Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0867041. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by American Nursing Service, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was assigned to work at Broward General Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On July 30-31, 1989, Respondent worked both the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shifts at Broward General Medical Center. She was responsible for 20 patients on that double shift. An hour or two before her double shift ended, she checked the I.V. of a patient near the end of the hall. The I.V. was not running, and Respondent attempted to get it running again by re-positioning the I.V. several times. She then went to the medication room and obtained a syringe to use to flush the I.V. to get it operating again. When she returned to the patient's room, the I.V. was running and Respondent tucked the syringe inside her bra. The syringe was still packaged and unopened. She then continued with her nursing duties. At 7:00 a.m. on July 31, while Respondent was "giving report" to the oncoming nursing shift and making her entries on the charts of the patients for whom she had cared during the double shift she was just concluding, one of the other nurses noticed the syringe underneath Respondent's clothing. That other nurse immediately reported the syringe to her own head nurse who immediately reported the syringe to the staffing coordinator. The head nurse and the staffing coordinator went to where Respondent was still completing the nurse's notes on the charts of the patients and took her into an office where they confronted her regarding the syringe. They implied that she had a drug problem and offered their assistance. Respondent denied having a drug problem and offered to be tested. They refused her offer to test her for the presence of drugs. Instead, they sent her off the hospital premises although she had not yet completed making her entries on the patient's charts. Hospital personnel then went through Respondent's patients' charts and found some "errors." A month later an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation requested that Respondent submit to a drug test on one day's notice. She complied with that request. She asked the investigator to go with her to Broward General Medical Center so that she could complete the charts on the patients that she had not been permitted to complete before being sent away from the hospital. Her request was denied. At some subsequent time, the Department of Professional Regulation requested that Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation. She did so at her own expense and provided the Department with the results of that evaluation. Respondent has had no prior or subsequent administrative complaints filed against her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1775 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of CProfessional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Roberta Fenner, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christopher Knox, Esquire 4801 S. University Drive, #302 W. Box 291207 Davie, Florida 33329-1207
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Dr. Julius A. Okuboye, was a medical doctor licensed by and in the State of Florida. In the first of six cases upon which Petitioner bases its case, the patient was receiving medical treatment for a fracture of the right femur, (thigh bone), at Gateway Community Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida during the period November 21, 1982 and January 13, 1983. Petitioner contends Respondent failed to properly perform the surgical procedure; failed to properly consider alternative courses of treatment; and failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course of treatment taken. Respondent reduced the bone fracture here by using a metal plate running lengthwise along the bone in an attempt to brace the fracture by securing it to the bone with, initially, screws. The plate used by the Respondent was too short for the procedure in that it did not extend beyond the upper limits of the fracture by that distance considered by some to be appropriate. Petitioner's first expert felt the use of the plate which was too short and the screws used to affix it, which were too short, was improper practice. In his opinion, the procedure followed by the Respondent herein required the patient to undergo three separate operations rather than one, which unnecessarily exposed this elderly patient to infection and the risk of anesthesia on three separate occasions. Petitioner's other expert believes that because the Respondent used a plate which was too short for the fracture involved, it was necessary for him to go back in and fix the plate with Parham bands considered by many in the field to be an old-fashioned practice. These bands, when used, tend to devitalize the tissue. He believes that once having used them, however, Respondent should have used more screws to affix the plate and the bands. In addition, the plate did not fix the smaller bone fragments at the bottom of the fracture. Both experts state Respondent should have considered reducing the fracture by the use of traction and bed rest as an alternative to surgery. On the other hand, Respondent's experts disagreed with Petitioner's experts. One, Dr. Weiss, indicated that Respondent had two choices: (1) a prolonged traction and immobilization which, itself, poses a great risk for an elderly patient, or (2) the surgical fixation which was chosen. Here, the reduction was good but the plate was too short. Dr. Weiss contends, as was urged by Respondent, that this was beyond his control and while it would have been better to use a longer plate, the Respondent used the correct procedure and the fact that a second and third operation was necessary, was beyond his control. His choice to do them was appropriate. The other expert, Dr. Bodden, pointed out that even though the smaller plate was used, there is no assurance a larger plate would have precluded the second and third operations. He believes that in light of all of the medical problems presented in this case and since the ideal plate was not available, Respondent's choice was prudent. The length of the plate was improper but in the opinion of Dr. Bodden, the patient's bone structure contributed to the breakage after the plate was installed. Further, the use of Parham bands was not inappropriate. They have been used for many years and are still widely accepted and used. In fact, he uses them himself. Prior to the surgery, Respondent contacted the operating room charge nurse to determine if the proper plates were available, and was assured by her that a full set of plates was available for the surgery. It was only after entering the operating arena, opening the incision into the patient's leg, and thereafter opening the sterilized and sealed package containing the plates that it was determined the proper plate was not present. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is found it would have been improper to open the plate package in advance of surgery to check since such a procedure would have destroyed the sterile nature of the package. In light of the above, Respondent's actions were appropriate. As to the issue of the adequacy of Respondent's medical records on other patients, an analysis of the records showed that no discharge summary was prepared by the Respondent nor were progress notes kept by him on December 22, 23, 25, and thereafter for several weeks on an irregular basis. It may be that Respondent was not the primary physician and only the consultant, but the records fail to show who was the responsible physician and who was ultimately responsible for the patient. A consultant should always reflect in the patient records who he is and in what capacity he has seen the patient as well as his area of expertise and the actions he has taken. Here, the Respondent's failure to do so, notwithstanding some expert evidence to the contrary, renders the records kept by him inadequate. In the case of the patient who was treated by the Respondent as a consultant on a fracture of the left hip at Gateway Community Hospital between October 27, and November 10, 1983, Petitioner's experts have no quarrel with the orthopedic treatment rendered the patient by Respondent. However, Respondent failed to make proper entries in the patient's medical records and the notes therein were made by an internist. Respondent saw the patient on only four of the nine days the patient was hospitalized and in the opinion of the expert, proper practice requires a doctor, or his substitute in the absence of the doctor, to see the patient each day. It may be that this practice, which is generally accepted as appropriate throughout the medical community, is somewhat less significant in the field of orthopedic surgery. Respondent's expert indicated he did not feel constrained to see his patients each day subsequent to surgery so long as he was kept aware of the patients' conditions. While he makes progress notes, he does not dictate discharge summaries or any of the other records since these are prepared by residents based on the notes he has put in the file. The medical records for this patient show no progress notes by the Respondent on November 1, 3, 4, and 5, 1983, during which time the patient was in the hospital under the Respondent's care. In one expert's opinion, the missing of three consecutive day's progress notes renders the records below standard. Respondent indicates he saw the patient frequently right after the surgery, but once he was satisfied that her orthopedic problems were progressing satisfactorily, did not see her during the time she was being treated for medical problems unrelated to the orthopedic surgery by an internist. He did write medical notes on the first five postoperative days at the conclusion of which his postoperative care for the orthopedic surgery was completed. Were it not for her unrelated medical problems, the patient would have been released and he did see her once, (Nov.2) prior to her discharge after her medical problem had been resolved. On the basis of all the testimony, it is found that in this case, Dr. Okuboye did not fail to keep proper medical records. Respondent also saw a patient for a fracture of the left lateral malleolus, (the protuberance on both sides of the ankle joint), and is alleged to have failed to timely perform an examination of the patient; failed to have timely provided treatment; and failed to have performed a complete examination. In this case, Petitioner's expert pointed out that the chart kept by the Respondent failed to show any reference to a knee injury which was disclosed on post-treatment X-rays evaluated by him. Respondent is also alleged to have failed to have cleaned and irrigated the wound which was a part of the injury, and that he administered only an intramuscular injection of antibiotics. In the opinion of the witness, it makes no difference if there was an infection or not. It is, in his opinion; a bad practice to not debride and clean the wound. Further, he was concerned that the patient records kept by the Respondent did not reflect whether the Respondent responded to the emergency room at the time he prescribed the treatment or not. From the review of the records, he could not tell. Review of the case records by Respondent's expert showed there was no open fracture which required debridement or specific cleaning. The wound was a small abrasion. As a general rule, an injury should be more than 1/2 inch in size or have some bone showing in order to require debridement, (removal of foreign material and dead or damaged tissue). If those conditions are present, proper procedure is to clean the wound and to provide antibiotics, which the Respondent did, and the treatment recommended by him met appropriate standards. This is the better point of view. As to the records kept by the Respondent, a note regarding the action taken here was dictated by Respondent two days after the patient was discharged. The patient records show a postoperative X-ray was taken by Respondent but there is no indication in the record showing that surgery was done. The patient was admitted through the emergency room and was sent to the floor even before the Respondent was contacted. As a result, Respondent did not see the patient in the emergency room. The ER notes prepared by someone else refer to an abrasion and an approximately 1/4 inch tear in the skin. The injury was cleaned in the ER and the patient was sent to the floor after which the Respondent was advised by telephone there was a "questionable" fracture of the ankle. In response, Respondent gave orders for immobilization of the wound and administration of antibiotics. The following day, when Respondent saw the patient, he could see no open wound nor could he find evidence of a fracture. As a result, he discontinued the prescription for antibiotics and discharged the patient who, it should be noted, did not sustain an infection and who did well in his recuperation. Respondent indicates he had been told by the family physician who admitted the patient and the nurses on the floor, with whom he discussed the patient, that there was no open wound sustained by this patient. On the basis of this information, Respondent prescribed the questioned course of treatment and it would appear it was appropriate and well within standards. Between November 12, and November 22, 1983, Respondent acted as surgical consultant regarding a patient being treated at Gateway Community Hospital for a metatarsal fracture. Respondent performed an open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture and Petitioner now claims that Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course of that patient's treatment. In that case, Petitioner does not claim improper treatment by the Respondent. However, one expert for Petitioner could not determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the procedure was required because of the absence of pre- operative X-rays and because of the inadequacy of the records for him to look at. The other Petitioner expert agreed that the Respondent took adequate care of the patient but because of the absence of postoperative film, the taking of which is a general practice within the medical community, he was not able to determine, nor would the Respondent be able to determine, whether the surgeon missed anything in performing the surgery. Respondent's evidence unequivocally contradicted the testimony of both Petitioner's experts. There were X-rays taken prior to the procedure by Respondent which showed a fracture of the outside metatarsus, (long foot bone). He proposed outpatient surgery of one day and reduced the fracture, inserting two pins as security. The postoperative X-rays show proper reduction. In fact, there are several