Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and holds license number ME 0043566. Respondent has never been the subject of a previous complaint from the Department of Professional Regulation (now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation). No patient involved in this proceeding incurred injury as a result of any procedure performed by Respondent or as a result of any medical record kept by Respondent, nor did any patient claim injury or make a complaint against Respondent. Respondent derived no financial gain from any act or omission alleged in the administrative complaint. All events pertaining to this proceeding occurred in 1987 or 1988. Prior to February 8, 1988, the effective date of Chapter 88-1, Laws of Florida, Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Section 25 of Chapter 88-1, Florida Statutes, became effective February 8, 1988, and amended the pertinent provisions of Section 458.311(1), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered, and reports of consultations and hospitalizations. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that a physician be incompetent to practice medicine in order to be disciplined pursuant to this paragraph. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner had adopted no rules pertaining to the keeping of records by a licensed physician. Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point) is a hospital located in Broward County, Florida. Unless otherwise indicated, all hospital records referred to in this matter are from Imperial Point. PATIENT #1 (C.S.) On August 8, 1988, Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #1, a male, who was 44 years old at the time of the procedure. This procedure was performed at Imperial Point on an outpatient basis. An upper endoscopy is the viewing of the mouth, the pharynx, the esophagus, the stomach and portions of the duodenum with a fiber optic instrument that allows direct visualization of the lining of these structures and allows therapeutic maneuvers. The records kept of this procedure performed on Patient #1 on August 8, 1988, include an outpatient hospital record entitled "Operative Report". The description of the procedure portion of this report includes the following: ". . . The gastric portion was infiltrated with 1:1,000 adrenaline . . ." Adrenaline, also known as epinephrine, is a vasoconstrictor that can be used to control minor bleeding and oozing. It is used regularly in gastroenterology to treat actively bleeding lesions or ulcers with evidence of recent bleeding prior to performing a more permanent type of hemostasis. Dr. Goldberg testified that epinephrine was usually injected into these areas by a needle. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that epinephrine should not be used in cases of trivial bleeding or oozing or after routine biopsies unless there is an imminent danger of a significant arterial bleed. The testimony of Dr. Cerda and Dr. Singh established that spraying epinephrine over an area that is subject to bleeding is a precautionary technique some gastroenterologists follow. Dr. Singh and Dr. Cerda have both either used this technique, or have observed its use by other physicians. The expert witnesses agreed that the injection by needle of epinephrine into the gastric wall would be a procedure that falls below an established standard of care. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to how the term "infiltrated" should be interpreted. Petitioner contends that the term "infiltrated" is synonymous with the term "injected", and that the medical records should be construed to mean that Respondent injected the gastric wall with a needle, and therefore practiced below the standard of care. This contention is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Respondent asserts that the medical record should be construed to mean that Respondent sprayed the gastric wall as a precautionary measure. This contention is consistent with the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent. This dispute is resolved by finding that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and does not prove that Respondent injected Patient #1's gastric wall with a needle. This conclusion is based, in part, on the definition of the term "infiltrate" and on the context in which epinephrine is sometimes administered by gastroenterologists during this type procedure. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the term "infiltrate" means to pass a liquid or a gas into something through its interstices or to permeate with a liquid or gas passed through interstices. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Twenty Sixth Edition (Dorland) has a similar definition of the term "infiltrate". According to Dorland, an "interstice" is small interval, space, or gap in a tissue or structure. According to Dorland, the term permeate means to penetrate or pass through, as through a filter. Also according to Dorland, the term inject means the act of forcing a liquid into a part, as into the subcutaneous, the vascular tree, or an organ. Based on these definitions, it is found that the use of the term "infiltrate" is more consistent with the practice of spraying epinephrine onto the gastric wall, and that the use of the term "infiltrate" does not prove that Respondent injected the epinephrine into the gastric wall with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #1 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. A pathology report dated August 8, 1988 contained in the medical file provided a pathological diagnosis as follows: "esophageal brushings: no evidence of malignancy." Brushings are the result of passing a small brush through the biopsy channel of an endoscope, rubbing it over an area of concern that might have either a malignancy or a fungal infection, taking the brush out of the scope, wiping it on a microscopic slide, and sending the slide to the pathologist for cytological examination. The reference to the "esophageal brushings" in the pathology report was error. The brushings taken from Patient #1 during the procedure on August 8, 1988, came from the stomach, a fact obvious to all of the expert witnesses in light of the operative report and operative drawing made by Respondent. Because Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent took esophageal brushings from Patient #1, its charge that he failed to properly document his reasons for doing so must also fail. 1/ Petitioner proved that Respondent's medical records, including his office notes as to Patient #1 failed to contain an adequate medical history for Patient #1 and failed to reflect the findings of any physical examination of Patient #1 by Respondent. Petitioner further proved that such failures fall below an established standard of care as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. PATIENT #2 (R.B.) Patient #2 was a 70 year old male seen by Respondent for a consultation because of the patient's history of hematemesis, which is the vomiting of blood. Respondent prepared a formal consultation note dated September 25, 1988. The consultation note contains a description of the patient's condition, references a rectal exam, which was positive for blood, and indicates that a physical examination of the patient was made. Respondent again saw the patient on September 27, 1988 and performed an upper endoscopy. Dr. Goldberg was critical of the medical records kept by Respondent as to this procedure and was of the opinion that the medical records were inadequate. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedure. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records pertaining to this patient were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. The records kept of this procedure reflect that Respondent "infiltrated" Patient #2 with epinephrine. This is the identical dispute over the meaning of the term "infiltrated" that pertained to Patient #1 as discussed above. For the reasons given in resolving the dispute as it pertains to Patient #1, it is found that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and that the use of the term does not prove that Respondent administered the epinephrine by injecting Patient #2 with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #2 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. PATIENT #3 (B.B.) Patient #3, a 65 year old female was admitted to Imperial Point with chest pains by her physician, a Dr. Fanfan. Patient #3 had a history of cancer which included the prior surgical removal of a tumor. On October 3, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy of Patient #3. A colonoscopy is an examination of the colon from the anus to the ileocecal valve using a fiber optic instrument. A colonoscopy is indicated to evaluate abnormal X-rays, changes in bowel habits, evidence of bleeding, suspicions of inflammation, tumors, or polyps. Respondent adequately performed the procedure on Patient #3. The colonoscopy detected that Patient #3 had polyps. Subsequent laboratory results established that these were hyperplastic polyps that required no follow-up. Had the polyp been an adenomatous polyp, which is a true neoplasm with malignant potential, a follow-up for recolonoscopy would have been appropriate in one year. Prior to receiving the pathology reports, on the polyp, Respondent recommended a six month follow-up for the patient. This follow-up recommendation was appropriate at the time it was made. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that a follow-up be performed was below an established standard of care. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that the follow-up for this patient with a history of cancer be in six months as opposed to one year fell below an established standard of care. The barium enema for this patient was originally scheduled by the attending physician, Dr. Fanfan. Dr. Fanfan clearly wrote a note on the same day following Respondent's report of the colonoscopy that the barium enema was pending, yet the attending physician did not cancel the barium enema. There is no disagreement among the experts that the barium enema was unnecessary in light of the findings of the colonoscopy. It is medically unnecessary and inappropriate for both tests to be performed on the same day. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent was responsible for the patient once he began his consultation and that Respondent should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Cerda, Dr. Eberly and Dr. Singh were of the opinion that the attending physician was responsible for scheduling the barium enema and that the attending physician or the radiologist should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Eberly testified that as the primary care physician, the admitting physician is the "captain of the ship" and has the responsibility to make final determinations with respect to tests of this nature. Because of the conflicting testimony from equally credible expert witnesses, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care by not cancelling Patient #3's enema. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #3 were inadequate. He had several criticisms of the records. Dr. Goldberg opined that there should have been a formal consultation note on Patient #3's chart that included past history, present illness, review of systems, allergies, pertinent laboratories, a thorough organ specific or system examination, an impression, an adequate discussion of the consultant's impression and the consultant's plans. He opined that the indications for Patient #3's procedure were inadequately dictated on the procedure notes and that Respondent's history pertaining to Patient #3 was inadequate because there was no pertinent review of systems or past history, no mention of the previous tumor, no mention of allergies, and an extremely scant examination. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of this patient's medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #4 (E.K.) On October 4, 1988, Patient #4, a 92 year-old female, was admitted to the hospital with an acute onset of vomiting, dehydration, and abdominal pain. Respondent was asked by Patient #4's attending physician to evaluate Patient #4 for a potential small bowel obstruction following an X-ray that was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #4 on October 7, 1988. An obstruction of the intestines is a blockage in the large or small intestine. The bowel behind the blockage may become inflated with fluid or air and may be seen on X-ray. The obstruction may result from a variety of abnormalities. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the upper endoscopy was contra- indicated and potentially dangerous to the patient because of the X-ray indicating a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that an upper endoscopy should be used only under compelling circumstances if there is a partial bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did the right tests on Patient #4, but in the wrong order since he did not first rule out an obstruction. Prior to performing the upper endoscopy Respondent monitored the patient for several days. During that time period, examinations indicated that the patient was having bowel movements. Both the attending physician's notes, Respondent's notes, and the nurse's notes indicate positive bowel signs on October 5 and 6, indicating that there was not a complete bowel obstruction. Respondent ordered a Golytely preparation administered to the patient, which usually consists of one or two liters of non-absorbable solution that basically washes the bowel out. That preparation would have been improper with a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the use of a Golytely prep in this patient was a gross judgment error. Dr. Singh was of the opinion that there was no contra-indication for using the preparation in this situation. Petitioner failed to prove that Patient #4 had a complete bowel obstruction or that the procedure, including the use of the Golytely preparation, violated an established standard of care. It is found that Respondent was acting within the scope of his discretion as the consulting physician to order the administration of the Golytely preparation and to perform the upper endoscopy. On October 11, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #4. Respondent stated on the operative report that the colonoscopy was indicated because of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis was not mentioned in any of Respondent's notes concerning Patient #4, and there was no notation as to the reasons Respondent thought the patient had diverticulitis. Although Respondent failed to document why he felt that diverticulitis was an appropriate indication for the colonoscope, there is no dispute that a colonoscope was, in fact, indicated. Further, the colonoscope established that the pretest diagnosis of possible diverticulitis was not incorrect. The colonoscopy revealed areas of colitis, and the pathology report noted an ulcer with acute and chronic inflammation. Respondent's experts testified that they were of the opinion that Respondent violated no established standard by listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscopy. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent practiced below an established level in listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscope. During the colonoscopy, Respondent found several mildly bleeding areas and infiltrated Patient #4 with epinephrine. For the reasons discussed pertaining to Patient #4, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care in administering epinephrine to Patient #4. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation report was inadequate. Dr. Goldberg bases his conclusion on the following observations. The report was difficult to read and failed to include any significant historical events concerning Patient #4. In his consultation report, the Respondent failed to note anything about having done a rectal examination on this patient, whether or not the abdomen was distended, and whether there were active or inactive bowel sounds. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that these findings would help to distinguish between an obstruction and an ileus or paralysis of the bowel. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that the patient's records of the upper endoscopy performed October 7, 1998, fail to reveal any significant findings. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #5 (J.T.) Patient #5, an 89 year-old male, was admitted to Imperial Point with a history of peptic ulcer disease and arthritis. This patient was seen by Respondent on a consulting basis. The patient was vomiting blood and Respondent was asked to see the patient to determine the source of the bleeding. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on October 13, 1988, and found a significant outlet obstruction. On October 17, 1988, a G.I. series was performed and a repeat upper endoscopy and pyloric dilatation was performed. The procedures performed by Respondent were properly indicated and had a beneficial result to the patient. Back-to-back pyloric dilatations were appropriate and clinical judgment was properly exercised. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the upper endoscopy of October 13, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report failed to document Respondent's findings in detail. Dr. Goldberg testified that an essential endoscopy report that physicians are trained to do should include the following: indications for the procedure, medication used to sedate the patient, identification of instrument used, description of the anatomical landmarks and their condition as visualized by the physician passing the endoscope, the removal of the scope, the physician's impressions and what the physician plans to do about those impressions, how the patient tolerated the procedure and what the patient's condition was after the procedure, and that the patient was sent to the recovery area. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the procedures performed on this patient on October 17, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report did not document Respondent's findings in detail and did not indicate if the scope was passed through Patient #5's dilated pylorus into the duodenum. In Respondent's impressions on the second endoscopy, he noted pyloric stenosis and duodenal ulcer. In his procedure note Respondent does not mention whether he passed the scope into the duodenum or how he knew there was a duodenal ulcer. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did not properly document what he did. On October 18, 1988, Respondent performed a repeat pyloric dilation on Patient #5. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to record the reasons for the second procedure and to document his findings. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the third endoscopy note did not adequately detail the examinations of the esophagus and stomach. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that every procedure note stands alone, and that if a physician does an endoscopy on day one and repeats it on day two, the physician still must make that report complete because it is not always going to be part of a document. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's records did not stand alone. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation note was sketchy and should have contained a history of allergies because of the need to give the patient medications for sedation. Dr. Goldberg's criticisms of Respondent's medical records do not prove that the medical records kept by Respondent were inadequate as measured by an established standard. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedures and that the records were adequate. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #6 (D.Y.) From October 19, 1988, until October 22, 1988, Respondent was consulting physician to Patient #6, a 72 year-old male, who was admitted to Imperial Point with rectal bleeding. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to Patient #6 because a formal consultation note was lacking. The medical records which were reviewed by Dr. Goldberg were incomplete when reviewed by him. A specific reference is made to a consultation note that is not contained in the hospital records. Respondent established that other medical records were missing from the hospital records. In light of the specific reference to the consultation note, it is found that the absence of this consultation note from the hospital records is insufficient to prove that there existed no consultation note. On October 20, 1988, Respondent performed an colonoscopy on this patient and a biopsy was taken in the segmental descending colon area. The colonoscopy could not be completed because the colonoscopy could not pass to the patient's cecum. The following recommendation was made by Respondent (the original is in all capital letters): IN VIEW OF NOT REACHING TO THE CECUM, THE PATIENT WOULD NEED BE (this is an abbreviation for barium enema) AND ALSO IF EVERYTHING IS NEGATIVE, RECOLONOSCOPY IN ONE YEAR AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IN THE BIOPSY OF THE POLYP, THEN ACCORDINGLY WILL PLAN. On October 21, 1988, the follow-up barium enema was performed by Dr. Nicholas M. Arfaras, a radiologist. The radiology report reflected the following finding: "Also in the sigmoid there is an approximately 1 cm. rounded filling defect identified near the junction with the descending colon. This is felt to be secondary to a polyp." The possible polyp detected by the barium enema should have been followed up. However, it was not established that Respondent was consulted by the attending physician about the results of the barium enema. Dr. Lipton, as the attending physician, would have had the responsibility for following up the recommendations made by Respondent and for bringing Respondent or another gastroenterologist in for further consultations following the barium enema if Dr. Lipton had believed it necessary to do so. This patient was discharged from Imperial Point by Dr. Lipton on October 22, 1988. The final page of the discharge summary for this patient reflected the following notation: "Condition was improved. The patient is to have a follow up in one week in the office with Dr. Lipton and with Dr. Gupta in two weeks." The evidence presented in this proceeding, including Respondent's office notes, does not reflect that Respondent had any involvement with this patient after October 21, 1988, until 1990, when he performed on the patient at North Broward Medical Center a procedure described as a "multiple colonoscopy with multiple biopsies and cauterization." This procedure in 1990 revealed multiple polyps. The polyp removed on colonoscopy in 1988 was an adenomatous polyp, a polyp with significant malignant potential. This patient needed a follow-up colonoscopy in one year. Respondent was the consulting physician and recommended reevaluation of the patient in one year. Follow-up care was not the responsibility of Respondent, but of the treating physician. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records in that Respondent failed to adequately document the indications for the colonoscopy performed on Patient #6 and why the colonoscope could not be passed to Patient #6's cecum. Dr. Goldberg opined that a physician doing a colonoscopy needs to tell why he did not get to the cecum so that the next physician colonoscoping this patient can take appropriate precautions. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #7 (C.R.) Respondent was a consulting physician to Patient #7, a 64 year old male who was hospitalized with rectal bleeding. Respondent saw this patient because of a possible colonic fistula, which is a connection with any piece of the intestine and some other structure. Respondent recommended a barium small bowel X-ray and a barium enema, both appropriate clinical recommendations. On November 11, 1987, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #7. Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the aforementioned procedure in that Respondent failed to document an adequate history as an indication of Patient #7's colonoscopy. This contention is rejected based on the testimony of Dr. Singh. The medical records provide adequate justification for the procedure. Dr. Goldberg was critical of Respondent's records pertaining to this patient and considered the records inadequate. He was of the opinion that the records should have better detailed his findings and should have recorded any follow-up plans for a repeat colonoscopy on the patient. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide a history or physical examination for Patient #1 as alleged in Count Two, which reprimands Respondent for that violation, and which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 against the Respondent for that violation. It is further recommended that all other charges against Respondent contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent overprescribed controlled substances and failed to maintain legible medical records as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, through its Board of Osteopathic Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of osteopathic medicine in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 459, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard D. Vitalis was a licensed osteopathic physician in the state of Florida, holding license number OS 4823. Respondent’s current address of record is 3774 China Grove Mews Lane, Fairfax, Virginia 22025. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was practicing as an osteopathic physician at All Family Medical in North Lauderdale, Florida, a licensed pain management clinic. On or about January 27, 2011, L.N., a 29-year-old female, and a resident of Biloxi, Mississippi, presented to Respondent at his Fort Lauderdale office with complaints of back pain. Between January 27, 2011, and August 3, 2011, L.N. presented to Respondent on seven occasions. L.N. indicated that she had previously been prescribed oxycodone 15 mg, oxycodone 30 mg, and Xanax 2 mg. She also indicated that she was dependent on her prescriptions, that she needed them every few hours, that she expected to need them the rest of her life, and that they were not helping resolve her medical problems. L.N. underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study on January 27, 2011. The MRI diagnostic images showed that L.N.’s spine had no evidence of pathological disease. There was a normal alignment of the vertebral bodies without evidence of compression or spondylolisthesis. There was normal signal throughout the vertebral bodies and within the visualized spinal cord. There was no significant disc disease, evidence of spinal stenosis, or exiting nerve root impingement at L1-2, L2-3, L3-4, or L5-S1. Although the MRI depicted some annular disc bulging at L4-5, there was no spinal stenosis or neural foraminal stenosis. There was no pathology shown on the MRI, and it was, in general, “a normal MRI.” As such, the MRI would not provide support for a conclusion that L.N. would have been in pain. There were no diagnostic images in L.N.’s file to contravene the medical conditions shown in the MRI. The only evidence of anything requiring treatment was L.N.’s complaint of low back pain. Such a complaint would call for muscle relaxers, physical therapy, hot/cold packs, or ultrasound, rather than narcotic pain medications. There was no evidence in the medical records that L.N. exhibited signs of nerve root impingement with pain radiating down the leg. The records did not demonstrate that Respondent performed a comprehensive medical examination of L.N., or that Respondent performed any type of objective testing of L.N., including straight leg raises, checking for deep tendon reflexes, or palpation of the area of concern for spasms. The records did not contain an adequate medical history of L.N., including height, weight, temperature, pulse, respiration, blood pressure, age, date of birth, and medication lists, nor did they contain an assessment of L.N.’s chief complaint or plan of treatment. The intake from L.N.’s first visit to Respondent indicated that she was taking opioids and benzodiazepines, though there was no evidence of prescriptions or prescribing physicians for those substances. The records did not demonstrate that Respondent obtained records of prior treating physicians, nor was there any evidence of an effort to do so. The records do not demonstrate that Respondent consulted with any other physician which, in the case of treatment resulting from an MRI review, would fail to meet the standard of care. The records do not demonstrate that Respondent recommended alternative interventions for L.N.’s pain complaints, including physical therapy, which would have been appropriate, and within the standard of care given the normal MRI results. The only alternatives noted were “heat” and “massage” on January 27, 2011, and “heat” on June 23, 2011. Although it is possible that other alternative interventions were recommended, the illegibility of the intake forms prevents such a finding. The failure to recommend alternative interventions was a failure to meet the standard of care. On L.N.’s first visit to Respondent on January 27, 2011, a urine drug screen was performed. The drug screen tested positive for opioids and benzodiazepines. Subsequent to that first visit, Respondent performed no other drug tests. Such tests can confirm that the patient is taking prescribed medications, and not diverting them, and that the patient is not taking other non-prescribed medications. It is the medical standard of care to perform follow-up drug tests of patients when prescribing high doses of controlled substances, including opioids. The failure to closely monitor L.N. when prescribing high doses of opioids and benzodiazepines was a failure of the standard of care. Respondent did not communicate with L.N.’s pharmacy to ensure that she was not getting prescribed medicines from other doctors. Such information was, in 2010 and 2011, available from pharmacies. It was, during that period, the medical standard of care to communicate with the dispensing pharmacy. Respondent failed to meet that standard of care. There was no evidence to the contrary. Despite the fact that L.N. presented to Respondent with a stated history of opioid use and a positive drug screen, Respondent did not record L.N.’s medication history for the period up to her first visit with Respondent. The failure to take a medication history to substantiate the need and justification for the prescription of high-dose opioids is contrary to the 2010-2011 medical standard of care. Oxycodone was, during the relevant period, a Schedule II controlled substance with a high potential for abuse, and an accepted but severely restricted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of oxycodone may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. § 893.03(2), Fla. Stat. Roxicodone is a brand name for oxycodone hydrochloride. It is a short-acting opioid that is rapidly absorbed. Short- acting opioids have a greater potential for abuse. Furthermore, prescription of short-acting opioids, such as Roxicodone, would not be within the standard of care for long-term, chronic pain such as that described by L.N. Xanax is the brand name for alprazolam and is prescribed to treat anxiety. Alprazolam was, during the relevant period, a Schedule IV controlled substance, with a low potential for abuse, and an accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of alprazolam may lead to limited physical or psychological dependence. § 893.03(4), Fla. Stat. At L.N.’s initial January 27, 2011, visit, Respondent prescribed medications including 210 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 30 mg, 120 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 15 mg, and 90 tablets of Xanax Oral 2 mg. The prescribed doses and amounts were consistent with L.N.’s self-reported medications that she was then taking, presumably prescribed by “Dr. Sanchez” in Biloxi. Respondent’s plan of treatment listed the medications L.N. requested and recommended follow-up in one month. The records contain no individualized treatment plan. Respondent’s examination notes are entirely illegible. Respondent’s records lack copies of prescriptions issued to L.N. on January 27, 2011. A patient agreement and informed consent form was included in L.N.’s patient file, but was not signed by L.N. L.N. next presented to Respondent with complaints of chronic lower back pain on February 22, 2011. The intake form is largely illegible, though “overall feels well” is discernable. At that visit, Respondent prescribed 210 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 30 mg, 120 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 15 mg, and 90 tablets of Xanax Oral 2 mg. Respondent’s plan of treatment was medication refill and follow-up in one month. Again, there was no individualized treatment plan, and the examination notes were largely illegible. L.N. presented to Respondent with further complaints of chronic lower back pain on March 22, 2011. The intake form is largely illegible, though “overall feels well” is discernable. Respondent again prescribed 210 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 30 mg, 120 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 15 mg, and 90 tablets of Xanax Oral 2 mg. Respondent’s plan of treatment was medication refill and follow-up in one month. Again, there was no individualized treatment plan, and the examination notes were illegible. L.N. presented to Respondent on April 21, 2011. The intake form is largely illegible, though “overall feels well” is discernable. Respondent renewed L.N.’s previous prescriptions. L.N. next presented to Respondent with complaints of chronic lower back pain on May 19, 2011. The intake form is entirely illegible. Respondent prescribed 210 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 30 mg, 120 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 15 mg, and 90 tablets of Xanax Oral 2 mg. Respondent’s plan of treatment was medication refill and follow-up in an illegible timeframe. There was no individualized treatment plan. Respondent’s examination notes were illegible and minimal. On June 23, 2011, L.N. presented to Respondent. The intake form, though largely illegible, appears to state that “pt feels good pain solved with meds.” The treatment prescribed by Respondent apparently having the desired effect, Respondent renewed L.N.’s prescription for 210 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 30 mg (though in two separate prescriptions for 180 tablets and 30 tablets, respectively), 120 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 15 mg, and 60 tablets of Xanax Oral 2 mg. The prescription originally called for 150 tablets of Xanax, but Respondent struck 90 of those. Respondent’s plan of treatment was medication refill and follow-up at the next appointment on July 23, 2011. A monthly medication dosage evaluation was completed for the June visit, as was a pain management treatment plan medical record. Those records provided little individualized information regarding L.N.’s plan of care. The pain management treatment plan form indicated that drug testing was completed; however, there were no results. L.N.’s final visit to Respondent occurred on August 3, 2011. She indicated, in what appears to be her handwriting, that she had used a “hot bath,” “heat,” and “some exercise.” Her treatment objective continued to be “complete resolution of pain with medication.” At that visit, Respondent prescribed 150 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 30 mg, 120 tablets of Roxicodone Oral 15 mg, and 60 tablets of Xanax Oral 2 mg. Respondent’s plan of treatment included only a list of medications. The pain management treatment plan form indicated that drug testing was completed; however, there were no results. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Porcase, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is found that Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in his treatment of L.N. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Porcase, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is found that Respondent prescribed excessive and unnecessary amounts of Roxicodone and Xanax without a justifiable basis to do so, especially since the January 27, 2011, MRI report did not support a determination that L.N. was experiencing back pain so as to justify Respondent’s course of opioid treatment for L.N. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Porcase, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is found that Respondent failed to create and maintain adequate and legible records supporting the course of treatment for L.N., or records documenting performance of a comprehensive physical examination of L.N. proportionate to her diagnoses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Porcase, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is found that Respondent failed to adequately monitor L.N.’s use of opioid therapies. The findings set forth herein are the result of Dr. Porcase’s undisputed expert testimony regarding the standard of care as it existed in 2010-2011, as well as the undersigned’s independent review of the record. Whether Respondent could have produced evidence to support his treatment of L.N. will remain a mystery, since Respondent essentially abandoned this proceeding. Despite challenging the Department’s Administrative Complaint, Respondent minimally and incompletely responded to written discovery, failed to meaningfully participate in Dr. Porcase’s deposition, twice refused to appear for his own deposition, despite personal service of the notice, and failed to make an appearance at the final hearing. In the absence of any testimony or evidence to counter that of the Department, the evidence presented by the Department, including the testimony of Dr. Porcase, was clear and convincing as to the matters set forth herein. Despite Respondent’s failure to actively contest the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, it must be recognized that the allegations concern a single patient over a total period of scarcely more than 6 months. There was no pattern of misconduct. Furthermore, Dr. Porcase acknowledged that the practices regarding the prescription of opioids in 2010-2011 were far different from those that exist today. Rather, “there was no standards that you were -- individualized your treatment to the pathology on imaging studies and patient’s complaints and their ability to function on medicine.” As to a doctor’s actions to rule out a patient’s drug-seeking behavior, he testified that “[i]t would be the individual physician having to make that determination based on his experience and diagnostic testing . . . and physical exam.” While the