The Issue Whether Respondent, a medical doctor, practiced beyond the scope of his temporary certification and/or failed to notify the Board of Medicine of changes in employment, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be taken against Respondent's temporary license, which authorizes him to practice only in areas of critical need.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent held a temporary conditional certification to practice as a medical doctor in an area of critical need ("ACN") within the state of Florida, having been issued license number ACN 313. Petitioner has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, Petitioner alleges that Respondent committed three such offenses. In the three-count Complaint, Petitioner charges that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes, "by failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician"; section 458.331(1)(v) by "practicing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities which the licensee knows or has reason to know that he is not competent to perform"; and section 458.331(1)(m) by "violating any provision of Chapter 458 or Chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto." Respondent is certified to practice medicine pursuant to a Rear Admiral Leroy Collins, Jr., Temporary Certification to practice medicine only in ACNs that have been approved pursuant to section 458.315(3), Florida Statutes. A doctor certified to practice in an ACN receives a temporary certificate from the Board of Medicine pursuant to section 458.315, Florida Statutes. The certificate is temporary and conditional. Section 458.315(3) requires that an ACN certified physician practice in an ACN; a county health department; correctional facility; Department of Veterans Affairs clinic; community health center funded by section 329, section 330, or section 340 of the United States Public Health Services Act; or other agency or institution that is approved by the State Surgeon General and provides health care to meet the needs of underserved populations in this state; or for a limited time to address critical physician-specialty, demographic, or geographic needs for this state's physician workforce as determined by the State Surgeon General. Once issued, the certified ACN physician can practice in any Surgeon General approved area of critical need facility; however, within 30 days of accepting employment, the ACN physician must notify the Board of Health of all approved institutions in which the licensee practices and of all approved institutions where practice privileges have been denied. On or about September 24, 2008, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for temporary certificate to practice in an ACN. Respondent was notified via correspondence dated June 11, 2009, that his application was approved, and that he had been issued license number ACN 313. The June 11, 2009, correspondence summarily advised Respondent of the following conditions and limitations on his license: Your license limits your practice to Project Access Foundation Medical Clinics, 8000 Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33188. Practicing with that limitation is a very important statutory and legal requirement. Notifying this office of your current specific practice location is equally important. Your license will expire on 1/31/2010. From June 11, 2009 through January 26, 2010, Respondent did not notify Petitioner that he had accepted employment at any medical facility. On or about January 26, 2010, Petitioner processed Respondent's ACN renewal application. In the "Financial Responsibility Form" included within the renewal application, Respondent checked the box that provides, "I do not practice medicine in the State of Florida." Nearby, Respondent wrote, "In this moment." Respondent's ACN license was renewed on or about January 29, 2010, and was valid through January 31, 2012. On or about November 17, 2010, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("ACHA") was notified that Respondent was acquiring 100 percent of the shares of stock for Global Rehabilitation Center, Inc. ("Global"). The undisputed evidence establishes that Respondent practiced medicine at Global. Respondent did not disclose this practice location to Petitioner until September 2012, during the course of an investigation. At that time, Respondent divulged that he had worked at Global for approximately two years. It is further undisputed that, at the time Respondent acquired Global, and all material times subsequent, Global was not an ACN approved facility. Respondent never applied to have Global placed on the ACN approved facility list. Respondent practiced medicine at another facility, Policlinico Pastorita, Inc. ("Policlinico"), from August 2009 to the present. Respondent first notified Petitioner of this practice location on or about January 10, 2012, as part of his renewal package. Policlinico did not become an approved ACN facility until October 8, 2012. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent also practiced medicine at Injury Rehabilitation Center, Inc.2/ Said facility was never an approved ACN facility. Respondent did not notify Petitioner of this practice location until September 2012, during the course of an investigation. On May 18, 2011, Archy's Diagnostic Center was approved as an ACN facility. On or about January 23, 2012, Respondent, as part of his license renewal process, advised Petitioner that his current practice location was Archy's Diagnostic Center. Respondent, in his PRO, makes the following concessions: (1) that he failed to notify the Board of Medicine within 30 days of accepting employment at either an ACN approved or non-approved facility; (2) that he failed to use his ACN temporary certificate to work exclusively at ACN-approved facilities; and (3) that he did not comply with sections 458.315(4)(a), 458.331(1)(g), and 458.331(1)(v). Respondent, in mitigation, contends that he never attempted to evade the reporting requirements. Respondent testified that he initially believed Policlinco was an ACN approved facility because of the demographics of the practice and because the owner advised him that he could practice medicine at that facility. On this point, Respondent further testified as follows: "[B]ut I ignored, I didn't know that I had to report myself to Tallahassee to the health department but later on I learned that I had to do that." Concerning Global, Respondent testified that apparently he just forgot about the requirements of ACN approval or never thought of the requirements. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony that he was unaware of the reporting requirements of his ACN license is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 458.331(1)(g), (v), and (nn); and imposing the following penalties: a two-year suspension, a $1,000.00 administrative fine, and a one-hour lecture on the reporting requirements of a temporary certificate for practice in areas of critical need. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2014.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent dated June 10, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the parties to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Agency's Notice of Intent to Deem Application Incomplete and Withdrawn from Further Review is rescinded. The Petitioner's request for formal administrative proceedings is 1 Filed July 10, 2009 2:23 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. withdrawn. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this ff_ da of c/a.-J,/ in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. , 2009, Secretary alth Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED B THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE NSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE A ENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTER OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE N TICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE RDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Admin. 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Th mas M. Hoeler, Esquire Ag ncy for Health Care Admin. 27 7 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, MS # 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Karen Rivera, Manager Laboratory Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration James P. Early Apex Laboratory 170 Finn Court Farmingdale, NY 117035 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #32 Tallahassee Florida 32308 (U.S. Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE )3/ , I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this of :C 2009. c Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR June 10, 2009 FLORIOb.N38Cf FOR HEIILTH CARE AOMINISlRAllON JJu1CA Better Health Cara for all Floridians HOLLY BENSON SECRETARY RECl IL /RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ANTHONY T GAROFALO G \\, :•..,. ,,, .ouNSEL APEX LABORATORY INC 170FINNCT FARMINGDALE, NY 11735 JUN 16 2009 Ag(lm<oY 1 or Health care Administration LICENSE NUMBER: 800022307 CASE #: 2009006594 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEEM APPLICATION INCOMPLETE AND WITHDRAWN FROM FURTHER REVIEW Your application for license is deemed incomplete and withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes, which states that "Requested infonnation omitted from an application for licensure, license renewal, or change of ownership, other than an inspection, must be filed with the agency within 21 days after the agency's request for omitted information or the application shall be deemed incomplete and shall be withdrawn from further consideration and the fees shall be forfeited''. You were notified by correspondence dated March 23, 2009 to provide further info1mation addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty-one days from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 06, 2009. As this requested information was not timely received by the Agency, your application is deemed incomplete and withdrawn from further consideration. The outstanding issues remaining for licensure are: Failure to submit corrections upon request for RENEWAL application: On Page 5 of9 of the Renewal application form 3170-2004, the Owner Name and Federnl Tax ID number do not match current files. Test menu lists panels, not individual tests. Section 2A of the Health Care Licensing Application does not match section 2A of the Health Care Licensing Application Addendum. Affidavit of Compliance with Background Screening Requirements form 3100-0008 for the Laboratory Director. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must confonn to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Certified Article Number 7160 3901 11848 3738 2137 I . SENDERS RECORD · 2727 Mahan Drlve,MS#32 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA onllne at http://ahca. myflorida. co EXHIBIT i l Apex Laboratory Inc Page2 June 10, 2009 Karen Rivera, Manager Laboratory Licensure Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 O:JtJ:IL.l.tJ.L:..10 F,om 8 09210158 Page. 2/8 Dace 6126'20094 2U5PM l"'F-IIOC:.. (.I.I,.; tJ j STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access To Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner seeks to recover his attorney's fees and costs incurred when defending an action brought against him by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine. The issue for determination is whether Respondent, the state agency charged with regulation of the professional conduct of physicians in the State of Florida, was substantially justified with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Petitioner, a licensed physician, in DOAH Case No. 90-4205, DPR Case No. 89-05921, and whether, in the absence of such substantial justification, Petitioner is entitled to the award of the amount of attorney's fees and costs sought, or if there exists special circumstances which would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a state agency which initiated a proceeding with the filing of an Administrative Complaint against Ronald F. David, M.D. As stipulated, Petitioner's Attorney's Fees and Costs are not unreasonable. Petitioner was the prevailing small business party in the underlying case, Department of Professional Regulation v. Ronald F. David, M.D., DOAH Case No. 90-04205, DPR Case No. 89-05921, when the case against Dr. David was dismissed on January 25, 1991. As stipulated, there are no known circumstances which would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust. The one remaining issue of fact to be determined is whether sufficient evidence was presented to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine to support a finding of probable cause against the Petitioner, and whether the Panel properly considered that evidence. S. A. was a premature infant who had a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). Petitioner, a pediatric surgeon with credentials to do general surgery, pediatric surgery, and chest surgery, was consulted by S. A.'s pediatrician. Petitioner, in turn, consulted Dr. Johnston, a thoracic cardiovascular surgeon, concerning surgery to close S. A.'s PDA. Dr. Johnston performed the surgery with Petitioner as assistant surgeon on May 31, 1986, at the Orlando Regional Medical Center. Petitioner had assisted in numerous such surgical procedures in the past but did not hold himself out as competent to perform them on his own. At surgery the left pulmonary artery was mistakenly ligated instead of the PDA. S. A.'s condition deteriorated and tests indicated the probable mistaken ligation. The baby was transferred to Shands Hospital where she died before a second operation could be performed. Autopsy revealed the mistaken ligation and the pathologist implicated the compromised cardiopulmonary system as a cause of death. No anatomical anomalies of the vessels were noted at autopsy. On the basis of a closed claim report to the Department of Professional Regulation, the circumstances surrounding the death of S. A. were reviewed by a physician employed by the Department's Division of Medical Quality Assurance. Petitioner was informed of this review on January 13, 1989. Review of the medical records resulted in cases being opened against three of the seven physicians who participated in the care of S. A. Petitioner was notified of the case by certified mail on August 1, 1989. Petitioner was interviewed on August 10, 1989. Dr. Johnston was interviewed by the same investigator on August 25, 1989. According to the investigator's notes, Petitioner stated that Dr. Johnston did not consult him during the surgery, that the anatomy did not appear to be the same as in prior cases, but that he did not question Dr. Johnston's decision as to which vessel to ligate. Dr. Johnston stated that he asked Petitioner to examine the anatomy when he (Johnston) had located what he thought was the ductus, and that Petitioner obliged by examining the operation field, but did not object to the procedure. The medical records of S. A. were obtained by subpoena from the Orlando Regional Medical Center. On February 5, 1990, both Petitioner's and Dr. Johnston's investigative files were sent to Dr. William Price, a thoracic and vascular surgeon, for his review. The letter requesting his opinion clearly separates the actions of Petitioner and Dr. Johnston to be considered. On February 21, 1990, Dr. Price's analysis stated, "The assistant, Dr. Ronald David, should have been accomplished enough to recognize the