sets of postoperative films and those taken after the holding pins placed in the fracture were removed show good reduction and full healing. Respondent discharged the patient from orthopedic care after surgery for release the next day if approved by the referring, physician, Dr. Lew. However, Dr. Lew kept the patient in the hospital one or two days after that for a reason not related to the orthopedic surgery done by Respondent. This would tend to explain the reason for there being no follow-up progress notes on the two days following the operative report done by Respondent on November 23. The failure to keep adequate notes adversely affects the entire care team not just the attending physician, as without adequate notes, the team cannot tell what is going on with the patient. The entire care is summarized in the progress notes and the failure to make notes on time leaves a hole. That cannot be said to have been the case here, however, since the orthopedic treatment of the patient was completed with the dictation of the operative report and the patient was discharged by Respondent. The patient's retention in the hospital for several days more was by another physician on a matter totally unrelated to the Respondent's treatment and Respondent had no responsibility to keep records on that portion of the patient's hospitalization. It cannot be said, then, that Respondent's records were inappropriate in this case. Respondent is also alleged to have improperly failed to perform a procedure of open reduction and internal fixation of an ankle fracture on a patient treated by him at Gateway Hospital between January 20, and January 25, 1983. In this case, Petitioner's expert questions whether the inner bone was properly reduced. X-rays taken subsequent to the procedure, show the reduction left a big gap and an irregular joint and the doctor feels the procedure, as it was done, was below standards. The other Petitioner expert concurs. There were two fractures. The smaller, did not need to be fixed since it was less than 1/3 of the ankle area and medical opinion indicates that fractures of less than 1/3 of the area should not be fixed. The other was fixed improperly in that Respondent should have used a tension band instead of a screw. If he had done so, there would have been a better fixation. Respondent's expert disagrees, pointing out that the postoperative X- rays show the position of the bones as placed by the Respondent, was quite acceptable. The failure to get an anatomic, (as developed by nature), reduction is not indicative of substandard care. It is sometimes not possible to put bones back the way they were prior to the fracture. In the instant case, when the operation and casting were done, the results were acceptable. The doctor concludes this was a very difficult operation to do and under the circumstances, the Respondent's performance met the standards within the community. Respondent's other expert agrees. This was an extremely difficult fracture of three sections of an ankle. Admittedly, Respondent's work resulted in a slight bone irregularity. A smooth reduction would be ideal, but it is unlikely that an anatomic reduction could be had in this case. No matter how skilled the work, a fracture of this kind is likely to result in some arthritis, and the failure to use a tension band, as suggested by one of Petitioner's experts, as opposed to a screw as chosen by the Respondent is a matter of choice. Neither gives better results and the Respondent's choice here, in these circumstances, was reasonable. Between December 18 and December 27, 1984, Respondent performed an open reduction and internal fixation of a fractured right hip. Petitioner alleges that Respondent performed a surgical procedure which was unnecessary, failed to properly perform the surgical procedure done, and failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the patient's treatment. In this case, Respondent inserted a Jewett nail, a non-collapsing nail, into the bone. The bone collapsed and drove the nail up into the end of the bone in an inappropriate manner. One of Petitioner's experts took issue with Respondent's use of the Jewett nail calling it an outdated device. In his opinion, the Respondent did not plan properly to have the appropriate device on hand when it was needed. His opinion is supported by that of the other Petitioner expert who pointed out that the procedure resulted in an inadequate fixation. He contends the Respondent should have used a collapsible nail and that Respondent's technique of cutting the bone after the collapse was inappropriate and resulted in a shortening of the leg. He believes this procedure was improper and falls below medical standards in the community. He was also of the opinion that Respondent's record keeping in this case was inadequate. Petitioner's expert in medical records found several problems with Respondent's records on this patient. The initial note was dictated after surgery instead of when the consult was first done. No progress notes were in the file for those days when the patient was not seen by the Respondent. There was no showing that the patient was seen by someone left in charge by Respondent in his absence. Since medical records provide a history of the case and allow the follow-on staff to provide continuation of care, the evidence showed Respondent's records in this case were below standard. Respondent's witness, Dr. Weiss, does not believe that the use of the Jewett nail is necessarily inappropriate. The fact that the Jewett nail did not work out for the Respondent in this case and required follow-up surgery, is not necessarily indicative of improper treatment. Studies of similar fractures in elderly patients show that 70% had some deviation and many similar cases show penetration of the head of the bone by the nail such as was the case here. While there are newer nails used by many orthopedic surgeons, the Jewett nail is still appropriate. The physician can avoid penetration at the time of the insertion and Respondent did so, but penetration cannot always be avoided after surgery when weight is placed on the limb. Respondent's other expert who reviewed this case stated that the fixed nail used by Respondent, if properly used, gives equally good results as the newer collapsible nail. Cutting of the bone is a well known and appropriate procedure in cases where necessary, as here. In evaluating the testimony of the experts, it should be noted that neither of the Board's experts interviewed Respondent or in any way discussed with him his professional reasons for doing what he did. Their opinions given here as expert testimony were based on evaluation of records and X-rays only whereas the opinions of Respondent's experts were based on review of the same documentation and also on interviews with Respondent who was questioned and who expounded on his medical rationale. Having analyzed the procedure done by the Respondent here and having evaluated the testimony of all witnesses, it is found that the procedure as followed by Respondent did not fall below the appropriate medical standards within the community. However, the allegation regarding Respondent's failure to keep proper medical records has been established. Respondent is a native of Nigeria, who took his medical training in England, graduating from Kings College Medical school in 1961. He interned in the United States at Bridgeport Hospital, served his residency and as a research fellow in Canada, and returned to the United States for a two year general surgery and three year orthopedic surgery residency at Albert Einstein Medical Center in New York. Respondent came to Florida in 1973 and has been in private practice as a sole practitioner since that time. He is Board eligible in orthopedic surgery and certified in neurological and orthopedic surgery by the American College of Neurological and Orthopedic surgery, not to be confused with the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery. He is also a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. At one time, Respondent practiced at Gateway Hospital in St. Petersburg where all the cases involved in the proceeding came up and where he was involved in legal action involving a matter he had handled. Respondent won that case but nonetheless, had to sue the hospital to recover his expenses. When Gateway Hospital was sold to Humana, he was again involved in litigation with the hospital to retain his privilege to practice there. Thereafter, he was called before the hospital committee regarding the instant cases in a staff privilege matter and as a result, the hospital referred them to the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent believes two factions in the medical community seek his dismissal and the revocation of his license. He presented a detailed litany of grievances against various members of the hospital staff and others who, he contends, are engaged in a program to destroy him professionally and remove him from the practice of medicine. Since his medical privileges at the hospital have been rescinded, he can no longer accept referrals in orthopedic surgery from other members of the staff at Gateway and as a result, referrals that would ordinarily go to him, are now going to other, more favored members of the staff who retain surgical privileges. He contends his troubles, which culminated in this hearing, are both economically and racially motivated, and also involve an effort to rid the hospital of foreign trained physicians. There is no evidence to corroborate Respondent's charges and , therefore, the decision regarding his standard of practice and his record keeping must be based on the professional evidence presented at this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Julius A. Okuboye, be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearings Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1988. Appendix to Recommended Order In Case No. 86-1048 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted to the extent that Respondent's reduction was not anatomic but rejected to the extent "it possibly could have been better treated in a cast." Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as to all but last sentence which is irrelevant since the latter portion of the hospitalization discussed here was after patient had been discharged by Respondent and did not relate to orthopedic treatment. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-16. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 17&18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 20-21. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 22. Accepted as to certain records and rejected as to others as discussed in the body of the Recommended Order. For the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence rejected as a restatement of Petitioner's position. Remainder accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. Last sentence accepted and incorporated. Remainder rejected as a restatement of the evidence. First sentence rejected as above. Second sentence rejected as a restatement of evidence. Third through Sixth sentences accepted and incorporated. seventh rejected as a restatement of Petitioner's position. Eighth and Ninth sentences accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. second sentence accepted. Remainder accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. Remainder accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. Remainder accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as to some cases, accepted as to others as defined in the Findings of Fact herein. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Suite 2000, Ashley Tower 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Glenn M. Woodworth, Esquire Woodworth and Dugan, Chartered Wittner Centre West 5999 Central Avenue Suite 103 St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS-0001053 in 1954. According to Respondent's office records for a patient named Barry Belikoff, Respondent saw Belikoff in his office on twenty-five (25) occasions between September 5, 1980, and July 24, 1981, and during this time wrote twenty-four (24) prescriptions for a total of 344 Quaaludes (Methaqualone) with a dosage of 300 mg. each. According to his patient records, Respondent also saw Belikoff on thirteen (13) occasions between October 31, 1981 and June 18, 1982 and wrote four (4) prescriptions for controlled substances, including Talwin, Restoril, and Percodan. Respondent was treating Belikoff for back pains and insomnia. According to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent of this patient's office visits were inadequate and do not provide the required documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. In addition, a proper course of patient care would not include the on-going prescription of Quaaludes over almost a one year period at a rate of over one a day without a record of additional tests, x-rays, or neurological exams during this period. Belikoff's patient records do not show any such additional tests, x- rays or exams. Without such documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Belikoff were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Respondent was treating a patient named Lyndon Ellis during 1981 and 1982. Ellis was hospitalized on four occasions while under Respondent's care, and according to expert testimony the level of care and medical records for this patient, while hospitalized, were excellent. As a result of office visits by Ellis, Respondent wrote thirty-eight (38) prescriptions for controlled substances between April 20, 1981 and September 29, 1982 which included Percocet 5, Demerol, and Fiorinal. Ellis was being treated by Respondent for chronic headaches and pain from accident injuries, and also for a problem with his toe. However, according to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent on Ellis' office visits were inadequate and do not provide documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. The absence of a thorough patient medical history, exam, evaluation, x- rays and lab tests in this patient's office records is explained by Respondent by the fact that this information was available in hospital records for this patient. Nevertheless, Respondent's office records for Ellis are totally inadequate. These office records do reflect that Respondent was aware of Ellis' overuse of controlled substances and the need to detoxify this patient on October 29, 1982. Yet he prescribed Percocet, a controlled substance, on five additional occasions after October 29, 1982. Without adequate documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Ellis were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Between July 14, 1980 and April 23, 1982, Respondent treated a patient named Alan Fogler. During this time Respondent wrote twelve (12) prescriptions