six patients. The pain-relieving drugs prescribed by Dr. McNally for B.R. were far in excess of an amount which would be appropriate. The amounts of legend drugs prescribed were about double that permitted by the instructions contained on the container. Dr. Blass reviewed 229 pages of office notes addressing the treatment of patient B.R. which purported to encompass the period January 2, 1998 through September 29, 1999. Almost all of the notes were identical with the exception of the dates. For the notes to be legitimate, patient B.R. would have had to visit Dr. McNally every day during October 1998 and almost everyday on several other months. It is a deficiency for a physician to fail to note on office notes that a patient has been prescribed legend drugs. The standard of care requires a physician to sign office notes. Respondent did not sign his notes. Additionally, the office notes were inconsistent with the hospital records of B.R., in that they indicated treatment in Dr. McNally's office when in fact B.R. was on those dates resident in a hospital. The office notes provided by the Respondent were manufactured, are not authentic, were not prepared at or near a time of an actual office visit, if there was an office visit, and are not, therefore, actual medical records addressing the treatment of patient B.R. It is inappropriate for a physician to bring drugs into a hospital for the use of a hospitalized patient. Phentermine is a diet drug which has no podiatric uses and therefore should not be prescribed by a podiatrist. Phentermine is usually prescribed as a remedy for exogenous obesity. Thomas L. Hicks, M.D., is an expert in the field of medicine. His testimony was provided by deposition. Dr. Hicks reviewed the medical records supplied by Dr. McNally, and provided expert opinions based on that review. It is inappropriate for a podiatrist to prescribe Phentermine. Respondent's prescriptions for Phentermine were unsafe and in excess of the customary dosages recommended by the manufacturer. By writing these prescriptions, Dr. McNally practiced outside of the scope of his license. The amount of Schedule II drugs prescribed for patient B.R. was inappropriate, dangerous, and not justified by the medical records. Dr. McNally wrote the prescriptions for patient B.R. at very frequent intervals which, while peculiar, did not violate the Practice Act. Usually when writing prescriptions for chronic pain a physician prescribes for a longer period of time. Richard D.Roth, D.P.M., testified. He is an expert in the field of podiatric medicine. Dr. Roth reviewed the medical records supplied by Dr. McNally. The prescribing of Phentermine by Dr. McNally was outside of the scope of his license and was potentially dangerous. Dr. McNally's treatment notes were inadequate in that, for example, they do not describe the exact location, size, or depth of an ulcer, among other things. Neither do they describe the types of analgesics prescribed even though massive doses of narcotic analgesics were prescribed. Dr. McNally's records in the case of patient B.R. are grotesquely incomplete. Most of the notes provided by Dr. McNally were canned notes generated by a computer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Podiatric Medicine enter a final order finding that the Respondent, George C. P. McNally, failed to keep required medical records during the period January 2, 1998 through September 29, 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(l), Florida Statutes; that the Respondent prescribed legend drugs other than in the course of his professional podiatric practice during the period January 1988 through August 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(o), Florida Statutes; that Respondent failed to practice as a reasonably prudent podiatric physician during the period January 2, 1998 through September 29, 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(s), Florida Statutes; and that Respondent practiced beyond the scope of his license during the period January 1988 through August 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(u), Florida Statutes. It is recommended that Respondent's license to practice podiatric medicine be suspended for a period of six months, that he pay a $2,000 fine, and that he pay for the cost of the investigation and prosecution. The cost of investigation and prosecution shall be assessed at the time the matter is presented to the Board of Podiatric medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida HARRY L. HOOPER 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 9th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Wings S. Benton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 George C. P. McNally Post Office Box 5585 Destin, Florida 32540 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Podiatric Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