proper anatomy, but the ultimated [sic] responsibility was not his." (Respondent's exhibit 2, 3) The cases, Department of Professional Regulation v. Ronald F. David, M.D., DPR Case No. 89-05921, and Department of Professional Regulation v. Alan Johnston, M.D., DPR Case No. 89-05922, were prepared for the Probable Cause Panel meeting scheduled for May 11, 1990. Materials were sent to the three Panel members and their counsel at least one week in advance of the meeting. Materials sent to the panel included the complete investigative case file, including any exhibits, and a recommendation from the Department. Present at the meeting of the Panel on May 11, 1990 were: Dr. Robert Katims, Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Marilyn Wells and Mr. Gilbert Rodriguez, members of the Panel; Ms. Catherine Lannon, Assistant Attorney General and counsel to the Panel; Mr. Carlos Ramos and Ms. Stephanie Daniel, attorneys from the Department of Professional Regulation, and Mr. Brian Lynch, Administrative Assistant at the Department, whose duty it was to prepare and distribute materials for the Panel's consideration. Ms. Lannon instructed the Panel members to direct any questions concerning their legal duties and interpretation of laws or rules to her. She cautioned the Panel members that any factual questions concerning the investigation or why a certain recommendation was made were to be directed to the Departmental attorneys. She asked if the members had sufficient time to review all the materials sent to them; each member replied in the affirmative. And she cautioned the members that it must be clearly stated or implied from the record that the members are making independent judgments on the cases and that they are discussing the correct case. The Panel first considered Dr. Johnston's case. The Department recommended that an Administrative Complaint be filed alleging that Dr. Johnston practiced below the standard of care in that, "[He] inadvertently ligated the left pulmonary artery instead of the patient ductus arteriosus, by relying on the anesthesiologist's observation that the murmur had disappeared and the surgical assistant's failure to object or recognize the proper anatomy." (Respondent's exhibit 1, page 4-5) The Panel was informed that Petitioner's companion case was on the agenda. The Panel at this time discussed Petitioner at some length, including Petitioner's role as the referring physician, that Petitioner assisted at the surgery, that Petitioner was not a chest but a pediatric surgeon, and that Dr. Johnston and Petitioner disagreed as what was said and done by whom at the operation. Dr. Wells acknowledged that the surgeon in charge in the "captain of the ship"; the Chairman, Dr. Katims, in response to a question from Ms. Lannon, denied that the assistant surgeon is exonerated from all responsibility. Thereupon Probable Cause was found in Dr. Johnston's case and the Panel voted to file an Administrative Complaint. (Respondent's exhibit 1, page 7-8) The Panel later in the meeting considered Petitioner's case. The Department had recommended that Probable Cause be found and a letter of guidance be issued. Mr. Ramos presented the basic facts to the Panel. Both physicians on the Panel immediately disagreed with the Department's recommendation and requested an Administrative Complaint to be filed against Petitioner. The Panel affirmed its two main concerns: that Petitioner referred the patient to Dr. Johnston, and that at surgery Dr. Johnston said he specifically asked the Petitioner to review his ligation. (Petitioner's exhibit 4, page 6-7) Consideration of the transcripts of both Dr. Johnston's and Petitioner's cases reveals that there was considerable discussion and awareness by the panel of the specifics of S. A.'s case, that they were quite sensitive to the fact that Petitioner was the assistant surgeon and that he denied he was asked to verify the procedure. The vote was unanimous that Probable Cause be found and that an Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner. The Administrative Complaint was duly filed on May 22, 1990, alleging Petitioner fell below the standard of care by failing to object to any part of the procedure performed by Dr. Johnston and by failing to point out the proper anatomy for ligation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In a subsequent meeting of the Probable Cause Panel, the Department presented it's recommendation that Petitioner's case be closed without prosecution based on a second expert's opinion that " . . . ligation of the wrong vessel was a known but although unfortunate complication of this procedure but not necessarily below the standard of care . . . " (Petitioner's Exhibit 12, 1). This recommendation was eventually accepted. The ultimate dismissal of the complaint does not negate the fact that at the time that probable cause was found, the panel had sufficient and competent information upon which it made its decision. It had conflicting statements by the two physicians; it had an expert's opinion; and it had extensive medical reports. It was not required to seek out sufficient evidence to assure success in a formal hearing on the complaint.