for a total of 464 Percodan, a controlled substance. Respondent was treating Fogler for headaches, whiplash and a concussion reported by the patient, as well as allergies, but patient records reveal no x- rays, brain scans, lab work or neurological exams. According to expert testimony, patient records in this case are inadequate and do not justify the treatment rendered which consisted primarily of prescriptions for Percodan. Without adequate patient medical records, the prescriptions for controlled substances were without- medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, accordingly to expert testimony. While treating patients Belikoff, Ellis and Fogler, Respondent repeatedly reissued prescriptions for controlled substances without a substantiation of medical reasons in the patients' office medical records. According to expert testimony concerning the standards expected of osteopathic physicians in keeping office medical records on patients, Respondent did not perform with reasonable skill, nor meet the standards expected of physicians in this aspect of their practice. Vicki Cutcliffe, a deputy sheriff with the Broward County Sheriff's Office, saw Respondent in his office on March 30, April 11 and April 25, 1984 using the alias "Vicki Tarra". After taking a brief medical history which revealed that "Tarra" used alcohol daily, Respondent began treating her for situational anxiety by prescribing controlled substances, including Librium and Tranxene. On April 25 "Tarra" told Respondent she wanted some extra pills for her friend named Jo Ann and asked him to write her friend a prescription. Respondent said he could not do that, but did give "Tarra" a prescription for Tranxene and two refills, after initially giving her a prescription which allowed for only one refill. He told her that she could give some of the pills to her friend and then she could refill the prescription twice. Respondent knew that "Tarra" wanted the extra pills for a friend and that she would give them to her friend who was not a patient of Respondent. According to expert testimony, the treatment given to "Tarra" by Respondent, which consisted simply of prescriptions for controlled substances without adequate documentation of the reasons for this course of treatment in the patient's medical records, was totally inappropriate. Increasing a prescription when a patient says they want some extra pills for a friend is never justified and constitutes malpractice, according to expert testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two ( 2) years. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 3 2301 (904) 488- 9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John W. Gaul, D.O. 11360 Tara Drive Plantation, FL 33325 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Medicine, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the medical profession in Florida. Respondent is licensed as a physician in Florida, holding license # ME 0038234. His specialty is orthopedics but he is not Board certified in that field. Respondent practices medicine, specializing in orthopedic surgery with emphasis on the spine, at the Gulf Coast Orthopedic clinic in Hudson, Florida. Among the procedures he has performed at times pertinent to the issues herein are percutaneous lumbar foraminotomy, also known as foraminectomy or foraminostomy, (PLF); percutaneous cervical discectomy, (PCD); and percutaneous cervical foraminotomy, (PCF). A PLF is an arthroscopic surgical procedure wherein instrumentation introduced through a succession of progressively larger cannulae via a posterolateral approach to the lumbar spine is utilized to remove spurs which have formed at the area of the neural foramen. A PCD involves a similar introduction of instrumentation via an anterolateral approach to the cervical spine to remove disc material from a cervical disc for the purpose of decompressing the nerve root at the corresponding level. A PCF involves a similar introduction of instrumentation via an anterolateral approach to the cervical spine to remove spurs which have formed at the area of the neural foramen at the corresponding level. The three procedures referred to above, the PLF, the PCD and the PCF, are not commonly used or widely performed in the field of orthopedic surgery in the United States. Petitioner contends they are experimental procedures. Petitioner contends that a procedure whose safety and efficacy have not been established is experimental. It asserts that physicians performing procedures whose efficacy and safety have not been established must specifically advise a prospective patient on whom such procedure is anticipated to be done of the experimental nature of the procedure as a part of obtaining informed consent prior to the procedure. However, the efficacy and safety of a procedure are not, by themselves determinative of experimentation. PCD's are a logical extension/evolution of techniques that are already in use. They are being done in various places throughout the world, including the United States, and insurance companies have, in the past, paid for both PLDs, conceded by the Board to be non-experimental, and PCDs. The instant procedures in issue, including PLFs, which are done by physicians around the world, and the PCFs are not radical departures from present concepts. Though innovative, they are the natural evolution of existing techniques and procedures. For example, chemonucleolysis, recognized by the medical profession as non-experimental, is a percutaneous procedure in which enzymes are injected into the intervertebral disc in order to dissolve it. There is little difference between this procedure, which has been used for approximately ten years and the PCD, save the injection of the enzyme. Another percutaneous procedure which is widely done is the use of the nucleotome, a reciprocating suction cutter consisting of a steel tube with a spinning blade. This is not considered by the medical profession to be an experimental procedure. To be sure, Dr. Abram, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon with extensive experience in treating spinal pathology, is the only expert witness who practices in Florida. He has, however, by his own admission, not done any percutaneous or arthroscopic procedures involving the back or neck. On the other hand, Respondent's experts, Dr. Gristina, also a Board certified orthopedic surgeon, but who is not licensed in Florida, has extensive experience in orthopedic surgery. He was formerly Associ ate Professor of orthopedic surgery and associate to the chairman of that department at New York University Hospital; he was chairman of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Bowman Gray Hospital at Wake Forest University; and at present he is President and Senior Scientist at the Medical Sciences Research Institute and practices orthopedic surgery in northern Virginia. For the year just prior to this hearing, he was associated with the Northern Virginia Spine Institute, and though he has not been lead surgeon in the near term, he has associated with the director of the institute in the performance of major spinal surgery. Under the circumstances, as a scientist his opinion as to what constitutes an experimental procedure and what is mere innovation is pertinent to the resolution of that issue. Dr. Sherk, testifying for the Respondent, is a Board certified orthopedic surgeon and professor of surgery and chief of the division of orthopedics and rehabilitation at the Medical College of Pennsylvania. He is familiar with and has performed percutaneous procedures on the spine, most specifically chemonucleolysis and laser discectomy, and is familiar with Dr. Bonati and the percutaneous procedures he performs from having heard Respondent's presentations at international conferences on orthopedics. As a practitioner and academician, his opinion regarding the experimental nature of the procedures in issue is pertinent. Dr. Hopkins, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon, came to percutaneous disc surgery through the microdiscectomy process and the percutaneous laser procedure which he still uses. He also has performed in the neighborhood of two hundred percutaneous disc surgeries, about half with the nucleotome and half with laser. He has done percutaneous foraminectomy procedures. Some time ago, while working for a laser company in Minneapolis, he became aware of Respondent's practice in percutaneous disc surgery. As a result, he came to GCOC on two occasions and observed Respondent perform the procedure on both lumbar and cervical discs. He has presented papers on percutaneous disc surgery at international conferences and gave a course on percutaneous procedures at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery in San Francisco approximately two years ago. Taken together, and with all due respect and credence being afforded the opinion of Dr. Abram, the evidence of the experimental nature of the PLF, the PCD and the PCF is not persuasive and it is found that the procedures, though new and innovative, are logical extensions of and new uses of established procedures and are not experimental. Respondent's records reflect that in each case in issue, written consent was obtained from the patient. The records also reflect that each patient was informed about the surgery, the pathology and the treatment to which the patient had agreed. An informed consent was also obtained by the anesthesiologist. Under the circumstances, it having been found that the percutaneous procedures are not experimental procedures, the informed consent obtained by the Respondent was adequate. Clearly, Dr. Bonati's clinic is very well organized. As explained by Respondent and various members of his staff, once Respondent recommends surgery, the patient is given printed brochures and materials which explain the proposed procedure. If the patient is unclear as to the nature of the procedure or has any questions about it, he or she is given the opportunity to voice his or her concerns either to Respondent or to a nurse, and no further action is taken unless all questions are answered to the satisfaction of the patient. Each patient is also given a video tape describing the procedure to be performed, and once the tape is viewed by the patient, further opportunity to ask questions is afforded. Respondent and a nurse meet with each patient so that he can explain to the patient what the proposed procedure consists of, how it is to be performed and the risk involved. The patient is also advised of alternative methods of treatment which include physical therapy. Each patient is advised that an open procedure is also an alternative to the percutaneous procedure. The patient is under only a local anesthetic during the percutaneous procedure and is aware of what is going on. The patient actually assists the surgeon by reporting feelings and sensations experienced. Respondent claims an anesthesiologist is present in the operating room during the surgery and talks with the patient throughout the procedure. There was no evidence introduced that any patient had ever complained after the procedure that what was done was not what had been explained beforehand. Generally, patients are referred to the in-house physical therapist after surgery, and there was no indication any patient had complained of that either. AS TO THE PATIENT M.A. In August, 1989, Patient M.A., a 21 year old female, presented to the Respondent complaining of neck and back pain. Respondent had the patient undergo an MRI on the area. On September 12, 1989 he informed her that the MRI studies revealed posterior disc bulge at C3/C4 through C6/C7 levels, with the largest bulging at C4/C5 through C5/C6 levels. Additional MRI studies were done of the patient which, on November 17, 1989, Respondent interpreted as showing a grade II bulging at the C5/C6 and C6/C7 levels. On or about December 5, 1989, Respondent performed a PCD on this patient for a grade II bulge at the C5/C6 level on the left. Further MRI studies performed on this patient on or about October 30, 1990, indicated there was no change in the bulge at the C5/CB level as a result of Respondent's surgery. As a result, the Board's expert concluded that the surgery performed on this patient by the Respondent was not needed because the MRI's failed to show a condition requiring surgery and Respondent incorrectly interpreted them to indicate they did. The evidence shows, however, that in her visits to Dr. Bonati, the patient complained of pain in an area associated with the 6th nerve root, and evidence of the emergency room visit she made refers to a diagnosis of possible 6th nerve root involvement. Respondent's medical records for this patient reflect that before he recommended surgery, he waited out a period of conservative non-surgical treatment which included physical therapy. He also had her undergo another MRI on November 17, 1989, before the surgery, which showed a bulge at C5/C6. Respondent believed this bulge could be creating all the symptoms being experienced by the patient. In light of this additional evidence, to which Petitioner fails to refer in its Proposed Findings of Fact, it cannot be reasonably be found that the evidence of record is clear and convincing that Respondent performed unnecessary surgery. AS TO THE PATIENT R.L. On or about May 1, 1990, R.L., a 36 year old male, was seen by Dr. Jeffrey S. Walker, a Board certified neurosurgeon for evaluation of neck and back injuries sustained in a then-recent motor vehicle accident. Dr. Walker had this patient undergo an MRI which was interpreted by a Board certified radiologist as showing no large disc herniations and only minimal posterior bulging of the C4/C5 disc associated with degenerative disc disease. As a result of this test and interpretation, Dr. Walker diagnosed the patient as having severe cervical and lumbar strain with no evidence of radiculopathy or myelopathy. Radiculopathy is disease of the spinal nerve root, and myelopathy is a disturbance or disease of the spinal cord. Dr. Walker concluded that this patient's condition did not require surgery and recommended a conservative, non- surgical treatment. Nonetheless, on June 25, 1990, this patient went to see Dr. Bonati complaining of persistent neck and back pain. On this visit, the patient showed Dr. Bonati the MRI taken for Dr. Walker on May 31, 1990. When Respondent reviewed this MRI he noted a bulging disc at C4/C5 and recommended the patient undergo a PCD at that level. Before any surgery was done, however, another MRI was done on June 26, 1990 which Respondent interpreted as showing a 1 mm posterior disc bulge at L4/L5 and a 2 mm bulge at L5/S1, and as a result, Respondent recommended a PLD also be done. On July 12, 1990, Dr. Bonati performed a PCD on this patient at C4/C5 left, and on July 31, 1990 he also performed a PCD at C4/C5 right. Thereafter, on