The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to practice medicine at the level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances and, if not, the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0026784. He is Board-certified in radiology. On January 30, 1997, T. D., a 30-year-old female who was eight months pregnant, presented to the emergency room of the Columbia Largo Medical Center complaining of pain in the left flank radiating to the left groin, together with nausea and vomiting. She also reported a prior history of kidney stones. A urologist diagnosed T. D. as suffering from kidney stones and severe hydronephrosis, which is the dilation of the kidney due to an obstruction in the flow of urine. The urologist was unable to pass a stent and catheter by the stones to drain the urine and relieve the pressure on the kidney, so he asked Respondent to perform a left percutaneous nephrostomy. A percutaneous nephrostomy is a procedure in which a physician places a tube through the skin and into the collecting system of the kidney to drain the kidney. The tube remains in place until the obstruction is removed. On February 1, Respondent performed a left percutaneous nephrostomy under local anaesthesia. For guidance in placing the tube, Respondent used ultrasound, rather than ultrasound and a flouroscopy. Respondent has performed 100-150 nephrostomies. As is the common practice, he normally does not rely exclusively ultrasound in guiding the placement of the tube in the kidney. In this case, the urologist asked that he not use a flouroscopy, in deference to the patient's pregnancy and the duration of x-ray exposure in a flouroscopy. Respondent was comfortable doing the procedure in this manner, although he decided that, if he encountered any problems in placement, he would resort to flouroscopy. Respondent proceeded to perform the percutaneous nephrostomy in the morning. As is typical, the radiology technician helped position T. D. on the table for the procedure. T. D.'s advanced pregnancy necessitated a slight adjustment to the normal posture of patients being prepared for this procedure, so T. D. lay slightly more up on her side than is usual. However, this did not change the point of entry chosen by Respondent. And, regardless of her precise position, the location of the spinal canal relative to the kidney relative to the point of entry into the skin remains constant: an imaginary line from the kidney to the spinal canal is perpendicular to an imaginary line from the point of entry to the kidney. The point of entry is on the lower back of the patient. T. D. is thin and her pregnancy did not manifest itself on her back, so the length of tube used by Respondent was relatively short. T. D.'s thin build makes it less likely that Respondent would have placed sufficient excess tube into the patient so as to permit the tube to run from the kidney to the spinal cord. Upon placement of the tube, at least 100 cc of fluid drained through the tube. This is well within the range of urine that would be expected under the circumstances. The color was well within the range of color for urine. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the fluid was urine and that Respondent had placed the tube correctly in the kidney. At the end of the procedure, T. D. appeared a lot more comfortable. Late in the afternoon, someone called Respondent and told him that the drainage had slowed to a very small amount or nothing at all. This is not uncommon, as moving the patient or over-energetic nurses may accidentally dislodge the stent in the kidney. It is also possible that the tube has rested in a part of the kidney that does not facilitate maximum drainage. Using ultrasound, Respondent confirmed that the tube remained in place in the kidney, although he could not tell whether the stent had come to rest in a narrow place in the kidney or possibly even against a stone. Even with this uncertainty, Respondent still was able to determine that the stent was predominantly in the collecting system. Because T. D. was resting comfortably, she said that she felt fine, her fever was going down, and the hydronephrosis had decreased, Respondent decided to do nothing until after re-examining T. D. the next morning. However, at about 11:00 p.m. or midnight, Respondent, who was visiting a nearby patient, dropped in on T. D. The nurse said that she was fine and her kidney was draining a little better. T. D. also said that she was feeling fine. About three or four hours later, T. D. reported a feeling of some paralysis. Petitioner's expert testified that this was linked to the misplacement of the stent in the spinal canal, but he was unaware that T. D. had undergone a spinal block for the percutaneous nephrostomy and that a problem with the first anaesthetic procedure had necessitated a second. It is more likely that T. D.'s paralysis was in response to the two spinal blocks. At 9:00 a.m. the next day, Respondent returned and examined T. D. He found that she was still doing better, and her urologist was preparing to discharge her from the hospital. She looked better, and her urine flow had improved. He told her to call him if she had any problems, but he never heard from her again or even about her until he learned from the urologist that T. D. had been admitted to another hospital where a radiologist had inserted contrast material into the tube to locate the stent and found it in the spinal canal. The father of the baby picked up T. D. at the Columbia Largo Medical Center. He picked her up out of the wheelchair and placed her in the car. Her condition deteriorated once she got home. A hospital nurse directed the father to change the collection bag, if it filled prior to the visit of the home health care nurse. In the three or four days that T. D. remained at home, he changed the bag several times. He daily checked the site at which the tube entered T. D.'s skin and noticed that it had pulled out a little bit. However, he testified that he did not try to adjust the length of tube inside T. D., nor did he change the setting on the tube, which had "open" and "closed" settings for the pigtail at the end of the tube. The proper setting was closed, as the pigtail is not to be open once the stent has reached its destination in the kidney. On February 5, the father took T. D. to the emergency room of the Columbia St. Petersburg Medical Center, where she presented with complaints of severe back pain. An ultrasound confirmed the presence of kidney stones, whose removal had been deferred until the delivery of the baby. In an effort to locate the end of the tube, a radiologist inserted radiographic contrast dye, which showed that the end of the tube was in the intrathecal space of the spine. A urologist removed the tube. However, T. D. suffered a seizure. Another physician attempted an emergency C-section, but the baby did not live. There are two alternatives to explain how the stent at the end of the tube found its way into the spinal canal. First, Respondent placed it there during the procedure. Second, it migrated from the kidney, where Respondent placed it, to the spinal canal. If not unprecedented, both alternatives are extremely rare. The drainage during the procedure and initial improvement of the distended kidney are consistent with the proper initial placement of the stent. The difficulty of inadvertently turning a relatively short length of tube 90 degrees from the kidney to the spinal canal also militates against a