The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner, by means of a one-count Administrative Complaint, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of his alleged violation of Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lionel Resnick, M.D., is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. He has been so licensed at all times material to this case. His license number is ME 0037412. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was the Director of the retrovirology laboratory at Mount Sinai Medical Center. The minimum qualifications for that position required that the Director possess either an M.D. degree or a Ph.D. degree. The Respondent's responsibilities as Director of the retrovirology laboratory were to direct research efforts, to obtain funding for research, serve as principal investigator on research projects, manage personnel, supervise science projects, and organize, analyze, and report scientific findings resulting from research efforts. The Respondent held this position as an employee for the annual salary of $30,000. Mount Sinai Medical Center provided the laboratory site, the laboratory equipment, and the laboratory staff for the retrovirology laboratory. Mount Sinai Medical Center retrovirology laboratory had a contract with the University of Miami Hospital in which Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory provided the service of testing patient samples for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ("AIDS") related research protocols. The University of Miami Hospital paid Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory for this service. All Children's Medical Center had a contract, similar to that of the University of Miami Hospital, with Mount Sinai retrovirology lab to conduct testing of patient samples for AIDS-related research. All Children's Medical Center paid Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory for the testing. In or about July of 1989, while Director of Mount Sinai's retrovirology laboratory, the Respondent incorporated Vironc, Inc., using the Respondent's residential address as the corporate address. Vironc, Inc., was not a laboratory, it was a dummy corporation with no facilities or employees. Without the knowledge of Mount Sinai Medical Center, the Respondent notified All Children's Hospital and University of Miami Hospital that the services provided by Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory, i.e., the testing of patient samples for AIDS research, would be conducted at Vironc, Inc., instead of Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory. Contrary to the Respondent's representations, the specimens sent by the University of Miami Hospital and All Children's Medical Center continued to be tested at Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory using the facilities and employees of the Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory. None of the specimens were tested by Vironc, Inc. The Respondent sent invoices to All Children's Medical Center and to the University of Miami Hospital instructing them to send payments for these services directly to Vironc at the Respondent's address and in care of the Respondent. Using this mail fraud scheme, the Respondent diverted funds owed to Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory in excess of $570,000 for his own personal use. These funds were intended as payment for the services of testing patient samples for AIDS research, which testing was done at the Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory. On or about August 21, 1996, the Respondent was indicted for forty-nine counts of mail fraud and for two counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1342. On February 22, 1999, the Respondent pled guilty to eighteen counts of mail fraud. Specifically, the Respondent pled guilty to diverting more than $570,000 in funds tendered as payment for services provided by Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory beginning in or about July 1989 and continuing through in or about September 1994. The purpose of the retrovirology laboratory at Mount Sinai Medical Center was to conduct research which would assist in the treatment of patients with AIDS. Specifically, the laboratory conducted research regarding compounds that would inhibit or stop the AIDS virus as part of the development of drugs that might be useful in the treatment of AIDS. During his tenure with the Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory, the Respondent also proposed clinical research protocols requiring approval through a hospital Institutional Review Board to insure that patient rights were protected in the medical research being conducted. The Mount Sinai retrovirology laboratory also provided the service of testing patient samples for the University of Miami Hospital and All Children's Hospital. For example, the retrovirology laboratory tested patient blood samples to determine whether cell counts were being maintained and to determine the presence of virus fighters, factors in determining proper methods of treatment. The physicians at the University of Miami Hospital and at the All Children's Hospital sent patient blood samples for testing at the Mount Sinai retrovirology lab in order to obtain test results that could be used for the purpose of making treatment decisions regarding the patients from whom the samples were taken. Characteristics important to a physician's ability to practice medicine include reliability, honesty, and good moral character. Absent these qualities, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a person to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities entrusted to those who are licensed as physicians. The Respondent's pattern of conduct by means of which he converted to himself at least $570,000 that belonged to his employer, demonstrates that he is not reliable, is not honest, and that he lacks good moral character.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license to practice medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2000.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated sections 458.331(1)(t), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2004), and section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes (2010), and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes (2010). At all material times to the Administrative Complaints, Dr. Rubinstein was licensed as a medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME37720. He is an otorhinolaryngologist, meaning he is a specialist in ears, nose and throat, and facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. He also treats allergies. On November 7, 2003, Dr. Rubinstein and the Department entered into a Consent Agreement, related to the following Administrative Complaints filed against Dr. Rubinstein: Case No. 2001-07091, Case No. 1999-5773, and Case No. 2000-02195. Based on the Consent Agreement, a Final Order, DOH-04-0020-S-MQ, was filed by the Board on January 7, 2004, imposing a fine of $25,000; imposing 60 hours of community service; requiring Dr. Rubinstein to submit to a two-day evaluation at the Institute for Physician Education (IPE); requiring Dr. Rubinstein to comply with the recommendations resulting from the evaluation at IPE; and placing Dr. Rubinstein on probation for five years. On August 6, 1993, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DPR) and Dr. Rubinstein entered into a Consent Agreement to resolve DPR Case Nos. 90-06221, 91-06043, 91-08800, 91-12051, 92-00308, 92-11650, 92-11763. The Consent Agreement provided a stipulated disposition of a $10,000 fine and probation for five years. The Consent Agreement was adopted by a Final Order of the Board filed August 23, 2009. On May 11, 1993, DPR and Dr. Rubinstein entered into a Consent Agreement relating to DPR Case No. 92-13503. The Consent Agreement provided a stipulated disposition of a $5,000 fine, a reprimand, and requirement that Dr. Rubinstein review section 458.331, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 21M. The Consent Agreement was adopted as a Final Order by the Board on June 8, 1993. On August 24, 1992, the Board entered a Final Order in DPR Case Nos. 0081610, 8906844, 8903225, 109405, and 8907280 finding Dr. Rubinstein guilty of violations of subsections 458.331(1)(d), (k), (m), (n), (t), and (x), Florida Statutes; imposing a $15,000 fine; reprimanding Dr. Rubinstein; prohibiting Dr. Rubinstein from initiating contact with patients or their families for the purpose of persuading them to agree to his treatment recommendations; and placing Dr. Rubinstein on probation for one year. On June 8, 2005, a Determination and Order was entered by the State of New York, Department of Health, State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, BPMC No. 05-115, revoking Dr. Rubinstein's license to practice medicine in New York, based on the disciplinary actions by the Board in the Final Order in Case DOH-04-0020-S-MQ. Facts Relating to DOAH Case No. 09-5267PL At all times material to this Administrative Complaint, Dr. Rubinstein did not hold hospital staff privileges for any hospital in the Sarasota, Florida, area. On January 11, 2005, J.D. presented to Dr. Rubinstein's office, seeking the following medical procedures: a breast lift or augmentation; possible liposuction on her hips; and a tummy tuck. J.D. completed a form during the office visit. Dr. Rubinstein recommended that J.D. have a breast augmentation; liposuction of hips, outer and inner thighs, and knees; and an abdominoplasty (tummy tuck). During the January 11, 2005, visit, Dr. Rubinstein told J.D. that he could help her with the dark circles under her eyes with some allergy testing. J.D. had not gone to Dr. Rubinstein for diagnosis, help, or treatment for any other conditions other than her request for cosmetic surgery. On January 11, 2005, J.D. was provided with a cost estimate for the surgical procedures of $29,550. These costs included a tummy tuck at $8,900; liposuction of the abdomen at $3,800; liposuction of the hips at $2,800; liposuction of the waist at $2,400; liposuction of the lateral thighs at $3,400; liposuction of the medial thighs at $1,800; liposuction of the knees at $800; operating room for $300 per hour for a total of $2,700; anesthesia at $300 per hour for a total of $2,700; and lab work for $250. The cost estimate did not include the breast augmentation. The surgical cost estimate stated: "It is estimated that your operating and recovery time will be 9 hours." J.D. took the cost estimate and discussed them with her husband, who felt that the costs were too much. J.D. called Dr. Rubinstein's office and advised that the cost was too high, and she could not have the surgeries for that price. Dr. Rubinstein revised his surgical cost estimate as follows: abdominoplasty $8,900; breast augmentation $4,200; implants $1,400; liposuction of the abdomen $0; liposuction of the hips $2,800; liposuction of the waist $0; liposuction of the lateral thighs $3,400; liposuction of the medial thighs $0; operating room at $300 per hour for a total of $2,700; anesthesia at $300 per hour for a total of $2,700; and pre-op lab work $250. There was no mention of liposuction of the knees in the revised cost estimate. The revised cost estimate stated: "It is estimated that your operating and recovery time will be 9 hours." The revised cost estimate was signed by J.D. on January 14, 2005. Both the original and revised cost estimates contained the following: "The Anesthesia and operating room charges are based on operating and recovery time. Consequently, if a surgical procedure turns out to be more or less lengthy than was expected, both fees will be correspondingly increased or decreased." J.D. went to Dr. Rubinstein's office on January 14, 2005, for a pre-operative visit. A history was taken, and a physical examination was done. Frank Steig, M.D. (Dr. Steig), who is board certified in otolaryngology, head and neck surgery, and plastic and reconstructive surgery, testified as an expert on behalf of the Department. He was of the opinion that the history and physical met the basic criteria. His opinion was based on a review of the medical records. Some of the forms used by Dr. Rubinstein in recording the information concerning J.D. were forms that are more suitable for an otolaryngology physician's use. However, no evidence was presented that the information listed on the forms did not meet the basic criteria for medical records or that the use of a certain form fell below the standard of care. Although J.D. was seeing Dr. Rubinstein for cosmetic surgery, she was asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning allergies. On or about January 14, 2005, Dr. Rubinstein gave Patient, J.D., a cost estimate for allergy testing totaling $3,565.00. On or about January 14, 2005, Dr. Rubinstein directed J.D. to go to Lab Corp for pre-operative testing, which included a CBC with Differential/Platelet, Complete Metabolic Panel, Urinalysis, Prothrombin Time, and Partial Thromboplastin Time. On or about January 19, 2005, J.D. presented to Dr. Rubinstein for the decided cosmetic procedures. Based on Dr. Rubinstein's operative report, he performed the following procedures on J.D. on January 19, 2005: abdominoplasty; liposuction of lower lateral abdomen, hips, waist, lateral thighs, medial thighs, and knees; and augmentation of breasts. Based on the surgical and anesthesia notes, the anesthesia began at 9:15 a.m. and ended at 11:55 p.m. There was some difficulty in finding a vein on J.D. that would be suitable to deliver the anesthesia. Eventually the anesthesia was administered through the jugular vein. Surgery was begun at 11:45 a.m. and was completed at 11:20 p.m. The breast augmentation took three hours and 35 minutes. The liposuction took one hour and 55 minutes. The abdominoplasty took six hours and five minutes. At the final hearing, Dr. Rubinstein testified that he would have predicted that the breast augmentation would have taken approximately two to two-and-a-half hours. He would have estimated that the liposuction would have taken one hour and 55 minutes. He would have estimated that the abdominoplasty would have taken three to four hours. Given these estimates, the planned surgery time at a maximum would have been eight hours and 25 minutes. Dr. Rubinstein's testimony contradicts his estimate of the surgical time as reflected on the surgical cost estimates, which were done prior to the surgery. The first cost estimate did not include the breast augmentation; therefore, the planned surgery for liposuction and the abdominoplasty was eight hours as reflected on the cost estimate. In the revised cost estimate, he added the breast augmentation, which he estimated to be between two and two-and-one-half hours. Thus, the planned time for the three surgical procedures would have been between ten and ten-and-one-half hours. No explanation was given by Dr. Rubinstein why there was no adjustment between the planned time for surgery as reflected in the cost estimates. On or about January 19, 2005, J.D. was taken to the recovery room at 11:55 p.m. and released to return home at 1:00 a.m. on January 20, 2005. Based on the anesthesiologist's assessment, J.D. met the discharge criteria of Dr. Rubinstein's surgical facility, which was accredited as a Level III surgical facility. J.D.'s husband, Mr. J.D., was called to Dr. Rubinstein's office to take J.D. home. He testified that after he arrived at the facility, he was told that there would be an additional fee of $4,900; however, he stated that the discharge of J.D. was not conditioned on the payment of the additional fee. The evidence is conflicting concerning when Mr. J.D. actually paid the additional $4,900 by credit card. Mr. J.D. testified that he paid by credit at the time of J.D.'s discharge on January 20, 2005. The computer credit card receipt, which was signed by Mr. J.D., shows that the payment by credit card was made at 1:01 p.m. on January 20, 2005. The evidence shows that the credit card payment was made in the afternoon of January 20, 2005. Dr. Rubinstein's operative report did not include the amount of tissue that was removed during the abdominoplasty or the tightening of J.D.'s abdominal wall. Dr. Steig, the Department's expert, did not testify that the standard of care required that such information be included in the operative report. He said that generally such information is included. Douglas Dedo, M.D. (Dr. Dedo), expert witness for Dr. Rubinstein, opined that the standard of care did not require Dr. Rubinstein to document the amount of tissue removed during the abdominoplasty or to document the tightening of the abdominal wall. Dr. Dedo's testimony is credited. Dr. Rubinstein belongs to the International Trade Exchange (ITEX), which is a corporation that serves as a network for businesses to do business with each other using an alternative currency system called trade dollars. In other words, businesses can barter with one another. Dr. Rubinstein suggested to J.D. that she might want to become a member of ITEX, and it could be a way of paying for procedures. J.D. and her husband own a tour guide service. One of Dr. Rubinstein's employees, Judy Trapani (Ms. Trapani), was interested in bartering a trip to Italy for procedures performed by Dr. Rubinstein. Based on the testimony of Mr. J.D., it appears that conversations concerning bartering a trip to Italy for surgical procedures occurred between Ms. Trapani and Mr. J.D. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Dr. Rubinstein was trying to barter the surgical procedures for a trip for Ms. Trapani. Facts Relating to DOAH Case No. 09-5269PL On March 22, 2005, B.L. first presented to Dr. Rubinstein, accompanied by her mother, C.L., for complaints of severe acne. C.L. filled out a general patient questionnaire and was also asked to fill out a form concerning allergies. It is not clear why a form relating to allergies would need to be completed prior to the initial examination when B.L. was being seen for severe acne. On the general questionnaire, C.L. indicated that B.L. had had asthma or other respiratory problems, chronic bronchitis, and ear infections. The allergy questionnaire was to determine the cause of the patient's allergy symptoms. However, B.L. was not seeing Dr. Rubinstein for allergy symptoms, and C.L., understandably, thought that the allergy questionnaire related to past symptoms. On the allergy questionnaire, C.L. indicated that B.L. had had trouble with her skin; hives; trouble with ears popping and itching, hearing loss; frequent sore throats with drainage; itching eyes; thick/colored discharge from her nose; sniffles, and sneezing. Other than trouble with her skin, B.L. did not have any of these symptoms when she presented to Dr. Rubinstein. On examination, Dr. Rubinstein noted that B.L.'s turbinates were engorged and pale and that she had hypoplastic lymphoid tissue. Dr. Rubinstein diagnosed B.L. with cystic acne. Cystic acne occurs when an obstruction of the hair follicle inflames the sebaceous gland and the inflammation rises to the surface. Allergies do not cause cystic acne. However, Dr. Rubinstein told C.L. and B.L. that food allergies could affect the inflammatory component of B.L.'s cystic acne. On one of the questionnaires, C.L. had indicated that B.L. had problems with sugars and carbohydrates. From this information, Dr. Rubinstein deduced that B.L. must have a problem with yeast and put her on a yeast-free diet. It is not understood why B.L. was put on a diet eliminating yeast, since sugar and carbohydrates also occur in foods other than foods containing yeast. Dr. Rubinstein put B.L. on a yeast-free diet before any testing was done to determine whether she had an allergy to yeast. Dr. Rubinstein also recommended blue-light therapy for the inflammation. He recommended allergy testing and the Obagi Nu-Derm System (Obagi) products. The Obagi program consists of topical products that are applied to the problem area. A prescription is required for the Obagi products. He prescribed an antibiotic, Minocycline. He also prescribed Nystatin for B.L. During the initial office visit on or about March 22, 2005, Dr. Rubinstein administered 1000mg of Erythromycin to B.L. by mouth prior to performing a deep pore facial cleansing on her. B.L. was also given a facial mask. B.L. suffered severe stomach pains and diarrhea from the Erythromycin. C.L. called Dr. Rubinstein and told him about the stomach problems, and he told C.L. that was a normal reaction. On or about March 28, 2005, B.L. and C.L. presented to Dr. Rubinstein for a follow-up appointment. Dr. Rubinstein documented in the medical records that B.L.'s complexion appeared improved. He continued B.L. on Nystatin and Minocycline. Dr. Rubinstein continued to recommend the allergy tests and the Obagi program. C.L. purchased the Obagi program products for $1,200. B.L. and her mother returned to Dr. Rubinstein's office on April 4, 2005, for a follow-up visit. Dr. Rubinstein continued the Minocycline