August 21, 1990, Respondent performed a PLF at L5/S1 on this patient. While the Board claims this was done to decompress the S1 nerve root, both the Board and Dr. Bonati indicate it is impossible to decompress the S1 nerve root by a foramenectomy at that level. The Respondent claims the procedure was done to remove the pressure on the L5 nerve root, and this was deemed possible by the testimony of Dr. Sherk. This would seem to be a more accurate description of what was done. In any case, Dr. Bonati also performed a PLD at L5/S1 right that same day in order to relieve the pressure on the S1 nerve root. In short, taken together, the evidence indicates that the surgery on the left was to relive pain on the left side and that on the right to relieve pain on the right side. There is a discrepancy in Respondent's records relating to the above surgery wherein left side pain is indicated where right side pain was intended. A review of these records, however, reveals that the patient complained of pain on both sides from the very beginning and clearly traces the course of pain from the first visit through the surgeries. The Board contends that Respondent failed to correctly interpret the MRIs done on this patient. It asserts these MRI's, when coupled with the patient's complaints, fail to indicate a need for surgical intervention and that Respondent's subsequent surgery performed on the patient was, therefore, inappropriate. This conclusion was stated by the Board's expert, Dr. Abram, who cited Respondent's own publications to the effect that a PLD is not indicated until a disc bulge is 4 mm or greater. Apparently Respondent had taken the position that a disc bulge of 3 mm or less does not merit surgery. It would appear Respondent's published indications also call for a certain amount of non- operative treatment to be provided, as well. It must be recognized, however, that there can be no hard and fast exclusionary rule regarding bulge size when determining whether surgery should be done. In the instant case, the records show that the patient continued to report pain which increased and diminished in cycles. The size guidelines are but one indicator of the need for surgery and Respondent cannot be faulted for doing surgery on a bulge smaller than that noted in his guidelines when other factors are present which indicate surgery is appropriate. AS TO THE PATIENT E.M. On or about April 4, 1991, Respondent saw patient E.M., a 51 year old male, who complained of pain in the lower back, the hip, groin and sciatic areas. Respondent had the patient undergo MRI studies which he interpreted as showing bulging discs at L4/L5, L5/S1, C4/C5 and C5/C6 levels. As a result of these indications, Respondent recommended the patient undergo both PLD and PCD procedures. Thereafter, on May 9, 1991, Respondent performed a PLF on this patient at L4/L5 left and a PLD at L4/L5 left. On June 19, 1991, he performed a PLF at L3/L4 left. He then performed a a PCD on this patient at C4/C5 left on July 1, 1991, and on July 18, 1991, performed a PLD at L5/S1 left. Finally, on August 6, 1991, he also performed a PCD at C5/C6 right on patient E.M. The bulges at C4/C5 and C5/C6 were categorized by the Respondent as grade II bulges. Respondent has previously stated that grade II bulges are normal pathology for which surgical treatment is not indicated. He performed three PLD procedures on this patient on three separate occasions rather than performing them simultaneously, and he performed the two PCD procedures separately rather than performing them simultaneously. The Board claims that to do this was inappropriate and constituted exploitation of the patient for financial gain. Dr. Gristina, however, indicates an alternative way of looking at the situation. He suggests that Dr. Bonati was following a plan to relieve the patient's symptoms utilizing the least invasive procedure available. Gristina suggests that Bonati's plan was to take the relief step by step, doing only so much surgery as was anticipated by him to be necessary to relieve pain. That a procedure was needed in each of five separate locations is unfortunate but not clearly shown by the Petitioner's evidence to be unnecessary. Petitioner must present evidence to show clearly that Respondent's actions were inappropriate. Petitioner's expert opinion must be considered, however, in light of the expert testimony to the contrary. The Board also notes that whereas this patient's medical records indicate the first procedure to be performed on May 9, 1991 was the PLD at L5/S1, in reality the initial PLD was performed at the L4/L5 level and there is no indication in the record as to why this was done. It also contends that Respondent attributed this patient's continued pain in the right leg to the L3/L4 level, and the performance of a PLD at that level without further diagnostic studies was a failure to practice medicine within standards. Dr. Abram also concluded that in light of the above, the Respondent's medical records for this patient, in failing to reflect the justification and appropriateness of his treatment of the patient, were inadequate. It would again appear that Petitioner has not given a complete reading to Respondent's medical records for this patient. His notes regarding the visits the patient made to the office reveal the patient was complaining of pain in the neck, shoulder and arms on both sides and indicate Respondent's concern that the patient might need surgery at L4/L5 as well as at L5/S1, and consent forms were obtained from the patient relating to both areas. An additional claim of Respondent's misconduct is made in regard to the Respondent's failure to do additional diagnostic studies before performing the PLD at L3/L4. However, Respondent contends that, contra to the importance placed on ancillary tests, he considers clinical examination of the patient and the patient's history as more significant. This position would appear to be supported by the testimony of Dr. Hopkins who opined that where, after a surgery has been done, if the patient is able to describe his or her condition, and nothing happened in the interim to cause the doctor to suspect any other problems, he would proceed without subjecting the patient to additional diagnostic procedures. All matters being considered, this would appear to be the more conservative approach. AS TO THE PATIENT P.H. Respondent first saw Patient P.H. in January, 1989 at which time he ordered an MRI be done which was interpreted as showing disc degeneration at L5/S1. When this was considered along with the patient's history, going back to 1970, of two disc removals, three spinal fusions and a laminectomy without relief, Respondent concluded a less conservative approach was demanded. Thereafter, on January 30, 1989, Respondent performed both a PLD and a PLF on this patient at L3/L4. No evidence was presented to clarify the apparent level discrepancy. The medical records indicate that after this surgery, Respondent prescribed Keflex, an antibiotic, and Colchicine, a gout treatment, for the patient. According to Dr. Abram, neither medication is justified in the medical records. The use of an antibiotic after surgery is not at all unusual nor inappropriate, however, especially in light of the fact that the surgery was done on an outpatient basis and the patient did not remain in the hospital, under observation, for a period of recuperation after the procedure. As to the Colchicine, a careful examination of the records pertaining to this patient reveals that a prior administration of the substance was indicated, and even Dr. Abram admitted that this drug could properly be used to treat back pain. The use of neither substance, therefore, was inappropriate. One year later, the patient again came to Respondent complaining of foot paralysis, and on February 1, 1990, Respondent performed a PLD on the patient at L4/L5. Twenty days later, on February 20, 1990, Respondent performed a repeat PLD on the patient at L4/L5. In the interim between the February 1 and February 20 procedures, notwithstanding Petitioner's contention that Respondent did not perform any diagnostic studies to determine whether further surgical intervention was necessary, the records indicate Respondent had clinical testing of the patient done on February 7, 1990, and a Physical Assessment Test was conducted which showed several anomalies which Respondent correlated to the MRI findings. Petitioner also claims that surgery at the L4/L5 disc space cannot treat the L5 nerve root compression that Respondent's tests showed in this patient. Both Dr. Bonati and Dr. Gristina agree, however, that the surgeon can reach the L5 nerve root from the L4/L5 disc space. This opinion by Dr. Gristina would apply equally as well to arthroscopic surgery as practiced by Respondent as to the more classical and conservative open procedures more widely done. Respondent billed the patient for all three surgeries performed. Evidence introduced at hearing, in the form of the opinion testimony of Dr. Abram, would seem to indicate surgery was not appropriate for this condition, and that the performing of the three surgeries was exploitation of the patient for financial gain. He also is of the opinion that the medical records fail to justify the course of treatment the Respondent rendered this patient. However, the evidence of record tends to indicate that a second surgery at a place where surgery has already been done is not unusual. Symptoms can recur and problems, thought to be resolved, can again surface. The evidence indicates that this patient had very little relief from discomfort and, in fact, the symptoms persisted for three weeks after the initial surgery. When results obtained from surgery do not produce an expected change in the patient's symptomology, Dr. Gristina concludes it is logical to again operate at any time after a procedure has been done. AS TO THE PATIENT M.M. Respondent first saw patient M.M. in July 1990 for symptoms of a back injury which he attributed to the S/1 nerve root and which had been present for over one year. The patient history for this patient reveals that she had approximately fifteen months without relief from pain before seeing Respondent and indicate that after Respondent had treated her for a week to ten days, the symptoms changed which caused Respondent to then attribute the cause to the L5 nerve root. An MRI showed a 4 mm bulge at L4/L5, and on September 6, 1990, Respondent performed both a PLD and a PLF at L4/L5. More than six months later, on May 7, 1991, M.M. went to Dr. Zubillaga, a Board certified neurologist, for treatment of pain running from the head to the sacrum. Dr. Zubillage took a complete patient history and reviewed the MRIs which had been taken by or for the Respondent. His examination indicated to him that no surgical intervention was indicated, and he recommended a more conservative treatment including stretching exercises and physical therapy. Dr. Abram concluded that Respondent's medical records for this patient contain inconsistencies in the examination and diagnostic tests. The patient's symptoms and the findings of diagnostic imaging should match up before the patient is offered surgical treatment. In the instant case, the records indicate a strength deficit of 26 percent at S1 and an L5 deficit of 16 percent, yet the treatment is directed against the L5 nerve root, even though the initial impression is that it was the S1 nerve root that was compressed, and Dr. Abram is of the opinion that is below the acceptable standard of care. Unexplained, it well may be. AS TO THE PATIENT D.R. On or about July 18, 1990, Dr. Bonati performed both a PLD and a PLF at L5/S1 on this patient for back and leg pain but the patient failed to improve after the surgery. Thereafter, on October 24, 1990, Respondent performed both a PLD and a PLF on the patient at L4/L5. Still later, on March 13, 1991, the patient saw Dr. Thomas Freeman, a Board certified neurological surgeon, who reviewed the patient's medical records, the discogram and the two MRI scans which had been done by Respondent both before and after the July 18, 1990 surgery, none of which showed an extruded disc. By the same token, a previous MRI done by a prior treating physician, Dr. Feldman, failed to disclose it as well. According to Dr. Freeman, the two MRI's done by Respondent were essentially identical with no change in the patient's condition following the surgery. Based on his examination of the patient, Dr. Freeman diagnosed the patient as having a large extruded disc at L5/S1 which, he claims, was shown in the MRI's taken by the Respondent. The evidence is in conflict on that point, however. It is Dr. Freeman's professional opinion that extruded discs are normally very difficult to remove by a percutaneous procedure. In fact, Respondent's own publications indicate that a percutaneous procedure is contraindicated in the case of an extruded disc. As a result of his evaluation, Dr. Freeman subsequently performed open back surgery on this patient removing the discs at L4/L5 left and at L5/S1 left and right. It is Dr. Abram's position that Respondent's failure to do an open procedure instead of a percutaneous procedure in this case, especially after the first procedure was unsuccessful, was below acceptable standard. It would appear, however, that none of the physicians who saw this patient were able to make a positive determination that there was an extruded disc. There is a difference between an extruded disc which is still in contact with the annulus and one which has broken free from the annulus and extruded through the posterior longitudinal ligament to enter the spinal canal. It is this latter situation which Respondent's writings denote as contraindication to a percutaneous procedure. The disc had not extruded in the instant case and, therefore, a percutaneous procedure was not necessarily contraindicated. Dr. Abram also asserts that Respondent's medical records for this patient contain a discrepancy between the admissions form and the general rule regarding the gravity and location of the patient's pain, which, he claims, is considered below standard. In fact, the admission form is set up so that the patient can describe the current severity of the leg pain and the back pain independently of each other. It does not attempt to compare them. AS TO THE PATIENT L.Q. Sometime between January and April, 1990, the patient, L.Q. saw Respondent complaining of pain in the neck and arm. Respondent took an MRI of the patient which indicated a grade I impression of the thecal space at both the C4/C5 and the C5/C6 levels. Even though Respondent's own publications regarding the PCD suggest that a grade I impression does not require surgery, Respondent recommended the patient undergo a PCD at C4/C5. Before agreeing to the surgery, however, on April 30, 1990, prior to what was described as the onset