finding that Respondent misinserted the tube. Problems with the first spinal tap may have contributed to some of the complaints, such as paralysis, that T. D. experienced after the procedure. Although unlikely, the migration alternative would be consistent with well-intended, but incorrect, attempts by the baby's father or a home health care nurse to ensure that the tube did not travel too far in or our of the point of entry. Migration would be facilitated if either the father or nurse misread the "open" and "closed" settings and turned to "open," in the hope of improving drainage, when such a setting opens the pigtail, which would increase the possibility that the stent could migrate into the spinal canal. In a case requiring proof that is clear and convincing, it is impossible to find that Petitioner has adequately proved that Respondent misinserted the tube during the procedure. Likewise, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent should have recognized at anytime prior to T. D.'s discharge from the Columbia Largo Medical Center that something was wrong with the procedure that he had performed or that he needed to confirm by x-ray the location of the stent at the end of the tube.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William B. Taylor, IV Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601-1531 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Jaime Benavides, held medical doctor License No. 10189 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners. He currently resides at 1201 South Main Street, Belle Glade, Florida. Respondent is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and entered the U.S. Navy in 1949. He retired from the Navy in 1966 1/. His last duty assignment was as chief of orthopedics at the Navy hospital in Key West. He was board certified as an orthopedic surgeon in 1961 and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. He has also received the Physician's Recognition Award every three years for continuing education studies and was president of the Florida Orthopedic Society for several years. Since June, 1980, he has been practicing in Belle Glade, where he is vice-chief of staff at Glades Hospital. In 1973, Robert Greene was initially treated at Respondent's clinic in Marathon, Florida. Respondent's office was in Key West, but he provided medical services at a clinic in Marathon on Tuesday of each week. Greene had suffered a wrist injury while in the service and reinjured it while employed at a grocery store in Marathon. Greene was initially treated by Respondent's associate, Dr. Schaubel, and eventually had a bone graft placed in his wrist in January, 1974, by both physicians. Schaubel prescribed Demerol for Greene and in June, 1974, Respondent began prescribing Dilaudid for pain. Between January 1, 1976, and October 4, 1976, Respondent wrote prescriptions for 3,041 Dilaudid tablets of 4- milligram strength and 518 Dilaudid tablets having 2-milligram strength. The maximum amount of Dilaudid consumed by Greene during any period of time was 10 tablets per day, with each having 4-milligram strength. During this same period of time, Greene had three additional operations on the same wrist. The second operation involved a silicone implant, the third a replacement of the implant, and the fourth replaced a bone in his wrist and realigned the implant to its proper place. A scheduled fifth operation never took place. After the third operation, Greene told Respondent he believed he was becoming addicted to the drug. Respondent "detoxed" Greene prior to the fourth operation, but Greene later requested more drugs because of the intense pain in his wrist and his inability to work as a fisherman, which required that he lift lobster traps weighing more than 125 pounds. Respondent attempted on a number of occasions to cut back the dosage, but Greene could not stand the pain and always requested that the medication be continued. Although Respondent prescribed a large number of tablets in the first 10 months of 1976, Greene did not actually ingest all the tablets since his prescriptions were lost or stolen on "numerous" occasions, thereby necessitating the obtaining of a new prescription from Respondent on each occasion. This was confirmed by testimony from the patient. Some of the prescriptions were obtained by Greene when Benavides was on rounds at the hospital or at his home and did not have his medical records present. Respondent conceded the amount of dosage was high, but said the patient had a low threshold for pain and could not support his family unless he was able to work as a fisherman. Based on the seriousness of the injury, he concluded that only Dilaudid was effective in taking care of the pain, particularly since in 1976 there were no other oral medications that were equally satisfactory. According to the 1982 Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), the following instructions appear relative to the use of Dilaudid: The oral route of administration is effective for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. The usual oral dose is two milligrams every four to six hours as necessary. The dose must be individually adjusted according to severity of pain, patient response, and patient size. More severe pain may require three to four milli- grams every four to six hours. If the pain increases in severity or relief is not ade- quate or a tolerance occurs, a gradual in- crease in dosage may be required. (p.1009) The prescriptions given by Respondent, excluding those that were lost or stolen, were consistent with this PDR instruction. An expert retained by the Department, Dr. John R. Mahoney, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, characterized the amount of Dilaudid prescribed for Greene as an "enormous amount" and "far in excess" of what his condition indicated. However, he did not take into account the fact that large amounts were never ingested by the patient since they were lost or stolen. He considered the maximum accepted daily dosage to be 12 to 16 milligrams per day for short periods of time. He conceded that larger amounts could be taken under certain circumstances. It was his opinion that Respondent's conduct in treating Green deviated from the standard of care expected from an orthopedic surgeon. Mahoney did not dispute the recommendations of the PDR on prescribing Dilaudid. He also agreed that preventing addiction by a patient is a great problem and one that is "not manageable on an individual physician's part." Michael Aulting was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1974 and suffered a fractured dislocation of his left hip. He subsequently developed a traumatic arthritis. It is unclear when Respondent began treating Aulting, but Respondent eventually performed a total hip replacement on Aulting. This was followed by the removal and replacement of a new prosthesis due to an infection and a similar procedure some two years thereafter. The exact dates of surgery were not disclosed. During the period October 2, 1975, through February 16, 1979, Benavides prescribed the following drugs for Aulting: 10/2/75 20 Dilaudid 2 mg. 11/3/75 28 Dilaudid 2 mg. 11/10/75 20 Dilaudid 2 mg. 1/10/76 45 Dilaudid 4 mg. 1/12/76 28 Dilaudid 4 mg. 5/14/76 28 Dilaudid 2 mg. 5/23/76 56 Dilaudid 2 mg. 5/30/76 46 Dilaudid 4 mg. 6/14/76 21 Dilaudid 4 mg. 6/16/76 21 Dilaudid 4 mg. 7/25/76 24 Dilaudid 4 mg. 9/16/76 30 Tuinal 100 (?) 9/17/76 30 Parest 400 (?) 9/26/76 45 Parest 400 (?) 