and reviewed the progress in the Obagi program. C.L. authorized the allergy tests. The charge for the allergy tests was $2,821. One of the allergy tests which Dr. Rubinstein had performed was IgG testing. Such testing is not done by mainstream allergists, and it is below the standard of care to use such testing. On the evening of April 11, 2005, B.L. ate a piece of cake at her grandmother's birthday party. On the morning of April 12, 2005, B.L. went to school at 7:30 a.m., and, by 8:20 a.m., she was experiencing hives, swollen joints, problems catching her breath, and problems moving her fingers, bending her knees, and bending her feet. B.L.'s joints were visibly swollen. C.L. took B.L. to see Dr. Rubinstein on April 12, 2005. Dr. Rubinstein noted in his records on April 12, 2005, that B.L. had hives, but he did not mention that B.L.'s joints were swollen. He opined that the hives were caused by eating cake. B.L. had eaten cake at times before the ingestion of cake on April 11, 2005, and had not experienced the symptoms that she had on April 12, 2005. B.L. has eaten cake since the ingestion of the cake on April 11, 2005, and has not experienced the symptoms that she had on April 12, 2005. Dr. Rubinstein had the results of the allergy tests to foods on April 12, 2005. None of the tests showed that B.L. was allergic to baker's yeast or gluten. One of the tests showed that B.L. might be allergic to candida albicans, which is a yeast that is usually found in babies with thrush and people whose immunity system is compromised. An allergy to candida albicans is not the same as an allergy to baker's yeast. However, Dr. Rubinstein continued the yeast-free diet. During the office visit on April 12, 2005, Dr. Rubinstein administered a 6mg dose of Decadron to B.L. for an acute allergic reaction. Decadron is a steroid used to treat conditions such as arthritis, blood/hormone/immune system disorders, allergic reactions, certain skin and eye conditions, breathing problems, certain bowel disorders, and certain cancers. B.L. had an adverse reaction to the Decadron, resulting in vomiting, stomach pains, and diarrhea. Dr. Rubinstein placed B.L. on another round of Minocycline. He suggested to C.L. that he might want to have B.L. switch to tetracycline because it may be more effective and cheaper than the Minocycline. C.L. told Dr. Rubinstein the price that she was paying for the Minocycline, and he told C.L. that if she could get the Minocycline for the price she stated that B.L. could stay on the Minocycline. During the office visit on April 12, 2005, Dr. Rubinstein lanced and drained four extremely inflamed cysts located on B.L.'s forehead and cheek. On April 12, 2005, Dr. Rubinstein suggested that B.L. go on a Rotation Elimination Diet to eliminate positive allergic foods. B.L. was to continue abstaining from eating yeast. The cost of the diet was $100. On April 12, 2005, after the office visit with Dr. Rubinstein, C.L. called Dr. Rubinstein and advised that B.L. was still not improving. Dr. Rubinstein made a note of C.L.'s telephone call. He continued to opine that the rash was caused by the ingestion of cake. He noted that the allergic reaction may be caused by the medication, but he still did not discontinue the medication. Although, Dr. Rubinstein had just examined B.L. that day, he requested that B.L. be seen again for re-evaluation. On or about April 14, 2005, C.L. went to see Dr. Rubinstein without B.L. to obtain the results of B.L.'s allergy tests. C.L. indicated that B.L.'s hives were worse. Dr. Rubinstein suggested that B.L. present to him again, after having seen B.L. two days prior, and that she may need antihistamines and medrol dose packs. He did not tell C.L. to discontinue the Minocycline. C.L. no longer trusted Dr. Rubinstein. On April 15, 2005, B.L.'s symptoms had not improved, and C.L. took B.L. to see B.L.'s pediatrician. The pediatrician referred B.L., to Hugh H. Windom, M.D. (Dr. Windom), a board-certified allergist. Dr. Windom saw B.L. on April 15, 2005, for hives, joint pain, and some swelling of her hands and lower arms. On examination, Dr. Windom found that B.L. had cystic acne, raised blanching, a red rash on her lower arm, mild nasal mucosal edema, and swelling in the joints on both hands and that B.L. was dermatographic. B.L. told Dr. Windom that she had been prescribed Minocycline by Dr. Rubinstein and had been taking it since sometime in March 2005. B.L. advised Dr. Windom that she did not take the Minocycline on April 14, 2005, and that her symptoms had improved some. Dr. Windom suspected that the hives, joint pain, and swelling were allergic reactions to drugs. He discontinued B.L.'s use of Minocycline and Nystatin. Within 24 hours after her visit with Dr. Windom, B.L.'s symptoms were gone. Dr. Windom referred B.L. to a dermatologist for her acne. Michael Pacin, M.D. (Dr. Pacin), is a board-certified allergist and testified as an expert for the Department. Dr. Pacin was of the opinion that there is no connection between allergies and acne. Acne is not an allergy symptom. He is also of the opinion that the prescription of a yeast-free diet when the physician does not know if the patient has an allergy to yeast is below the standard of care. Dr. Pacin's testimony is credited. C.L. paid Dr. Rubinstein $100 for the Rotation Diet, and $2,821 for allergy testing. Facts Relating to DOAH Case No. 09-5270PL On July 17, 2006, R.A. presented to Dr. Rubinstein with complaints that he had a rash on his face and that it was itching. R.A. thought that he might have an allergy, which is why he sought out an allergy specialist. R.A. had not gone to see Dr. Rubinstein for any nasal problems. R.A. felt that, when he mentioned that he thought he might have allergies, "it just locked in with [Dr. Rubinstein] that he had nasal problems." R.A. filled out a questionnaire on the first visit concerning his current problem. He advised Dr. Rubinstein that he had prostate cancer in 1999, and his prostate had been removed. He also stated that he had had nasal problems and had gone to the Silverstein Institute1/ in October 2005. In December 2005, he had surgery at the Silverstein Institute. Part of the surgery had been for the removal of polyps. R.A. had been going to the Silverstein Institute for follow-up visits and felt that his nasal and sinus issues were clearing up. Dr. Rubinstein recommended that R.A. have a CT scan done. Dr. Rubinstein asked R.A. to get his medical records from the Silverstein Institute. R.A. requested his medical records, including a CT scan of his sinuses, from the Silverstein Institute, and those records were provided to Dr. Rubinstein. On July 18, 2006, a CT scan was performed on R.A. The physician who interpreted the CT scan had the following impression of the CT scan results: Surgical alteration includes bilateral superior and middle turbinate removal. Opacificaton of the anterior ethmoidal air cells present bilaterally extends into the frontal sinuses where there is mild mucoperiosteal thickening. The right sphenoid sinus is completely opacified. There is mention in the history of a possible nasal bone fracture however, fractures are not identified. The CT Scan did not show a deviated septum to the extent that surgery would be needed. The physician who prepared the report on the CT stated: "Nasal septum is not significantly deviated." The medical records from the Silverstein Institute showed that in 2005 that R.A.'s septum was intact in midline. The CT scan report stated: "Mucoperiosteal thickening exists in the left maxillary sinus in a relatively mild fashion with probable polyp formation of the anterior ethmoidal air cells." The CT scan did not conclusively state that polyps were present. Dr. Steig, the Department's expert, reviewed the CT scan image and opined that the CT scan did not show nasal polyps, but instead showed polypoid changes which may or may not have been associated with the presence of polyps. Polypoid changes can be caused by mucosal irritation or suctioning. The polypoid changes in the CT scan were on the mucosa on the lateral wall. Dr. Steig's testimony is credited. On or about July 19, 2006, Dr. Rubinstein called R.A. to discuss the CT scan results and told R.A. that the CT scan results were abnormal. Dr. Rubinstein diagnosed R.A. with chronic allergic rhinitis, chronic sinusitis, nasal septal deviation with moderate obstruction, recurrence of nasal polyps, loud snoring, and dry mouth secondary to mouth breathing. Dr. Rubinstein felt the redness on R.A.'s face was a form of rosacea. Dr. Rubinstein's treatment plan consisted of reviewing the CT results, providing R.A. with supplements, in vitro allergy testing, and providing allergy medication if needed. On July 24, 2006, R.A. underwent in vitro allergy testing, using IgE blood testing for inhalants and IgG blood testing for food. On or about July 27, 2006, R.A. presented to Dr. Rubinstein for a follow-up appointment, complaining of a number of symptoms bothering him since his previous appointment the week before. R.A. complained of symptoms on his skin, a stuffy nose, sore throat, body ache, and watery eyes. On July 27, 2006, Dr. Rubinstein performed an endoscopy on R.A. Dr. Rubinstein told R.A. that the polyps that had been removed at the Silverstein Institute had grown back. He further told R.A. that his septum was crooked and that the physician at the Silverstein Institute had not done a good job and needed to be reported. Dr. Rubinstein advised R.A. of the results of the allergy testing. The allergy test, which Dr. Rubinstein requested for food allergies, showed that R.A. was allergic to all foods tested except for sunflower seeds. The food allergies were tested by Commonwealth Medical Labs in Warrenton, Virginia. The test used was called an IgG test. The laboratory report stated: "This test is For Investigational Use Only. Its performance characteristics have not been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." Dr. Rubinstein told R.A. that the allergies could be treated with homeopathic vitamins, supplements, acupuncture, and a Rotation Elimination Diet. Dr. Rubinstein sold R.A. a lot of homeopathic vitamins and supplements from Dr. Rubinstein's office. Dr. Rubinstein also recommended that R.A. get some treatments from an acupuncturist, who worked out of Dr. Rubinstein's office on a case-by-case basis. Some of the treatments included injection of some homeopathic medications. The acupuncturist was supposed to help with the rash on R.A.'s face and the allergies. On July 27, 2006, Dr. Rubinstein ordered a sleep apnea test for R.A. The method of testing was a home test, which R.A. rented from Dr. Rubinstein. R.A. often woke during the night to urinate since he had his prostate removed. The results of the test showed that R.A. had significant snoring and mild obstructive sleep apnea. Dr. Rubinstein told R.A. that he suffered from sleep apnea that was very serious and that R.A. had almost died three to four times during the test. Dr. Rubinstein told R.A. that he needed surgery immediately to treat the sleep apnea. The sleep apnea test did not show severe sleep apnea. The sleep could and should have been treated using positive pressure ventilation via a mask. Dr. Rubinstein's testimony that he suggested the use of a mask and R.A. rejected the idea is not credited. It is clear from R.A.'s testimony that he was led to believe by Dr. Rubinstein that his sleep apnea was life- threatening and that he needed immediate surgery. On or about July 29, 2006, R.A. returned to Dr. Rubinstein's office. Dr. Rubinstein discussed the Rotation Elimination Diet with R.A. On or about August 1, 2006, R.A. presented to Dr. Rubinstein for a follow-up appointment with complaints of a stuffy nose and dry mouth. Dr. Rubinstein noted that a culture from R.A. was positive for staph aureus and prescribed the antibiotics, Septra and Gentamicin nasal spray. On or about August 4, 2006, R.A. presented to Dr. Rubinstein with complaints of inability to breathe through his nose at night. Dr. Rubinstein reviewed the progress of the Rotation Elimination Diet with R.A. On August 8, 2006, R.A. presented to Dr. Rubinstein complaining of bilateral congestion. Dr. Rubinstein prescribed Allegra-D, an antihistamine decongestant, and Nasonex, a cortical steroid. Dr. Rubinstein presented R.A. with a surgical plan that included: endoscopic sphenoidoscopy and debridement; septoplasty; radiofrequency inferior turbinates; radiofrequency soft palate; radiofrequency base of tongue; and bilateral intranasal endoscopic ethmoidectomy revision. Dr. Steig, the Department's expert, is of the opinion that the recommended surgeries were unnecessary and that Dr. Rubinstein should have tried medical treatment before resorting to surgery. Dr. Steig's opinion is credited. On or about August 11, 2006, R.A. presented to Dr. Rubinstein for a pre-operative appointment to take a history and physical examination. Dr. Rubinstein discussed EKG results with R.A., stating that the results were borderline and that Dr. Rubinstein would ask another physician to review the results. On August 14, 2006, R.A. called Dr. Rubinstein's office and left a message that he was cancelling the surgery. R.A. went to see Howard B. Fuchs, M.D. (Dr. Fuchs), on August 14, 2006, to get a second opinion. Dr. Fuchs is board- certified in pediatrics and allergies. On August 14, 2006, R.A. presented to Dr. Fuchs with chronic rhinitis, which is a chronic inflammation of the nasal tissues. He wanted to find out whether he had allergies. R.A. told Dr. Fuchs that he had been tested for allergies when he was Dr. Rubinstein's patient. R.A. did not bring any of the allergy test results with him to the office visit. Dr. Fuchs told R.A. to stop taking antihistamines and scheduled R.A. for skin testing ten days later. On August 24, 2006, Dr. Fuchs performed allergy skin tests, and the results were negative. R.A. did not have any allergies. Dr. Fuchs changed the Allegra-D to doses twice a day and continued R.A. on Nasonex. The Allegra-D was for congestion and to shrink the tissues in R.A.'s nose. Dr. Fuchs diagnosed R.A. with vasomotor rhinitis, which is non-allergic. Vasomotor rhinitis is triggered by things like smoke and chemical fumes. Dr. Fuchs saw R.A. again on September 14, 2006. R.A. said that he was better, but the medication made him jittery. Dr. Fuchs changed the medication. The last time that Dr. Fuchs saw R.A. was on October 13, 2006, and R.A. said that he was doing well. On August 16, 2006, Jack J. Wazen, M.D. (Dr. Wazen), who is board certified in otolaryngology, head and neck surgery, saw R.A. for the first time. Dr. Wazen is employed at the Silverstein Institute, but had not treated R.A. when R.A. had been a patient at Silverstein Institute before August 16, 2006. R.A. was seeking a second opinion concerning Dr. Rubinstein's plan for nasal surgery. Dr. Wazen did a physical examination of R.A., including an endoscopic nasal examination, which revealed the septum to be in the midline with no obstructive deviation. There were no polyps, and the sites on which R.A. had had surgery looked well-healed. Dr. Wazen also reviewed a CT scan, which R.A. had provided. Based on his examination and evaluation, Dr. Wazen told R.A. that he did not have polyps and that there was no clinical benefit to be derived from surgery. R.A. presented with complaints of nasal congestion, stuffy nose, and hives. Dr. Wazen diagnosed R.A. with allergic rhinitis. Dr. Steig was of the opinion that surgery should not have been recommended for the sleep apnea or the chronic allergic rhinitis or chronic sinusitis without first trying other medical treatments such as a mask for the sleep apnea. He opined that the rhinitis and sinusitis could have been treated by the avoidance of a known cause of the rhinitis or sinusitis and continuation of nasal steroids and antihistamines. Dr. Steig's testimony is credited. Dr. Steig was of the opinion that the recommended surgery was not justified by the medical records. There were no polyps present and the septum was not deviated to the extent that surgery was necessary. The sleep apnea was moderate and did not warrant surgical intervention. Dr. Steig's testimony is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered as follows: DOAH Case No. 09-5267PL Finding that Dr. Rubinstein violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2004); Finding that Dr. Rubinstein did not violate sections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(n); Revoking Dr. Rubinstein's license; and Imposing a $10,000 administrative fine; DOAH Case No. 09-5269PL Finding that Dr. Rubinstein violated sections 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(n), and 458.331(1)(t); Requiring Dr. Rubinstein to pay C.L. $2,921 for the allergy testing and the Rotation Diet; Revoking Dr. Rubinstein's license; and e. Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000. DOAH Case No. 09-5270PL Finding that Dr. Rubinstein violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006); Revoking Dr. Rubinstein's license; and Imposing a $10,000 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2011.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed certified nursing assistant, holding Florida license number 113243. On or about December 14, 2008, the Petitioner submitted to a drug screening urinalysis test at the request of an employer, Maxim Healthcare Services (Maxim). The sample was collected at a Maxim facility located at University Park, Florida. The Forensic Drug Testing Custody and Control Form and the urine sample collection container bear handwritten dates of December 13, 2008. At some point, the dates on the form and the container were overwritten to indicate that the sample was collected on December 14, 2008. According to the Respondent's Response to the Petitioner's Request for Admissions, the sample was collected on April 14, 2008. The Petitioner presented an expert witness who testified as to the testing procedures, including custody and storage of the urine samples to be tested. The expert witness' testimony regarding sample collection and transportation, calibration of equipment, sample storage and testing methodology, and reporting of test results, was persuasive and has been fully credited. According to the documentation presented by the Petitioner's expert witness, the sample collection container was received by the testing laboratory on December 15, 2008, with all transportation packaging and the sample container seal intact. According to the expert witness, the test for which Maxim paid, screened for ten drugs, including marijuana. According to the expert witness, the testing equipment was properly calibrated at the time the Respondent's urine sample was tested. The initial immunoassay test result indicated the presence of a recognized by-product of marijuana (delta nine tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid) in the Respondent's urine sample. Because the first result was positive, a second test was performed using a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry device, which confirmed the presence of delta nine tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid in the Respondent's urine sample. The Respondent denied using marijuana. The Respondent asserted that the test results were inaccurate. The Respondent testified that he had a prescription for, and was taking, hydrocodone at the time he provided the urine sample for the test at issue in this proceeding, but that the test results did not indicate the presence of hydrocodone. The Respondent asserted that the test result was either the result of lab error or that the sample was not his urine. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that the screening tests purchased by Maxim included limited testing for opiates and would not have indicated the presence of hydrocodone in the Respondent's urine. Although the Respondent testified that he had been told by Maxim personnel that the test results should have revealed the presence of hydrocodone, the Respondent's testimony in this regard was uncorroborated hearsay and was insufficient to support a finding of fact. Although the Respondent asserted that the sample tested was either not his urine or was otherwise tampered with, the evidence failed to support the assertion. There was no evidence that the sample was tampered with in any manner when the sample was obtained or during transportation to the testing laboratory. There was no evidence that the seal on the sample collection container was not intact at the time the sample was provided or transported. There was no evidence that the sample was stored improperly. There was no evidence that the testing equipment was not properly calibrated or that the tests were improperly performed. The Respondent testified, without contradiction, that over the course of 20 years in nursing work both before and after the tests at issue in this proceeding, his test results have never reported the presence of marijuana.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order assessing a fine of $250, requiring completion of an IPN evaluation, and imposing a 12-month period of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Rick Garcia, MS, RN, CCM Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Patricia Dittman, Ph.D(C), RN, CDE Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Megan M. Blancho, Esquire Carla Schell, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael N. Heimur, C.N.A. 4901 South Salford Boulevard North Port, Florida 34287