undersigned believes and gives weight to Dr. Porcase’s opinions regarding the standard of care, his testimony is equally compelling that the standard was not as clear-cut in 2010-2011 as it is in 2018. Though not affecting the ultimate findings regarding violations of law, it does affect the nature of the penalty that is warranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Osteopathic Medicine, enter a final order: determining that Respondent violated sections 459.015(1)(x), 459.015(1)(t), and 459.015(1)(o); imposing an administrative fine of $2,000; issuing a letter of reprimand against Respondent’s license to practice osteopathic medicine; and awarding costs incurred in the prosecution of this case to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Ann L. Prescott, Esquire Philip Aaron Crawford, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Richard D. Vitalis, D.O. 230 Caddie Court DeBary, Florida 32713 Richard D. Vitalis, D.O. 3774 China Grove Mews Lane Fairfax, Virginia 22025 Kama Monroe, Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues involved in this hearing, the Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, having been licensed on September 1, 1967, by examination, with license number 41856-2. At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Gulf Coast Community Hospital (GCCH), Panama City, Florida. On August 4, 1983, Dr. David W. Scott, an orthopedic surgeon with practice privileges at GCCH, treated Arthur Collins in the emergency room of that hospital. After taking a history from the patient and examining him, he concluded that Mr. Collins was a drug addict who had the ability to manipulate physicians for the purpose of obtaining narcotics. As a part of his treatment of this individual, Dr. Scott prescribed 100 mg of Demerol four times a day which was obviously insufficient for Mr. Collins who had developed a drug tolerance. As a result, Dr. Scott added an additional drug, Vistoril, to augment the Demerol. Before leaving the hospital that night, and because Mr. Collins was obviously addicted to narcotics, Dr. Scott left an oral order with the nurse on duty at the nurses' station, subsequently identified as Ms. Habersham, not to increase the dosage prescribed for the patient, not to give additional narcotics, and not to call the on-call physician in the event Mr. Collins complained of pain. The reason for this last instruction concerning the physician was to prevent the on call physician, who might not know the patient's history and of his drug addiction, from prescribing additional narcotics. Ms. Habersham worked as a charge nurse on the day shift during this period and recalls patient Collins. When she was relieved by the Respondent at the end of her shift, she passed Dr. Scott's orders on to her. Consequently, it is clear that Respondent was aware of Dr. Scott's order not to increase Collins' dose and not to contact the on-duty physician in the event Collins asked for more medicine. Nonetheless, Respondent admits giving Mr. Collins an injection of 125 mg of Demerol even though the doctor's order called for a 100 mg dose. She justifies this on the basis that the patient had said he was in great pain and constantly kept coming to the nurses station begging for more medication. She observed him to be sweating and grabbing at his stomach. Based on her experience in the Army Nurse Corps and the Army Surgeon General's recommendation for a 125 mg dose of Demerol in situations such as this, and because she did not want to wake up Dr. Rohan, the on-call physician, she gave the additional dose on her own authority feeling she could get Dr. Rohan's approval later on. Dr. Rohan recalls only an incident in August of 1983 where he got a call from a nurse whose name he cannot remember for a "cover order" for a medication. As he recalls it, the nurse in question called to notify him that she had administered more of a drug than was called for in the doctor's order. It was his understanding, however, that the nurse had given too much by accident and was telling him about it after-the-fact, not in advance, to authorize a higher dose. It is clear from the above, therefore, that Respondent called Dr. Rohan after she had administered the higher dosage to Mr. Collins on her own authority. Respondent indicates, however, that Ms. Habersham had told her that if this particular patient needed more medication he was to get it and that the nurse should secure the authorization by phone. Respondent presented no evidence to support this, however, and though she contended she had a witness to this conversation, the witness was not presented. Respondent contends that she could change the amount of medication prescribed by the physician if it was necessary. She claims that nurse-practitioners can do this within the protocols set down by a physician. Respondent was not then nor is she now a nurse practitioner. During the month of February, 1984, Linda Marie Jones was unit coordinator for three units at GCCH, including Respondent's. Part of her job involved the monitoring of and investigation of drug discrepancies. During this time, Mr. Jones was conducting an audit of drug accountability in Respondent's unit. This audit, while not based on any suspicion of misconduct by any employee, resulted in a determination that one Nembutal tablet was missing from the unit. A check of the records reflected that this medicine had not been ordered for any patient on the unit that day. She then checked the patients' charts to see if a Demerol 100, a similar drug, had been used, and as a part of this procedure, she found that in the case of some patients, two different records dealing with a specific administration of medication did not agree. Her check of all records on the unit revealed that only the Respondent had any discrepancies. All other nurses' records were satisfactory. Her investigation included a comparison of the medication administration record (MAR) with the nurses notes on which the same administration was to be noted. In the course of her investigation, she checked six patient records, including those of patient Haire, patient Oakley, and patient Crosby. At the conclusion of her investigation, she prepared a summary of her findings which she presented to Ms. Flemister, the Director of Nursing. Ms. Flemister met with Respondent and showed her a copy of the report. At that point, Respondent denied having taken any of the medications and said that she could not figure out why the discrepancies existed. As to the Nembutal, which prompted the investigation initially, Respondent remembered cleaning out the narcotic box the first time, but did not identify a shortage at the time. As a result, the missing Nembutal was attributed to "wastage" and when that happens, the wastage must be recorded on the narcotics sheet. This Nembutal wastage was not recorded by Respondent or any other nurse. Ms. Jones admits, however, that there is no evidence to connect Respondent with the wastage of the Nembutal any more than any other nurse assigned to that floor. With regard to an administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire at 9:00 P.M., on February 6, 1984, the narcotics control sheet fails to show that morphine sulfate was administered to this patient on that occasion. With regard to the 8:30 P.M. administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire on February 5, 1984, the narcotics control sheet reflects that Respondent recorded the administration of this medicine but does not reflect the date in question. The entry made reflects the patient's room rather than the date. As a result, it is impossible to tell if the administration was done on February 4 or February 5. However, the Respondent did reflect this administration on the nurses' notes although in the wrong place. As to the issue of Respondent's signing out Morphine Sulfate for patient Haire at 7:00 A.M. on February 5, the evidence establishes that she did sign out both Morphine Sulfate 100 and Demerol 100 as alleged. The MAR reflects some entry but it is impossible to determine what the entry is or to what drug it refers and Respondent's nurse's notes for that date are silent. The medical records pertaining to patient Oakley for February 5, 1984, reflect that, as to the nurses' notes, the patient was given medication for pain but the notes fail to show what type of medication was administered. It could have been aspirin or tylenol and the note should have said what medicine was administered. This administration was not listed on either the narcotics control sheet or the MAR. If the substance given was not Demerol or Morphine Sulfate, it need not appear on the narcotics control sheet, but whatever it was, it should have been listed on the MAR and it was not. The records regarding patient Crosby reflect that on February 5, 1984, Respondent signed out 75 mg Demerol for the patient as alleged. The notes do not, however, reflect that she administered Demerol specifically. They reflect only that she administered some medication. As to the 9:30 P.M. dose of Demerol on February 5, 1984, Respondent did sign out Demerol at that time but the nurses' notes do not reflect what the substance administered was. Patient Haire's records reflect that on February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Morphine Sulfate for the patient. The nurses' notes reflect that at 8:00 P.M. on that date, she administered a "pain medication" to the patient without defining what that medication was. The record does not indicate that Morphine Sulfate was administered. The narcotics control sheet for this period is not dated so it is impossible to determine whether Morphine Sulfate was listed on its document or not. However, the MAR reflects that Respondent administered Morphine Sulfate to this patient at 6:00 A.M. On February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Demerol for patient Oakley and properly noted this on the narcotics control sheet but the nurses' notes fail to show that the substance was administered as required. Later on, at 8:30 P.M. the same day, Respondent again signed out Demerol for Patient Crosby listing on the narcotics control sheet the patient's room number but not the date. Other dates on the sheet lead to the conclusion that it was February 4, however Respondent thereafter failed to record the drug's administration on the nurses' notes. She also signed Demerol out for Patient Crosby at 7:30 P.M. on February 4 though the narcotics control sheet fails to reflect the date - only the room number. This administration is in the MAR at 8:30 P.M. rather than at 7:30 P.M. but is not in the nurses' notes at all. On February 3, 1984, Respondent recorded in her nurse's notes that she administered Demerol to patient Crosby at 8:00 P.M. The narcotics disposition record (narcotics control sheet) shows that she signed the medication out between 8:00 and 9:00 P.M., but it is impossible to tell with certainty the exact time. It is obvious that Respondent's handwriting is poor. This fact adds to the difficulties encountered from the way in which Respondent kept her records. In the opinion of Ms. Jones, who has been doing quality assurance checks for a number of years, Respondent's records are inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete and totally insufficient for a nurse on the next shift to know what medications have been given and what must be done. In this area alone, Ms. Jones was of the opinion that Respondent's charts are below the minimum standards for nursing practice in the area and even though her own report was erroneous in some respects, there are still enough verified errors by the Respondent to support her opinion that Respondent's performance is less than acceptable. Respondent admits that some but not all of the charges against her are true. Though she may have mischarted her administration of drugs she never took the drugs herself. The patient always got the drug that he or she was supposed to get and her errors were errors only as to the recordation of time. They were administrative errors, not substantive errors. She contends that in February, 1984, because the floor on which she had been charge nurse since December, 1981 had been closed, she was forced into a staff nurse position. This was not a good situation and as a result of the closing of that floor, several nurses quit. This loss of nurses resulted in more patients per nurse to the point where Respondent felt that patient safety was in danger. She contends she tried to tell Ms. Jones about this but Ms. Jones would not see her. All of a sudden, she found herself called in front of Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones and terminated based on the alleged inaccuracies in her records. Respondent contends she received no information about this other than that contained in Ms. Jones' summary and in that regard she says, Ms. Jones assured her that her summary was correct and in no way tried to explain the inaccuracy of the records. Respondent contends that she had frequently asked