10/11/76 21 Parest 400 (?) 10/14/77 50 Percodan (strength unknown) 11/15/76 50 Percodan (strength unknown) 11/26/76 50 Percodan (strength unknown) 12/11/78 40 Percodan (strength unknown) 12/19/78 50 Percodan (strength unknown) 12/29/78 50 Percodan (strength unknown) 1/15/79 50 Percodan (strength unknown) 1/22/79 50 Percodan (strength unknown) 1/26/79 40 Percodan (strength unknown) 2/12/79 30 Percodan (strength unknown) 2/16/79 50 Percodan (strength unknown) Aulting claimed he lost his prescriptions on several occasions. Whether any of the above were duplicate or backup prescriptions was not disclosed. Benavides described Aulting as having a low pain threshold and a fairly high tolerance to medication. Given this and the severe hip injury and associated operations, he felt the medications for Aulting were reasonable. He also believed that Aulting may have been "feigning" pain at times, and on these occasions, he would turn down his requests for more drugs. After his treatment of Aulting had ceased, he learned that Aulting may have stolen blank prescription pads from his office and forged his signature to obtain drugs. The expert retained by the Department considered the amount and level of drugs given to Aulting to be unacceptable and below the standard of care expected of an orthopedic surgeon in treating a patient with Aulting's condition. In reaching this conclusion, he relied principally upon the prescriptions written on June 14 and 16, 1976, and January 22 and 26, 1979. However, the strength of the drugs prescribed on the latter two dates was not disclosed. Dilaudid is a Schedule II narcotic pain killer and has addictive qualities. Percodan has similar characteristics. Tuinal is a nonnarcotic barbiturate with habituating qualities. The characteristics of the drug Parest were never disclosed. The Department began its investigation of Benavides in 1976 when it investigated Benavides' treatment of Aulting. In early September, 1977, the Department again sent investigators to Key West to draw a profile of Respondent in treating Greene. A report as to Greene was prepared on September 16 for the Board of Medical Examiners. No action was taken by the Department until April, 1982, when the administrative complaint was issued. No explanation was given as to why it took almost five years to formalize the charges and file a complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED THIS 18th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 18th day of November, 1983.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Oscar Roberto Nunez Cano, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Ana Isabel Cano and Roberto Nunez are the parents and natural guardians of Oscar Roberto Nunez Cano (Oscar), a minor. Oscar was born a live infant on February 20, 1997, at Jackson Memorial Hospital, a hospital located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and his birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. The physicians providing obstetrical services during the birth of Oscar were, at all times material hereto, participating physicians in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the Plan), as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded under the Plan when the claimants demonstrate, more likely than not, that the infant suffered an "injury to the brain or spinal cord . . . caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." Oscar's presentation On June 23, 1999, following the filing of the claim for compensation, Oscar was examined by Michael Duchowny, M.D., a pediatric neurologist. Dr. Duchowny's evaluation revealed the following: HISTORY ACCORDING TO MRS. CANO-NUNEZ . . . Mrs. Cano-Nunez began by explaining that Oscar's major problem is that he has 'no movement in his left arm'. This has been a problem since birth when he presented with a weakness of the left upper extremity. Oscar was the product of a term gestation born at Jackson memorial Hospital with a birth weight of 10-pounds. The mother indicated that he was 'to [sic] big when delivering' and the delivery 'caused his left arm tendons to be damaged'. Oscar ultimately remained in the Newborn Intensive Care Unit for a total of 21 days. Mrs. Cano-Nunez feels that Oscar was left with essentially a functionless left arm. He was seen by several physicians, but ultimately was referred to Dr. John Grossman who did neural graphing in August of 1998. The surgery resulted in 'some recovery of function, but he still is limited'. The left hand serves principally as a helper with his right hand performing the majority of motoric tasks. Oscar otherwise enjoys good health. He is on no intercurrent medications and there has been no exposure to toxic or infectious agents. His milestones have been delayed in that he did not walk until 1 1/2, but he spoke in words at a year. He is not yet toilet trained. His immunization schedule is up to date and he has no known allergies. * * * PHYSICAL EXAMINATION reveals Oscar to be an alert, socially integrated and cooperative 2 1/2 year old boy. The weight is 36-pounds. His head circumference measures 51.4 cm and the fontanelles are closed. There are no digital, skeletal or palmar abnormalities and no significant dysmorphic features. The spine is straight without dysraphism. The neck is supple without masses, thyromegaly or adenopathy. The cardiovascular, respiratory and abdominal examinations are normal. There is a healed scar over the left supraclavicular area and further scaring of the left posterior leg where a serial nerve was taken for graphing. Both scars demonstrate keloid formation. NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION reveals Oscar to maintain fluent speech. His cranial nerve examination reveals full visual fields to confrontation testing and normal ocular fundi. The pupils are 3 mm and react briskly to direct and consensually presented light. There is blink to threat from both directions. The tongue and palate move well. There are no significant facial asymmetries with the exception of the left palpebral fissure which appeals slightly widened. There is no heterochromia irides and no obvious ptosis or anhydrosis on the left. Motor examination reveals symmetric strength, bulk and tone of three extremities with the left continuing to demonstrate prominent weakness. There is 1-2/5 weakness of the musculature of the proximal shoulder girdles with 3-4/5 strength more distally. Left scapular winging is noted and there is a loss of muscle bulk over the deltoid region, as well as the musculature of the mesial scapular border. Oscar is unable to elevate his shoulder above 20 degrees below neutrality. He has 'Porter's Tip' sign of the hand. Grasping is performed primarily with the right hand and he often crosses the midline. He can not grasp independently with the left. In contrast, the right upper extremity and lower extremities have normal strength, bulk and tone and the deep tendon reflexes are 2+. The deep tendon reflexes in the left upper extremity are trace/absent throughout. Station and gait are age appropriate with the expected diminished arm swing on the left. Sensory examination is deferred. In SUMMARY, Oscar's neurologic examination reveals evidence of a significant left upper extremity monoparesis. In contrast, the remainder of his neurologic examination is normal and his speech is progressing satisfactorily. I believe his cognitive status is normal. The future prognosis of left upper extremity function is guarded, as he has not responded well to surgery. The injury Oscar suffered to his left upper extremity (a brachial plexus injury) during the course of delivery is not, anatomically, a brain or spinal cord injury, and does not affect his mental abilities. Moreover, apart from the brachial plexus injury, Oscar was not shown to suffer any other injury during the course of his birth. Consequently, the proof fails to demonstrate that Oscar suffered an injury to the brain or spinal cord caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury during the course of labor or delivery that rendered him permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, whose husband, a county police officer, died of heart failure at work, is entitled to receive “in line of duty” death benefits under the Florida Retirement System, which Respondent administers.