Findings Of Fact Dr. Gans is a chiropractor licensed in Florida on the basis of examination. Dr. Gans prepared and filed an application for examination and licensure with the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Do you have a chiropractic license in any state?" by stating: "Ohio - Mechanotherapy." The Ohio authorities recognized several professions whose functions would be included under the practice of chiropractic in Florida. Mechanotherapy generally would be limited to the practice of manipulation only. Dr. Gans was licensed in Ohio as a mechanotherapist. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Have you ever been refused licensure in any state?" by stating, "No." Dr. Gans had applied for, taken, and failed the Ohio chiropractic examination whereupon he was not issued a license as a chiropractor by the State of Ohio. Dr. Gans was eligible to reapply to take the Ohio examination. At the time of his application to Florida, Dr. Gans had appealed the determination by the Ohio authorities that he had failed the Ohio examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners revoke the license of Ray E. Gans. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Sutton, Esquire 250 Bird Road, Suite 310 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Paul Lambert, Esquire 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. A. Hartley, Director Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners Suite 202, Building B 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact On the basis of the stipulations of the parties, of the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent, Sandra Leah Medina Pough, is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0696361. Respondent's last known address is Route One, Box 1588, Gainesville, Florida 32609. At all times material to this complaint, the Respondent was employed at the Sunland Training Center (Sunland) in Gainesville, Florida, although Respondent is no longer employed at that facility. In July 1985, and again in August 1985, the Respondent administered tuberculosis skin tests to patients at Sunland without a physician's order to do so. The August incident occurred in direct contravention of previous orders. These two unauthorized administrations of tuberculosis skin tests occurred because of the Respondent's failure to take adequate steps to verify the identity of the patients to whom the tuberculosis skin tests were administered. These two unauthorized administrations of tuberculosis skin tests were administered to patients who had previously had a positive tuberculosis skin test. After a patient has had a positive tuberculosis skin test, it is unnecessary, against hospital policy, and potentially harmful to give the test again. The harm which can result from readministration of the test includes induration or ulceration of the test site, tissue damage and infection, and local reaction to the vaccine. A nurse should never administer tuberculosis skin tests to a patient without a physician's order to do so. It is the duty and responsibility of a nurse to verify the identification of a patient before administering any tests or medications which require a physician's order. It is a departure from, or a failure to conform to, the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a nurse to administer tuberculosis skin tests without a physician's order or for a nurse to administer tuberculosis skin tests without positive verification of the identity of the patient to whom the test is administered. On August 22, 1985, the Respondent was requested to obtain a urine sample from a patient by means of the "clean-catch" method. Instead of using the "clean-catch" method, the Respondent catheterized the patient. The catheterization of the patient was done without a physician's order and in direct contravention of specific instructions given to the Respondent. Catheterization has inherent risks, such as an increased risk of infection and the possibility of traumatic injury. A nurse should never catheterize a patient without a physician's order to do so. It is a departure from, or the failure to conform to, the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a nurse to catheterize a patient without a physician's order to do so. None of the patients involved in the three incidents described above suffered any actual injury as a result of the actions described above. However, all of the patients were unnecessarily exposed to a risk of actual injury as a result of the conduct described above. It is extremely important in the practice of nursing for a nurse to always verify that the correct medication is being administered to the correct patient and to verify that the correct procedure is being performed upon the correct patient. A failure to make such verification exposes the patient to unnecessary and potentially dangerous risks. The professional standards applicable to the occurrences described above are the same for both licensed practical nurses and registered nurses.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing and giving particular consideration to the factors specified in Rule 21-10.05, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalty: Suspending the Respondent's license for a period of 60 days, and Placing the Respondent on probation for a period of one year following the 60-day period of suspension, during which period of probation the Respondent shall be required to attend continuing education courses in the areas of administration of medications and the legal aspects of nursing. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of August 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer 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 19th day of August 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1399 The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner I have accepted all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner with the exception of those found in paragraphs 3 and 8 of Petitioner's proposed findings. The findings proposed in paragraphs 3 and 8 are rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Findings proposed by Respondent None. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Sandra L. M. Pough Route 1, Box 1588 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Wings Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine, No. ME 0046170, based upon the alleged violations of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 6, 1989, (the "First Administrative Complaint") which has been assigned DOAH Case No. 89-3723 and/or the Administrative Complaint dated August 16, 1990, (the "Second Administrative Complaint") which has been assigned DOAH Case No. 91-3864.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the hearings on October 3, 1990, and March 10, 1992, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 0046170 by the State of Florida. Respondent was initially licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in approximately April of 1985. No evidence was presented of any prior disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent's last known address is 10611 N.E. 11th Avenue, Miami Shores, Florida 33138. Sometime around 1986, Respondent became affiliated with EMSA which is an emergency room provider. EMSA contracts with hospitals to staff emergency rooms. Thus, Respondent has been working as an emergency room physician since 1986. The evidence did not establish the extent of Respondent's obligations with EMSA since 1986. As discussed in more detail below, since 1986, Respondent has also been affiliated with at least two other entities, the Institute of Specialized Medicine and the Immunology Allergy Institute, Inc. Facts Regarding the First Administrative Complaint Respondent was employed as a salaried employee of the Institute of Specialized Medicine (the "Institute") for at least several months during the year 1987. Although the evidence regarding Respondent's affiliation with EMSA was not entirely clear, it appears that he retained his affiliation with that company during the time that he worked at the Institute. In June of 1987, Respondent was associated with the Institute. In June of 1987, J.P. was a 36 year old female who saw an advertisement in a newspaper for the Institute of Specialized Medicine. That advertisement suggested that weight loss could be accomplished through adjusting a person's metabolism. J.P. called the Institute and scheduled an appointment for June 30, 1987. J.P. had been seriously overweight all of her adult life and had previously tried almost every possible method of weight loss. Shortly before her visit to the Institute, J.P. had been able to lose 80 pounds by diet and exercise alone. On June 30, 1987, J.P. visited the Institute and was told that she needed to provide certain information to determine her eligibility for the Institute's program. J.P. was advised that the Institute charged a $925 fee for testing and consultation. That fee included her first two visits, after which she was to be charged $40 per visit. The Institute's staff told J.P. that she had to pay $285 and that the rest would be billed to her insurance company. J.P. paid $285 on this first visit. On her first visit, J.P. filled out various questionnaires regarding her health, background and other general information. She was given a "blood test," a spirometric test, an EKG, and she provided a urine sample. J.P. did not see a physician or dietician during this visit. On July 6, 1987, J.P. returned to the Institute and was seen for about ten minutes by Respondent, who listened to her heart and lungs. Her height, weight, blood pressure, and pulse rate were noted, but no other physical examination was performed and Respondent did not inquire regarding any of the matters disclosed in the questionnaire filled out by J.P. during her first visit. During the July 6, 1987 visit, Respondent informed J.P. of his interpretation of her test results. He told J.P. that her tests showed she had an irregular thyroid, that her metabolism was below normal range, and that her body retained fluid. In his records of J.P.'s July 6, 1987 visit, Respondent diagnosed J.P. as having "Euthyroid Sick Syndrome." Euthyroid Sick Syndrome is a condition which may arise in a patient seriously ill from another cause. In such a situation, there are abnormal findings in blood tests for thyroid function, but these findings do not indicate the true thyroid status which is normal. The evidence established that this was an incorrect diagnosis for J.P. based upon the test results and history provided. Respondent did not provide a cogent explanation for his written diagnosis of Euthyroid Sick Syndrome nor did he explain the verbal diagnosis given to J.P. Respondent's records do not include the results of the spirometric test or the EKG. In addition, the urinalysis was incomplete and, while the doctor's notes and billing records reflect a chest x-ray was taken, there is no evidence of such an x-ray in the records. The results of J.P.'s blood tests reflect all normal values with the exception of a slightly low "total iron." At the conclusion of the July 6, 1987 visit, Respondent prescribed Cytomel, 25 micrograms BID, and Maxzide for J.P. No directions were given regarding the administration of Maxzide. Cytomel is a prescription drug containing the active ingredient of the secretions of the thyroid gland. Cytomel is used to replace the hormone in cases of thyroid underactivity (hypothyroidism). There is no indication from the medical records that J.P. was suffering from Euthyroid Sick Syndrome, that her thyroid was malfunctioning, that her metabolism was below normal, or that she required any hormonal replacement therapy. Respondent now admits that the test results indicate J.P. was not hypothyroid. Respondent claims that if he had actually believed that the patient had been hypothyroid, the dosage prescribed would have been approximately three times greater. He contends that he prescribed Cytomel to increase oxygen consumption. To justify his prescription of Cytomel, Respondent cited to two medical texts which he claims were in wide circulation in 1987. He says those texts support his prescription of Thyroid hormone to encourage weight reduction. Only one of the two cited references even marginally supports Respondent's contention. In any event, the more persuasive evidence established that, before the advent of thyroid testing (approximately twenty years ago), Cytomel was occasionally used in an attempt to encourage weight loss in patients. However, the prescription of Cytomel for weight loss in 1987 was below the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent physician under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent also attempted to justify his prescription of Cytomel by claiming that J.P. had advised him that she had previously been taking a thyroid supplement. Respondent contends that some patients who stop taking thyroid supplements have a "rebound effect where their metabolic rate decreases." During her testimony, J.P. denied having ever been on thyroid medication. The questionnaires filled out by J.P. during her first visit to the Institute do not reflect that she had ever taken thyroid medication in the past. Furthermore, there is no notation in the medical records indicating that J.P. had been on thyroid medication in the past. Respondent's testimony that J.P. advised him that she had previously been on thyroid supplements but was no longer taking them is not credited. Maxzide is a prescription drug, a diuretic appropriate for patients with high blood pressure. Maxzide should not be used as initial therapy for fluid retention. Maxzide can have deleterious effects on a patient and should not be used in a weight reduction program unless other reasons indicating its use are present. Respondent's medical records do not justify the prescription of Maxzide to J.P. There is no indication that the patient had high blood pressure. Furthermore, J.P. denied having any previous problems with fluid retention and no such problems are noted on the medical history that she filled out. While Respondent noted "++edema" as part of his examination on July 6, 1987, the notation is not consistent with Respondent's other notes of his exam or J.P.'s testimony regarding her condition. Moreover, J.P.'s weight loss of only three pounds between July 6 and July 30, 1987, indicates that she had no edema on July 6, 1987. During the July 6, 1987 visit, J.P. saw the Dietitian at the Institute of Specialized Medicine for about 20 minutes. The only thing the Dietitian did was to give J.P. a 1,000 calorie per day diet which she was told to follow. On July 30, 1987, J.P. returned to the Institute to see Respondent because she thought she was suffering nausea from the effects of the medications Cytomel and Maxzide. Respondent did not document in his notes any treatment for her nausea. J.P.'s health insurance claim form, submitted under Respondent's signature, reflects a diagnosis of "Euthyroidism" and a corresponding insurance code number of 244.9. Euthyroidism means normal thyroid function. An insurance company will not pay for a diagnosis of a normal condition. Insurance code number 244.9 indicates a condition of hypothyroidism or thyroid insufficiency which Patient J.P. did not have. The health insurance claim form submitted under Respondent's signature reflects overlapping billings for a hemogram and WBC, includes charges for an x- ray and spirometry of which there is no record, and contains a coded diagnosis of Hypothyroidism which conflicts with the results of the tests performed on J.P. and also conflicts with the Respondent's recorded diagnosis of Euthyroid Sick Syndrome. The insurance claim form also includes charges for a complete history and physical. After J.P. filed a complaint with Petitioner, Respondent attempted to justify this billing by telling Petitioner's investigator that he gave J.P. a complete physical examination and a "full workup". However, the evidence established that Respondent did not perform a complete physical examination of J.P. Respondent did not examine J.P.'s breasts, recommend a mammogram, perform or refer J.P. for a gynecological examination, examine her throat, eyes, ears, or abdomen; address her familial history of diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension or obesity; question her about her listed allergies, past anemia, abnormal stomach x-rays, or changing moles; consider her serious depressions and emotional problems; interpret her EKG; or address the basic causes of her obesity. Respondent contends that he did not handle the billing for the Institute and did not himself submit any diagnosis to the insurance carrier. In addition, he claims that he has subsequently learned that the Institute forged his name on some insurance documents. These contentions do not provide a defense to the charges in this case. It is clear that the billings to the insurance company were submitted under Respondent's signature. There is no evidence that the health claim form in this case was forged. The insurance company directed an inquiry to Respondent regarding his diagnosis of J.P. and Respondent did little or nothing to clarify the situation. Furthermore, when J.P. complained to Respondent about the treatment and costs, there is no indication that Respondent took any steps to investigate the situation or correct the problems. In the original billings submitted to J.P.'s insurance company, the Institute sought payment of $925 for the treatment and tests rendered to J.P., even though the patient had already paid $285 of that agreed upon fee. Respondent's records reflect that ultimately the insurance company paid $670 for the services rendered to J.P. Respondent's treatment of J.P. failed to meet that level of care, skill and treatment expected of a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances because Respondent inappropriately prescribed Cytomel and Maxzide to J.P. when the need for those drugs was not indicated by the results of the tests performed and because his final diagnosis of "Euthyroid Sick Syndrome" was incorrect and unsupported by any tests or physical findings. Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying his course of treatment of J.P. because the records (1) do not justify his diagnosis of Euthyroid Sick Syndrome, (2) do not justify his prescription of Cytomel for the patient who had no evidence or history of hypothyroidism, (3) do not justify his prescription of Maxzide for the patient who had no fluid retention and who presented with normal findings other than her obesity, (4) do not justify the extensive and inappropriate tests performed, (5) do not appropriately reflect J.P.'s EKG, do not report on results of her x-ray (if it was made) or spirometry, and (6) do not indicate that Respondent either advised or treated J.P. on July 30, 1987, when she complained that the medications were making her nauseous. By prescribing medications for J.P. which were medically unnecessary, by filing conflicting diagnoses, by charging for a complete physical examination when one was not performed, and by signing off on duplicative billing on J.P.'s health insurance claim form, Respondent has made deceptive, untrue and/or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine. Facts Regarding the Second Administrative Complaint Respondent quit working at the Institute in approximately November of 1987. As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Respondent was indicted in October of 1988 in connection with his affiliation with the Institute of Specialized Medicine. While the circumstances and facts surrounding that indictment were not fully explained at the hearing in this cause, it appears that Respondent was indicted with several other individuals for allegedly participating in a scheme to defraud insurance companies by billing for tests and treatments that were unnecessary or unrelated to patients' true conditions. The indictment was pending through out the time of the incidents alleged in the Second Administrative Complaint. Respondent ultimately entered into a pretrial diversion program as a result of those charges. Sometime in 1988, Respondent became associated with the Immunology Allergy Institute, Inc., (the "Allergy Clinic"). Respondent claims that he was seeking to establish a private family practice and associated with the Allergy Clinic as part of an office sharing arrangement. The Allergy Clinic was owned by Frank Seedarnee and his ex-wife. Respondent contends that in return for office space, he was to serve as the "medical director" for the office and would be responsible for examining and diagnosing all medical problems and prescribing necessary controlled substances. Respondent contends that he never discussed cases with Seedarnee and did not rely on any recommendations from him because Seedarnee was not a doctor. Respondent further contends that Seedarnee's only function was to recommend diet changes, vitamins, or other products to help patients keep their homes free from allergies. However, the evidence presented in this case established that the Allergy Clinic did not always function in this manner, at least with respect to the patient S.L. and her son A.L. In March of 1989, S.L. was experiencing sinus problems and had a cough. In addition her son, age 10 months at the time, had been coughing for a few months. S.L. had previously been diagnosed as having allergies. S.L. was told of the Allergy Clinic by a friend who recommended "Dr. Seedarnee" as a allergist. She assumed from this conversation that Dr. Seedarnee was a medical doctor. She made an appointment at the Allergy Clinic for herself and her son for March 30, 1989. On March 30, 1989, S.L. arrived at the Allergy Clinic with her son as scheduled. She did not see a sign at the Allergy Clinic or any indication as to who the doctors were. During her initial visit, S.L. filled out an extensive health questionnaire form on herself and her son, A.L. S.L. and her son were escorted by a woman who appeared to be a nurse into an office. The nurse stated "Dr. Seedarnee will see you now." This nurse also mentioned that Respondent was not in because he was out on an emergency. The office contained a large microscope and a TV-like screen. A man in a white coat introduced himself as Dr. Seedarnee. Seedarnee reviewed S.L.'s health history forms and discussed with her the reasons why she wished to see an allergist. He told S.L. that he had developed an immune booster to help immune systems, that he would be taking blood from S.L. and A.L. so he could diagnose their problems, and that he had invented a microscope capable of evaluating the blood that same day. Seedarnee did not physically examine S.L. or A.L. or inquire if anyone else in the office had examined them. Seedarnee ordered a nurse to draw blood from S.L. and A.L. The blood was drawn as requested without question or surprise by the nurse. S.L. also provided a urine sample at the nurse's request. After the samples were obtained, S.L. and A.L. returned to Seedarnee's office where an enlarged picture of two slides of blood were shown to S.L. on the TV-like screen. Seedarnee took photographs of the blood slides and gave them to S.L. Those photographs were introduced as Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3. Seedarnee told S.L. that the white cell in the middle of her blood slide was an "allergy cell" and the other figures in the picture were iron- deficient cells. He also told her that she had a "low immune system." Seedarnee told S.L. that A.L.'s blood slide had clumped-together cells because he had a sluggish immune system. Seedarnee indicated that his conclusions were based on the blood pictures. He recommended that S.L. receive one of his "immune boosters" once a month for the next few months and one yearly thereafter. He also indicated that A.L. needed an immune booster and should get one yearly thereafter. Seedarnee specifically used the words "diagnosis" and "treatment" and stated that he was going to run further tests in order to make his final diagnosis. Seedarnee's statements to S.L. on March 30 constituted a diagnosis and the practice of medicine. The evidence presented at the hearing established that the diagnosis made by Seedarnee on March 30 could not validly be made on the basis of the blood slides. Moreover, the pictures of S.L.'s and A.L.'s blood appear normal. The "allergy cell" was simply a white blood cell and the clumping of A.L.'s blood was due to an artifact. S.L. did not see Respondent or any other person she thought was a physician on the March 30 visit. At this point, she still believed Seedarnee to be a physician. S.L. was told that she was required to pay 20% of the "total cost" for the treatment and her insurance company was to pay the remaining 80%. At the conclusion of the March 30, 1989 visit, S.L. wrote a check to the Allergy Clinic for $371.20. On April 4, 1989, S.L. returned without her son to the Allergy Clinic. She did not bring her son because her husband was skeptical that a proper diagnosis could be made from the blood slide picture. On April 4, S.L. was taken directly to Seedarnee's office where Seedarnee reviewed with her the results from her blood test and urinalysis, told her that she was allergic to dust and had a sensitivity to milk and yeast, and suggested to her that she needed his immune booster and B-12 injections. Seedarnee also reviewed with S.L. her son's test results. He told S.L. that A.L. had no allergy problems, but, because A.L. had a low immune system, he recommended an immune booster. During the April 4 visit, S.L. asked Seedarnee where he went to school. He told her India and England and said he had a Ph.D. and worked under a physician. Until this time, S.L. believed him to be a medical doctor. The office staff at the Allergy Clinic all referred to Seedarnee as "doctor." The medical records from the Allergy Clinic for S.L. and A.L. are captioned as follows: Patient: L, S. Physician: Seedarnee/Kunen and Patient: L, A. Physician: Seedarnee/Kunen After S.L. met with Seedarnee in his office on April 4, she was given two injections by a nurse. The medical records indicate the injections were (1) B-12 and Folic Acid and (2) "URT." There was no doctor's order for these injections. At the hearing, neither Seedarnee nor Respondent could, or would, identify "URT." Seedarnee's interpretation of tests, diagnosis of allergies and development of a treatment plan for S.L. on April 4 by ordering two injections for her which were given before S.L. ever saw a physician constitute the practice of medicine. After the injections, the nurse took S.L. to an examining room. Shortly thereafter, Respondent entered and introduced himself as Dr. Kunen. He asked S.L. what Dr. Seedarnee had recommended. Thus, it is clear that Respondent was aware that the patient had already seen Seedarnee and that he knew Seedarnee had at least developed some recommendations for her treatment. It is not clear whether Respondent knew that S.L. had already been given two injections. S.L. told Respondent that Seedarnee had diagnosed her allergies and told her that she needed B-complex, an immune booster and yearly immune boosters thereafter. Respondent's only response was something to the effect of "good, fine." He said nothing more about her treatment. S.L. was with Respondent for only about five minutes. Respondent briefly examined her. He listened to her heart and lungs and checked the glands in her neck. She was fully clothed during the exam. Respondent did not review with S.L. any of the items on her health form questionnaire. He did not inquire as to any of the items noted on the form such as the antibiotics she was taking, her sensitivity to perfume, her symptoms of fatigue and/or lethargy, her complaints of pressure in her head, muscle weakness and heart palpitations, or her notations of mucus in her stool or problems with urinary frequency. Her blood pressure was never taken. She was not asked about her history of rheumatic fever. Respondent did not discuss with S.L. her allergy symptoms, what she was allergic to, her test results or why she needed an immune booster and B-complex. Respondent did not ask about A.L. and S.L. did not tell Respondent that she wanted A.L. to be tested. Respondent's medical records regarding S.L. contain one undated page of notes indicating that Respondent requested allergy testing for S.L. and that S.L. wanted her son to be tested. S.L. denies telling Respondent that she wanted her son tested. Indeed, the evidence established that S.L. and her son had already been tested the week before by Seedarnee and that S.L. told Respondent of Seedarnee's diagnosis and treatment plan. Respondent's medical records for A.L. contain the boy's birth date rather than a current date. The notation in Respondent's handwriting states "patient here for testing, will return next week." Respondent claims that he saw the son otherwise he would not have filled out this medical note on the child. S.L. claims that her son was not with her on the April 4, 1989 visit and, therefore, Respondent never saw him. S.L.'s testimony is credited. In sum, it is concluded that Respondent's notes in the medical records for S.L. and A.L. do not accurately reflect the events that occurred and were an apparent attempt to justify after the fact Seedarnee's actions and treatment. It is also concluded that Respondent never saw A.L. as a patient and that Respondent "recommended" a treatment plan for S.L. which had already been carried out. At the conclusion of her April 4 visit, S.L. wrote a check to the Allergy Clinic for $162 to cover the cost of her visit and the purchase of a product which Seedarnee had recommended and supposedly developed called Allergex. This product was supposed to be put in the laundry and used to wipe down tables, etc. to eliminate household dust. After her visit on April 4, S.L.'s suspicions were aroused. She inquired of authorities about the licensure of the Allergy Clinic (it had none) and of Respondent and Seedarnee (he had no license). Following the April 4 visit to the Allergy Clinic, S.L. went to see a Board certified allergist who questioned the treatment she received at the Institute. The allergist advised S.L. that she was allergic to items other than those Seedarnee had claimed. On May 23, 1989, S.L. wrote to Respondent elaborating on what Seedarnee had done, complaining that she was mislead to believe that Seedarnee was a physician and that Respondent had done nothing but rubber stamp Seedarnee's findings and treatment. Respondent was on notice at least from this time that Seedarnee was practicing medicine without a license. S.L. filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation on June 9, 1989. During the ensuing investigation, Respondent told the Department's investigator on January 23, 1990 that Seedarnee only worked under his supervision and that Seedarnee never made recommendations to patients. These statements were made even though S.L. had told Respondent during her April 4th visit and in her letter of May 23, 1989 about Seedarnee's actions. At the hearing, Respondent disclaimed any knowledge of the "diagnosis" made by Seedarnee and/or the administration of injections to S.L. pursuant to Seedarnee's instructions. He suggests that if any such actions took place, they were contrary to the specific understandings that he had as to the procedures of the Allergy Clinic. Even if Respondent thought that he was supposed to make all diagnoses and develop all treatment plans at the Clinic, it is clear that these procedures were not followed with respect to S.L. and A.L. Moreover, it is clear that Respondent was aware of Seedarnee's activities by at least April 4, 1989. It is the physician's responsibility to formulate a treatment plan and treat a patient. Professional responsibility should be delegated only to individuals who have training and degrees to perform those tasks and non-medical personnel should not be allowed to assume functions that are to be performed by physicians. It is the physician's obligation, if he knows an unlicensed, untrained individual with whom he is working is following practices which constitute the practice of medicine, to stop that activity if possible and report it to the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent was aware that Seedarnee was not a licensed medical doctor and was not qualified to make a diagnosis or to treat patients. Respondent never reported Seedarnee's unlicensed activity to any authority. Respondent's actions on April 4 with respect to S.L. constitute an acquiescence to Seedarnee's recommendations and treatment. Respondent contends that even if S.L. was administered the two injections discussed above, there is no evidence that those injections were controlled substances. Thus, Respondent argues there is no evidence that Seedarnee engaged in the unauthorized practice of medicine. This contention is rejected. As noted above, neither Seedarnee nor Respondent could explain what the immune booster or "URT" was. They both suggest that anything not prescribed should be considered part of a therapy program not medicine. However, the administration of an injection, particularly if not indicated by medical testing, always runs the risk of causing a reaction in a patient. The Respondent's interpretation of the practice of medicine is unduly narrow and is rejected. As discussed above, it is clear that the Clinic operations led at least one person, S.L., to believe that Seedarnee was a physician and it is clear that, with respect to at least this patient, Seedarnee interpreted test results, developed a diagnosis and directed a treatment plan. Moreover, it is clear that Respondent was made aware of these activities by at least April 4, 1989 and that he took no steps to halt or correct the situation and, indeed, that he acquiesced to it. The Allergy Clinic has been owned by Seedarnee for approximately 12 years. Seedarnee refers to the entity as a "research institute" rather than a laboratory or medical clinic. Seedarnee formulated the internal rules and procedures for the Allergy Clinic. Seedarnee's testimony on these procedures and other issues at the hearing was evasive, ambiguous and inconsistent. Seedarnee recognized that he needed a licensed physician to "approve prescribed substances and supervise techniques." However, it is clear that, at least during the time in question, the Allergy Clinic was operated in a manner that permitted him to diagnose and order vitamins and booster injections. Respondent was Medical Director of the Allergy Clinic from 1988 until at least mid-1990. Other than the matters raised in the Second Administrative Complaint and discussed above, no evidence was presented as to any other situations where Respondent acquiesced in the practice of medicine by Seedarnee. Respondent's testimony regarding his relationship with the Allergy Clinic was vague, conveniently selective and sometimes inconsistent. Respondent admits that he was hired to be Medical Director and was given office space. However, he claims that he had no obligation to Seedarnee, was not salaried (although he admits he was "loaned" money by Seedarnee, only some of which he paid back) and that he had no duties as Medical Director except "to be a good physician and see patients and to build a practice." He says he never had the need to discuss a case from a medical standpoint with Seedarnee or with other physicians there. He also says there were no staff meetings. Seedarnee's version of the relationship was quite different. Seedarnee testified that Respondent was paid a salary for his duties at the Allergy Clinic. At one point, Seedarnee claimed that the Medical Director made decisions for testing of patients on the basis of the patient's medical questionnaire. Because the allegations of the Second Administrative Complaint are limited to the treatment rendered to S.L. and her son, it is not necessary to fully explore and/or resolve the nature of Respondent's affiliation with the Allergy Clinic. That evidence established that, at least with respect to S.L. and her son, Respondent's role differed greatly from his description of the Clinic's operations. Respondent failed to report what was clearly the unauthorized practice of medicine by Seedarnee. Furthermore, by acquiescing in Seedarnee's diagnosis and treatment, Respondent unlawfully delegated professional responsibility to a person he knew to be unlicensed. Finally, Respondent's participation in the treatment of S.L. and her son constitutes the employment of a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine.
Recommendation Based upon 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 Sections 458.331(1)(k), (m) and (t), Florida Statutes as alleged in the First Administrative Complaint and finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 458.331(e), (k) and (w), Florida Statutes as alleged in the Second Administrative Complaint. As punishment therefore, Respondent should be (1) reprimanded, (2) fined $15,000, (3) suspended from the practice of medicine for five years, two years of which should be suspended if Respondent successfully completes Board approved continuing medical education courses, and (4) thereafter, Respondent should be placed on probation for a period of three years, the terms and conditions of which should be set by the Board of Medicine. It is recommended that one condition of probation should be a limitation on Respondent's establishment or participation in a private office practice. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of September, 1992. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX Case Numbers 89-3723 and 91-3864 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Submittal with Respect to the October 3, 1990 Hearing Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 4. Adopted and 8. in substance in Findings of Fact 7 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. 6. Adopted 10. in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted 14. in substance in Findings of Fact The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 29. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 30. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 31. The Petitioner's Supplemental Proposals regarding the First Administrative Complaint Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20 and 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 11. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings regarding the Second Administrative Complaint Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 39. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 41. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 42. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 43. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 44. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 45. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 46. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 47. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 48. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 49. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 50. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 52. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 53. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 53. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 53. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 56. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 54. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 55. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 57. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 58. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 58. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 58. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 59. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 59. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 59 and 61. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 62. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 63. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 64. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 66 and 67. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 68. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 69. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 69. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 49. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 49. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 47. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 57. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 76. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 74. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 71. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 72. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 76. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 77. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 76 and 77. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 79 and 80. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact regarding the Second Administrative Complaint Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as unnecessary. The first and the third sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 33-35, 70, 75 and 79-80. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 34. Rejected as unnecessary. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 38. 6.-10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 35, 70, 75, 77, 79 and 80. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to Findings of Fact 40, 58 and 59. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to Findings of Fact 58 and 59. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 37. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 39. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. The second sentence is rejected as constituting argument. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 41 Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 44. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 44. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 45. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 42. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 48. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 49. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 46 and 47. 28.-29. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 50. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 52 and 53. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 54. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 55 and 57. The remainder is subordinate to Findings of Fact 70, 79 and 80. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 35, 70, 75, 79 and 80. 36.-37. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 70, 75, 77, 79 and 80. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 76, 77 and 78. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 75. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 75, 79 and 80. Rejected as vague, ambiguous and unnecessary. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 56. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to Findings of Fact 64. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected as unnecessary. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 34 and 77. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 70. Rejected as unnecessary. The evidence established that Respondent continued working at the Allergy Clinic for a year or more after S.L. alerted him to Seedarnee's actions. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 76. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 76. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact regarding the First Administrative Complaint Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and subordinate to Findings of Fact 18 and 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and subordinate to Findings of Fact 18 and 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary and as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Rejected as constituting argument. The issues raised by Respondent go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. The issues raised by Respondent regarding Dr. Lindbergh's qualifications go to the weight to be given to his testimony rather than its admissibility. Rejected as constituting argument. See #31 above. Rejected as speculative, constituting argument rather than a finding of fact and unnecessary. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Findings of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary B. Radkins, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Suite 333 3500 North State Road 7 Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33319 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In early August of 1992, petitioner Howard D. Kline began work as a waiter for respondent, making at least $189 per week. Fearing he might be infected, he gave blood samples on September 21, 1993, at the Bay County Public Health Unit and asked that they be tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The samples were sent to Jacksonville, and one was forwarded to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. On September 28, 1992, a report of diagnostic testing done on petitioner's blood in Jacksonville, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, was mailed to the health department in Panama City. It reached Nancy S. Nichols, who worked at the Bay County Public Health Unit, on or before October 6, 1992. She had seen the results by the time she talked to Mr. Kline on October 6, 1992, and advised him that he had tested positive. The following day Mr. Kline stopped by the Four Winds restaurant to speak to Barbara Zaleski; wife of (one of) respondent's owners (and possibly herself a co-owner.) Although the restaurant had both a manager and an assistant manager, Ms. Zaleski had authority to hire and fire staff. When Mr. Kline told her of his affliction, she wept sympathetically, then told him he could no longer work at the restaurant because it was bad for business. On October 8, 1993, word reached Mrs. Nichols that the diagnostic testing of petitioner's blood done in Atlanta confirmed the earlier, positive diagnosis. Approximately a week later petitioner stopped by the restaurant to pick up his final paycheck. Two weeks elapsed after his discharge before he found another job. During the two-week hiatus, he lost wages totalling $378. The restaurant hired a waitress to take petitioner's place. The evidence did not reveal her status as regards human immunodeficiency virus. Respondent employed (a) cook(s) and (a) bookkeeper(s) as well as serving staff, an assistant manager and a manager, until it closed, more than three months after petitioner's discharge. The total number of respondent's employees was not proven, nor the total number of people respondent employed at any one time. Services of an attorney worth $4,700 have reasonably been required in the presentation of this claim, but these services would, except for $125 have also been necessary for the presentation of the same claim in court.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR dismiss the petition, without prejudice to petitioner's proceeding in circuit court on any claim not predicated on the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (1993). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jernigan 3020 Kingswood Drive Panama City, Florida 32405 Nancy L. Jones Post Office Box 2062 Panama City, Florida 32401 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent, John L. Lentz, Jr., M.D., committed the disciplinary violations charged with respect to seven patients in three Administrative Complaints that have been consolidated for the purpose of hearing. If the facts demonstrate that any of the charged violations have been committed, then the appropriate penalty to be imposed for such violations must be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 82437. Respondent’s address of record is 15200 Emerald Coast Parkway, St. Marten Unit 506, Destin, Florida 32541. Respondent was board-certified by the Academy of Family Physicians until 2009. He currently holds no board certification in any specialty area, and did not complete any residency other than his residency in family medicine. Respondent went to medical school at the University of South Carolina and initially practiced in that state. He moved to Florida in 2001 and since that time, has worked in a variety of practice settings, including working as an emergency room physician in several hospitals in areas such as Phenix City, Alabama; Panama City, Florida; and Defuniak Springs, Florida. At some point, Respondent became interested in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease, and in approximately 2007, he opened a clinic in Destin named the Lentz Lyme Clinic. Respondent attended four continuing medical education courses that focused on the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Each of the courses he attended was three to four days long. Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease Lyme disease is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi. Lyme disease is typically transmitted by a tick bite from what is often referred to as a deer tick, more formally known as the Ixodes scapularis tick. The tick is usually very small, and must remain on the person’s skin for approximately 36 hours or more in order for the disease to be transmitted. Lyme disease is generally considered to be endemic to the Northeastern United States, in states such as the New England states, Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Delaware, and northern Virginia. While it is not impossible to contract Lyme disease in Florida, the more persuasive evidence established that it is not prevalent in this state. The most credible, compelling evidence presented established that most people who are diagnosed in Florida with Lyme disease were most likely infected while traveling in a part of the country that is endemic for the disease, and that states in the Southeastern United States are in a low-risk area for Lyme disease. There was some conflict in the testimony concerning the stages and symptoms of Lyme disease, and what factors should be considered in diagnosing the disease at the various stages. The more credible and persuasive descriptions of Lyme disease and its stages describe the disease as having three stages: early localized Lyme disease; early disseminated Lyme disease; and late Lyme disease. The probable stage of the disease at the time a patient presents for diagnosis and treatment determines what is necessary for a diagnosis. Early localized Lyme disease is the disease as it typically presents within the first four weeks of the tick bite. The patient often, but not always, presents with a rash called an erythema migrans, which is generally over five centimeters wide (and can be as large as 19 centimeters) and is sometimes clear in the center, leading to the term “bull’s-eye rash” to describe it. In addition to the erythema migrans, a patient may present with virus-like symptoms, such as fatigue, malaise, fever, chills, myalgia (muscle aches), and/or headache. Often the symptoms at this stage, or any stage, for that matter, are non-specific symptoms that are common to a variety of conditions, including ALS and MS. According to Respondent’s expert, Dr. Cichon, these are conditions that a physician should also consider when diagnosing Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. In other words, when a patient presents with symptoms that do not include the erythema migrans, but are vague and non-specific, Lyme disease and co-infections related to Lyme disease should not be the only diagnoses considered. In order to diagnose Lyme disease a thorough history is required, including information on a patient’s travel locations, whether travel included states that are typically endemic for Lyme disease; the time of year the travel occurred; whether the patient engaged in the type of activity (such as hunting, fishing, hiking, or other outdoor activities) that would expose him or her to the possibility of a tick bite; any history of rashes; and whether the patient remembers a tick bite. The history should also include any symptoms the patient is experiencing and when the symptoms began. If the patient reports travel to an endemic area, and presents with an erythema migrans that the physician can examine, a diagnosis of early Lyme disease can be made without confirmatory laboratory tests. At that early stage, laboratory tests would not be particularly useful because they detect antibodies to the Borrelia burgdorferi, as opposed to detecting the bacteria itself. At that early stage of the disease, there is not sufficient time for the body to develop the antibodies necessary for detection through laboratory testing. The second stage of Lyme disease is called early disseminated Lyme disease, which may be characterized by multiple erythema migrans lesions; cardiac symptoms, such as atrioventricular block; arthralgia (joint pain); myalgia; or neurologic involvement, such as lymphocytic meningitis, facial nerve Palsy (Bell’s palsy), or encephalitis. If a patient presents with some combination of these symptoms, along with a history indicating travel to an endemic area and activities in that area consistent with tick exposure, a reasonable prudent physician would seek confirmatory laboratory tests to reach a diagnosis of Lyme disease, assuming the patient presents four weeks or more after possible exposure to a tick bite. The type of test to use is discussed below. Late Lyme disease is characterized by neurological symptoms, such as encephalomyelitis, peripheral neuropathy; and arthritis and arthralgia, usually in a single joint, such as a knee. As with early disseminated Lyme disease, a thorough history and physical is required for a diagnosis, as well as a confirmatory laboratory test. There was a great deal of testimony presented regarding the type of testing that is appropriate for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Petitioner advocated the use of the ELISA test, followed by the Western blot test, commonly referred to as the two-tiered approach. ELISA and Western blot will be discussed in more detail below. Respondent contends that this two-tiered approach is inaccurate and that other tests are more definitive. His argument regarding the testing to use is consistent with his claim that there are two “standards of care,” one recognized by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), and one recognized by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS). The tests recognized as standard for diagnosis of Lyme disease by Drs. Robbins, Anastasio, Robertson, Rosenstock, and Powers, are the two-tiered approach ELISA and Western blot tests. The ELISA is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay screening test. If the screening test is positive or equivocal for enzymes indicative of Lyme disease, a Lyme Western blot test is performed to confirm the presence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. For patients with early Lyme disease, the two-tier testing process may produce false negatives because the patient has not had sufficient time to develop antibodies in response to the bacteria. For those with late Lyme disease, the test is highly sensitive and specific because late Lyme disease patients have ample time to develop antibodies. The two-step approach is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) because it provides for both sensitivity and specificity. Usually lab tests are either sensitive or specific, but not both. For a test to be considered “sensitive,” there are no false negatives. ELISA is considered a sensitive test. Specificity refers to the specific antibody bands being evaluated. With Western blot, there is an examination of different specific antibody bands. A Western blot IgM test looks for antibodies that are created initially from white blood cells that specifically attach to the infectious organism. A Western blot IgG looks for a different set of antibodies that continue to persist long after the infection is gone. A Western blot IgG is considered positive if five of the ten antibody bands are positive, while an IgM is considered positive if two of three bands are positive. The ILADS guidelines criticize use of the ELISA and Western blot tests because in the organization’s view, the two- tiered testing lacks sensitivity. The guidelines state that several studies “showed that sensitivity and specificity for both the IgM and IgG western blot range from 92 to 96% when only two [as opposed to five] specific bands are positive.”2/ While the ILADS guidelines criticize the two-tiered approach represented by ELISA and Western blot and indicate that other testing has been evaluated, “each has advantages and disadvantages in terms of convenience, cost, assay standardization, availability and reliability.” The ILADS guidelines do not expressly advocate not using the ELISA and Western blot, and note that while other tests remain an option to identify people “at high risk for persistent, recurrent, and refractory Lyme disease,” the tests have not been standardized. Dr. Michael Cichon, testifying for Respondent, opined that the ELISA and Western blot tests had little value and that Respondent’s failure to use them was not a departure from the standard of care. However, while at hearing he denied that he would order either test, in his deposition he indicated that he would order both tests, as a guide to diagnosis. His testimony that the ELISA and Western blot tests are not useful in the diagnosis of Lyme disease is rejected as not credible. Clear and convincing evidence at hearing established that a reasonable, prudent physician who is presented with a patient having possible exposure to Lyme disease occurring four weeks or more before seeing the physician would order the two- tier testing of ELISA and Western blot if it was appropriate to test for Lyme disease. While performing other tests in conjunction with the two-tier tests is not per se a departure, the standard of care requires either ordering the ELISA and where necessary, the Western blot, or reviewing any test results for these tests previously obtained by the patient. Treatment of Lyme disease also depends on the stage at which the condition is diagnosed. If a patient is diagnosed with early localized Lyme disease, a single course of doxycycline for 14 to 28 days is generally appropriate. Early disseminated Lyme disease and late Lyme disease may be treated with IV antibiotics, for a similar period of time. In summary, the standard of care in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease requires a physician to take an appropriate medical history, perform a physical examination, obtain objective laboratory test results in the absence of an erythema migrans rash, and refer patients who do not improve after an initial course of antibiotic treatment to an infectious disease specialist for further evaluation. An appropriate history must include the information described in paragraph nine, and the testing to be ordered should include an ELISA and, where positive or equivocal, a Western blot test. Diagnosis and Treatment of Babesiosis Babesiosis is a parasitic disease of the blood caused by infection with Babesia. Babesiosis, like Lyme disease, is typically transmitted by a tick bite, and can be transmitted by the same tick that carries Lyme disease. There are occasions when a patient properly diagnosed with Lyme disease also will have Babesiosis as a co-infection. It is, however, not a common diagnosis, and even infectious disease specialists may go an entire career without diagnosing it. If a family practice physician suspects Babesiosis, the better approach would be to refer the patient to an infectious disease specialist. However, failure to refer a patient to a specialist, assuming that the family physician performs the appropriate testing and treatment, is not necessarily a departure from the standard of care. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, the standard of care for the diagnosis and treatment of Babesiosis included the physician taking an appropriate medical history, performing a physical examination of the patient, and obtaining objective laboratory test results in order to make an evidence-based diagnosis. As with Lyme disease, the patient’s medical history should contain information regarding the patient’s travel; whether they had exposure to a tick bite; whether they recall being bitten by a tick; as well as what symptoms the patient is experiencing. Babesiosis typically presents with virus-like symptoms, fever, sweats, and the identification of Babesia parasites in the patient’s blood. The tests that a reasonably prudent similar physician would order to determine whether a patient had Babesiosis are either a blood smear to identify Babesial parasites or a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of Babesial DNA. Should a patient be diagnosed with Babesiosis, the normal and customary treatment is a ten-day course of clindamycin and atovaquone. Diagnosis and Treatment of Bartonellosis Bartonellosis is an infectious disease caused by bacteria of the genus Bartonella. It is generally transmitted by lice or fleas on a person’s body, coming off of other animals, such as rats. It also can be transmitted through a cat scratch, as the cat gets fleas under its claws by scratching itself. As is the case with Babesiosis, a family practice physician is unlikely to diagnose Bartonellosis. It is not a common diagnosis, and even infectious disease specialists may go an entire career without diagnosing it. If a family practice physician suspects Bartonellosis, the better approach would be to refer the patient to an infectious disease specialist. However, failure to refer a patient to a specialist, assuming that the family physician performs the appropriate testing and treatment, is not necessarily a departure from the standard of care. In order to make a diagnosis, a thorough history and physical is required, along with objective laboratory test results. A physician should inquire about exposure to animals that could carry fleas, ticks, or lice, and whether there had been any recent instances where the patient has been scratched by a cat. The symptoms of Bartonellosis are nonspecific and include fever, headaches, myalgia, and arthralgia. The generally accepted test used to confirm a diagnosis of Bartonellosis would be a PCR amplification of Bartonella DNA, or paired blood serologies. DOAH Case No. 15-2888PL; DOH Case No. 2011-15106 (Patient C.C.) From approximately September 28, 2010, through approximately February 28, 2012, Respondent provided medical care and treatment to patient C.C. At the time of her original presentation to Respondent, C.C. was 27 years old. Prior to seeing Dr. Lentz, C.C. had a series of orthopedic injuries. For example, in 1998, C.C. was involved in a serious car accident, resulting in multiple broken bones and internal injuries requiring a two-week stay in the hospital. C.C. joined the Air Force in 2006, where she served as an aircraft mechanic. During basic training she suffered an injury to her shoulder, which caused problems with her neck, back, and shoulder. While in the military, C.C. was involved in two additional accidents: she broke her wrist in a motorcycle accident at some point, and on March 31, 2009, she had a second accident where the car she was driving was struck by another vehicle. While C.C. denied any injuries as a result of this second accident, shortly thereafter in July 2009, she had neck surgery because of discs impinging on the nerves in her neck. C.C.’s work as an aircraft mechanic required her to work in the fuel tanks of an airplane, which is a very confined space. C.C. is approximately 5’10” tall, and the work she performed required her to become contorted in a very small space for approximately 13 hours at a time. After her neck surgery, she started having increasing amounts of pain in her back and hips, to the point where she could no longer perform her job duties and in August of 2010, resorted to a wheelchair because of her inability to walk. Although she consulted multiple doctors both in the military and through referrals to outside physicians, she did not discover the cause of her pain. On or about September 28, 2010, Respondent evaluated C.C. for complaints of severe back, buttock, and right leg pain. When she presented for her first office visit, Dr. Lentz’s review of symptoms indicated that C.C. had a frontal headache with pain at a level of 10 out of 10; sensitivity to light and sound; loss of hearing and buzzing; nausea but no vomiting; withdrawal symptoms described as sweats when she did not take Ultram or Lortab; and feelings of hopelessness and emotional lability. His physical examination reported that C.C. was in a wheelchair, and documented “soles of feet painful, SKIN: rashes, soles of feet red, NEURO: paresthesia, pain, tender extremity.” At that time, Respondent diagnosed C.C. as having chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic pain syndrome. In C.C.’s history, Respondent noted that she “grew up in Texas/Arkansas-hunting, forests, etc. There is no notation of recent travel on this first visit. Dr. Lentz asked her about any flu-like symptoms, which she denied having. Many of the symptoms listed by C.C. are general symptoms that are common to a variety of ailments. Respondent, however, focused only on chronic fatigue, chronic pain, Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and lupus. On this first office visit, Respondent prescribed CD57, C3a, C4a, and eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) laboratory tests of C.C.’s blood. With respect to the order for CD57, Respondent listed Lyme disease as a diagnosis. For the C4a and C3a, he listed Lyme disease and Lupus as the diagnoses, and for the ECP he listed a diagnosis of Babesia infection. Respondent did not prescribe an immunoassay (ELISA) test or Western blot test for Borrelia burgdorferi for C.C. The ECP test result for C.C. collected on October 6, 2010, was 20.8. The reference range for a normal test result is 1-10. The notation for the test on the lab result states: This test uses a kit/reagent designated by the manufacturer as for research use, not for clinical use. The performance characteristics of this test have been validated by Advanced Diagnostic Laboratories at National Jewish Health. It has not been cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The results are not intended to be used as the sole means for clinical diagnosis or patient management decisions. On or about October 15, 2010, Respondent diagnosed C.C. with Lyme disease. He based his diagnosis of Lyme disease on the results of the CD57 blood test. The CD57 test is a cluster designation test that measures a marker found on lymphocytes, which are a type of white blood cell that are sometimes referred to as natural killer cells. Although Respondent claimed at hearing that he did not consider the test to be definitive, in his deposition he indicated that he believed that it was in fact definitive. Dr. Cichon, on the other hand, testified that the CD57 test used by Dr. Lentz is not a definitive test for Lyme disease, but is useful for measuring the progress of treatment. At least one test result for C.C. reflecting the results for a CD57 panel has the following notation from the laboratory: This test was developed and its performance characteristics determined by Labcorp. It has not been cleared or approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has determined that such clearance or approval is not necessary. Results of this test are for investigational purposes only. The result should not be used as a diagnostic procedure without confirmation of the diagnosis by another medically established diagnostic product or procedure. On or about October 15, 2010, Respondent also diagnosed C.C. with Babesiosis. Respondent did not prescribe a blood smear examination for Babesial parasites or PCR amplification for Babesial DNA for C.C. He based his diagnosis on the ECP test. On October 15, 2010, Dr. Lentz received an e-mail from C.C.’s roommate, M.B., informing him that C.C. had visited the emergency room over the weekend because of the level of her pain. The e-mail asked whether C.C. could begin with her treatment before her next appointment. In response, Dr. Lentz called in prescriptions for doxycycline and Cleocin, both of which are oral antibiotics. On or about October 18, 2010, Respondent described C.C. as being in no acute distress, with a gait that is within normal limits. He also noted some wheezing, pain all over, tears, and cramps in her muscles. Respondent prescribed long-term IV antibiotic therapy and referred C.C. to a specialist for venous port placement for the administration of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. The specific medications prescribed at this visit are acetaminophen-oxycodone 300 mg - 7.5 mg oral tablets to be taken three times daily; Cymbalta 30 mg oral, once a day; Flagyl 500 mg oral tablets, to be taken three weeks on, one week off; heparin 5000 units/ml injectable solution, once a day; Omnicef 300 mg oral capsules, once a day; Interfase Plus Prothera, a supplement; and boluoke lumbrokinase, also a supplement. At the October 18, 2010, visit, he also ordered a Fry test for Bartonellosis and prescribed intravenous vancomycin, with weekly vancomycin trough levels. Dr. Lentz testified at hearing that the prescription for vancomycin was to treat Bartonellosis.3/ However, at this juncture, no diagnosis for Bartonellosis had been made. Heparin is an anticoagulant that is used for a variety of issues, such as blood clots, pulmonary emboli, and Berko emboli. It is also used in coronary heart disease if a patient has a myocardial infarction. The more persuasive and credible testimony established that it was below the standard of care to use heparin in the treatment of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. Not only did heparin have no efficacy, it had the potential to be very dangerous for C.C., or any other patient. On October 28, 2010, Respondent noted that the vancomycin was at 1.5 grams and still not therapeutic, and ordered that the medication be changed to Primaxin and that the Omnicef and vancomycin troughs be stopped. On November 10, 2010, Respondent noted that C.C. was experiencing flu-like symptoms, but was now resting fewer hours each day. For the first time, he noted “past 4 years in military=Virginia, Canada, Honduras, as sites for exposure to Lyme.” He also noted “no wheelchair, but slow to move, pain to rt LS-hip-leg.” He continued to list her diagnoses as Lyme disease, Babesiosis, chronic pain syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Respondent also saw C.C. in the office on December 8, 2010, and January 10, 2011. At the December 8, 2010, visit, he discontinued the use of Flagyl because of her nausea and switched to Tindamax (one tablet daily for three weeks, then off one week) instead. On January 19, 2011, Dr. Lentz received an e-mail from C.C.’s roommate regarding a fall C.C. had over the weekend. As a result, he wrote an e-mail to C.C. and told her to stop the Tindamax and “add the neurotoxins to remove the neurologic toxins that are being created by the antibiotics.” He also directed her to stop the heparin injections, as she needed to be off of heparin before having some hand surgery to remove a cyst. C.C. returned for an office visit on February 9, 2011. At that time, Respondent’s notes indicate that she was ambulatory but still significantly fatigued and still falling. He noted, “rt hip. sciatic nerve still #1 symptom, can not stand or walk for long periods of time, not sure if neurologic/Lyme or degenerative nerve dis.” In his assessment, he stated she “needs CT lumbar sacrum to r/o orthopedic issue with back pain.” During the course of treatment, Respondent was consistently prescribing OxyContin at 10 mg, three times daily. On March 16, 2011, he referred C.C. to Dr. Beach at Andrews Institute to detox off the OxyContin. He also noted that she had been given 100 percent disability through the military, and would take approximately four months to process out of the military. He also noted “electrical ablation at T9, T10 for chronic back pain per Dr. Nyguen.” Dr. Lentz continued to see C.C. on April 12, 2011; May 4, 2011; and May 13, 2011. Throughout her treatment with IV antibiotics, C.C. experienced problems with nausea, rashes, and diarrhea, but claims that over time, her symptoms began to improve so that she could walk and eventually was able to hold down part-time employment. Toward the end of her military tenure, C.C. needed a referral in order to continue to see Dr. Lentz. To that end, on June 8, 2011, she saw Dr. Janelle Robertson, M.D., a board certified infectious disease specialist at Eglin Air Force Base. Dr. Robertson evaluated C.C. for Lyme disease, and documented her history, including travel history and history of tick bites. She reviewed prior records from Eglin Air Force base that indicated C.C. had an ELISA screening on June 10, 2010 (approximately two and a half months before seeing Dr. Lentz), that was negative. The ELISA test was not only performed before C.C. saw Dr. Lentz, but well after C.C. began suffering the symptoms that led her to seek out Dr. Lentz. Accordingly, the ELISA test was administered at a time at which C.C. would have developed sufficient antibodies for the test to be useful. Dr. Robertson also noted that while C.C. had a history of tick bites in Florida, Texas, and Alabama, she did not report any rashes or illness at or near the time of the tick bites. She also had no history of migratory arthralgia or Bell’s palsy. Dr. Robertson testified credibly that C.C. was having no night sweats, weight loss, changes in vision, palpitations, difficulty breathing, or gastrointestinal problems, and that her primary complaint was back and hip pain. C.C.’s pain remained in the same locations and persisted without resolution since 2009. Dr. Robertson concluded that C.C. did not have Lyme disease, and that her prior negative ELISA test conclusively established that she did not have the disease. She opined that, given that C.C.’s symptoms had persisted since 2009, if she had actually had Lyme disease, she would have developed antibodies that would have been detected with the ELISA test. She also determined that Respondent did not have Babesiosis and recommended to C.C. that she immediately stop the therapy prescribed by Dr. Lentz, because in Dr. Robertson’s view, the therapy was unsafe. C.C. has since transitioned out of the military into civilian life. Although she believes that the treatment by Dr. Lentz was effective in treating her condition, the events since she stopped treatment for Lyme disease suggest otherwise. For example, C.C. testified in her deposition that her treatment ended in mid-May 2011 because Dr. Lentz determined that she did not need more treatment, yet it appears that the military would no longer authorize treatment by Dr. Lentz once C.C. saw Dr. Robertson. Moreover, she continues to have some of the same pain that led her to treatment with Dr. Lentz. In approximately October 2014, she had hip surgery because her “hips are pretty much shot.” She has had three surgeries for kidney stones, steroid injections for temporary relief from her back pain, and acupuncture treatments for her back pain. At least one physician attributed her problem to the kind of work she performed as an aircraft mechanic, and at deposition she indicated that a recent MRI indicated that she has some lumbar narrowing. In short, it appears that the months-long IV antibiotic therapy she endured has provided no lasting solution to her pain. Respondent’s care and treatment of C.C. was a departure from the standard of care in that he diagnosed Lyme disease based upon an inadequate history and no objective laboratory test results from an ELISA test and Western blot. Specifically, Respondent failed to obtain C.C.’s travel history or any history of rashes, possible tick bites, including the size of the tick, and in fact obtained a history devoid of any flu-like symptoms characteristic of Lyme disease. C.C.’s primary symptoms were related to her back pain. Respondent’s own expert, Dr. Cichon, testified that the key to a diagnosis of Lyme disease is the patient’s history.4/ With this inadequate history in mind, Respondent did not obtain an ELISA test or Western blot, but instead relied on a test that, on its face, indicates that it is for investigational use only and should not be used as a diagnostic procedure without confirmation of the diagnosis by another medically-established diagnostic product or procedure. The more persuasive and compelling testimony established that the failure to obtain objective laboratory confirmation of Lyme disease through the use of the ELISA and Western blot tests is a departure from the standard of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician. The more persuasive and compelling evidence also established that C.C. did not actually have Lyme disease, despite Respondent’s diagnosis of the disease. Respondent also departed from the appropriate standard of care by his failure to use the appropriate tests for the diagnoses of Babesiosis and Bartonellosis. His test of preference, the ECP test, is by its own terms, not intended to be used as the sole means for clinical diagnosis or patient management decisions. As stated by Dr. Robbins, it has no clinical relevance and is diagnostic of nothing. Likewise, his credible testimony indicated that use of the Fry test was not appropriate, as it is a proprietary test of the laboratory and not FDA approved.5/ Respondent’s care and treatment of C.C. also departed from the applicable standard of care by prescribing surgery for placement of a venous port for administration of intravenous medication, and by prescribing both intravenous and oral antibiotic therapy in inappropriate and excessive amounts. The more credible and persuasive testimony demonstrated that C.C. did not have Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis, and therefore did not need any of the antibiotic therapy prescribed. Even had C.C. received a correct diagnosis, the more persuasive evidence demonstrated that the amounts and duration of the antibiotics prescribed were not only unwarranted, but potentially dangerous for the patient. C.C. had the possibility of negative reactions from the many antibiotics prescribed, but also the very real possibility that she has built up a resistance to the antibiotics such that they will be ineffective should she actually need them in the future. Finally, Respondent’s care and treatment of C.C. departed from the applicable standard of care by the prescription of heparin. There was no medical justification for the prescription of an anticoagulant for the treatment of Lyme disease, even if appropriately diagnosed (which did not happen here), and as with the prescription of multiple long-term antibiotics, was potentially dangerous and harmful to the patient. DOAH Case No. 15-2889PL; DOH Case No. 2011-18613 (Patients D.H., S.L., J.L., W.L., and D.D.) Patient D.H. Respondent provided care and treatment to patient D.H. from approximately November 24, 2010, to approximately October 14, 2011. D.H. was previously seen by a physician’s assistant, Thomas Gregory Roberts, who at various times worked under Respondent’s supervision, including the period from April 29, 2009, to May 26, 2010, and again from September 21, 2010, through December 18, 2010.6/ Mr. Roberts had ordered a previous CD57 test for D.H., and had prescribed doxycycline for him on a long-term basis. Mr. Roberts’ office was closing and his records were no longer available, so on November 24, 2010, D.H.’s wife, J.H., e-mailed Dr. Lentz to request laboratory tests and to schedule an appointment for D.H. She stated in part: Dear Dr. Lentz: Both my husband and I have been to you before, but not at your current office. [D.H.] went to Tom Roberts at Village Health Assoc. and was sent for blood work. His CD57 counts were off, so he put him on Doxycycline [sic] and was on it for several months. His last blood work was done in July and by the sound of it showed some improvement, but he told him to stay on the antibiotics. Tom Roberts gave him an order for follow up bloodwork which reads CD57 + NK Cells Dx2793. Since he is currently not practicing that we know of, we are requesting that you please write an order so that [D.H.] can have blood work done and come to you for the results. Based upon this e-mail, Respondent ordered a CD57 test, using the diagnostic code for and reference to Lyme infection, and an ECP test using the diagnostic code for and reference to Babesia infection. He did so without actually seeing D.H., taking a history, or performing a physical examination. Respondent diagnosed D.H. as having Lyme disease and Babesiosis. He communicated the diagnoses to D.H. on December 25, 2010, via e-mail, stating, “CD57 is positive for Lyme and ECP positive for Babesia. Call Amy at 424-6841 for an appointment. Dr. Lentz.” It does not appear from the record that he considered or ruled out any other condition for D.H.’s complaints. Respondent did not prescribe or order for D.H. an ELISA or Western blot test, PCR amplification of Bartonella or Babesial DNA, or blood smear tests at any time during D.H.’s care and treatment. Respondent did not refer D.H. to a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases, such as Lyme disease, Bartonellosis, and Babesiosis at any time during Respondent’s treatment and care of D.H. D.H.’s first office visit was January 17, 2011. At that time, J.H., D.H.’s wife, who attended the majority of his doctor’s visits with him, testified that his only complaint at that point was fatigue, and ongoing diarrhea she attributed to the lengthy time he had already been on antibiotics. She acknowledged that he checked off those items on a form at the doctor’s office, but was not going to see Dr. Lentz complaining about those: he went simply because of his fatigue. He had no rash at that point, and never complained of a tick bite. Dr. Lentz’s records, however, indicate that he complained about exhaustion; face-neck, jaw, and orbital pain; diarrhea; cramping; stiff and painful joints; mood swings; irritability; explosive [sic]; and poor concentration. From what J.H. could remember, the physical examination Respondent performed on D.H. was very brief. Respondent took D.H.’s blood pressure, possibly looked in his mouth, palpated his abdomen, and did a knee reflex test. She did not remember him doing anything else, except having D.H. fill out a long form. Dr. Lentz’s medical records for this visit contain no prior medical history, no pulse, and no respiration rate. Respondent diagnosed D.H. with Lyme disease. When J.H. asked him if he was sure, Respondent said, absolutely. J.H. had done some research and knew that Respondent had only ordered a CD57 for D.H. She asked him about ordering the Western blot, but he did not order it. She could not remember Respondent’s exact response, but was led to believe that he did not think that the Western blot test was as accurate in diagnosing Lyme disease. At this first visit, Respondent also ordered the Fry test. Results from the Fry test are dated January 25, 2011, and indicate: Based on the accompanying test results for the sample for listed patient and accession number is suggested for follow up confirmation of the putative organism(s). Protozoan: The Special Stains (100x magnification) or the Advanced Stains (magnification listed) for this sample is suggestive of a protozoan. PCR testing for putative FL1953 is suggested for follow-up confirmation. EPierythrozoan/Hemorbartonella: The Special Stains (100x magnification) or the Advanced Stains (magnification listed) for this sample is suggestive of epierythrozoan/ hemobartonella. PCR or serology testing for the putative epierythrozoan/hemobartonella (Bartonella spp.) is suggested for follow up confirmation and speciation. (emphasis added). The records do not indicate that Respondent ordered any of the follow-up testing recommended by the Fry laboratory which, ironically, is the very testing for Bartonellosis that a reasonably prudent similar physician should order for this condition. His records also do not indicate that he ever added Bartonellosis as a diagnosis for D.H. During the course of his treatment, Respondent prescribed for D.H. the antibiotics Omnicef, azithromycin, and Cleocin, as well as Interface Plus Prothera (an enzyme supplement formulation), boluoke lumbrokinase (a fibrinolytic supplement), atenolol (a beta blocker used primarily in cardiovascular disease, added March 7, 2011), heparin injections (an anticoagulant, also added March 7), artemisinin (an antimalarial, added June 14), Mepron (an antiparasitic, added June 14), Tindamax (added June 14), Plaquenil (an antimalarial), and Vermox (an anthelmintic)(both added August 21). J.H. understood that, based upon Respondent’s explanations, the heparin was prescribed to help other medicines be absorbed into the cells, or something along those lines. She was concerned about D.H. being on the heparin, in part because as a result of him injecting the heparin in his abdomen, D.H. had a lot of bruising and knots all over his belly. She was also concerned because D.H. worked as a boat captain on the Mississippi River, which required him to be away from home for weeks at a time. She was concerned about the ramifications should he have an accident at work when he had no access to medical care. Her concerns were warranted. The couple also had concerns about the number of medications D.H. was taking while under Respondent’s care. He developed blurred vision, did not sleep well, and had chronic diarrhea. When D.H. came home from his last visit, which J.H. apparently did not attend, he reported that Dr. Lentz had said something about having a port placed for the administration of more antibiotics. That shocked her, so before he would go through with port placement, they sought a second opinion. Dr. Patrick Anastasio is an osteopathic physician who is a board-certified infectious disease specialist. During all times relevant to these proceedings, he was a solo practitioner in private practice at Emerald Coast Infectious Diseases in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. He has worked in the area for approximately 12 years. D.