The Issue The issue in this case is whether Jeffrey Puretz, M.D., was a participating physician at the time of the birth of Sophia Talley for purposes of the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioners Jaime Barnes and Jonathan Talley are the parents/natural guardians of Sophia Talley. The delivery of Sophia was performed by Intervenor, Jeffrey Puretz, M.D. Sophia was born at Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LRMC), a licensed hospital in Lakeland, Florida, on June 14, 2011. Sophia’s birth weight was 2,970 grams. Sophia was a single gestation. Sophia did not suffer from a genetic or congenital abnormality at birth. Sophia’s APGAR scores at birth were 4/8/9. Sophia was delivered by Cesarean section. Sophia is substantially and permanently mentally and physically impaired as a result of an hypoxic injury to her brain which occurred during labor, delivery and in the immediate post- delivery period. Sophia’s medical condition and treatment are documented in the birth records of Lakeland Regional Medical Center. The Petition in this cause was filed within five years from the date of birth of Sophia. Jeffrey Puretz, M.D., provided NICA notice to Jaime Barnes. Jeffrey Puretz, M.D., paid the NICA fee covering the period during which the birth of Sophia took place. NICA issued a certificate of participation regarding Jeffrey Puretz, M.D., for the period of time which included the date of birth of Sophia. At the time of Sophia’s birth, Jeffrey Puretz, M.D., was providing services pursuant to a contract with Central Florida Healthcare, Inc. (CFH). Facts based upon evidence of record At the time he delivered Sophia Talley, Dr. Puretz was employed by Women’s Care of Florida Lakeland OB/GYN. However, Dr. Puretz also provided obstetrical services pursuant to an independent contractor agreement with CFH. Ms. Barnes received her prenatal care from CFH. Dr. Puretz provided services to Ms. Barnes as a result of Ms. Barnes’ status as a patient of CFH, a federally-funded community healthcare provider. The independent contractor agreement between Dr. Puretz and CFH states that Dr. Puretz has been "deemed" an employee of the federal government pursuant to the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act and reads in pertinent part as follows: The practice represents and warrants to the Contractor that it has been “deemed” and that during the term of this Agreement it shall remain “deemed” as an employee of the Federal Government pursuant to the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-73). As such, all of the Practice’s employees and certain independent contractors, as well as the Practice itself, are afforded protection under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for claims relating to personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of medical procedures required under this Agreement. The Contractor, by virtue of his/her independent contractor status in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, will be afforded protection under the FTCA for duties performed under this Agreement. The NICA Notice provided to Ms. Barnes by CFH includes the name of Dr. Puretz as one of the physicians who could be providing obstetrical care to Ms. Barnes. In addition to having a “Certificate of Participation” from NICA, Dr. Puretz appears on NICA’s list of participating physicians, which listed Dr. Puretz as a participating physician for the time period in which Sophia was born. Carol Fox is Associate Vice President of Medical and Academic affairs at LRMC. Her responsibilities include oversight of the medical staff office, which does the credentialing, privileging, and enrollment of medical staff members of the hospital. According to Ms. Fox, a physician must provide evidence of licensure and malpractice insurance to apply for medical staff privileges. The office is also responsible for confirming that physicians with privileges are participants in NICA. Dr. Puretz is an active staff member providing obstetrical services at LRMC. A copy of Dr. Puretz’s memorandum of insurance for medical professional liability insurance is kept on file at LRMC, listing his private practice, Women’s Care Florida, LLC, as the named insured. According to Ms. Fox, LRMC does not consider or rely upon a physician’s employment status when considering the granting of privileges. The Agreement between Dr. Puretz and CFH specifically contemplates that the services provided by Dr. Puretz include both hospital and outpatient services. It is Dr. Puretz’s understanding that he was acting as a federal employee under the contract with CFH when he was providing obstetrical services for the birth of Sophia.
The Issue Whether Jacqueline Simone Jackson (Jacqueline), a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan). If so, whether Petitioners' settlement of a civil suit against the hospital where Jacqueline was born for negligence associated with her birth bars them from recovery of an award under the Plan. Whether the participating physicians complied with the notice provisions of the Plan.