Findings Of Fact The Dispute, in a Nutshell On the morning of March 10, 2000, while on duty, Officer Randall Kugler (“Officer Kugler”) of the Miami-Dade Police Department suffered a fatal heart arrhythmia and died at the wheel of his police cruiser. He was 37 years old. Officer Kugler’s wife, Petitioner Marilyn Kugler (“Mrs. Kugler”), and their two minor children survive him. Officer Kugler was a member of the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”), which is administered by Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (“Division”). Mrs. Kugler maintains that she is the surviving spouse of a member “killed in the line of duty” and thus is entitled to receive generous “in line of duty” death benefits under the FRS. The Division disagrees with her position and, thus, has denied Mrs. Kugler’s application for such benefits. Their dispute spawned the instant administrative litigation. The Events Preceding Officer Kugler’s Death Officer Kugler was an expert in inspecting heavy equipment (cranes, trucks, bulldozers, etc.) to determine if such property might have been stolen or otherwise involved in criminal activity. As a specialist in this area, Officer Kugler was assigned to an auto theft task force that conducted investigations in cooperation with other local law enforcement agencies as well as the FBI and the U.S. Customs Service. At about 9:00 a.m. on March 10, 2000, Officer Kugler arrived at the King Ocean Yard in Port Everglades, Florida, where he had been sent to assist U.S. Customs Service inspectors with the examination of two heavy machines destined for export. The pieces——a crane and a bulldozer——were very large; each weighed many tons. A crucial object of such inspections is to locate the public identification number, or PIN, of the subject piece of equipment. The PIN is a starting point in determining whether the machine is stolen. Finding the PIN on heavy equipment can be difficult because, among other reasons, the area to be searched is large; the numbers are frequently hidden in hard-to- access places (to thwart those who might want to remove them); and the numbers are often covered by paint, rust, dirt, and grease. As he went about his work that morning, Officer Kugler climbed aboard and poked around the equipment. His on-the-job activities——e.g. bending, crawling, climbing, walking——clearly involved some physical exertion. In addition, to expose concealed PINs, Officer Kugler was required to scrape or brush away paint and other obstructions, and this, too, entailed physical exertion. To facilitate the removal of layers of paint, rust, grease, and the like, Officer Kugler customarily used solvents marketed for cleaning carburetors and removing gaskets. These products contained a chemical known as Xylene. The Miami-Dade Police Department issued its officers, including Officer Kugler, two different brands of such cleaning agents, which were packaged in aerosol spray cans. Officer Kugler used one or both of these employer-issued sprays on March 10, 2000, and thus was exposed to Xylene.1 Officer Kugler’s inspection of the crane and bulldozer took about one hour. After finishing his work at King Ocean Yard, Officer Kugler left Port Everglades to return to Miami. Sadly, less than an hour later, he was found in Opa Locka, Florida, slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle with the engine running and the doors locked, having died, still on duty, en route to his next assignment at Kauff’s Towing. Causes of Death The record contains the depositions of three physicians who opined as to the causes of Officer Kugler’s death. Two of these doctors are pathologists who were, at all times material to this case, medical examiners in the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Department; as such, they participated in Officer Kugler’s autopsy. The third is a cardiologist named James Margolis. Mrs. Kugler retained Dr. Margolis as an expert witness for purposes of this litigation. The testimony of these experts is generally consistent——that is, their opinions do not conflict on any material matters. All are in agreement (and the undersigned finds) that the immediate cause of Officer Kugler’s death was a sudden and unexpected fatal heart rhythm disturbance (or arrhythmia). There is also no genuine dispute (and the undersigned finds) that Officer Kugler’s left descending coronary artery was partially blocked at the time of his death. (His other vessels, however, were normal.) This type of blockage (or occlusion) is associated with a common form of heart disease known as arteriosclerosis. Officer Kugler’s diseased artery was about 50 to 70 percent obstructed. Such blockage tends to become symptomatic at around 70 percent. As it happened, Officer Kugler had not experienced any symptoms, been diagnosed as having, or been treated for any heart disease. The pathologists were largely noncommittal when asked to identify the trigger(s) that precipitated Officer Kugler’s fatal heart rhythm disturbance. Dr. Margolis, on the other hand, who had reviewed the depositions of the two medical examiners as well as those of the several law enforcement personnel who were with Officer Kugler at the King Ocean Yard before he died, did form an opinion as to the substantial cause of the fatal arrhythmia, which he expressed as follows: It’s my opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability that Mr. Kugler did, indeed, suffer a fatal arrhythmia and the fatal arrhythmia was caused either directly or indirectly by the heavy exertion in the presence of Xylene fumes, and that these in combination with what would have been otherwise a benign form of heart disease caused the fatal arrhythmia. The undersigned accepts the uncontroverted opinion of Dr. Margolis as to causation and determines, as a matter of fact, that Officer Kugler’s death resulted from a combination of work-related activities and exposures operating in conjunction with an undiagnosed and undetected preexisting condition (arteriosclerosis), which factors together precipitated the fatal heart arrhythmia. On the Credibility of Dr. Margolis The Division disputes the validity of Dr. Margolis’s opinion on causation, arguing that it is unfounded. Normally, the undersigned, as the trier of fact, does not explain why he has credited certain evidence. Dr. Margolis’s testimony, however, could be considered the linchpin of Petitioner’s case. Moreover, because Dr. Margolis did not testify in person at the final hearing, the undersigned was unable to witness his demeanor and other indicia of credibility that personal observation permits. Therefore, the undersigned will explicate several factors that he regarded as important