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Anastasio regarding his Lyme disease and Babesiosis diagnoses. To that end, he saw Dr. Anastasio for the first time on September 29, 2011. Dr. Anastasio did not believe that D.H. had the symptoms initially to place him in a high risk group for Lyme disease. During his examination, he looked for signs that would be consistent with Lyme disease, such as arthritis, cognitive problems, or neurological problems, but did not discover any. Dr. Anastasio did not believe that D.H. had either Lyme disease or Babesiosis, but ordered a blood smear, and a Western blot and a Babesia PCR test to rule out the conditions. All tests came back negative.7/ Dr. Anastasio recommended to D.H. that he stop taking all of the medications prescribed by Dr. Lentz, and D.H. did so. It still took months for the diarrhea, most likely caused by the long-term antibiotic therapy, to subside. However, D.H. began to feel better once he stopped taking the antibiotics. Dr. Charles Powers, M.D., testified that Dr. Lentz’s medical records for D.H. were not adequate for the evaluation of whether D.H. had Lyme disease. He also believed that it was below the standard of care to use the CD57 for the diagnosis of Lyme disease as opposed to the ELISA and Western blot tests, and that it was below the standard of care not to order the ELISA and Western blot tests in the absence of an erythema migrans rash that Dr. Lentz could physically observe. Dr. Powers believed that there was no basis upon which to diagnose D.H. with Lyme disease, and therefore any treatment based on this faulty diagnosis would be below the standard of care. Even assuming the diagnosis was correct, Dr. Powers opined that the treatment ordered also was below the standard of care. According to Dr. Powers, a reasonably prudent family practitioner would usually prescribe doxycycline for the majority of cases, as opposed to the regimen of medications used by Dr. Lentz. Prescribing antibiotics the way they were prescribed would include adverse side effects, such as nausea and/or diarrhea with resistance to bacteria; development of C. difficile infection, which can be difficult to treat; and potential for allergic reactions, which can be fatal. Dr. Powers testified that when a combination of antibiotics is being used, with each additional antibiotic prescribed, the risk for complications increases exponentially. His testimony is credited. Dr. Powers also opined that the use of heparin in the treatment of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis was a departure from the standard of care, and was a dangerous choice for this or any other patient who did not have a need for a blood thinner. Dr. Robbins also believed that Respondent’s care and treatment of D.H. was below the standard of care. He testified that Respondent breached the standard of care by diagnosing D.H. with Babesiosis using the ECP test and the Fry testing for the purpose of diagnosing Bartonellosis. He also testified, consistent with Dr. Powers, that using heparin in the treatment of any of these three diseases was an egregious departure from the standard of care. The testimony of Drs. Robbins and Powers is credited. Dr. Cichon expressed concerns about the amount of medications prescribed by Dr. Lentz to D.H., specifically singling out the prescriptions for Plaquenil and Vermox. While his testimony fell far short of declaring that prescribing these medications represented a departure from the standard of care, his testimony was certainly not a ringing endorsement. It seemed as if he was trying to convince himself that Respondent’s care and treatment of this patient fell within the standard of care. His testimony to that effect is rejected as not credible. D.H. did not have a medical condition that justified the prescription of any of the medications and supplements that Dr. Lentz prescribed, much less for the duration taken. The prescription of any of these medications without a valid diagnosis was a departure from the standard of care attributed to a reasonably prudent similar physician. Patient S.L. Respondent provided care and treatment to patient S.L. from on or about August 17, 2010, to on or about January 7, 2011. On or about August 17, 2010, at her first office visit with Dr. Lentz, S.L. presented with and reported to Respondent a history of heavy rectal bleeding, which occurred every four to five days. At that visit, S.L. informed Respondent that in June, she had been advised to get a colonoscopy. Because of economic constraints, S.L. did not obtain the requested colonoscopy. There is no indication in the patient records for S.L.’s first office visit (or any later visit) that the reason for S.L.’s bleeding prior to his treatment of her had been determined or that it had resolved. S.L. first went to see Dr. Lentz at Hope Medical Clinic8/ because she believed that she had a urinary tract infection. She also had severe back pain, with pins and needles down both legs. Her back pain had started in 2005, following a car accident. S.L. does not recall Respondent ever performing a physical examination, although the patient records indicate that at least a minimal examination was performed. She does recall him talking to her about being from Pennsylvania, but does not recall him asking her about any travel history, whether she had been exposed to ticks, or had ever been bitten by a tick. Dr. Lentz’s medical records for this first visit make no mention of a travel history; no mention of tick exposure; and no mention of any type of rash. Much of the history related to other issues, such as S.L.’s history of bleeding, as opposed to any symptoms that could be said to be indicative of Lyme disease. The symptoms documented are “paresthesis to both legs due to lumbar path. Recent hematochezia. No melena. No upper abd. Pain. No diarrhea. Mostly awake sxs, not hs.” Yet in his assessment/plan notes, he lists diagnoses of lumbago, displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy, and chronic pain syndrome. He prescribed Lyrica, Elavil, Lortab, and ordered a CD57, listing the Lyme disease diagnostic code. There was no medical basis, based on the history presented, to suspect or test for Lyme disease. On September 21, 2010, S.L. presented to Dr. Lentz for a follow-up appointment. At this appointment, Respondent diagnosed S.L. as having Lyme disease. He ordered a Fry Bartonella test as well as an ECP test, and prescribed doxycycline, Omnicef, and Flagyl. On September 30, 2010, S.L. called Respondent and reported throwing up all of her antibiotics, and asked about medication for her nausea. Dr. Lentz added the diagnosis of Bartonellosis without seeing S.L. or performing any further physical examination. The results of the Fry test in the patient records state: “rare (1-4 organisms per total fields observed) coccobacilli adherent to erythrocytes – indicated by yellow arrow(s). This is suggestive of Hemobartonella(1) or Hemoplasma(2).” The notes also state, “[t]his stain is not FDA approved and is for research only.” At S.L.’s next appointment on October 5, 2010, Dr. Lentz prescribed rifampin and Cleocin, as well as Lovenox injections. Lovenox is a low molecular weight heparin that can be given subcutaneously. At the time Dr. Lentz prescribed it, there was no determination regarding the cause of her heavy rectal bleeding just a few months before. On October 19, 2010, just two weeks after starting the Lovenox injections, S.L. presented to the emergency room at Sacred Heart Hospital with complaints of blood in her urine.9/ Physicians in the emergency room attributed the blood in her urine to the Lovenox injections, and discharged her with a diagnosis of hematuria. That same day, she presented to Dr. Lentz and told him about her emergency room visit. Dr. Lentz lowered the dose for Lovenox, but did not discontinue its use. His notes for this visit indicate that she had left flank pain, slight liver tenderness, no masses, and a “light liver test elevated, <2X normal.”10/ He added a diagnosis for Babesiosis, but did not appear to explore what was causing the liver tenderness and elevated tests. Under his assessment and plan, it states: “1. Cut Lovenox BID to QAM. 2. Add Culturelle/probiotics to GI tract due to antibiotics being used, if urine lightens up and less blood on dipstick, then improvement.” Respondent did not prescribe S.L. a PCR amplification or Bartonella or Babesial DNA, or Western blot immunoassay tests at any time during Respondent’s care and treatment of S.L. Respondent did not refer patient S.L. to a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases, such as Lyme disease, Bartonellosis, and Babesiosis, at any time during Respondent’s care and treatment of S.L. S.L. testified that the physicians at Sacred Heart Hospital informed her that there was no reason for her to be on the antibiotics or blood thinner prescribed by Dr. Lentz, and based upon their advice, she stopped the medication regimen he prescribed. The medical records from Sacred Heart do not mention this advice, and she saw Dr. Lentz at least twice after her emergency room visit: October 19 and November 2, 2010. After that, the only communications in Dr. Lentz’s medical records for S.L. appear to be requests for medication related to urinary tract infections as opposed to treatment for Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. In any event, she quit seeing Dr. Lentz for Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and Bartonellosis at least as of November 2, and testified credibly that she feels fine. Based on the credible testimony of Drs. Powers and Robbins, Dr. Lentz’s diagnosis and treatment of S.L. violated the applicable standard of care in that he failed to obtain an appropriate history to diagnose Lyme disease, Babesiosis or Bartonellosis in the first place. He failed to obtain a travel history, any information regarding possible tick bites, and if there was such a bite, the size of the tick and duration of the bite. He also failed to document symptoms that would suggest the possibility of Lyme disease to justify any objective laboratory testing. S.L.’s symptoms were related to back pain and a history of heavy bleeding. Her symptoms simply did not justify testing for Lyme disease. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to perform an adequate examination. As noted above, while S.L. does not remember one, the medical records reflect notations indicating that one was in fact performed. The problem is that the history and physical examination do not support further investigation for Lyme disease. Respondent also departed from the applicable standard of care by relying on tests that were not appropriate for the diagnosis of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. As stated above, there was no basis to test for these conditions at all, but if testing was going to be performed, then the appropriate tests were not the CD57, ECP, and Fry tests, but rather the ELISA, Western blot, PCR, and serologies discussed above. Respondent’s prescription of multiple antibiotics of lengthy duration also violated the standard of care, for reasons discussed above at paragraphs 60 and 79. Likewise, Respondent’s prescription of Lovenox fell below the standard of care. The use of Lovenox for Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and Bartonellosis is not warranted at all, but is especially egregious here, where S.L. had excessive bleeding problems of which Respondent was aware just months before Lovenox was prescribed, with no documentation that the cause of the bleeding had been identified and addressed, and no indication that Respondent did anything to investigate the cause of the bleeding. That he continued to prescribe the Lovenox, albeit at a lower dose, after her visit to the emergency room with hematuria, just compounds the problem. Dr. Cichon testified that Respondent met the standard of care in diagnosing and treating S.L., saying that she had unexplained pain that could be due to Lyme disease. He struggled to identify any symptoms that are commonly associated with Lyme disease. His testimony seemed to indicate anytime there is unexplained pain, Lyme disease is a possibility. His testimony on this issue is not credible. The same can be said for his support of the diagnosis of Babesiosis. Dr. Cichon identified the primary symptoms of Babesiosis as headaches, sweating, and air hunger. S.L. did not have these symptoms, leaving only the ECP test as a basis for diagnosis. Relying on the ECP (which is only slightly elevated) is contrary to Dr. Cichon’s own testimony regarding the primary importance of a thorough history to support such a diagnosis. Similarly, Dr. Cichon acknowledged in his testimony that he could not tell from Respondent’s medical records whether S.L. had any symptoms to support a diagnosis for Bartonellosis, and stated that her symptoms could be due to her lumbar pathology. Given these inconsistencies, his opinion that Dr. Lentz did not depart from the applicable standard of care in the diagnosis of each of these diseases is not credible and is rejected. Medical records must justify the course of treatment for a patient. Dr. Lentz’s medical records for S.L. do not justify the diagnosis or treatment of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. The medical records do not document symptoms that are consistent with the diagnoses of any of these diseases, and fail to provide a complete medical history. Patients J.L., W.L., and D.D. J.L. is the mother of S.L. W.L. is J.L.’s husband and S.L.’s father, and D.D. is S.L.’s son and J.L. and W.L.’s grandson. On September 22, 2010, approximately one month after S.L. began treatment with Dr. Lentz, J.L. wrote him the following e-mail: Dr. Lentz: Thank you for talking with me on the phone today. We are really concerned about S.L. and we can not [sic] express to you how much you are appreciated for all you have done for her. You are a true blessing to our family. My husband was bitten by a tick over the July 4th weekend in MO. He developed the bulleye [sic] rash and went to our family doctor. Dr. Calvin Blount. He was give [sic] 10 days of antibiotics, but no follow up or blood test were ever ordered. We would like to be tested for Lyme. We believe that S.L. might have contracted Lyme before she became pregnant with D.D. and would like him tested also. Here is our information. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you again for all you have done. As noted above, there was an insufficient basis to justify the ordering of any tests related to Lyme disease for S.L. The only basis for ordering tests for D.D. is the suspicion that S.L. may have been infected prior to giving birth to D.D. If there is no basis for suspecting S.L. has Lyme disease, there is no basis for suspecting D.D. has Lyme disease. Respondent did not make an appointment for, take a history from, or perform a physical examination of J.L., W.L., or D.D. Based upon this e-mail alone, he ordered CD57 and ECP tests for all three of them, as well as C4a and C3a tests for J.L. and W.L. To justify ordering the tests, he listed “Lyme Disease (088.81)” under his assessment/plan for each patient. Although he never saw any of these patients, he coded each encounter as “high complexity.” On October 14, 2010, Dr. Lentz sent an e-mail to J.L. stating that “D.D. is positive for Lyme and negative for Babesia.” On October 24, 2010, Dr. Lentz sent an e-mail to J.L. stating, “W.L. C4A is back=20,000+ indicative of active Lyme.” On October 25, 2010, Dr. Lentz sent an e-mail to J.L. which stated, “[t]he CD57 is 50=positive, and the ECP is 11.5=positive for Babesia. My initial charge is $400 and $200 for return visits. Since I will be seeing both you and [W.L.], I will drop that to $300 initial visits. Call Amy for the schedule.” Dr. Lentz testified that he did not diagnose J.L., W.L., or D.D. with any condition, and did not really consider them to be patients. In his view, he was simply doing a favor for the family members of a patient. However, he created records that referred to each patient as being new patients needing tests for Lyme disease, and included diagnostic codes for the lab tests. With respect to each of them, he made an interpretation of the tests that he ordered. At least with respect to D.D., he admitted in his deposition that he diagnosed D.D. with Lyme disease based on the laboratory tests. Both S.L. and W.L. testified credibly that, based on the communications received from Dr. Lentz, they each believed that he had diagnosed them with Lyme disease, and that he had diagnosed J.L. with Babesia. It is found that he did, in fact, provide diagnoses to J.L., W.L., and D.D., without the benefit of a personal history, or a physical examination. Respondent did not refer J.L., W.L., or D.D. to a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases such as Lyme disease, Bartonellosis, or Babesiosis. Respondent did not order for J.L., W.L., or D.D. an ELISA or Western blot test, PCR amplification of Bartonella or Babesial DNA, or blood smear tests. J.L. and W.L. decided to get a second opinion regarding the Lyme disease and Babesiosis diagnoses, and went to see Dr. Anastasio. Dr. Anastasio testified that J.L. did not have the required exposure to or symptoms for Lyme disease. Because she came to him with a Lyme disease diagnosis, he ordered a Lyme Western blot, a PCR for Babesiosis, and a PCR for Bartonellosis. J.L.’s Western blot IgM was negative, with two of the three antibody bands tested returning as absent. The Western blot IgG was negative, with all ten antibody bands returning as absent. J.L.’s PCRs for both Babesiosis and Bartonellosis were negative. Dr. Anastasio testified that he did not believe that J.L. had either Lyme disease or Babesia. His testimony was persuasive, and is credited. Dr. Anastasio testified that, given W.L.’s history of a tick bite followed by a rash, there was at least a basis to believe his symptoms could be an indication of Lyme disease. The tick bite and rash were approximately six months prior to W.L. presenting to Dr. Anastasio, and almost three