Findings Of Fact Findings related to compensability Tracie Turner Jackson and Ulysses Bernard Jackson are the natural parents and guardians of Jacqueline Simone Jackson, a minor. Jacqueline was born a live infant on December 8, 1999, at Orlando Regional Healthcare System, d/b/a Arnold Palmer Hospital for Women and Children (Arnold Palmer Hospital), a licensed hospital located in Orlando, Florida, and her birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physicians providing obstetrical services at Jacqueline's birth were Alejandro J. Pena, M.D., and Marc W. Bischof, M.D., who, at all times material hereto, were "participating physician[s]" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who suffer a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation . . . occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." § 766.302(2), Fla. Stat. See also §§ 766.309 and 766.31, Fla. Stat. Here, the parties have stipulated, and the proof is otherwise compelling, that Jacqueline suffered a "birth-related neurological injury." Consequently, since obstetrical services were provided by a "participating physician" at birth, the claim is covered by the Plan. §§ 766.309(1) and 766.31(1), Fla. Stat. The settlement with Arnold Palmer Hospital In 2002, Tracie Turner Jackson and Ulysses Bernard Jackson, individually and as parents and natural guardians of their minor daughter, Jacqueline Simone Jackson, Plaintiffs, filed a medical malpractice claim arising out of the birth of Jacqueline against Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc., d/b/a Arnold Palmer Hospital for Women and Children; Alejandro J. Pena, M.D.; Marc W. Bischof, M.D.; Physician Associates of Florida, Inc.; T. Zinkil, R.N.; S. Furgus, R.N.; Nancy Ruiz, R.N.; L. Baker, R.N.; T. Flyn, R.N.; and Nancy Ostrum, R.N., Defendants, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, Case No. 2002-CA-6770 Div. 34. A settlement was reached with Arnold Palmer Hospital, but the case against Dr. Pena, Dr. Bischof, and Physician Associates of Florida, Inc., remained pending.3 Given Petitioners' settlement with Arnold Palmer Hospital, and the provisions of Section 766.304, Florida Statutes (1999)4("An action may not be brought under ss. 766.301- 766.316 if the claimant recovers or final judgment is entered."), Petitioners and Respondent stipulated that "Petitioners are not entitled to any actual payment or award from NICA, even if a finding is made that the claim is compensable and adequate notice was given." (Petitioners' letter of November 18, 2004, filed November 19, 2004, and Respondent's letter of November 16, 2004, filed November 16, 2004.) The notice provisions of the Plan While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners have responded to the physicians' claim of Plan immunity by averring that the participating physicians who delivered obstetrical services at Jacqueline's birth (Doctors Pena and Bischof) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. Consequently, it is necessary to resolve whether either participating physician gave the required notice. O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 757 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)("All questions of compensability, including those which arise regarding the adequacy of notice, are properly decided in the administrative forum.") Accord University of Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Tabb v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 880 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). See also Behan v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 664 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). But see All Children's Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Administrative Hearings, 863 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (certifying conflict); Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. v. Division of Administrative Hearings, 871 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(same); and Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Ferguson, 869 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(same). At all times material hereto, Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, prescribed the notice provisions of the Plan, as follows: Each hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician, other than residents, assistant residents, and interns deemed to be participating physicians under s. 766.314(4)(c), under the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries. Such notice shall be provided on forms furnished by the association and shall include a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan. The hospital or the participating physician may elect to have the patient sign a form acknowledging receipt of the notice form. Signature of the patient acknowledging receipt of the notice form raises a rebuttable presumption that the notice requirements of this section have been met. Notice need not be given to a patient when the patient has an emergency medical condition as defined in s. 395.002(9)(b) or when notice is not practicable. Responding to Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, NICA developed a brochure, titled "Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem" (the NICA brochure), which contained