in deciding to accept Dr. Margolis’s testimony. To begin, as mentioned, Dr. Margolis’s opinion on causation was not refuted. The pathologists’ opinions——which, to be sure, stopped short of linking Officer Kugler’s death to the performance of job-required duties——were outcome neutral (and consistent with Dr. Margolis’s testimony) because neither medical examiner excluded work-related factors from among the contributing causes of Officer Kugler’s death. And the Division, it should be stressed, presented no expert medical testimony to contravene Dr. Margolis on the subject of causation. While the undersigned, as the fact-finder, could reject unrebutted expert testimony, he would need to offer a reasonable explanation for doing so.2 He can think of none. Instead of offering evidence, the Division elected merely to contend that Dr. Margolis’s opinion is unsupported, urging that the depositions of the witnesses who saw Officer Kugler at work on March 10, 2000, do not support the factual assumptions which underlie the expert’s testimony, namely, that Officer Kugler engaged in “heavy exertion in the presence of Xylene fumes.” The Division’s arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First, the Division failed to cross-examine Dr. Margolis on these points. If Dr. Margolis had been asked, for example, what he meant by “heavy exertion” or otherwise been challenged to defend that description, perhaps he would have offered a brilliant explanation——or perhaps he would have stumbled and undermined his opinion. Absent such inquiry, however, the undersigned considers it basically irrelevant whether Officer Kugler’s exertion is characterized as “heavy” or not. The bottom line is, the expert concluded that Officer Kugler’s exertion was sufficiently “heavy” to help trigger the fatal arrhythmia, and the Division has not shown, through proof, that Dr. Margolis was incorrect in this regard. Second, the record shows that Dr. Margolis reviewed all the pertinent evidence in rendering his opinion on causation.3 Indeed, Dr. Margolis examined the depositions that are in evidence in this case——the very depositions that the Division contends fail to support his opinion. The Division argues that the expert misinterpreted these data sources. The Division’s argument, however, is not evidence; Dr. Margolis’s opinion, in contrast, is. Without countervailing proof, the undersigned finds no reasonable grounds for second-guessing the cardiologist on medical matters within his area of expertise. Finally, to the extent the Division contends that Dr. Margolis is mistaken because Officer Kugler was not shown to have been exposed to Xylene, its position is untenable in light of the undersigned’s finding that Officer Kugler was, in fact, exposed to the chemical in the hours before his death.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order awarding Mrs. Kugler the “in line of duty” death benefits to which she is entitled under the Florida Retirement System. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request to Reserve Jurisdiction is denied because Mrs. Kugler has not articulated a statutory basis for awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 2003.
The Issue Was Petitioner properly graded and given appropriate credit for his answers on the July, 1990 Florida Podiatric Medicine Licensure Examination (Florida Podiatry Examination).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Paul L. Sheehy, Jr., candidate No. 20017, was a candidate for licensure by examination as a Podiatrist, and the Board of Podiatry, (Board), was and is the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of Podiatrists and the regulation of the Practice of podiatric medicine in this state. Petitioner sat for the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination on July 27, 1991. Petitioner obtained a score of 70.0 percent, representing 210 correct answers. A passing grade requires a score of 72 percent, representing 216 correct answers. Shortly before the beginning of the hearing, Respondent agreed to give Petitioner credit for questions 16 and 180 of Clinical I of the examination thereby raising his total score to 70.666 percent. At the beginning of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge to questions 22, 37, 87, 89, 104, 149, 176 and 178 of Clinical I of the examination and questions 3, 16, 22, 50, 67 and 53 of Clinical II of the examination. During the hearing Petitioner withdrew his challenge to question 27 of Clinical I and question 12 of Clinical II of the examination, leaving only his challenge to questions 103, 114, 138, 144 of Clinical I of the examination. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner was qualified and met all the requirements to sit for the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination, and that Petitioner timely received a copy of the July 1990, Podiatric Medicine Licensure Examination Candidate Information Booklet (booklet). There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the Florida Podiatry Examination given on July 27, 1990 was misleading in that it tested subjects or disciplines not covered or contained in the booklet, or that it was prejudicial as applied to Petitioner. The first question at issue is question 103 of Clinical I which stated: CASE HISTORY 44 In the exhibit book are photographs for this examination. Identify the photograph in the respective exhibit. 103. Which of the following answer choices is the best description of exhibit #11? Ganglion Cyst Verruca Melanoma Kaposi's Sarcoma Petitioner answered, C, Melanoma and the Respondent's answer was, B, Verruca. Petitioner admitted that his answer was incorrect. However, Petitioner contends that the question comes within the area of histology, an area not specifically mentioned in the booklet to be covered by the examination. Therefore, he was mislead by the booklet into not studying the area of histology. While the booklet does not specifically mention histology as an area of study to be covered in the examination, there were several other areas of study listed in the booklet which conceivably would have covered this question. Therefore, there has been no showing that the Respondent's failure to specifically list histology as an area of study mislead or prejudiced the Petitioner. The second question at issue is question 114 which stated: CASE HISTORY 45 An elderly obese male presents with an acutely inflamed first metatarsophalangeal joint. The pain began late last night and he awoke in severe pain. His past medical history reveals two previous such occurrences which resolved and went un- treated. He reports a history of chronic renal disease and mild hypertension. He presently takes no medication and has no known allergies. He denies use of alcohol and tobacco. Physical exam reveals an acutely inflamed, edematous 1st MPJ. A 3mm ulceration is present dorsally with white, chalky material exiting the wound. Laboratory studies reveal a CBC within normal limits and an elevated uric acid of 9.0mg/100ml. 114. Which of the following would you expect to find on microscopy of the synovial fluid? trapezoidal-shaped violet crystals absence of leukocytes needle-like birefringent crystals reflective hexagonal crystals and many leukocytes Petitioner answered D, reflective hexagonal crystals and many leukocytes. The Respondent's answer was C, needle-like birefringent crystals. Petitioner contends that none of the answers offered were entirely correct but that answer D was the most