her supervisors for extra help but never got any. She contends she had as many as 18 patients to handle by herself and at the time involved in the records discrepancies here, she had 8 patients on the floor. She contends that the errors to which she admits were due to her hectic schedule. As a single parent, she was working, she says, between 60 to 80 hours per week on two jobs and had a sick child at home. Ms. Flemister, on the other hand, says that Respondent had plenty of help. At the time, Respondent was working the night shift from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The shift was staffed by 4 registered nurses, 2 licensed practical nurses, and a secretary, and in her opinion, this staff was well within the normal range of staff-patient ratio. Ms. Flemister contends that while Respondent was on duty, she had between 5 and 6 patients to take care of. She was the charge nurse for the shift and therefore had less patients than a regular floor nurse. She admits that Respondent did complain about being shorthanded, but these complaints were neither constant nor repeated and were never submitted through proper channels. Ms. Flemister contends that prior to this time Respondent had been counseled about her writing and documentation, but there has been no evidence of any discrepancies other than those involved in this case. There are certain procedures followed at GCCH and a part of Ms. Flemister's job is to oversee the standards of the hospital, the Board of Nursing, and the Joint Committee on Hospital Accreditation as they are applicable at this hospital. On the first day of duty, all new nurses are given an orientation which includes records management and how to use a medication cart. A medications test is given and a model cart is used in this training. On the cart, each patient has his or her own area. Narcotics and barbiturates are kept together. Medication administration records, including a page for every patient, are kept with the cart. Each administration of medication is supposed to be recorded and each use of narcotics is supposed to be listed on the narcotics sheet with the name of the patient, the date, the drug, and the nurse administering it. Medications are first called for in the doctor's orders and are checked by the secretary and the nurse who checks and signs it initially. The doctor's orders are then used to give medications. When a nurse gives a medication she checks the doctor's order against the medical records and then prepares the medicine, administers it, charts it and signs it off. The entry is recorded on the medical administration record and it and the charting register are both on the cart. The nurse goes back to the nurses' station to record the administration of the medicine in the nurses' notes which are kept in the patient record. This method of documentation is set out in the hospital policy and procedures which are given to all nurses. Accurate medication records are important so that nurses on subsequent shifts do not administer a drug too soon after the last dose was given and thereby create an overdose. Therefore, medications are logged in several different locations because state law requires it to promote agency oversight by the pharmacy and the Department of Nursing, and because the record is used at shift change to insure an accurate count of narcotics on hand on the medicine cart. Failure of employees to follow the hospital procedures results in the following sequence of events: reprimand; counseling; a written reprimand; and discharge; all depending, of course, on the seriousness of the offense. However, after the discussion with Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones Respondent was terminated because of the discrepancies between the narcotic record and the poor and illegible documentation in the nurses' records and elsewhere. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that though she has been licensed in the State of Florida since 1967 and has worked at GCCH since 1981, there has never been any prior disciplinary action taken against her nor has she received any prior complaints about her method of charting or administration of drugs and she was doing it as she usually does in February, 1984. Notwithstanding her protestations of no prior disciplinary action, however, the records reveal that Respondent was given a two-day suspension for the incident involving the over administration of Demerol to Mr. Collins and advised that a repeat discrepancy would result in her discharge. It is important to note that as a part of the investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct, she was requested to provide a urine sample for urinalysis. This routine drug screen revealed no use of controlled substances within the seven days prior to the test which was accomplished on February 20, 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS-0001053 in 1954. According to Respondent's office records for a patient named Barry Belikoff, Respondent saw Belikoff in his office on twenty-five (25) occasions between September 5, 1980, and July 24, 1981, and during this time wrote twenty-four (24) prescriptions for a total of 344 Quaaludes (Methaqualone) with a dosage of 300 mg. each. According to his patient records, Respondent also saw Belikoff on thirteen (13) occasions between October 31, 1981 and June 18, 1982 and wrote four (4) prescriptions for controlled substances, including Talwin, Restoril, and Percodan. Respondent was treating Belikoff for back pains and insomnia. According to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent of this patient's office visits were inadequate and do not provide the required documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. In addition, a proper course of patient care would not include the on-going prescription of Quaaludes over almost a one year period at a rate of over one a day without a record of additional tests, x-rays, or neurological exams during this period. Belikoff's patient records do not show any such additional tests, x- rays or exams. Without such documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Belikoff were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Respondent was treating a patient named Lyndon Ellis during 1981 and 1982. Ellis was hospitalized on four occasions while under Respondent's care, and according to expert testimony the level of care and medical records for this patient, while hospitalized, were excellent. As a result of office visits by Ellis, Respondent wrote thirty-eight (38) prescriptions for controlled substances between April 20, 1981 and September 29, 1982 which included Percocet 5, Demerol, and Fiorinal. Ellis was being treated by Respondent for chronic headaches and pain from accident injuries, and also for a problem with his toe. However, according to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent on Ellis' office visits were inadequate and do not provide documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. The absence of a thorough patient medical history, exam, evaluation, x- rays and lab tests in this patient's office records is explained by Respondent by the fact that this information was available in hospital records for this patient. Nevertheless, Respondent's office records for Ellis are totally inadequate. These office records do reflect that Respondent was aware of Ellis' overuse of controlled substances and the need to detoxify this patient on October 29, 1982. Yet he prescribed Percocet, a controlled substance, on five additional occasions after October 29, 1982. Without adequate documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Ellis were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Between July 14, 1980 and April 23, 1982, Respondent treated a patient named Alan Fogler. During this time Respondent wrote twelve (12) prescriptions for a total of 464 Percodan, a controlled substance. Respondent was treating Fogler for headaches, whiplash and a concussion reported by the patient, as well as allergies, but patient records reveal no x- rays, brain scans, lab work or neurological exams. According to expert testimony, patient records in this case are inadequate and do not justify the treatment rendered which consisted primarily of prescriptions for Percodan. Without adequate patient medical records, the prescriptions for controlled substances were without- medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, accordingly to expert testimony. While treating patients Belikoff, Ellis and Fogler, Respondent repeatedly reissued prescriptions for controlled substances without a substantiation of medical reasons in the patients' office medical records. According to expert testimony concerning the standards expected of osteopathic physicians in keeping office medical records on patients, Respondent did not perform with reasonable skill, nor meet the standards expected of physicians in this aspect of their practice. Vicki Cutcliffe, a deputy sheriff with the Broward County Sheriff's Office, saw Respondent in his office on March 30, April 11 and April 25, 1984 using the alias "Vicki Tarra". After taking a brief medical history which revealed that "Tarra" used alcohol daily, Respondent began treating her for situational anxiety by prescribing controlled substances, including Librium and Tranxene. On April 25 "Tarra" told Respondent she wanted some extra pills for her friend named Jo Ann and asked him to write her friend a prescription. Respondent said he could not do that, but did give "Tarra" a prescription for Tranxene and two refills, after initially giving her a prescription which allowed for only one refill. He told her that she could give some of the pills to her friend and then she could refill the prescription twice. Respondent knew that "Tarra" wanted the extra pills for a friend and that she would give them to her friend who was not a patient of Respondent. According to expert testimony, the treatment given to "Tarra" by Respondent, which consisted simply of prescriptions for controlled substances without adequate documentation of the reasons for this course of treatment in the patient's medical records, was totally inappropriate. Increasing a prescription when a patient says they want some extra pills for a friend is never justified and constitutes malpractice, according to expert testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two ( 2) years. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 3 2301 (904) 488- 9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John W. Gaul, D.O. 11360 Tara Drive Plantation, FL 33325 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, holding license number ME 81249. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was board-certified in family medicine. The Respondent held no board certification at the time of the administrative hearing, and, according to his response to the Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, the family medicine certification expired in July 2007. On February 8, 2006, the Respondent prescribed hydrocodone (10/325, generic Norco, 10mg.) to Patient M.R. through an internet service called ERMeds.com. On June 26, 2006, the Respondent prescribed hydrocodone (Hydro/APAP 10/325, generic Norco, 10/325) to Patient M.R. through the internet service called ERMeds.com. Hydrocodone is a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Hydrocodone/APAP is hydrocodone combined with acetaminophen, and the combined drug is a Schedule III controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Both hydrocodone and hydrocodone/APAP have high potential for abuse and addiction. The prescriptions issued to Patient M.R. contained the Respondent's identification including address and DEA number on the prescription form, as well as the Respondent's electronic facsimile signature. The Respondent had no contact with Patient M.R. either before or after the prescription was issued to Patient M.R. The Respondent conducted no health evaluation of Patient M.R. The Respondent did not obtain or review any medical information related to Patient M.R. The Respondent testified during deposition that a physician's assistant for whom the Respondent was the supervising physician was responsible for gathering and reviewing medical information from the patient. According to the Respondent's response to the Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, the physician's assistant obtained patient history, including current medications and complaints, and the "information was available to Respondent at the time the prescriptions were authorized." According to the Respondent's response to the Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, a completed medical questionnaire was available for the Respondent's review. There is no evidence that the Respondent reviewed any information or questionnaire regarding the patient's medical history or complaint either before or at the time the prescriptions were authorized. The Respondent did not know and never met the physician's assistant and was unable to recall the last name of the physician's assistant. There is no evidence that the Respondent had any discussion with any physician's assistant related to Patient M.R. either before or at the time the prescriptions were authorized. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Bernd Wollschlaeger, M.D., a Florida-licensed physician holding board certification in family practice. Dr. Wollschlaeger testified that a physician must evaluate a patient, take a patient's medical history, review any available medical records, and document the findings and diagnosis in a contemporaneous record prior to issuing a prescription for hydrocodone to a patient. Based upon the Respondent's deposition testimony and the responses to the Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, it is clear that the Respondent failed to evaluate Patient M.R. in any respect prior to issuing the prescriptions for hydrocodone to the patient. The Respondent reviewed no medical history or records related to Patient M.R. The Respondent failed to diagnose any medical condition that would support prescribing hydrocodone to Patient M.R. The Respondent failed to document any medical information related to Patient M.R. in any written record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding Gerard Romain, M.D., in violation of Subsections 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(q), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), and imposing a penalty as follows: a reprimand; a three-year period of probation, the first year of which shall include a prohibition on issuing prescriptions for Schedule II and III controlled substances; an administrative fine of $20,000.00; and such additional continuing education and community service requirements as the Department of Health determines appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Dale R. Sisco, Esquire Stacy Estes, Esquire Sisco-Law Post Office Box 3382 Tampa, Florida 33601-3382 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of, Florida having been issued license No. 0033496. Respondent's address is 133 Darnell Avenue, Spring Hill, Florida 33626. Respondent rendered medical care and treatment to patient B.R. during the period July 11, 1985 to July 15, 1985 while she was a patient at the Oak Hill Community Hospital, Spring Hill, Florida for, among other things, acute transmural myocardial infarction. On or about July 15, 1985, patient B.R. died from acute myocardial infarction after resuscitative procedures were unsuccessful. Patient B.R. was brought to the emergency room at Oak Hill Community Hospital on July 11, 1985 by her husband after complaining of chest pains. Shortly after arrival she suffered a myocardial infarction and "coded." She was resuscitated and placed in the intensive care unit. As the medical services physician on call, Respondent was contacted and assumed the care of patient B.R., a 65 year old female. Respondent is Board-certified in internal medicine and is Board eligible in cardiology having completed a fellowship in cardiology at George Washington University in 1968. B.R. had formerly worked as a licensed practical nurse who suffered a back injury some years ago which resulted in back surgery three times. In 1978, some 10 years before her demise, B.R. suffered a heart attack. She also had a history of diabetes and recently had undergone a thyroidectomy. With this medical history she presented a complex case for care and treatment. With patient presenting the history and symptoms of B.R., a reasonably prudent physician would have ordered daily chest X-rays, had an echocardiagram taken, inserted a Swan-Ganz catheter and consulted with a cardiologist on the treatment of this patient. None of these were done by Respondent. While acknowledging those procedures above listed were clearly indicated, Respondent testified he suggested those procedures to B.R. but, while she was fully competent to understand his recommendation, B.R. refused to be further X-rayed, refused the echocardiagram because she thought it produced some type of nuclear radiation, and also specifically refused to have any tubes inserted in her veins which would result if the Swan-Ganz catheter was inserted. None of the patient's refusals to accept recommended procedures was charted in B.R.'s hospital records. Respondent testified that B.R. specifically directed him to not chart on her hospital record her refusal to undergo the test and procedures recommended by Respondent. Respondent further testified that following her refusal to undergo the test and procedures and under directions to him not to chart those refusals on the hospital chart, he put this history in his office notes. To corroborate thin testimony Respondent presented Exhibit 5, a copy of those office notes containing entries dated July 12, 13, 14, 15, and 23, August 13, September 26, December 13, 1985 and January 29, 1986, comprising 4 typewritten pages. While a patient has a absolute right to refuse treatment or procedures recommended by his/her physician, the patient does not have the right to direct the physician to prepare an incomplete record of his treatment and progress. The principal purpose of the chart is to record medical evidence of the patient's condition, treatment rendered and results obtained to provide a history from which another physician can, if necessary, adequately take over the care of the patient. The record also provides a history of the patient's response to treatment. Respondent's explanation that if he had expected to be away and another physician had to take over the care and treatment of B.R. he would have made the other physician aware of B.R.'s refusal to undergo the recommended procedures totally failed to satisfy the need for a complete record of the patient in one place. To prove the validity of the office notes as a "business record," Respondent testified that for the past 30 years he has maintained office notes in which he has placed information the patient didn't want in the hospital record. An expert witness in the field of questioned documents testified that each dated entry on Exhibit 5 was typed following a new insertion of the paper in the typewriter rather than all entries being typed at the same time or with the same insertion of the paper in the typewriter and this was consistent with what would be expected in normal office procedures. Respondent's office manager and secretary during the times reported on Exhibit 5 testified she was the one who normally transcribed Respondent's dictated notes, that Exhibit 5 was consistent with the normal office practice which would be to date the entries when they were typed, and, although she does not specifically recall typing each entry on Exhibit 5, they were probably all typed by her. Evidence questioning the validity of Respondent's testimony that the office notes were dictated contemporaneously with his treatment of B.R. and typed on the dates indicated included the testimony of the husband of B.R. that B.R. had a zest for life and it would be contrary to her nature to refuse certain procedures or consultations; the fact that on July 14, 1985 B.R. was intubated with the Respondent present; that there was no financial consideration involved as B.R. was adequately insured; the office manager and secretary of Respondent during the period the office notes are alleged to have been prepared is the daughter of Respondent; and the fact that at the peer review committee inquiry into the facts surrounding the death of B.R., Respondent never mentioned the existence of office notes although he was extensively questioned regarding his failure to maintain a more complete medical record in this case. From the foregoing it is found that B.R.'s refusal to submit to the procedures allegedly recommended by Respondent were not contemporaneously recorded in Respondent's office notes and Exhibit 5 was prepared after Respondent appeared before the hospital peer review committee if not also after the administrative complaint was filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact Dong Hack Koo, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0027494. Koo was so licensed at all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint. At all times material to this cause, Koo maintained an office at 121 East 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. On July 10, 1985, Diane Rabideau, an Investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected Koo's offices and found them to be unclean, with evidence of roach eggs present under a sink. Rabideau also found a rectal speculum and two vaginal speculums lying on a sink. Koo told Rabideau that the rectal speculum and the two vaginal speculums had been used. No evidence was presented to indicate how long the speculums had been on the sink. If such instruments are not cleaned quickly and properly following use, there is a high chance of spreading infection to the next patient to use the instrument. Such instruments should be placed in a cleansing solution and scrubbed, then wrapped and sterilized. It is the community practice to clean such instruments as soon as possible after use. According to Dr. Rosin, any physician who performs abortions in an unclean office with instruments lying around that have not been properly cleaned, has practiced below the community standard of care. However, no evidence was presented to show that Koo performed abortions under such circumstances. Koo does perform first trimester abortions in his office. It was not disputed that abortions are a medical and surgical procedure which can be dangerous. Emergency situations can arise during abortions and these emergencies require the presence of emergency equipment such as suction and the ability to start an intravenous medication. Koo does maintain suction equipment and intravenous solutions in his office. However, when possible he immediately transfers emergency patients to another facility. Koo does perform abortions in his office without the presence of an assistant to aid in emergency situations. According to Dr. Rosin, the standard of care in the community requires that an assistant be present during an abortion to assist the physician should an emergency situation arise. Additionally, according to Dr. Rosin, a physician who performs abortions without emergency equipment or without an assistant has failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. When Rabideau visited Koo's office on July 10, 1985, she obtained a sampling of drugs kept by Koo for dispensing to patients. The sampling revealed that a majority of the drugs had expired. However, no evidence was presented that this is a violation of Florida Statutes. Rabideau also found that Koo maintained a number of Schedule III, IV, and V, controlled substances in his office which he dispensed to patients. In dispensing these controlled substances, Koo used the instructions for use which are printed on the packaging. He also, at times, taped a small piece of paper to the packaging with his telephone number and the name of the patient. Koo did not completely label these controlled substances, which he dispensed, with his name and address, the date of delivery, directions for use, the name of the patient, and a warning concerning the transfer of the substance. Koo maintains no inventory of the scheduled controlled substances which are kept in his offices and dispensed to his patients. On August 6, 1985, Diane Rabideau again visited Koo's office. While Rabideau waited, a female patient by the name of Mary Green was seen by Koo and left with a prescription. Rabideau then asked Respondent to present the medical records on the patient, Mary Green. Koo was unable to present any medical records for the patient which he had just seen and to whom he had just dispensed medication. Koo's office procedure regarding patient medical records is to record histories and examination results on the patient medical records during the patient's visit. These medical records are kept in individual folders under the name of each patient. When a patient presents for treatment, the medical records for that patient are pulled and given to the doctor. After each visit, the patient's medical records are refiled. On or about March 16, 1986, pursuant to a subpoena from the Department of Professional Regulation, Koo provided the original medical records on ten (10) abortion patients. These original medical records were examined by John F. McCarthy, a questioned documents expert for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. McCarthy's examination by electrostatic detection apparatus revealed that numerous indentations on the records superimposed with information from other records. For example, Exhibit 6 contained indentations from the writing on the face of Exhibit 10. Further, McCarthy found indentations on Exhibit 6 resulting from the writing on Exhibit 8. Thus, Exhibit 8 was on top of Exhibit 6 when it was prepared. Exhibit 8, however, is dated July 24, 1985, and Exhibit 6 is dated May 29, 1985. McCarthy's expert opinion is that at the time the various documents were prepared, they were on top of each other. It is therefore found that Exhibits 1-10, the original medical records on the ten named abortion patients, were not prepared at the time Koo saw the patients, but were instead all prepared at the same time, in response to the subpoena. It therefore must be found that the records were fabricated by Koo in response to the Department's subpoena. Prior to performing an abortion, a physician needs to verify whether the patient has Rh positive or negative blood type. The physician cannot rely on patients' representations that the Rh factor is positive or negative, but most obtain independent verification. This is because patients know that if they have Rh negative blood, they must receive a shot which is expensive. Koo relied on the patients' statements in ascertaining the Rh factor and did not obtain independent verification. In Dr. Rosin's expert opinion, the failure of a physician to obtain independent verification of the Rh factor poses a potential for harm to the patient and such failure is a failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized in the medical community.