of significant pain compromising the 5th nerve root, the patient went to see Dr. Michael Slomka, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon who, without an MRI or CT scan, upon examination, found a normal neurological evaluation and a normal cervical spine x-ray. Based on his findings Dr. Slomka saw no basis for surgery and recommended a program of activity and rehabilitation for the patient. Thereafter, however, the patient returned to Respondent on May 14, 1990 and Respondent did a PCD at C4/C5. While Petitioner claims there was no justification shown for the surgery completed in this case, there is evidence in the patient records that the patient underwent an extended period of constant pain in the shoulder, injections into the shoulder by another physician prior to the visit to Respondent, continued medication for the discomfort claimed, and other symptoms and discomfort in an area consistent with the diagnosis, which were supported by a physical assessment test and consistent with the MRI. These factors may well justify surgery when all else has failed. The Petitioner asserts that Respondent's medical records do not reflect justification for the surgical intervention, but the above information disputes that conclusion. AS TO THE PATIENT R.H. This patient was seen by Respondent several times between July, 1991 and April, 1992 for treatment for neck and shoulder pain. An MRI of the patient ordered by the Respondent was interpreted by him as showing a grade I impression at both C3/C4 and C4/C5, and a grade II impression at C5/C6. On December 4, 1991. Respondent did a PCD on this patient at C5/C6, but the medical records maintained by Respondent on the patient show no improvement following the surgery. The Respondent's medical records relating to this surgery do not reflect he had any discussion with the patient before surgery about the risks or benefits of surgery, the anticipated outcome or alternative treatment options. On May 30, 1992, the patient went to see Dr. Michael Piazza, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon who also took an MRI of the patient. This scan revealed very mild degenerative disc disease at C5/C6 without any evidence of disc herniation or other operable lesion. He could see no indication for or reason to do surgery on the patient. The patient was 54 years old when she was seen by Dr. Piazza. The doctor indicated that approximately 90 percent of the adult population have as much arthritis in the neck by that age as does this patient. Therefore, he recommended non-operative treatment, including therapy, and the patient's condition improved markedly with this regimen. Here again the Respondent contends that Petitioner draws a misleading conclusion from the evidence and attempts to minimize the severity of the patient's long-term complaints of pain, failed conservative treatment and disc bulge which is attributed to arthritis. Respondent also contends that the use of a minimally invasive percutaneous procedure was appropriate in light of the circumstances, especially in light of the fact that there was a four month hiatus between the cited entries in the medical records. These contentions by Respondent are supported by the testimony of his experts. Respondent's records regarding this patient, are less than appropriate, however. They reflect the patient had full range of shoulder motion, albeit with pain, but also contain a diagnosis of frozen shoulder and capsulitis. This would indicate a marked reduction in the patient's range of shoulder motion. The records also indicate a degenerative labral tear in the biceps tendon, but there was no such tear indicated on the MRI. This tear was, however, located by Respondent through a diagnostic arthroscopy. In Dr. Abram's opinion, these inconsistencies rendered the records below acceptable standard. AS TO THE PATIENT O.J.P. This patient was seen at the Respondent's clinic, by Dr. Merken, on April 14, 1992, for an evaluation of the patient's strength related to the neck. The doctor's opinion was that the patient's neck strength was normal though, even as Dr. Abram admits, he found abnormalities of the neck resulting in painful flexion, lateralization and extension. Several days later, the patient underwent several MRIs which covered the left shoulder and the cervical and lumbar spine in which Respondent saw bulges of 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm in the lumbar spine. When, on May 12, 1992, the Respondent discussed the results of the MRI's with the patient he noted a significant weakness in the patient which had not been noted by Dr. Merken earlier. Even though the patient's medical record does not reflect any long-standing weakness or participation in an extensive rehabilitative program, Respondent nonetheless recommended the patient undergo a PCD at C6/C7 left and a PLD at L4/L5 left. The surgery was not done, however. Instead, on July 16, 1992, the patient went to see Dr. Glen Barden, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon, because of persisting neck and back pain. Dr. Barden did an examination of the patient and reviewed Respondent's medical records on her. Dr. Barden's diagnosis was that the patient exhibited mild symptoms of disc disease without neurological deficits. He concluded that surgery was not needed or appropriate for the condition at that time but recognized that surgical intervention to the neck might be required. In fact, Dr. Barden's records show he found " cervical intervertebral disc disease, moderately severe, involving C4-5, C5-6. C6-7 and C7-T1, as well as degenerative lumbar disc disease", among other problems, all of which, Dr. Barden admits, can cause pain and restriction of motion without a neurological deficit. As such, surgery can be justified even where there is no neurological deficit. Notwithstanding Petitioner claims the medical records kept by Respondent on this patient did not reflect any long-standing weakness or conservative care, the patient history clearly reflects numerous complaints of pain and limitations on movement following a 1978 car accident. In addition, the records reflect the patient had been taking medication and received chiropractic treatment in addition to the physical therapy prescribed by Respondent prior to surgery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints in DOAH Cases 94-1866 and 94-1867, except for Counts Six and Fifteen of Complaint 94-1867, of which Respondent, ALFRED O. BONATI, should be found guilty, be dismissed, and that his license be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of August, 1995, 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 21st day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 94-1866 AND 94-1867 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein with the addition, as to #7, of the phrase, "in the U.S." 9. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted. 16. & 17. Accepted. 18. - 21. Accepted. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. Accepted. 26. Rejected as not proven. 27. - 29. Accepted. 30. - 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. - 38. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. 39. Rejected except for last sentence which is accepted. 40. Accepted. 41. & 42. Rejected as not proven. 43. - 53. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54. Accepted that surgery was done, but not for the purpose stated. 55. Accepted and incorporated herein. 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. - 62. Rejected as not proven. 63. Rejected as not proven. 64. Accepted as to what record states, but rejected as to the lack of a complaint on the right side, as contra to the weight of the evidence. 65. Rejected as not proven. 66. - 68. Accepted but considered of little probative value. 69. Accepted. 70. & 71. Rejected as not proven. 72. & 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74. & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. 76. - 80. Accepted and incorporated herein. 81. - 84. Rejected as not proven. 85. Accepted. 86. - 92. Rejected as not proven. 93. Accepted. 94. - 97. Rejected as not proven, and 97 is duplicative of 84 and 84. 98. - 104. Accepted and incorporated herein. 105. - 109. Rejected as not proven. 110. Accepted and incorporated herein. 111. Rejected as unproven. 112. & 113. Accepted and incorporated herein. 114. Rejected as unproven. 115. - 117. Accepted. 118. & 119. Rejected as unproven. 120. Accepted. 121. Rejected as unproven. 122. - 128. Accepted and incorporated herein. 129. - 132. Rejected as unproven. 133. Accepted. 134. & 135. Rejected as unproven. 136. - 148. Accepted and incorporated herein. 149. - 152. Rejected as unproven. 153. - 159. Accepted, but 158 is duplicative of 146 160. & 161. Rejected as unproven. 162. - 168. Accepted and incorporated herein. 169. Rejected as unproven. 170. Accepted and incorporated herein. 171. - 175. Rejected as unproven. 176. Accepted. 177. & 178. Rejected as unproven. 179. - 191. Accepted and incorporated herein. 192. - 194. Rejected as unproven. 195. Accepted. 196. & 197. Rejected as unproven. 198. - 208. Accepted and incorporated herein. 209. - 211. Rejected as unproven. 212. Accepted. 213. Rejected as unproven. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted. - 15. Accepted. 16. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. & 20. Accepted. 21. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted. 25. First sentence accepted. Second sentence not proven. 26. & 27. Accepted. 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29. Accepted. 30. - 32. Accepted. 33. Accepted. 34. & 35. Accepted since the contrary was not proven. 36. Accepted as represented. 37. Accepted since the contrary was not proven. 38. Accepted that the treatment and records were within standards. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jonathan W. Lubell, Esquire 750 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire 8001 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 301-A Tampa, Florida 33614 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of, Florida having been issued license No. 0033496. Respondent's address is 133 Darnell Avenue, Spring Hill, Florida 33626. Respondent rendered medical care and treatment to patient B.R. during the period July 11, 1985 to July 15, 1985 while she was a patient at the Oak Hill Community Hospital, Spring Hill, Florida for, among other things, acute transmural myocardial infarction. On or about July 15, 1985, patient B.R. died from acute myocardial infarction after resuscitative procedures were unsuccessful. Patient B.R. was brought to the emergency room at Oak Hill Community Hospital on July 11, 1985 by her husband after complaining of chest pains. Shortly after arrival she suffered a myocardial infarction and "coded." She was resuscitated and placed in the intensive care unit. As the medical services physician on call, Respondent was contacted and assumed the care of patient B.R., a 65 year old female. Respondent is Board-certified in internal medicine and is Board eligible in cardiology having completed a fellowship in cardiology at George Washington University in 1968. B.R. had formerly worked as a licensed practical nurse who suffered a back injury some years ago which resulted in back surgery three times. In 1978, some 10 years before her demise, B.R. suffered a heart attack. She also had a history of diabetes and recently had undergone a thyroidectomy. With this medical history she presented a complex case for care and treatment. With patient presenting the history and symptoms of B.R., a reasonably prudent physician would have ordered daily chest X-rays, had an echocardiagram taken, inserted a Swan-Ganz catheter and consulted with a cardiologist on the treatment of this patient. None of these were done by Respondent. While acknowledging those procedures above listed were clearly indicated, Respondent testified he suggested those procedures to B.R. but, while she was fully competent to understand his recommendation, B.R. refused to be further X-rayed, refused the echocardiagram because she thought it produced some type of nuclear radiation, and also specifically refused to have any tubes inserted in her veins which would result if the Swan-Ganz catheter was inserted. None of the patient's refusals to accept recommended procedures was charted in B.R.'s hospital records. Respondent testified that B.R. specifically directed him to not chart on her hospital record her refusal to undergo the test and procedures recommended by Respondent. Respondent further testified that following her refusal to undergo the test and procedures and under directions to him not to chart those refusals on the hospital chart, he put this history in his office notes. To corroborate thin testimony Respondent presented Exhibit 5, a copy of those office notes containing entries dated July 12, 13, 14, 15, and 23, August 13, September 26, December 13, 1985 and January 29, 1986, comprising 4 typewritten pages. While a patient has a absolute right to refuse treatment or procedures recommended by his/her physician, the patient does not have the right to direct the physician to prepare an incomplete record of his treatment and progress. The principal purpose of the chart is to record medical evidence of the patient's condition, treatment rendered and results obtained to provide a history from which another physician can, if necessary, adequately take over the care of the patient. The record also provides a history of the patient's response to treatment. Respondent's explanation that if he had expected to be away and another physician had to take over the care and treatment of B.R. he would have made the other physician aware of B.R.'s refusal to undergo the recommended procedures totally failed to satisfy the need for a complete record of the patient in one place. To prove the validity of the office notes as a "business record," Respondent testified that for the past 30 years he has maintained office notes in which he has placed information the patient didn't want in the hospital record. An expert witness in the field of questioned documents testified that each dated entry on Exhibit 5 was typed following a new insertion of the paper in the typewriter rather than all entries being typed at the same time or with the same insertion of the paper in the typewriter and this was consistent with what would be expected in normal office procedures. Respondent's office manager and secretary during the times reported on Exhibit 5 testified she was the one who normally transcribed Respondent's dictated notes, that Exhibit 5 was consistent with the normal office practice which would be to date the entries when they were typed, and, although she does not specifically recall typing each entry on Exhibit 5, they were probably all typed by her. Evidence questioning the validity of Respondent's testimony that the office notes were dictated contemporaneously with his treatment of B.R. and typed on the dates indicated included the testimony of the husband of B.R. that B.R. had a zest for life and it would be contrary to her nature to refuse certain procedures or consultations; the fact that on July 14, 1985 B.R. was intubated with the Respondent present; that there was no financial consideration involved as B.R. was adequately insured; the office manager and secretary of Respondent during the period the office notes are alleged to have been prepared is the daughter of Respondent; and the fact that at the peer review committee inquiry into the facts surrounding the death of B.R., Respondent never mentioned the existence of office notes although he was extensively questioned regarding his failure to maintain a more complete medical record in this case. From the foregoing it is found that B.R.'s refusal to submit to the procedures allegedly recommended by Respondent were not contemporaneously recorded in Respondent's office notes and Exhibit 5 was prepared after Respondent appeared before the hospital peer review committee if not also after the administrative complaint was filed in this case.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license shall be disciplined for violations of Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes [failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of patients as set out in Counts 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 13-14 of the administrative complaint]. Whether Respondent's license shall be disciplined for violations of Section 458.331(1)(cc) 1, 2, and 3, Florida Statutes [prescription of an amphetamine drug for purposes other than specifically stated in those subsections as set out in Counts 5 (Preludin), 10 (Preludin), and 12 (Ritalin) of the administrative complaint]. Whether Respondent's license shall be disciplined for violations of Section 453.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes [by engaging in gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances as set out in Counts 1-15 inclusive, of the administrative complaint].