correct, while answer C was incorrect. Case History 45 would describe gout and pseudogout, but the key is the description of the fluid removed from the joint which is a white, chalky material found only with gout. Additionally, gout produces needle-like crystals (urate) that are negatively birefringent when view under crossed polarizing filters attached to a microscope. Leukocytes would be present in this case history but it would not produce reflective hexagonal crystals or trapezoidal-shaped violet crystals. Answers A and B are entirely incorrect, and although the presence of leukocytes is correct, it is not relevant because leukocytes are a normally found in any infection. Therefore, answer C is the correct answer, notwithstanding the absence of the word negative proceeding the word birefringent. The third question at issue is question 138 which stated: CASE HISTORY 49 A 27 year old athletic individual presents with a severely painful and swollen right ankle following a basketball injury the day before. There is severe ecchymosis and blister formation about the ankle. X-rays reveal (1) a displaced oblique spiral fracture of the lateral malleolus which runs anterior-inferior to posterior-superior at the level of the syndesmosis (2) transverse fracture of medical malleolus. There is gross dislocation and mal position of the talus. 138. If the initial treatment above were to fail, then treatment should consist of: immediate open reduction. wait 4-6 days, then perform open reduction and internal fixation. open reduction contraindicated at any time with this type of fracture. fusion of ankle joint. Petitioner answered A, immediate open reduction and the Respondent's answer was B, wait 4-6 days, then perform open reduction and internal fixation. The correct initial treatment for the patient would have been attempted close reduction as indicated by the correct answer to question 137 which Petitioner answered correctly. An attempted close reduction is an attempt to correctly align the fractured bone by manipulation as opposed to surgically opening the area and aligning the bone visually by touch which is the open reduction and internal fixation procedure. After an attempted alignment of the bone, an x-ray will determine if there is proper alignment. If there is proper alignment, then the area is immobilized with a cast or some other device until the fracture heals. If the x-ray shows that proper alignment of the bone has not been obtained (the initial treatment has failed) then open reduction and internal fixation would be proper provided the swelling, ecchymosis and blistering are not present. Otherwise, as in this case, the proper method would be to wait a period of time, 4-6 days, for the swelling, ecchymosis and blistering to go away. Petitioner's contention that the swelling had gone down since there had been immobilization of the area with a cast, posterior splint or unna boot and a waiting period is without merit since those devices would not have been used before determining by x-rays that the initial treatment (closed reduction) had failed. The fourth and last question at issue in question 144 which stated: CASE HISTORY 50 A patient presents with a painful left ankle. The pain occurs following ambulation and is relieved by rest. There is minimal periartic- ular atrophy and the joint is slightly warm. X-rays reveal non-uniform joint narrowing, subchondral sclerosis and marginal osteophytes. 144. It can be expected that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. significant cartilage damage will occur. total joint replacement will be required. total remission can be expected following treatment. Petitioner answered B, significant cartilage damage will occur and Respondent's answer was A, that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. There were a series of questions preceding this question concerning the patient in Case History 50. The first question asked for a diagnosis which the Petitioner correctly answered as osteoarthritis. The second question concerned advising the patient on treatment which the Petitioner answered correctly by giving instructions on protecting the joint and taking simple analgesics. The third question concerned activity levels such as jogging and climbing steps which Petitioner answered correctly by advising to avoid squatting. However, in selecting B as the answer to question 144 the Petitioner did not consider the suggested treatment and advise given in the previous answers. His reasoning was that he could not assume that the patient would follow his suggested treatment or advise on prevention and activity. Additionally, the Petitioner felt that other factors such as the patient's age, weight, general health, level of activity and occupation that were missing from the case history were necessary to make a proper evaluation of whether the patient would respond favorably to treatment. Respondent admitted that either answer A or B would be correct but he picked B because he knew the disease was progressive and in time would get worse causing significant cartilage damage. Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease that is not uniformly progressive that responds to treatment but cannot be cured. There will be recurring episodes of pain (flareups) triggered by factors such as the weather or a person's activity. Based on the factors in the above case history, there is sufficient evidence to show that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. It was reasonable and logical for the Respondent to assume that the Petitioner in answering question 14 would consider his preceding answers and assume that the patient would follow the suggested treatment and advice. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that significant cartilage damage would occur based on the facts given in Case History 50. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the grades which the Petitioner received on the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination were incorrect, unfair, or invalid, or that the examination, and subsequent review session, were administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade he received on the July 1990, Florida Podiatry Examination. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2118 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 4.-6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8, respectively. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Hewitt E. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 76081 Tampa, FL 33675 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Board of Podiatry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether respondent, a medical doctor, should have his license to practice medicine revoked or otherwise disciplined for alleged malpractice, unethical medical practices', and performance of services which he knew or should have known he was not competent to perform.