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 Dong Hack Koo, M.D., GUILTY of violating Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therein SUSPEND his license to practice medicine for a period of six (6) months during which he be required to successfully complete continuing education courses in maintaining, controlling, dispensing, labeling, and inventorying controlled substance, and in maintaining adequate patient records to justify the course of treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 26th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1066 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (1) ; 2 (2); 3 (3); 4 (4); 5 (4); 6 (4); 7 (4); 8 (5); 9 (6); 10 (6); 11 (9); 12 (7); 13 (8); 14 (9); 15 (10); 16 (11); 17 (11); 18 (12); 19 (13); 20 (13); 21 (15); 22 (14); 23 (14); 24 (16); 25 (16); 26 (16); 27 (16); 28 (17); 29 (18); and 30 (19) That portion of proposed finding of fact 12 which concludes that Respondent does not maintain emergency equipment in his office is rejected as unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dong Hack Koo, M.D. 121 East 8th Street, Suite 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive DIRECTOR Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Dr. Julius A. Okuboye, was a medical doctor licensed by and in the State of Florida. In the first of six cases upon which Petitioner bases its case, the patient was receiving medical treatment for a fracture of the right femur, (thigh bone), at Gateway Community Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida during the period November 21, 1982 and January 13, 1983. Petitioner contends Respondent failed to properly perform the surgical procedure; failed to properly consider alternative courses of treatment; and failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course of treatment taken. Respondent reduced the bone fracture here by using a metal plate running lengthwise along the bone in an attempt to brace the fracture by securing it to the bone with, initially, screws. The plate used by the Respondent was too short for the procedure in that it did not extend beyond the upper limits of the fracture by that distance considered by some to be appropriate. Petitioner's first expert felt the use of the plate which was too short and the screws used to affix it, which were too short, was improper practice. In his opinion, the procedure followed by the Respondent herein required the patient to undergo three separate operations rather than one, which unnecessarily exposed this elderly patient to infection and the risk of anesthesia on three separate occasions. Petitioner's other expert believes that because the Respondent used a plate which was too short for the fracture involved, it was necessary for him to go back in and fix the plate with Parham bands considered by many in the field to be an old-fashioned practice. These bands, when used, tend to devitalize the tissue. He believes that once having used them, however, Respondent should have used more screws to affix the plate and the bands. In addition, the plate did not fix the smaller bone fragments at the bottom of the fracture. Both experts state Respondent should have considered reducing the fracture by the use of traction and bed rest as an alternative to surgery. On the other hand, Respondent's experts disagreed with Petitioner's experts. One, Dr. Weiss, indicated that Respondent had two choices: (1) a prolonged traction and immobilization which, itself, poses a great risk for an elderly patient, or (2) the surgical fixation which was chosen. Here, the reduction was good but the plate was too short. Dr. Weiss contends, as was urged by Respondent, that this was beyond his control and while it would have been better to use a longer plate, the Respondent used the correct procedure and the fact that a second and third operation was necessary, was beyond his control. His choice to do them was appropriate. The other expert, Dr. Bodden, pointed out that even though the smaller plate was used, there is no assurance a larger plate would have precluded the second and third operations. He believes that in light of all of the medical problems presented in this case and since the ideal plate was not available, Respondent's choice was prudent. The length of the plate was improper but in the opinion of Dr. Bodden, the patient's bone structure contributed to the breakage after the plate was installed. Further, the use of Parham bands was not inappropriate. They have been used for many years and are still widely accepted and used. In fact, he uses them himself. Prior to the surgery, Respondent contacted the operating room charge nurse to determine if the proper plates were available, and was assured by her that a full set of plates was available for the surgery. It was only after entering the operating arena, opening the incision into the patient's leg, and thereafter opening the sterilized and sealed package containing the plates that it was determined the proper plate was not present. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is found it would have been improper to open the plate package in advance of surgery to check since such a procedure would have destroyed the sterile nature of the package. In light of the above, Respondent's actions were appropriate. As to the issue of the adequacy of Respondent's medical records on other patients, an analysis of the records showed that no discharge summary was prepared by the Respondent nor were progress notes kept by him on December 22, 23, 25, and thereafter for several weeks on an irregular basis. It may be that Respondent was not the primary physician and only the consultant, but the records fail to show who was the responsible physician and who was ultimately responsible for the patient. A consultant should always reflect in the patient records who he is and in what capacity he has seen the patient as well as his area of expertise and the actions he has taken. Here, the Respondent's failure to do so, notwithstanding some expert evidence to the contrary, renders the records kept by him inadequate. In the case of the patient who was treated by the Respondent as a consultant on a fracture of the left hip at Gateway Community Hospital between October 27, and November 10, 1983, Petitioner's experts have no quarrel with the orthopedic treatment rendered the patient by Respondent. However, Respondent failed to make proper entries in the patient's medical records and the notes therein were made by an internist. Respondent saw the patient on only four of the nine days the patient was hospitalized and in the opinion of the expert, proper practice requires a doctor, or his substitute in the absence of the doctor, to see the patient each day. It may be that this practice, which is generally accepted as appropriate throughout the medical community, is somewhat less significant in the field of orthopedic surgery. Respondent's expert indicated he did not feel constrained to see his patients each day subsequent to surgery so long as he was kept aware of the patients' conditions. While he makes progress notes, he does not dictate discharge summaries or any of the other records since these are prepared by residents based on the notes he has put in the file. The medical records for this patient show no progress notes by the Respondent on November 1, 3, 4, and 5, 1983, during which time the patient was in the hospital under the Respondent's care. In one expert's opinion, the missing of three consecutive day's progress notes renders the records below standard. Respondent indicates he saw the patient frequently right after the surgery, but once he was satisfied that her orthopedic problems were progressing satisfactorily, did not see her during the time she was being treated for medical problems unrelated to the orthopedic surgery by an internist. He did write medical notes on the first five postoperative days at the conclusion of which his postoperative care for the orthopedic surgery was completed. Were it not for her unrelated medical problems, the patient would have been released and he did see her once, (Nov.2) prior to her discharge after her medical problem had been resolved. On the basis of all the testimony, it is found that in this case, Dr. Okuboye did not fail to keep proper medical records. Respondent also saw a patient for a fracture of the left lateral malleolus, (the protuberance on both sides of the ankle joint), and is alleged to have failed to timely perform an examination of the patient; failed to have timely provided treatment; and failed to have performed a complete examination. In this case, Petitioner's expert pointed out that the chart kept by the Respondent failed to show any reference to a knee injury which was disclosed on post-treatment X-rays evaluated by him. Respondent is also alleged to have failed to have cleaned and irrigated the wound which was a part of the injury, and that he administered only an intramuscular injection of antibiotics. In the opinion of the witness, it makes no difference if there was an infection or not. It is, in his opinion; a bad practice to not debride and clean the wound. Further, he was concerned that the patient records kept by the Respondent did not reflect whether the Respondent responded to the emergency room at the time he prescribed the treatment or not. From the review of the records, he could not tell. Review of the case records by Respondent's expert showed there was no open fracture which required debridement or specific cleaning. The wound was a small abrasion. As a general rule, an injury should be more than 1/2 inch in size or have some bone showing in order to require debridement, (removal of foreign material and dead or damaged tissue). If those conditions are present, proper procedure is to clean the wound and to provide antibiotics, which the Respondent did, and the treatment recommended by him met appropriate standards. This is the better point of view. As to the records kept by the Respondent, a note regarding the action taken here was dictated by Respondent two days after the patient was discharged. The patient records show a postoperative X-ray was taken by Respondent but there is no indication in the record showing that surgery was done. The patient was admitted through the emergency room and was sent to the floor even before the Respondent was contacted. As a result, Respondent did not see the patient in the emergency room. The ER notes prepared by someone else refer to an abrasion and an approximately 1/4 inch tear in the skin. The injury was cleaned in the ER and the patient was sent to the floor after which the Respondent was advised by telephone there was a "questionable" fracture of the ankle. In response, Respondent gave orders for immobilization of the wound and administration of antibiotics. The following day, when Respondent saw the patient, he could see no open wound nor could he find evidence of a fracture. As a result, he discontinued the prescription for antibiotics and discharged the patient who, it should be noted, did not sustain an infection and who did well in his recuperation. Respondent indicates he had been told by the family physician who admitted the patient and the nurses on the floor, with whom he discussed the patient, that there was no open wound sustained by this patient. On the basis of this information, Respondent prescribed the questioned course of treatment and it would appear it was appropriate and well within standards. Between November 12, and November 22, 1983, Respondent acted as surgical consultant regarding a patient being treated at Gateway Community Hospital for a metatarsal fracture. Respondent performed an open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture and Petitioner now claims that Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course