months prior to Dr. Lentz ordering tests for him. Given these time frames, there was plenty of time for W.L. to develop antibodies to Lyme disease if he was in fact infected with the disease. Dr. Anastasio testified that at the time he saw W.L., W.L.’s symptoms were not consistent with late Lyme disease. Dr. Anastasio ordered several tests for W.L., including a Lyme Western blot, a PCR for Babesiosis, a blood smear for Babesiosis, and a PCR for Bartonellosis. The Western blot test was negative, with zero out of ten antibodies present. Both PCR tests and the blood smear were also negative. Dr. Anastasio concluded that W.L. did not have Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis, and his testimony to that effect is credited.11/ Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care with respect to the care and treatment of patients W.L., J.L., and D.D. Based on the credible testimony of Drs. Powers and Robbins, Dr. Lentz departed from the standard of care in ordering tests for all three patients when he did so without seeing them, taking a history with respect to any of them, or conducting a physical examination of any of them to determine whether any of the requested tests were warranted or even justified. Respondent also departed from the applicable standard of care when he ordered tests that would not even assist in diagnosing Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis had testing for those conditions been appropriate. Moreover, Dr. Powers testified credibly that the appropriate way to order tests for a suspected condition is to use the symptoms that are being investigated by the physician ordering the test, as opposed to the suspected disease being considered. For example, one ordering a mammogram would list “screening” or “diagnostic,” not “breast cancer,” because at that point, breast cancer has not been, and might never be, diagnosed. Documenting the symptom as opposed to the disease is important in terms of continuing care, so that there is no confusion by a subsequent health care provider reading the records about a premature diagnosis. Dr. Powers’ testimony is credited. Dr. Lentz also claimed that because J.L., W.L., and D.D. were not his patients, he did not need to have medical records for them that complied with section 458.331(1)(n). However, Dr. Lentz created patient records for all three in order to order the laboratory tests for them. He coded the action taken as having high complexity. The definition of medicine includes “diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition.” § 458.305(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent clearly engaged in the practice of medicine when he wrote prescriptions for tests for the purpose of diagnosing disease. By ordering these tests, creating medical charts for them (however limited they may be), interpreting the test results and communicating those results, he established a physician-patient relationship with J.L., W.L., and D.D. Accordingly, he was required to have patient records that justified the course of treatment (here, the diagnosis of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and Bartonella). The records presented do not meet that requirement. DOAH Case No. 15-2890PL; DOH Case No. 2012-01987 (Patient C.H.) At the time of the events giving rise to this case, C.H. was a 23-year-old woman. She was married and attending her final year of chiropractic school in Kennesaw, Georgia. C.H. testified that in December 2010, she had experienced a bout with the flu, including an episode where she passed out in the shower, for which she was prescribed a Z-pack, and recovered. She then had gum surgery during the Christmas break, requiring anesthesia, after which she visited her husband’s family in Missouri over the Christmas holiday. After C.H. returned to Georgia, she returned to class for the spring semester. In early February of 2011, she had an episode in class where her heart started beating very rapidly, and upon a physician’s advice, went to the emergency room. Tests given there were normal. Follow-up tests also did not reveal the basis for her symptoms, and in March 2011, her mother contacted Dr. Lentz based upon the suggestion of a family friend who had treated with him. On or about March 20, S.H. contacted Respondent by e-mail regarding her 23-year-old daughter, C.H. S.H. had been referred to Respondent by a family friend. S.H. reported that she had found a checklist for Lyme disease symptoms online, which included some of the symptoms her daughter was experiencing, such as fatigue, rapid heartbeat, chest pain, headaches, blurry vision, and difficulty concentrating. She also related that C.H. was in her final year of chiropractic school and had recently completed her national boards, and thought that some of the symptoms might be related to stress and anxiety from her studies. In that e-mail, S.H. reported to Respondent that C.H. had tested negative for Lyme disease the previous week. Respondent received a copy of C.H.’s negative Lyme disease test report from blood collected on or about March 16, 2011. On or about March 22, 2011, Respondent documented his assessment of C.H. as Lyme disease and chronic fatigue syndrome. He ordered CD57, C3a, C4a, and ECP laboratory tests of C.H.’s blood. At the time these tests were ordered, Respondent had not seen or talked to C.H., taken her history, or performed a physical examination. Respondent did not at any time prescribe an ELISA test or Western blot test for C.H. On April 14, 2011, S.H. e-mailed Dr. Lentz to see if any test results had been received for C.H. Dr. Lentz replied, “CD57 51+ positive for Lyme. Babesia is negative at this time.” When asked how to proceed, he told her she needed to start treatment until the CD57 is over 120.12/ S.H. asked via e-mail whether C.H. should get treatment from Dr. Lentz or her family doctor, saying they would prefer to work through him, as this is his specialty. Dr. Lentz responded, “This is more than a good family physician can handle. I have 35 years of family practice and know first hand. Lyme is a multi-faceted problem and requires extra time and effort to educate and direct this complex problem.” On or about April 18, 2011, Respondent prescribed the antibiotics Omnicef (cefdinir) and azithromycin to C.H. At the time he prescribed these medications, Respondent had not seen C.H., and there is no documentation in the patient records that Respondent made any inquiry regarding potential allergies before prescribing these antibiotics. On or about April 25, 2011, C.H. presented to Respondent for the first, and only, office visit. The medical records for that date contain symptoms that C.H. credibly denies having reported to him, such as double vision, twitching, tremors and shakes, explosive (behavior), and shortness of breath. C.H. does not recall being weighed at that visit, although the record contains a weight for her. It does not however, indicate her temperature, pulse, or respiration rate. She recalls a minimum examination for which she remained clothed in shorts and a t- shirt. During the examination, Respondent asked if she had ever been bitten by a tick or had a rash, and checked some areas of her body for a tick bite/rash, which she denied ever having. Dr. Lentz did not inquire about her travel history. Despite the fact that one of her symptoms was the inability to take a deep breath and had suffered from heart palpitations, his patients do not reflect a temperature, pulse, or respiration rate. At that visit, Respondent added the antibiotic Flagyl (metronidazole) and Interfase Plus Prothera, an enzyme formulation, to C.H.’s medications. C.H. testified that at that visit, Dr. Lentz told her that he was a specialist with numerous years of experience, and that he was the only one certified to be able to treat this, and she would have to be under his constant care. C.H. also testified that he told her she would need to be medicated for the rest of her life, because Lyme disease lives forever in your body, and that she would probably never be able to get pregnant or have children. C.H. was devastated by this information. The entire visit with Dr. Lentz, including both the taking of her history and the physical examination, lasted approximately ten minutes. C.H.’s testimony is credited. On or about June 10, 2011, Respondent prescribed CD57, C3a, C4a, and ECP tests for C.H. On or about July 2, 2011, Respondent prescribed C.H. with Babesiosis. He made this diagnosis completely on the basis of test results, as C.H. had not returned to his office after her first and only visit. On or about July 9, 2011, Respondent added artemisinin (an antimalarial), Hepapro (a nutritional supplement); Mepron (atovaquone, an antiparasitic), heparin injections (an anticoagulant), magnesium oxide (antacid, laxative, dietary supplement), and omega-3 fatty acids to C.H.’s treatment. Respondent did not prescribe a blood smear examination for Babesial parasites or PCR amplification for Babesial DNA for C.H. At no time during her treatment did Dr. Lentz refer C.H. to a specialist. Indeed, he represented to her and to her mother that he was a specialist in Lyme disease and that he was better equipped to treat these conditions than a normal family practitioner would be. C.H.’s condition worsened rather than improved under the medication regimen Dr. Lentz prescribed. She suffered diarrhea and blurred vision and her other symptoms did not improve. Dr. Joel Rosenstock is a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Georgia. He is board certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty in infectious disease, and has practiced infectious disease medicine for over 30 years. During the time related to this proceeding, Dr. Rosenstock was practicing in Atlanta, Georgia, at the AbsoluteCARE Medical Center and Pharmacy. C.H. first presented to Dr. Rosenstock on July 12, 2011, at which time she reported Dr. Lentz’s diagnoses of Lyme disease and Babesiosis. In contrast to her brief visit with Dr. Lentz, her consultation with Dr. Rosenstock lasted two to three hours. Dr. Rosenstock immediately ordered a Western blot test for C.H., which was negative. He conducted a thorough history and physical for her, and asked C.H. questions about her travel history, her dogs and where they slept, her hobbies, etc. He advised her that he did not believe that she had Lyme disease or Babesiosis, and recommended that she stop all of the antibiotics and other medications that Dr. Lentz had prescribed. He warned her that it could take several months before the drugs were out of her system, so relief from the side effects would not be immediate. Within a few weeks of stopping the medications, C.H. was feeling much better and was on her way to feeling back to her old self. Dr. Rosenstock did not believe that any of the tests that Dr. Lentz ordered for C.H. were useful in diagnosing Lyme disease or Babesiosis, and did not believe that heparin served any purpose in treating C.H. Based on the credible opinions of Drs. Powers and Robbins, and the testimony of Dr. Rosenstock as a subsequent treating provider, it is found that Dr. Lentz departed from the applicable standard of care in the care and treatment of C.H. in several respects. First, Respondent departed from the applicable standard of care by ordering blood tests and prescribing antibiotic treatment for C.H. (as well as other medications) when he had never actually seen her. At the time he ordered the blood tests, and at the time he first ordered medications for C.H., he had not obtained a history for her, much less a history that was suggestive of Lyme disease, and had not conducted a physical examination of any kind. All he had as a basis for ordering tests was the e-mail from her mother. This e-mail was an insufficient basis upon which to determine that testing for Lyme disease was warranted. When he did actually see C.H., he failed to perform an adequate physical examination and failed to take an adequate history that included travel history, possible exposure to ticks, how long any tick bite may have lasted, and the size and appearance of the tick. Respondent failed to use the generally accepted tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and Babesiosis, instead relying on tests that are meant for investigational purposes and indicate on their face that they are not meant for diagnostic purposes. Moreover, as noted above, at the time he ordered the tests, he had no basis upon which to believe C.H. had Lyme disease. Although even his own expert witness consistently stated that a diagnosis of Lyme disease is based in large part upon a thorough history, here, Dr. Lentz had no history. Dr. Cichon’s testimony that it was appropriate to rely on the information in S.H.’s e-mail about her daughter’s symptoms (keeping in mind that her daughter is an adult, not a child) is rejected as not credible. Respondent also departed from the applicable standard of care by prescribing Omnicef, azithromycin, artemisinin, Hepapro, Mepron, heparin injections, magnesium oxide, and omega-3 fatty acids for a condition that she did not have. Given that C.H. had no condition justifying the prescription of these drugs, the prescriptions were both inappropriate and excessive. They also were prescribed for a duration that was not justified, and exposed C.H. to complications that were unnecessary. Respondent was required to keep medical records that justified the course of treatment. His medical records for C.H. fell well short of this requirement. He failed to document a complete history, an adequate physical examination, or why he did not refer her case to a specialist. He also departed from the applicable standards when he used a diagnosis of Lyme disease as the basis for blood tests at a time when he had never seen the patient. Failure to Timely Report Diagnoses or Suspicion of Lyme Disease to the Department of Health (DOAH Case Nos. 15-2889 and 15-2890) Finally, in DOAH Case Nos. 15-2889 and 15-2890, the Department alleged that Respondent failed to report his diagnoses of Lyme disease or suspicions of Lyme disease for patients D.H., J.L., W.L., S.L., D.D., and C.H. to the Department of Health. Section 381.0031, Florida Statutes (2010-2011), requires certain licensed health care practitioners and facilities in Florida to report the diagnosis or suspicion of the existence of diseases of public health significance to the Department of Health. Lyme disease is one of the diseases identified by rule that meets the definition of a disease that is “a threat of public health and therefore of significance to public health.” § 381.0031(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 64D-3.029. There are forms that are identified by rule for use in reporting these cases. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64D-3.030(3). Ashley Rendon is a biological scientist for the Department of Health in Okaloosa County. Ms. Rendon is an epidemiologist whose duties include investigating reportable disease conditions and outbreaks of public health significance in Okaloosa County. According to Ms. Rendon, whose testimony is consistent with the Department’s rules on this subject, all diagnosed or suspected cases of Lyme disease must be reported to the Department. Once reported, the county health office will conduct an analysis of the reported diagnosis or suspicion, based on a “guidance to surveillance” document, to determine whether the reported case meets the definition for Lyme disease such that the case needs to be reported to the statewide system and to the CDC. Ms. Rendon testified that whether a suspected case or a diagnosis meets the case definition is not for the practitioner to decide. Ms. Rendon’s testimony is credited. According to Ms. Rendon, the Department maintains records both for those reported cases that met the case definition and those reported cases that did not. For 2010, there was one case of Lyme disease that was confirmed, probable, or suspect. None were reported for 2011. There were seven to eight additional cases that were reviewed, but not reported as probable, confirmed, or suspect. Not all reported results are confirmed by ELISA or Western blot. Ms. Rendon reviewed the records of the Department to determine whether Dr. Lentz had reported any cases of Lyme disease, whether suspected or diagnosed, to the Department. There was one instance where a patient of Dr. Lentz’s apparently called in and asked questions, but there was no record of Dr. Lentz or anyone in his office reporting Lyme disease. Dr. Lentz claimed that he had at least on one occasion attempted to report in the past, but that he could not say if he had reported any of the patients named in the Administrative Complaints. He claimed that the Department would not accept reports that are not supported by two-tier testing results, so he stopped trying to report. His claim is rejected as not credible. There is clear and convincing evidence to establish that Respondent failed to report his diagnoses of Lyme disease for patients D.H., J.L., W.L., D.D., S.L., and C.H. General Observations Of the seven patients presented in this proceeding, Dr. Lentz saw only two before ordering tests for Lyme disease and in some cases, Babesiosis or Bartonellosis. With respect to C.H., not only did he fail to see her before ordering testing, but he ordered medications for her without ever obtaining a medical history or performing a physical examination. Some of the patients specifically requested testing for Lyme disease. However, it is the physician’s responsibility to determine whether there is any realistic reason to believe that a patient has a need for such tests. Moreover, in several instances, the general, non-specific symptoms related by the patients suggest several other alternative conditions that could cause the patients’ problems. Even Respondent’s expert opined that Lyme disease, Bartonellosis and Babesiosis share a lot of general, non-specific symptoms with other illnesses, including serious diagnoses such as ALS, MS, and rheumatoid diseases. These are all, according to Dr. Cichon, differential diagnoses that a physician should sometimes consider when trying to find a diagnosis. Yet with all of these patients, Dr. Lentz went straight to Lyme disease every time. He did not consider much of anything else when even to a lay person, the records cry out for a more thoughtful and measured approach. In short, it seems that Dr. Lentz wanted to find Lyme disease regardless of the symptoms presented, and so he did. By doing so, he cost these patients not only the money used for testing and, with respect to C.C., W.L., S.L., and C.H., subjecting them to treatments they did not need and, in at least with respect to S.L., could not afford, but he subjected them to a treatment regimen that made them miserable, was of questionable benefit, and exposed them to unnecessary risks. Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Dr. Charles Powers, a general family practitioner, and Dr. William Robbins, an infectious disease specialist. It also presented the testimony of subsequent treating physicians: Dr. Janelle Robertson, Dr. Patrick Anastasio, and Dr. Joel Rosenstock. Each subsequent treating physician testified credibly that the symptoms presented simply did not justify a diagnosis of Lyme disease, and the testing they either conducted or reviewed did not indicate a basis for such a diagnosis. Their testimony was consistent with that of both expert witnesses presented by the Department, and the testimony of these subsequent treating physicians and expert witnesses have been accorded great weight. Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Cichon, a retired infectious disease specialist. Dr. Cichon’s testimony was in many respects inconsistent, and at times he seemed to be struggling to actually support the care and treatment that Respondent performed in these cases. While he championed Respondent’s use of the CD57, the ECP, and the Fry test, he also admitted that he seldom, if ever, used some of these tests, and that there were problems with standardization of the tests. Moreover, the tests themselves indicated on their face that they were for investigational, as opposed to diagnostic, use, and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis of patients. Because of the significant inconsistencies with his testimony and the contrasts between what he advocated and what Dr. Lentz sometimes did, his testimony is given little weight.
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 that Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(g), (m), and (t), as alleged in the three Administrative Complaints at issue in this proceeding; and by the findings that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t) with respect to all seven patients, Respondent is guilty of repeated malpractice. It is further recommended that the Board of Medicine revoke his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $30,000, and impose costs pursuant to section 456.072. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 8th day of July, 2016.