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tariq Husam Abdullah, is a licensed medical physician, practicing under license number ME 0021526. He is also known as Henry Nichols. The two are one and the same and there is no dispute over identity. Respondent appears to have been a hard worker, rising from a "bed pan hustler" at the old Fort Walton Hospital to his current level of education, licensure, and community position. Previous to Florida licensure, Respondent received his medical degree from Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee, where he also did his internship in straight medicine. Thereafter, Respondent performed three years of anatomical and experimental pathology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and two years in clinical pathology at the National Institute of Health and the United States Public Health Service in Bethesda, Maryland. Respondent is not board-certified, but is currently board-eligible in both pathology and laboratory medicine. At all times material hereto, Respondent engaged in medical practice in Bay County, Florida. During much of the time in question, Respondent had no assisting staff. His usual fee for each office visit of each of the patients referred to in the fifteen count administrative complaint was approximately $15- 20 maximum. They are a small portion of the approximately 1,000 patients he treated between 1978 and 1982, and in most cases his fees for office visits were $10.00 apiece. Sometimes his fees were paid and sometimes they were not paid. Medicaid and Medicare reimbursed all or a portion of many fees. In the course of his practice Respondent treated the following patients: D.B.; T.B.; Tommy B.; J.C.; L.C.; T.G. a/k/a L.C.; David G.; Dan G.; C.R.; B.W.; and J.M. Petitioner's expert-witness medical doctors were Jabe Armistead Breland and Michael W. Cohen. Dr. Breland was present at the formal hearing and had the advantage of reviewing Respondent's exhibits as well as Petitioner's exhibits in the forming of his opinions. Dr. Breland has been a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida since September 1950. Most of that time he has practiced in the panhandle of north Florida which includes Panama City, Bay County. His office is in Marianna, Florida. He is board- certified in family medicine, licensed by the federal government to prescribe controlled substances, and was stipulated as an expert in the field of medicine. Dr. Michael W. Cohen testified by means of a deposition taken prior to formal hearing and did not have the advantage of review of Respondent's exhibits admitted in evidence at the formal hearing. He is a family physician with an M.D. from the University of Miami School of Medicine (1975), a graduate of Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Regional Medical Center Family Practice Program, and has been a board-certified family physician for six and one-half years. His practice is limited to Tallahassee and he has testified on contract for Petitioner six times previous to this case. He is accepted by the undersigned as an expert medical witness, but because of the unavailability to Dr. Cohen of Respondent's exhibits which were admitted in evidence at the formal hearing held subsequent to his deposition and because some of the materials upon which Dr. Cohen's opinions were predicated were excluded from evidence at the formal hearing, the weight and credibility of his prior deposition testimony is significantly impaired through no fault of Dr. Cohen and without any unfavorable reflection upon him. Dr. Wilson, Respondent's expert medical doctor who testified by after-filed deposition knew nothing of Respondent's records and was unaware of the precise charges against him. In the absence of appropriate predicate as to medical opinion, his testimony has been accepted only as to facts of which he had personal knowledge and as to character. It is his opinion that Respondent is the kind of person who deserves not to have his license suspended or revoked. Dr. Wilson partly financed Respondent's education. The parties by Request for Admission have established that Preludin is an amphetamine; more accurately Preludin is phenmetrazine. Ritalin is methylphenidate. Dioxan is a methylamphetamine. At all times pertinent these were Schedule II controlled substances pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Percodan is also a Schedule II controlled substance. Valium is a Schedule IV controlled substance. Darvon Compound and Tylenol 4 are Schedule III controlled substances. Respondent frequently talked to police, Sheriff's deputies and pharmacists in an effort to avoid his patients becoming addicted to drugs. He never was made aware from any source of any drug addiction or any arrests of any patients concerned in this action. He testified that he performed a physical examination in every case and verified all prior medications in every case, but he also conceded not verifying prior medications with previous doctors or hospitals. It is specifically found that in many instances none of these precautions appear in his records as set out infra. D. B. (Counts I; XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admission) and found that between February 19, 1979, and April 23, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of controlled substances to his patient, D. B.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 02/19/79 Percodan Approximate 04/30/79 Darvon Compound 03/23/82 Valium 05/13/82 Tylenol #4 06/03/82 Percodan Demi 40 06/16/82 " " 18 07/10/82 " " 07/17/82 " " 36 08/14/82 " " 18 08/28/82 Percodan 08/28/82 Valium 01/15/83 Percodan 03/26/83 " 03/26/83 Valium 04/23/83 Percodan Respondent's treatment of his patient, D.B. with controlled substances was predicated upon his diagnosis of "traumatic arthritis." His records reflect, "hurting ankle, leg, and back" as the chief complaint. In no instance of prescribing scheduled drugs for this patient did Respondent maintain a record of the strength (dosage) and on only a few occasions did he record the quantity prescribed. This particular inadequacy of record-keeping seems also to have applied to additional non- scheduled drugs prescribed by Respondent for this patient. Although Dr. Breland acknowledged that many doctors only record the word "refill," good medical practice dictates that Respondent should have recorded at least the quantity and dosage at the time of the initial prescription. Normal protocol would be to also record the method of taking the medication. On this analysis, in Dr. Breland's professional medical opinion, Respondent's medical records for his patient, D.B. (Composite P-1) were inadequate and did not justify the course of treatment upon the recorded chief complaint. Dr. Cohen concurs. Further record inadequacies as noted by Dr. Breland include failure of the records to indicate which bone was fractured in relating the patient's medical history, recording only blood pressure as a vital sign, and failure to state what condition was being treated on subsequent visits. Dr. Cohen recited the same inadequacies in forming his professional medical opinion that Respondent's records do not justify the treatment received. Dr. Cohen further opined that if the patient had traumatic arthritis, the treatment prescribed was wholly inadequate due to the absence of any recorded plans for therapy. Dr. Breland, on the other hand, felt that a Percodan prescription is consistent with good medical practice for a patient who complains of traumatic arthritis and that Valium, a benzodiazepine drug which is a calmative or tranquilizer, may also be properly used for traumatic arthritis but that Valium would be contraindicated if there were associated patient nervousness and anxiety. Dr. Breland's opinion is that it would not be medical malpractice to prescribe Valium upon the basis of Respondent's records nor would it be medical malpractice based upon the continued prescribing of Percodan unless the patient became addicted. Dr. Breland's experience is that 1-3 months on Percodan would cause individuals to run the risk of addiction but knows of doctors in the Panama City locale who have prescribed Percodan in excess of three months with addiction resulting in some patients and not in others. Respondent conceded that his records for this patient should show greater detail but according to his recollection independent of the medical records, he recalled that on the first visit, he had accepted D.B.'s representation that D.B. had had prior surgery on the left ankle because the pins could be seen through that swollen ankle. Respondent's independent recollection was that D.B. did not ask for Percodan. Respondent testified that he prescribed the Percodan because "after codeine I can't think of another drug with potential for comfort." His failure to record further detail he explained as his belief that writing down prescriptions was a sufficient reference back to the original first visit diagnosis. Respondent admittedly did not record, but expressed independent recollection of also accepting D.B.'s representation of previous unsuccessful medication with codeine from a Dr. Smith and of recommending acupuncture as an alternative pain therapy but admitted he also did not record this latter instruction. The medical records themselves confirm Respondent's testimony in the course of the hearing that Respondent prescribed the scheduled drugs in addition to a number of other medications such as Roboxin and anti-inflammatories which he did record and which Dr. Breland confirmed were appropriate as treatment for traumatic arthritis. A portion of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 15, court certified records, show one "Donald Richard Bozeman" was charged in two counts of illegally selling Valium in Bay County on September 2 and September 11, 1982. This person was subsequently tried and found guilty of one count and entered a plea of guilty to the other. A Circuit Court Judgment was entered. The date of the commission of this person's offenses are close to the date of a prescription by Respondent to his patient "D.B." but there is absolutely nothing in the court documents to connect them to the D.B. treated by Respondent except a partial similarity of name. Nor does the similarity of name of a co-defendant, Tereza Ann Bozeman (see infra.) prove an inescapable link of "Donald Richard Bozeman" to Respondent's patient, "D.B." who was married to someone of partially similar name. Accordingly, the court documents are probative of nothing in connection with Respondent's records or his patients, including but not limited to Petitioner's assertions that Respondent prescribed to his patient, "D.B." for a non-medical or criminal purpose or that the patient was drug-addicted. Upon all the foregoing information taken together it is clear Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of his patient, D.B. This finding is made despite both of Petitioner's experts' testimony that there is no affirmative professional requirement that dosage and number of tablets be recorded anywhere except on a prescription. That concern is only a portion of the inadequacies of these records. However, in light of Dr. Breland's greater familiarity with all of Respondent's records and the standard of medical practice in the community, and the greater detail provided by his testimony and the explanations provided by Respondent at formal hearing, Dr. Breland's opinion that the course of treatment for this patient, isolated from all others, does not represent malpractice is accepted over Dr. Cohen's opinion that it does. T. B. (Counts II, XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admission) and found that between approximately May 1, 1982, and April 9, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of schedule- controlled substances to his patient, T.B.