of that patient's treatment. In that case, Petitioner does not claim improper treatment by the Respondent. However, one expert for Petitioner could not determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the procedure was required because of the absence of pre- operative X-rays and because of the inadequacy of the records for him to look at. The other Petitioner expert agreed that the Respondent took adequate care of the patient but because of the absence of postoperative film, the taking of which is a general practice within the medical community, he was not able to determine, nor would the Respondent be able to determine, whether the surgeon missed anything in performing the surgery. Respondent's evidence unequivocally contradicted the testimony of both Petitioner's experts. There were X-rays taken prior to the procedure by Respondent which showed a fracture of the outside metatarsus, (long foot bone). He proposed outpatient surgery of one day and reduced the fracture, inserting two pins as security. The postoperative X-rays show proper reduction. In fact, there are several sets of postoperative films and those taken after the holding pins placed in the fracture were removed show good reduction and full healing. Respondent discharged the patient from orthopedic care after surgery for release the next day if approved by the referring, physician, Dr. Lew. However, Dr. Lew kept the patient in the hospital one or two days after that for a reason not related to the orthopedic surgery done by Respondent. This would tend to explain the reason for there being no follow-up progress notes on the two days following the operative report done by Respondent on November 23. The failure to keep adequate notes adversely affects the entire care team not just the attending physician, as without adequate notes, the team cannot tell what is going on with the patient. The entire care is summarized in the progress notes and the failure to make notes on time leaves a hole. That cannot be said to have been the case here, however, since the orthopedic treatment of the patient was completed with the dictation of the operative report and the patient was discharged by Respondent. The patient's retention in the hospital for several days more was by another physician on a matter totally unrelated to the Respondent's treatment and Respondent had no responsibility to keep records on that portion of the patient's hospitalization. It cannot be said, then, that Respondent's records were inappropriate in this case. Respondent is also alleged to have improperly failed to perform a procedure of open reduction and internal fixation of an ankle fracture on a patient treated by him at Gateway Hospital between January 20, and January 25, 1983. In this case, Petitioner's expert questions whether the inner bone was properly reduced. X-rays taken subsequent to the procedure, show the reduction left a big gap and an irregular joint and the doctor feels the procedure, as it was done, was below standards. The other Petitioner expert concurs. There were two fractures. The smaller, did not need to be fixed since it was less than 1/3 of the ankle area and medical opinion indicates that fractures of less than 1/3 of the area should not be fixed. The other was fixed improperly in that Respondent should have used a tension band instead of a screw. If he had done so, there would have been a better fixation. Respondent's expert disagrees, pointing out that the postoperative X- rays show the position of the bones as placed by the Respondent, was quite acceptable. The failure to get an anatomic, (as developed by nature), reduction is not indicative of substandard care. It is sometimes not possible to put bones back the way they were prior to the fracture. In the instant case, when the operation and casting were done, the results were acceptable. The doctor concludes this was a very difficult operation to do and under the circumstances, the Respondent's performance met the standards within the community. Respondent's other expert agrees. This was an extremely difficult fracture of three sections of an ankle. Admittedly, Respondent's work resulted in a slight bone irregularity. A smooth reduction would be ideal, but it is unlikely that an anatomic reduction could be had in this case. No matter how skilled the work, a fracture of this kind is likely to result in some arthritis, and the failure to use a tension band, as suggested by one of Petitioner's experts, as opposed to a screw as chosen by the Respondent is a matter of choice. Neither gives better results and the Respondent's choice here, in these circumstances, was reasonable. Between December 18 and December 27, 1984, Respondent performed an open reduction and internal fixation of a fractured right hip. Petitioner alleges that Respondent performed a surgical procedure which was unnecessary, failed to properly perform the surgical procedure done, and failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the patient's treatment. In this case, Respondent inserted a Jewett nail, a non-collapsing nail, into the bone. The bone collapsed and drove the nail up into the end of the bone in an inappropriate manner. One of Petitioner's experts took issue with Respondent's use of the Jewett nail calling it an outdated device. In his opinion, the Respondent did not plan properly to have the appropriate device on hand when it was needed. His opinion is supported by that of the other Petitioner expert who pointed out that the procedure resulted in an inadequate fixation. He contends the Respondent should have used a collapsible nail and that Respondent's technique of cutting the bone after the collapse was inappropriate and resulted in a shortening of the leg. He believes this procedure was improper and falls below medical standards in the community. He was also of the opinion that Respondent's record keeping in this case was inadequate. Petitioner's expert in medical records found several problems with Respondent's records on this patient. The initial note was dictated after surgery instead of when the consult was first done. No progress notes were in the file for those days when the patient was not seen by the Respondent. There was no showing that the patient was seen by someone left in charge by Respondent in his absence. Since medical records provide a history of the case and allow the follow-on staff to provide continuation of care, the evidence showed Respondent's records in this case were below standard. Respondent's witness, Dr. Weiss, does not believe that the use of the Jewett nail is necessarily inappropriate. The fact that the Jewett nail did not work out for the Respondent in this case and required follow-up surgery, is not necessarily indicative of improper treatment. Studies of similar fractures in elderly patients show that 70% had some deviation and many similar cases show penetration of the head of the bone by the nail such as was the case here. While there are newer nails used by many orthopedic surgeons, the Jewett nail is still appropriate. The physician can avoid penetration at the time of the insertion and Respondent did so, but penetration cannot always be avoided after surgery when weight is placed on the limb. Respondent's other expert who reviewed this case stated that the fixed nail used by Respondent, if properly used, gives equally good results as the newer collapsible nail. Cutting of the bone is a well known and appropriate procedure in cases where necessary, as here. In evaluating the testimony of the experts, it should be noted that neither of the Board's experts interviewed Respondent or in any way discussed with him his professional reasons for doing what he did. Their opinions given here as expert testimony were based on evaluation of records and X-rays only whereas the opinions of Respondent's experts were based on review of the same documentation and also on interviews with Respondent who was questioned and who expounded on his medical rationale. Having analyzed the procedure done by the Respondent here and having evaluated the testimony of all witnesses, it is found that the procedure as followed by Respondent did not fall below the appropriate medical standards within the community. However, the allegation regarding Respondent's failure to keep proper medical records has been established. Respondent is a native of Nigeria, who took his medical training in England, graduating from Kings College Medical school in 1961. He interned in the United States at Bridgeport Hospital, served his residency and as a research fellow in Canada, and returned to the United States for a two year general surgery and three year orthopedic surgery residency at Albert Einstein Medical Center in New York. Respondent came to Florida in 1973 and has been in private practice as a sole practitioner since that time. He is Board eligible in orthopedic surgery and certified in neurological and orthopedic surgery by the American College of Neurological and Orthopedic surgery, not to be confused with the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery. He is also a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. At one time, Respondent practiced at Gateway Hospital in St. Petersburg where all the cases involved in the proceeding came up and where he was involved in legal action involving a matter he had handled. Respondent won that case but nonetheless, had to sue the hospital to recover his expenses. When Gateway Hospital was sold to Humana, he was again involved in litigation with the hospital to retain his privilege to practice there. Thereafter, he was called before the hospital committee regarding the instant cases in a staff privilege matter and as a result, the hospital referred them to the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent believes two factions in the medical community seek his dismissal and the revocation of his license. He presented a detailed litany of grievances against various members of the hospital staff and others who, he contends, are engaged in a program to destroy him professionally and remove him from the practice of medicine. Since his medical privileges at the hospital have been rescinded, he can no longer accept referrals in orthopedic surgery from other members of the staff at Gateway and as a result, referrals that would ordinarily go to him, are now going to other, more favored members of the staff who retain surgical privileges. He contends his troubles, which culminated in this hearing, are both economically and racially motivated, and also involve an effort to rid the hospital of foreign trained physicians. There is no evidence to corroborate Respondent's charges and , therefore, the decision regarding his standard of practice and his record keeping must be based on the professional evidence presented at this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Julius A. Okuboye, be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearings Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1988. Appendix to Recommended Order In Case No. 86-1048 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted to the extent that Respondent's reduction was not anatomic but rejected to the extent "it possibly could have been better treated in a cast." Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as to all but last sentence which is irrelevant since the latter portion of the hospitalization discussed here was after patient had been discharged by Respondent and did not relate to orthopedic treatment. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-16. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 17&18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 20-21. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 22. Accepted as to certain records and rejected as to others as discussed in the body of the Recommended Order. For the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence rejected as a restatement of Petitioner's position. Remainder accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. Last sentence accepted and incorporated. Remainder rejected as a restatement of the evidence. First sentence rejected as above. Second sentence rejected as a restatement of evidence. Third through Sixth sentences accepted and incorporated. seventh rejected as a restatement of Petitioner's position. Eighth and Ninth sentences accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. second sentence accepted. Remainder accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. Remainder accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as above. Remainder accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as to some cases, accepted as to others as defined in the Findings of Fact herein. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Suite 2000, Ashley Tower 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Glenn M. Woodworth, Esquire Woodworth and Dugan, Chartered Wittner Centre West 5999 Central Avenue Suite 103 St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