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George A. Chakmakis, M.D., is licensed by the Department to practice medicine in Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, he was engaged in the general practice of medicine at 123 Tampa Street, Auburndale, Florida., (P-6.) I. As to Count I Failure to Detect Clear Abnormality in Patient's Chest X-ray From 1974 to 1977, Mary Louise Wahl was respondent's patient. At various times, he treated her for rheumatoid arthritis, chronic bronchitis, and the flu. (P-8.) On .February 16, 1977, respondent had a chest x-ray taken of Ms. Wahl. In reading the x-ray film, he failed to detect or identify any abnormality in her lung. In a letter he subsequently wrote to another physician, respondent contended that, in February, 1977, her chest x-ray "was clear." (Testimony of Spanogle; P-5, P-8.) During the next eight months, Ms. Wahl suffered from chronic breathing problems. Respondent treated her for bronchitis and prescribed various antibiotics--none of which caused any noticeable improvement in her condition. Her last visit to respondent's office was on November 11, 1977. (P-8.) On December 15, 1977, Ms. Wahl was admitted to the emergency room of Winter Haven Hospital. She complained of progressive shortness of breath and coughing to Dr. Alan G. Gasner, the physician on duty. (P-8.) Dr. Gasner did a complete history, performed a physical examination and had a chest x-ray taken of Ms. Wahl. The x-ray revealed a massive left pleural effusion. He removed the fluid from the left side of her chest and conducted tests to determine the cause of the effusion. He concluded that she had a carcinoma of the lung, with metastic tumor as the cause of the left pleural effusion. She received chemotherapy and was discharged from the hospital 13 days later. (P-8.) On May 5, 1978, Ms. Wahl was readmitted to Winter Haven Hospital. Twelve days later, she died. The cause of death: metastatic carcinoma (or cancer) of the lung. (P-8.) The chest x-ray of Ms. Wahl, taken by respondent on February 16, 1977 clearly showed an abnormality in the upper left lobe of her lung. The abnormality, indicated by a white hazy area between the ribs, was obvious, not subtle: a physician who had completed medical training should have been able to recognize it. The white hazy area was present only on the left lobe, not the right. In examining lung x-rays, physicians are trained to compare the left side with the right side. Additional factors were present: Ms. Wahl was 63 years old and respondent was aware that she smoked cigarettes. Respondent's failure to detect such an obvious abnormality in the February 16, 1977, chest x- ray deviates from the standard of care, skill, and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as acceptable under similar circumstances. This standard of care, and respondent's deviation therefrom, was established at hearing by the expert testimony of five licensed physicians who practice medicine in the Auburndale-Winter Haven area. Respondent admitted, at hearing, that the February 16, 1977, chest x-ray shows an increased density in the left upper lobe of the lung. (Testimony of Chakmakis, Gasner, Libinski, Cottrell, Koon, Morgan; P-5.) The abnormality shown in the February 16, 1977, chest x-ray of Ms. Wahl, if detected, would have warranted further action by the treating physician, such as additional x-rays, including a lateral view, and tests. In light of Ms. Wahl's age and smoking habit, the February 16, 1977, x-ray would lead a prudent physician to suspect a malignancy or carcinoma. If it was a carcinoma, immediate action would have been necessary; it is possible that surgical intervention to remove the carcinoma could have been performed. (Testimony of Cottrell, Gasner, Lipinski, Koon, Morgan.) It cannot, however, be concluded that respondent's failure to detect the clear abnormality in Ms. Wahl's lung caused or contributed to her eventual death from carcinoma of the lung. No definite link has been established. There is no way of now knowing whether Ms. Wahl had a carcinoma or cancer in February, 1977. The abnormality shown in the x-ray could be consistent with these different primary diagnoses: cancer, tuberculosis, and pneumonia. (Tr. 50.) Failure to Provide Chest X-ray to Ms. Wahl's Subsequently Treating Physician When Ms. Wahl was admitted to Winter Haven Hospital in December, 1977, she explained to Dr. Gasner that she had been under the care and treatment of respondent. Dr. Gasner immediately asked respondent to forward her medical records so that he could determine the nature of her treatment. Respondent replied by letter dated December 21, 1977: he indicated that her last chest x- ray, taken February, 1977, was clear; that her last office visit was on November 11, 1977, when she was treated for bronchitis; and he enclosed copies of lab test results. On December 28, 1977, Dr. Gasner wrote respondent, explaining that he needed to have her prior chest x-ray films in order to plan a course of therapy for her. Dr. Gasner received no response from respondent. (P-8.) Respondent's failure to provide Dr. Gasner with the requested chest x- rays of Ms. Wahl is insufficient, in itself, to support a conclusion that respondent refused to supply such records. Respondent testified that he believed that the requested x-rays had been sent to Dr. Gasner; such testimony, although self-serving, was not refuted by the Department. It is concluded that respondent's failure to supply the x-rays requested by Dr. Gasner's December 28, 1977, letter was due to inadvertence, not willful refusal. (Testimony of Chakmakis.) Refusal to supply patient medical records requested by a subsequent treating physician constitutes a deviation from the accepted standard of care in the Auburndale-Winter Haven area. But, it has not been shown that the inadvertent failure to supply such records constitutes a deviation. (Testimony of Koon, Cottrell.) II. As to Count II Argola O'Neal was respondent's patient from November 8, 1978, through December 20, 1978. She went to him for treatment of kidney problems and recalls receiving two drug prescriptions from him. He also dispensed drugs to her in his office. (Testimony of O'Neal.) She has no complaints about the quality of the treatment she received. The medications respondent prescribed made her feel better. She stopped seeing respondent because her husband felt that respondent's prices were too high. (Testimony of O'Neal.) After leaving the care of respondent, Ms. O'Neal became a patient of Dr. William Cottrell. At Dr. Cottrell's request, she showed him the medications which had been prescribed by respondent. They included: Inderal, 40 milligram and 20 milligram tablets; Digoxin, .25 milligrams; Tofranil; Synthroid; Isomil; Dyazide; Serapes, 10 milligrams; Nitrostat; Lasix, 20 milligrams; Mylicon; Darvocet-N 100; Thyroid, 2-grain tablets; and Gaviscon. The Inderal prescriptions were duplicative, as were the drugs Synthroid and throid extract. If used improperly, they were potentially dangerous to the patient. (Testimony of Cottrell.) Ms. O'Neal, age 76, is a frail woman suffering from senility and hardening of the arteries. Her ability to accurately recall respondent's brief treatment of her--occurring three years prior to hearing--has been affected. For example, she did not recognize respondent until he introduced himself to her immediately before hearing. Her testimony conflicts with that of her husband, Fred O'Neal. He testified that she stopped seeing respondent because she was dissatisfied with his treatment. (Testimony of O'Neal, Cottrell.) Because Ms. O'Neal had medications prescribed by an earlier doctor, respondent was concerned about prescribing duplicate medications. He instructed her to stop taking duplicative diuretics, thyroid, and heart medications. Although Ms. O'Neal does not recall such instructions, respondent's recollection is persuasive. (Testimony of Chakmakis.) When Ms. O'Neal became Dr. Cottrell's patient, she expressed some confusion concerning the medications which she had received