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 05/01/82 Valium 05/01/82 Percodan Demi 07/10/82 " " " 30 08/14/82 " " " 08/14/82 " " " 18 08/14/82 Valium 09/11/82 Percodan 09/11/82 Valium 12/12/83 Percocet #5 Although in some respects, Drs. Breland and Cohen emphasized different faults or inadequacies of Respondent's records which they reviewed concerning T.B. (Composite P-2), both experts concur that the records do not justify the course of treatment of this patient. Dr. Cohen bases his opinion on his analysis that the history Respondent recorded for this patient was not sufficiently detailed. Specifically, the initial office visit record is flawed by only writing down patient's vital signs and recording no physical findings. Dr. Cohen stated it is unjustifiable to prescribe a narcotic analgesic on the first office visit and to continue to refill the prescription on subsequent visits without recording how the patient had done on those medications and further without recording physical examination, assessment of how the patient is responding to the medication, a plan outline for prophylactic care, and patient education. Further, both Drs. Breland and Cohen assert that although there is no affirmative professional requirement to record dosage and tablet numbers except on prescriptions, it is the custom of reasonably prudent similar physicians to record amount, dosage quantity of drugs prescribed, and method of taking drugs, and Respondent's records do not do so. Respondent's records for this patient also offend custom and usage of the profession in that they indicate several office visits for which there are no recorded findings or treatments whatsoever. Dr. Breland's opinion that the records do not justify the treatment and that they fall below the customary standard of care are based on his analysis thereof emphasizing that the records of the first office visit do not evidence a physical examination other than taking a blood pressure reading and weighing the patient. There is a brief history of migraine headaches for three months recorded and also recorded is a past diagnosis and treatment with codeine and talwin; the records note no previous surgery, no previous fracture, and no physical findings. Then, Cafergot PB #2, Valium #3 and Percodan-demi were prescribed by Respondent. The records should have specified whether or not previous treatment was successful and if it was successful, Respondent could have subsequently prescribed less addictive drugs. In Dr. Breland's opinion, it is "hard to justify" a Class II drug without trying some other modalities available. Respondent first saw this patient on May 1, 1982, for migraine headaches and prescribed Cafergot PB and Percodan-demi. He selected Percodan- demi because Percodan is habit-forming. In the course of the formal hearing, he testified, "I just didn't know another medication to go to after you pass codeine that would be effective with patients, other than giving them Demerol and the harder narcotic medications" and that when he first began seeing this patient he was less aware of the similar use of the less addictive drug, Inderal, than he is now. On the physical examination portion of his clinical notes, Respondent indicated that the patient had been using Codeine, Talwin, and "Dx" and "Rx". He then and thereafter (8/14/82 and 9/11/82) prescribed analgesics and vasoconstrictors (Cafergot PB and Ergotamine) together with the Valium because Valium, in his opinion, is often ineffective without more because of the significant emotional components of migraine headaches. Respondent also expressed his independent recollection of discussing with this patient the alternative treatment of acupuncture but admitted he did not record this instruction. Respondent's explanation is not sufficient justification for the repeated prescriptions of controlled substances in light of Dr. Breland's more knowledgeable and thorough explanation of the standards of record-keeping necessary to justify continued prescription of the particular controlled substances here at issue. Dr. Breland faults another of Respondent's prescriptions dated 12/4/82 of Cafergot PB#2 (a combination of drugs primarily containing an Ergotamine derivative and caffeine), Percocet, and Valium because Respondent's records do not show how many pills were prescribed nor do they give directions for taking them. For prescriptions on 1/8/83, 8/14/82, 9/11/82, and 2/12/83, Dr. Breland expressed as his chief concern that there was an absence of recorded physical findings, history, and blood pressure plus no recorded amount of dosage listed for most prescription drugs, but Dr. Breland also determined that prescribing Cafergot is consistent with Respondent's diagnosis of vascular headaches and his prescriptions for these dates is an appropriate lesser treatment to be tried before prescribing a Schedule II drug, and, further, that Respondent's records justify prescribing Cafergot. However, the opinion expressed in the prior sentence is not compelling in face of the records having no notations to show the effect, if any, of Cafergot or other drugs or to show why Respondent prescribed stronger medication. Dr. Breland also felt Respondent should have prescribed other less addictive drugs before going to the Schedule II-controlled substances as he did, and that if Respondent's findings were negative, he should have recorded them as negative rather than leaving the record blank, because without such records it cannot be determined if a physical examination was ever made and because in absence of recorded physical findings, no Schedule II drugs should have been prescribed. A portion of Petitioner's Composite 15, court-certified records show one "Tereza Ann Bozeman" was charged in two counts of illegally selling Valium in Bay County on September 2 and September 11, 1982. This person entered a plea of guilty to a lesser-included misdemeanor. The Circuit Court withheld adjudication and placed her on probation. The date of one of the offenses coincides with one of the dates of a prescription by Respondent to his patient, "T.B." but there is absolutely nothing in the Court documents to connect them to the "T.B." treated by Respondent, except a partial similarity of name. The court documents also charge "Donald Richard Bozeman" who has a similar name to that of another of Respondent's patients (see supra.) but the court documents do not indicate the charged individuals are married or provide any other link to Respondent's patient(s). Accordingly, the court documents are probative of nothing in connection with Respondent's records or his patients, including but not limited to Petitioner's assertions that Respondent prescribed to his patient, T.B., for a non-medical or criminal purpose or that the patient was drug-addicted. Tommy B. (Counts III, XV) It is admitted (Request for Admissions) and found that between approximately August 16, 1981, and February 19, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of schedule controlled substances to Tommy B.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 08/15/81 Valium 08/15/81 Percodan 08/15/81 Dalmane 10/30/81 Tylox 12/05/81 " 12/05/81 Valium 12/06/82 Darvon compound 02/17/82 Percodan 30 04/01/82 " Demi 04/01/82 Percodan 30 05/29/82 Percodan Demi 06/21/82 Tylox 24 07/12/82 Percocet #5 30 02/19/83 Percocet 02/19/83 Valium In the course of the hearing, Respondent independently recalled that this patient presented on 8/15/81 and that Respondent himself personally recorded the notes for that date including a history, diagnosis of L-S syndrome, and treatment. On that date he observed scars on the patient's back from back surgeries which the patient related had been done at Southern Baptist Hospital in New Orleans. Respondent conceded that he failed to record the physical findings of scars and failed to record full details of the related surgeries so that at first glance it might appear to others, in this case Dr. Breland, that Respondent was only filling in a history of surgeries without making his own diagnosis. Respondent stated that he had relied on the Physician's Desk Reference, which he characterized as a "bible of the medical profession", and which recommends Percodan as a pain-killer. The treatise itself was not offered in evidence. Respondent also stated that the Percodan-based drugs he prescribed effectively relieved this patient's pain. There is no contrary evidence on this point of effectiveness but it still was not contemporaneously recorded by Respondent in the patient's record. Both Drs. Cohen and Breland opined that Respondent's records for Tommy B. did not justify the prescribing of these controlled substances, most specifically Percodan. These opinions have not been accepted for the following reasons. In the absence of any supporting evidence, Dr. Cohen's considerable testimony concerning his belief that this must have been a scam or scheme of Respondent to indirectly charge for a controlled substance prescription by requiring frequent office visits is rejected as conscientious but pure conjecture. Dr. Breland expressed concern that Percodan-demi was among the drugs prescribed by Respondent in the presence of a record notation within the physical findings which relates that "patient says he can't take Percodan". Respondent denied he made this notation, and related it is in someone else's handwriting and not true. Respondent's testimony on this score is corroborated by clear observation of the records. Most of Dr. Breland's other complaints concerning Respondent's record of this patient devolve to Dr. Breland's inability to read Respondent's handwriting and his original erroneous belief that the history and exam was chronologically incorrect and taken by someone other than Respondent. Dr. Breland's opinion that the records are deficient because the fracture of the back was not specifically recorded by Respondent's indicating whether there was an old fracture or current pain and by Respondent's not indicating whether there was thoracic or lumbar distress, and because there is no recitation of whether the fracture is pelvical or in any body of the vertebrae, and his objection to failure of Respondent to either record "no x- rays" if none or to record x-rays if there were some instead of leaving a blank space constitute technique over professional custom requirement of record- keeping. Dr. Breland also described the two month fluctuation down to Percodan- demi and then up to the stronger drug of Percocet from 4/1/82 to 2/19/83 as unjustified because no less addictive medicines had been tried and no degree of relief from less addictive drugs was attempted by Respondent, but Dr. Breland described the Percodan- based drugs and the Valium as medically acceptable where based on the degree of relief the patient had received. In such a situation Dr. Breland would use these drugs for pain treatment and consider them medically justified. Like Dr. Cohen, Dr. Breland also found unacceptable the failure of Respondent to record amounts and dosages in his office medical records, but on many occasions throughout their testimony, both of Petitioner's experts observed the requirement of listing amount and dosages is for prescriptions only and not for a doctor's office records. Upon the failure of adequate predicate for Dr. Cohen's conclusion of unjustified prescriptions, the absence of any admissible evidence of any addiction in this patient, and the only positive evidence of the effect of these prescriptions being Respondent's opinion that it was effective, the opinions of both Drs. Cohen and Breland that the medical records do not justify the course of treatment of Tommy B. are rejected. J. C. (COUNTS IV; XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admissions) and found that between January 4, 1982, and February 26, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following schedule-controlled substances to J.C.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 01/04/82 Percodan 24 03/23/82 Tylox 30 04/17/82 Percodan 04/17/82 " " 05/01/82 Tylenol #4 30 05/01/82 Valium 30 05/04/82 Tylox 30 06/12/82 Valium 06/16/82 Tylox 36 07/17/82 " 30 08/14/82 " 30 10/03/82 " 30 10/30/82 Tylenol #4 11/13/82 Percodan 30 01/15/83 Percocet 01/15/83 Valium 28. J.C.'s chief complaint was migraine headaches, "nerves", and back trouble. Respondent prescribed Percodan for pain, Valium for "nerves", and Cafergot-pb for migraines. He diagnosed hypertensive heart disease, anxiety neurosis, migraine headaches, and lumbosacral syndrome. He only used Percodan four times over a year's period due to the severity of the symptoms brought on by the tug and strain on this 200-pound woman's back. Dr. Cohen ranks the relatively minimal fault of writing progress notes in two corners and across the top and side of a page in the same category as overprescribing. Dr. Cohen's concern over the absence of recorded physical findings for this patient was not confirmed by Dr. Breland (see infra.) and his concern because the number and dosage of Cafergot-pb (non-scheduled), Valium (scheduled) and Percodan (scheduled) were frequently not recorded by Respondent is less significant in light of Dr. Breland's testimony that the best custom and practice of the medical profession is to record these matters but such recordation is not required for office records but only for prescriptions. Dr. Cohen also faulted Respondent for prescribing symptomatically with no effort to educate the patient to prevent or "prophylax" against migraines or to prescribe common anti- inflammatory medications usually prescribed for migraines. Dr. Breland noted that Tylenol #4 is a controlled substance but made no specific objection to Respondent's prescription of it for this patient. Cafergot-pb is not a controlled substance and its prescription by Respondent was not faulted by Dr. Breland. All of Dr. Breland's testimony on this patient is couched in vague terms of "it is hard to justify" Respondent's prescription of Percodan and Percocet on just this work-up and Dr. Breland felt Respondent's prescription of Percodan on the first visit was not justified without obtaining a further medical history, but he would have approved eventual (not first visit) use of Percodan for this patient's migraine headaches if it were not for the presence of hypertensive heart disease or her neurosis. Although the records fail to state why Percodan-based drugs were used, Dr. Breland felt these drugs would have been appropriately prescribed for the lumbosacral syndrome. By comparison, J.C's recorded medical history is more extensive than that of most of the patient records involved in this action. The history taken by Respondent lists previous surgery of a hysterectomy, of a previous fracture to the left hip, and of a tonsillectomy. Also given is an elevated blood pressure of 160 over 100, height and weight, state of parity, and diagnoses. The date of her last period and of her hysterectomy are not given. Petitioner's two expert witnesses each would have made separate and different judgment calls on all prescriptions here related, except that each concurs that Respondent's initial prescription of Percodan on this patient's first visit was unjustified without a further recorded history; therefore, Dr. Breland's summation that the records justify overall treatment of this patient is accepted. L. C. (COUNTS V; VI; XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admission) and found that between approximately March 27, 1978, and April 23, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of schedule-controlled substances to L.C.