a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the Plan, and distributed the brochure to participating physicians and hospitals so they could furnish a copy of it to their obstetrical patients. (See, e.g., Petitioners' Exhibit 2, the NICA brochure, "This brochure is prepared in accordance with the mandate of [Section] 766.316, Florida Statutes.") Findings related to the participating physicians and notice Mrs. Jackson received her prenatal care at the Longwood Center, one of 7 offices in the Orlando area operated by Physician Associates of Florida (PAF), a group practice comprised of 35 physicians, including 16 obstetrician- gynecologists. (See, e.g., Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 6.) At the time, four obstetricians staffed the OB-GYN department at the Longwood Office, Dr. Marc Bischof, who provided obstetrical services during Jacqueline's birth; Dr. Robert Bowels; Dr. Peter Perry; and Dr. Jose Lopez-Cintron. However, as a group practice, all obstetricians rotated delivery calls at the hospital, so it was possible, as occurred in this case with Dr. Pena, that a doctor from a different office would participate in the delivery. Notably, all obstetricians associated with PAF were participating physicians in the Plan. On April 12, 1999, Mrs. Jackson presented to the Longwood Center for her initial visit. At the time, consistent with established routine, the receptionist provided Mrs. Jackson with a packet of information that included a number of forms for her to complete and sign, including: a Patient Information form; a Consent for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Antibody Testing form; a Triple Test Form (a screening test for Down's Syndrome); a Prenatal Diagnosis Screening Questionnaire; and a Notice to Obstetrical Patient (to acknowledge receipt of the NICA brochure that was, indisputably, included in the packet). The Notice to Obstetric Patient provided, as follows: NOTICE TO OBSTETRIC PATIENT (See Section 766.316, Florida Statutes) I have been furnished information by Physician Associates of Florida prepared by the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, and have been advised that [5] is a participating physician in that program, wherein certain limited compensation is available in the event certain neurological injury may occur during labor, delivery or resuscitation. For specifics on the program, I understand I can contact the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA), 1435 Piedmont Drive East, Suite 101, Tallahassee, Florida 32312 1-800-398-2129. I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of the brochure prepared by NICA. DATED this day of , 199 . Signature (NAME OF PATIENT) Social Security No.: Attest: (Nurse or Physician) Date: Mrs. Jackson completed each of the forms, including the Notice to Obstetric Patient, by providing the requested information, and then signing and dating the forms. (Petitioners' Exhibit 1). Here, there is no dispute that Mrs. Jackson signed the Notice to Obstetric Patient or that she received a copy of the NICA brochure on her initial visit. There is likewise no dispute that, given the blank space, the notice form was inadequate to provide notice that Dr. Bischof, Dr. Pena, or any obstetrician associated with PAF was a participating physician in the Plan. Rather, what is disputed is whether, as contended by Intervenors, Mrs. Jackson was told during her initial visit that all obstetricians in PAF were participants in the Plan.6 Regarding Mrs. Jackson's initial visit, the proof demonstrates that, following completion of the paperwork, Mrs. Jackson was seen by Nurse Posey for her initial interview. Typically, such visits lasted approximately 45 minutes, with 30 minutes spent reviewing the patient's history, as well as the paperwork she received in the packet, and 15 minutes spent on a physical examination. According to Nurse Posey, she conducted a minimum of two initial prenatal interviews daily, five days a week, and followed the same procedure during each interview. As described by Nurse Posey, during the initial interview she always discussed each form (the Prenatal Diagnosis Screening Questionnaire, the Triple Test Form, Consent for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Antibody Testing form, and the Notice to Obstetric Patient) individually, and when the form had been discussed she would co-sign the form. (Transcript, pp. 65- 68) Moreover, as for the NICA program, Nurse Posey always confirmed that the patient had received the NICA brochure, and told the patient that PAF's obstetrical service was "a group practice; that anyone in the group could do the delivery; and that each member of the group was a participant in the NICA program." (Transcript, pp. 68-70) Finally, Nurse Posey documented her routine through an entry on the prenatal flow sheet (Intervenors' Exhibit 6), which noted she had provided the patient information on the various tests, as well as the NICA brochure and notification. Here, that entry read: "Pt given info on diet, exercise, HIV screening, triple test, NICA pamphlet & notification & cord blood storage." (Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Intervenors' Exhibit 6, and Transcript, pp. 70-78.) In this case, Nurse Posey was confident she had followed her routine, since she