from respondent. Although Dr. Cottrell testified that, in his opinion, there was some redundancy in the medications prescribed by respondent, he consistently avoided concluding that the prescriptions were sufficiently excessive or inappropriate to constitute a deviation from the prevailing standard of medical care in the Auburndale-Winter Haven area. 2/ (Tr. 235-236.) In his treatment of Ms. O'Neal, Dr. Cottrell tried to simplify the medication instructions and make sure that her husband was fully aware of them. (Testimony of Cottrell.) III. As to Count III Ronald Sequino was respondent's patient from November 30, 1978, through December 11, 1978. On Friday, November 30, 1978, respondent surgically removed two cysts from Sequino's back. The agreed-upon price was $30. (Testimony of Sequino; P-2, P-6.) That evening, the cyst wounds began to open. Sequino, concerned about infection, telephoned respondent's office number Friday evening, Saturday, and Sunday. He obtained respondent's answering service which informed him that respondent was unavailable; he left a message for respondent to contact him. Respondent did not return Sequino's call. (Testimony of Sequino.) The next week, Sequino returned to respondent's office for treatment of the wound which, by then, was discharging pus. Sequino, disturbed by his inability to reach respondent during the weekend, asked respondent whether the answering service had contacted him; respondent replied that he had gotten the message from the answering service but "made light of it" by telling Sequino that he worried too much. (Testimony of Sequino.) During the weekend that Sequino tried unsuccessfully to reach him, respondent did not have another physician covering for him. Respondent's testimony to the contrary is rejected as selfserving and uncorroborated. Neither did respondent have hospital privileges. (Testimony of Davis, Sequino; P-6.) Sequino returned to respondent two more times for post-operative care. The healing of his cysts was aggravated because Sequino frequently got his back wet, contrary to respondent's instruction. Because of this, respondent charged Sequino an additional $12 for each follow-up visit. (Testimony of Davis.) Sequino was disturbed by what he perceived as respondent's lack of concern; he was also upset about being separately charged for each follow-up visit. He became angry, used threatening language toward respondent, and mumbled profanities on leaving the office. (Testimony of McGuire.) Respondent denies that he was unavailable or received an answering service message from Sequino during the weekend following the cyst removals. He denies that he made "light" of Sequino's concern about not being able to reach him. He asserts that if he was unavailable, he had another physician covering for him. These contentions are rejected as selfserving and lacking corroboration. Diane Davis, his former receptionist and clerk-secretary, testified that--to her knowledge--respondent had no physician cover for him when he was out of town; that, during the weekends when he was unavailable, he never referred a patient to another physician. (Testimony of Chakmakis, Davis.) By failing to provide continuing care to Sequino over the weekend, or making arrangements so that another physician would be available to provide such care, respondent deviated from the prevailing standard of medical care and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under the circumstances. That standard of care requires that a physician be available to his patients or have a physician cover for him at all times. Similarly, contrary to the Principles of Medical Ethics, he neglected his patient after having undertaken to provide him medical care. Such a breach of medical ethics constitutes a deviation from the standard of medical care recognized by a prudent similar physician as acceptable under the circumstances. (Testimony of Morgan; P-7.) IV. As to Count IV Respondent admits having used the Bellew Vaccine Method for Treating Arthritis ("the Bellew Method"). He used it to treat the arthritis of Mary Wahl. The Bellew Method was developed by Bernard A. Bellew, M.D. Generally, it consists of regimen of intradermal and subcutaneous injections of commonly available influenza viral vaccines and respiratory bacterial vaccines. It purports to provide therapeutic or curative relief to arthritis. (Testimony of Chakmakis; P-1, P-8, P-16.) The Bellew Method is not widely known or used by the medical profession. Respondent does not know of another physician in the United States who uses it. (Testimony of Chakmakis; The Bellew Method is considered, at best, as an "unusual treatment" by other physicians the Auburndale-Winter Haven area. It is not accepted in that area, or elsewhere in the country, as an acceptable method for treating arthritis. It is so far removed from the accepted practice and method of treating arthritis that it cannot be considered to have even achieved experimental status. (Testimony of Cottrell; P-8.) Respondent's use of the Bellew Method to treat Ms. Wahl's arthritis deviated from the standard of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar circumstances. (P-8.) No evidence was presented to show either that the Bellew Method has been proven effective or that it was harmful to Ms. Wahl. Neither was evidence presented to show that, before utilizing this method, respondent disclosed to Ms. Wahl that the Bellew Method had not been proven effective; that it was held in disfavor or not used by the mainstream of the medical community. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Wahl gave her informed consent to such treatment after having been advised that, at best, it was considered to be unusual or unorthodox treatment by the medical community. V. Costs Incurred by Department in Obtaining Orders Compelling Discovery Respondent's failure to respond to discovery resulted in the Department filing numerous motions to compel. By orders dated July 15 and August 11, 1981, two such motions were granted and orders compelling discovery were issued. Respondent gave no excuse, or justification for his failure to respond to the Department's discovery. Accordingly, pursuant to Rules 1.380, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Department was awarded reasonable expenses which it incurred in obtaining these orders. By stipulation, the Department's reasonable expenses were to be determined by affidavit of the Department's counsel submittal at final hearing. The affidavit indicates the Department incurred expenses in the amount of $419.16. (Affidavit of Expenses, dated August 13, 1981.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medical Examiners enter a final order suspending respondent's medical license for six (6) months, after which the suspension should be vacated upon: (1) a showing by respondent that he has satisfactorily completed an approved continuing education course on the proper administration, interpretation, and use of x-rays; and (2) respondent demonstrating, to the Board's satisfaction, that he recognizes the serious statutory, professional, and ethical obligations placed on a physician who administers experimental or unorthodox treatment to a patient. That the Board, as part of its final order, require respondent to pay $419.16 to the Department as reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the orders compelling discovery dated July 15 and August 11, 19,81. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1982.