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 03/27/78 Darvon Compound 07/21/78 Darvon 07/21/78 Darvon Compound 07/21/78 Valium 10/23/79 Percodan 10/31/79 Preludin 11/17/80 Preludin 11/28/81 Darvon Compound 12/28/81 Percodan 24 01/14/82 " " 30 04/02/82 " " 36 06/08/82 " " 36 07/17/82 " " 36 08/28/82 " " 36 09/25/82 " " 24 09/25/82 Darvon Compound 12/03/82 Percodan 30 01/15/83 " " Dr. Cohen's opinion that there had been prescription of an amphetamine drug for an unjustified purpose and that the patient's records did not justify the Respondent's prescribed course of treatment is rejected as partially predicated upon inadmissible and unadmitted exhibits. The opinion of Dr. Breland is accepted that most of these prescriptions as only part of the course of treatment as a whole were acceptable. More particularly, Dr. Breland indicated there are other doctors similarly geographically situated who use Percodan similarly; there was a very adequate history taken, although the date appears out of order on the page; Respondent's early prescribing of Roboxin and Darvon (one of the less addictive controlled substances) would be a good treatment for osteoarthritis which was part of Respondent's diagnosis of this patient; there was not enough Percodan prescription here for Dr. Breland to say it was not justified in this patient's case. Dr. Breland was unsure when Preludin became a scheduled substance and so would not comment on that aspect of the case. This is an issue of law and is discussed under "Conclusions of Law." T. G. (COUNTS VII; XV) Between approximately July 23, 1978, and April 26, 1983, Respondent treated a patient by the name of T.G. During that period, the stipulated records reveal at least the following prescriptions, among others: DATE APPROXIMATE QUANTITY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 7/23/78 30 Percodan 7/23/78 Darvon Compound 9/21/78 Percodan 10/14/78 Percodan 10/14/78 Darvon Compound 11/21/78 24 Percodan 11/21/78 Darvon 12/6/78 30 Percodan 12/6/78 Darvon Compound 12/28/78 Percodan 12/28/78 Darvon 1/23/79 Qualudes 1/29/79 24 Percocet 1/19/82 24 Percocet 3/4/82 Valium 3/4/82 Percodan 4/29/82 Percocet 8/19/82 Percodan 8/19/82 Valium 10 mg 9/25/82 Valium 9/25/82 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium 10 mg 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium 10 mg 10/14/82 40 Valium 10/14/82 40 Percocet #5 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium Additionally, the Respondent occasionally prescribed Tetracycline and Actifed Syrup for colds, and the parties have stipulated these are not controlled substances. Although Dr. Breland tagged Respondent's use of Roboxin 750, Percodan 30, Darvon compound and Prednisone (a Cortisone- like anti-inflammatory) on the first visit as "borderline acceptable," it was his and Dr. Cohen's mutual opinions that in the absence of recorded physical findings, the Respondent's prescribing of controlled substances in these quantities and with this frequency to this patient was not justified by the records Respondent kept. Dr. Breland, in particular, found unacceptable the Respondent's diagnosis of lumbosacral syndrome without detailed physical findings or any x-ray diagnosis, and both experts took exception to the continued and repeated prescriptions of the addictive drugs, Valium and Percodan, in a case where Respondent's records repeatedly indicate a good response. Both further opined against Respondent's delayed attempt to diminish the use of these addictive drugs. The doctors' opinion that the records do not justify the prescriptions are accepted. DAVID G. (Counts VIII; XV) The stipulated records reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, David G., between December 17, 1981, and February 12, 1983. DATE APPROXIMATE CONTROLLED QUANTITY SUBSTANCE 12/17/81 Ativan 12/30/81 Ativan 2/12/82 Valium 3/06/82 Seconal 3/11/82 Valium 4/08/82 Seconal 8/28/82 Seconal 8/28/82 Valium Respondent saw this patient 12 times in approximately 2 years and accepted David G.'s representation that he had been previously prescribed Ativan, a controlled substance of the same chemical family as Valium. Although Respondent claims he verified all prior medications, the verification here is not reflected in his record. The records themselves do not reflect for most occasions why this patient was being treated nor do they set forth an assessment of why Respondent switched from less to more addictive sedative hypnotics. Ativan is a tranquilizer on Schedule III. Seconal is a sedative on Schedule II. In an isolated response, Dr. Breland testified that if the Respondent's initial diagnosis of insomnia and anxiety neurosis had been arrived at after taking a proper history and after a proper physical examination which was not recorded, he would not find Respondent's use of these medications, including Seconal, improper, because there are doctors in the same geographical area who would also use Seconal. However, the ultimate opinion of both of Petitioner's experts is accepted that in the absence of a recorded initial physical examination and a recorded history beyond merely recording height and weight and an unverified former medical treatment, the course of this patient's treatment was not justified by the records kept. DAN G. (Counts IX; XV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, Dan G., Jr., between January 9, 1979, and April 22, 1983. DATE APPROXIMATE CONTROLLED QUANTITY SUBSTANCE 01/09/79 Percodan 02/22/79 Talwin (50 mg) 11/18/81 Percodan 11/30/81 Percodan 01/02/82 Percodan 01/19/82 Percodan 02/05/82 Percodan 03/30/82 Percodan 04/12/82 Percodan 05/01/82 Percodan 05/01/82 Valium 05/18/82 24 Percodan 06/05/82 Valium 06/22/82 Percodan Demi 06/22/82 Darvon Compound 06/22/82 Valium 07/24/82 Percodan 07/24/82 Valium 08/28/82 Percodan Demi 08/28/82 Valium 09/25/82 Percodan 09/25/82 Valium 10/30/82 Valium 10/30/82 Percodan 12/03/82 Percodan 02/19/83 Percocet 03/26/83 Percodan 03/26/83 Valium 04/22/83 Tylox 04/22/83 Valium Respondent's records for this single patient sometimes specify "Jr." and sometimes do not. The initial record indicates a surgical incision along the lateral aspect of both femurs and pain on palpation of both hips, and records a history of total hip arthroplasty (two total hip replacements) in 1979 with the patient evidencing pain secondary to a post-operative procedure to correct aseptic necrosis of both femurs. At formal hearing, Respondent stated that this patient first presented in a wheel chair and returned frequently, due to chronic pain and was already on Demerol when first seen by Respondent. The chronic pain was not always repeatedly recorded in Respondent's records. Both of Petitioner's experts concede that prescriptions of Percodan would be consistent if that were all that were relieving the pain when the patient presented to Respondent, and Dr. Cohen opined that Percodan and Talwin were possibly consistent with aseptic necrosis of a femur. Respondent had admitted (R-1), a hospital summary of subsequent surgery (conversion of left total hip arthoplasty to girdlestone on 8/19/83) at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Gainesville. This exhibit of subsequent surgery corroborates the previous 1979 history taken by Respondent which indicated that medications on discharge from the VA Hospital included Demerol 50 mg. po q 4h prn for pain. In light of no evidence of patient addiction and no evidence of poor response by this patient to Respondent's prescribing and treatment, the opinions of Dr. Breland and Dr. Cohen that Respondent's prescribing was excessive and necessarily addictive and therefore was unjustified are rejected, however the undersigned accepts their mutual opinions that the Respondent's records by themselves without the subsequent corroboration of the VA Hospital report do not justify the treatment Respondent administered to Dan G. Respondent admits R-1 was not relied on in treating this patient. C. R. (Counts X; XI; XV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, C.R., between July 3, 1978, and April 22, 1983: 2/ DATE APPROXIMATE CONTROLLED QUANTITY SUBSTANCES 07/03/78 Percodan 07/03/78 Percodan Compound 07/20/78 30 Percodan 08/14/78 30 Percodan 11/01/78 30 Percodan 12/05/79 Desoxyn 12/05/79 Percodan 01/02/79 Desoxyn 02/05/79 Percodan 02/12/79 18 Percodan 03/28/79 Percodan 04/16/79 Percodan 05/03/79 Percodan 05/17/79 Percodan 05/17/79 Darvon Compound 05/17/79 Percodan 05/17/79 Darvon Compound 06/14/79 6 Percodan 06/14/79 24 Desoxyn 09/18/79 Desoxyn 10/04/79 Percodan 11/10/79 Preludin 01/28/80 P 06/12/80 Preludin (75 mg.) 09/18/80 Preludin (75 mg.) 11/17/80 Percodan 01/27/81 Darvon Compound 04/27/81 Percodan 07/28/81 Percodan 08/31/81 24 Percodan 09/21/81 24 Percodan 12/16/81 Percodan 01/06/82 Percodan 01/29/82 Percodan 03/02/82 Percodan Demi 03/02/82 03/28/82 Percodan 04/20/82 Percodan 05/13/82 06/04/82 Percodan Demi 07/03/82 Percodan Demi 08/03/82 36 Percodan Demi 08/28/82 Percodan 08/28/82 Valium 12/20/82 24 Percocet 5 12/20/82 30 Valium (10mg) 01/15/83 6 Tylenol #6 01/22/83 Percodan Preludin and Desoxyn are amphetamine drugs. Desoxyn was legitimately prescribed for weight control in 1978. Respondent's prescription of both drugs was ostensibly to modify the amount of weight supported by the patient's leg bones. Dr. Breland is not sure whether both drugs were reclassified for control in 1979 or not but this is an issue of law resolved in "Conclusions of Law" supra. Despite Dr. Breland's testimony that if he did not have to base his opinion on the Respondent's inadequate recorded history and findings, he would term the prescribing of Percodan and Roboxin as recorded to be borderline acceptable, the undersigned accepts his and Dr. Cohen's mutual opinion that the frequent prescriptions of Percodan, Percodan- demi or Percocet (narcotic analgesics) for the Respondent's recorded diagnosis of arthritis and right leg pain resulting from previous right thigh surgery are unjustified by the records. Their respective opinions that this pattern of prescribing was excessive and unjustified in light of the potentially addictive nature of these drugs is also accepted. B. W. (Counts XII; XIII; IV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, B.W. between June 7, 1979, and January 29, 1983. 3/ DATE APPROXIMATE QUANTITY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 10/01/79 Valium 10/15/79 Tylenol #3 06/19/80 Tylenol #3 06/08/81 Ritalin (20mg) 08/11/81 Valium 08/15/81 Valium 09/15/81 Talwin 11/14/81 Talwin 12/07/81 24 Ritalin (20 mg) 12/20/81 Talwin 01/23/82 Talwin 02/12/82 Percodan Demi 02/27/82 Tylenol #4 03/04/82 Ritalin 03/18/82 Percodan Demi 04/02/82 30 Talwin 07/03/82 24 Ritalin 08/28/82 30 Ritalin 09/22/82 24 Percodan 10/14/82 Talwin (50mg) 12/21/82 24 Percodan 01/29/83 Tylox Ritalin is a sympathomimetric amine drug, which may only be properly prescribed in certain types of cases more specifically set out in the following "Conclusions of Law." Respondent's diagnosis, that this patient had chronic anxiety and back pain, is reflected in his written records. This is essentially the only recorded history on this patient. Respondent did not record a diagnosis of narcolepsy. Respondent did, however, introduce R-2, a consultation report to a Dr. Yankovich dated 1/5/82 from a Dr. Elzawahry which states the impression: "narcolepsy; low back syndrome. . . maintain on Ritalin 10 mg. po tid." Respondent testified that he had received similar information concerning the narcolepsy and psychiatric disturbance earlier than 1/5/82 first by telephone and then by written reports thereon from consulting neurologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists, and that through inadvertence this document was not turned over to Petitioner's investigator. However, Respondent did not explain why his files did not contain these other consultants' reports or why he did not write-up their contents or the dates they were received by him or why his prescriptions of 20 mg were so much greater than those recommended by Dr. Elzawahry. Dr. Breland felt that if Respondent were aware when he first prescribed Ritalin to this patient that the consultant had recommended it because of a good response, then Respondent's Ritalin prescriptions would be justified. It was also noted by Dr. Breland that Ritalin once was believed by the medical profession to be appropriately prescribed in the treatment of depression but that method had ceased and was statutorily proscribed by the time periods in question. Dr. Breland's expert opinion on prior belief of the medical profession is accepted. His conclusions of law invade the province of the hearing officer and are rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in the "Conclusions of Law." Dr. Breland did not feel under the circumstances that the Ritalin was contraindicated. Accordingly, Dr. Cohen's testimony that Ritalin is very dangerous if prescribed for chronic anxiety and depression is hereby discounted in that unlike Dr. Breland, he did not have the benefit of R-2 when testifying by earlier deposition. Dr. Cohen felt Valium was useful for chronic anxiety and that Tylenol #3 and Talwin were useful for pain but that there were excessive prescriptions of these drugs with few or no notations indicating any pain. In most instances all that is noted in Respondent's records on this patient is a prescription listed beside the date. Dr. Breland remarked that even the forms used by Respondent did not include a space for physical findings. J. M. (Counts XIV; XV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, J. M., between October 25, 1980, and March 9, 1982: 4/ DATE APPROXIMATE QUANTITY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 10/25/80 Percodan 01/05/81 Percodan 05/19/81 Emprin #4 06/03/81 Emprin #4 07/29/81 18 Percodan 09/25/81 12 Percodan 09/25/81 18 Tylenol #3 11/07/81 24 Tylox 11/21/81 Percodan 12/17/81 Percodan 01/02/82 Percodan 02/22/82 Percodan 03/09/82 Percodan The records of history and findings on this patient are reasonably complete and were faulted by Dr. Breland mostly because without appropriate dates one cannot tell if the history was taken on the initial visit as it should have been or later, and because the dates given are frequently out of order. In Dr. Breland's opinion, some of the modes of therapy utilized by Respondent were not of his choice but Dr. Breland only seriously objected to Respondent's continued and excessive use of Percodan as unsafe. Dr. Cohen's opinion was that the Respondent's conduct constituted mal- prescribing over malpractice. Dr. Breland's opinion was that Respondent's overall conduct with regard to these eleven patients constituted malpractice in that it was the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment of a reasonably prudent similar physician, under similar circumstances. Dr. Breland has had the benefit of reviewing all of Respondent's exhibits and he practices in the same geographical locale as Respondent. His opinion in this regard is accepted as to the overall pattern of practice with these eleven patients, despite his previous opinions that specific cases might not evidence malpractice.