would not have co-signed the various documents, such as the Notice to Obstetric Patient, or made the entry on the prenatal flow sheet unless she had done so. In response to the evidence offered by Intervenors on the notice issue, Mrs. Jackson testified there was never a discussion of the NICA program, and she was never told the physicians associated with PAF's obstetrical program were participating physicians in the Plan. However, Mrs. Jackson acknowledged that Nurse Posey questioned her regarding her medical history, and that she explained the Prenatal Diagnosis Screening Questionnaire, the Triple Test Form, and the HIV form. (Transcript, pp. 141-145) As for the Notice to Obstetric Patient, Mrs. Jackson initially denied having read it; then testified she may have read it "briefly," but "didn't go into details" or "seek out specifics"; and finally stated she could not remember reading the form, but could not deny that she may have read it. (Transcript, pp. 150, 151, 156-159) Here, giving due consideration to the proof, it must be resolved that the more persuasive proof supports the conclusion that, more likely than not, Nurse Posey, consistent with her routine, discussed the NICA program with Mrs. Jackson on her initial visit, and informed Mrs. Jackson that the physicians associated with PAF's obstetrical program were participating physicians in the Plan. In so concluding, it is noted that, but for the NICA program, Mrs. Jackson acknowledged Nurse Posey otherwise followed her routine; that it is unlikely, given such consistency, Nurse Posey would not have also discussed the NICA program; that Nurse Posey, as was her routine, co-signed each of the forms she discussed with Mrs. Jackson, including the Notice to Obstetric Patient; that Nurse Posey, as was her routine, documented her activity on the prenatal flow sheet; and that Mrs. Jackson evidenced little recall of the documents she signed or the discussions she had with Nurse Posey. Finally, Nurse Posey's testimony was logical, consistent, and credible, whereas Mrs. Jackson's testimony was often equivocal. Jurisdiction
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Paul Bryant Sivley, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact As observed in the preliminary statement, neither petitioner nor anyone on her behalf appeared at hearing, and no proof was offered to support her claim. Respondent, in light of such failure, declined the opportunity to offer any evidence. Consequently, there being no proof, it cannot be factually resolved whether Paul Bryant Sivley, a minor, suffered a "birth- related neurological injury" as alleged in the claim for benefits.
The Issue Whether Bryan Siravo has suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as alleged in the claim for compensation.
Findings Of Fact Bryan Siravo (Bryan) is the natural son of Robert and Mauro Siravo. He was born a live infant on March 13, 1990, at Plantation General Hospital in Broward County, Florida, and his birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. The physician delivering obstetrical services during the birth of Bryan was Edward Buonopane, M.D., who was, at all times material hereto, a participating physician in the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Bryan Siravo was delivered by cesarean section because of a breach presentation and maternal obesity. The delivery was without complications and Bryan presented with Apgar scores of 8 at one minute and 9 at five minutes. Resuscitation was not required in the immediate postdelivery period, and there was no evidence of fetal distress. After birth, Bryan was transported to the regular or newborn nursery and was found in a cyanotic state approximately three hours after birth. Bryan was subsequently transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit where he was intubated after about one hour. Bryan's condition continued to deteriorate over the next 24 hours and an echocardiogram revealed the presence of a large patent ductus arteriosus and heart valve insufficiency. Due to the continued deterioration of his condition, Bryan was transferred to Miami Children's Hospital on March 15, 1990. At Miami Children's Hospital, Bryan was diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome type I, severe; a condition which impairs the ability to breath, and which arises after birth when the infant is required to breath outside the womb. Bryan also underwent multiple ultrasound and CT scans of the brain. These neuroimaging studies revealed the presence of a Grade IV intraventricular hemorrhage. Based on the credible proof of record, it is concluded that Bryan suffered an injury to the brain caused by oxygen deprivation which rendered him permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. Such injury did not, however, occur during labor, delivery or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period. Rather, the proof demonstrated that the origins of Bryan's hemorrhage and his resultant neurologic injury were a combination of respiratory distress syndrome and patent ductive arteriosus, which began to operate after his delivery. Such mechanism, acting in consort, increased, over time, the pressure in the draining veins from Bryan's brain and, therefore, the pressure in his brain, with the consequent hemorrhage.
