The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has failed to practice medicine at the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent, similarly-situated physicians, by allegedly failing to appreciate the nature of a complaint, failing to order a proper diagnostic test, and failing to make a timely referral to an appropriate specialist, as well as whether the Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records documenting a rationale for his diagnosis of the patient, in alleged violation, respectively, of Sections 458.331(1)(t) and 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of medicine and enforcing the licensure and practice standards contained in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and appurtenant rules. The Respondent, at all times material to this proceeding, has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida holding license number ME 0032003. On or about October 3, 1986, Patient #1, a thirty-five year-old male, presented to the Respondent's office with complaints of testicular pain, swelling, and a lump in the vicinity of the left testicle. The patient was seen by Dr. Laski, a physician (M.D.) employed by the Respondent. Dr. Laski examined the patient and diagnosed him as suffering from epididymitis. Epididymitis is an inflammation of the epididymis, which is a series of tubules that runs from the testicle to the vas deferens. The epididymis partially surrounds the testicle but is not actually a part of the testicle itself. The epididymis is part of the scrotal structures, and is attached to and continuous with the testicle, both being located within the scrotum. Patient #1 related that while working at his job as a truck driver, he was straining, trying to lift or move a 427-pound hot tub, when he felt pain and swelling in the left testicle, associated with a small lump. Upon diagnosing epididymitis, Dr. Laski started a treatment regimen of antibiotic and anti- inflammatory medications. He required the patient to return in four to five days. Dr. Laski saw the patient the second time on October 8, 1986 with continued complaints of left testicular pain. Dr. Laski again continued the same diagnosis and treatment. On October 13, 1986, Patient #1 again presented to Dr. Laski with continued left testicular pain with a small mass on the left testicle. Dr. Laski continued his diagnosis of epididymitis and continued the antibiotic and anti-inflammatory medications, although he changed the type of antibiotic prescribed. The patient visited a fourth time on October 17, 1986, and Dr. Laski found a tender nodule over the left testicle but also found that the remainder of the symptoms, consisting of pain and swelling, had disappeared. Dr. Laski found on the patient's first and fourth visits to him, and noted in the medical records, a mass or nodule on the left testicle; however, on the fourth visit, he found that the acute symptoms had disappeared. Dr. Laski still felt the nodule, which he could not ascribe to anything related to the purported accident experienced by the patient. Therefore, Dr. Laski felt that a urologist would be the appropriate person to see, "to take no chances and to make sure that there was not something else." Dr. Laski, accordingly, noted in his records that a referral to a urologist was in order. This was on Friday afternoon, October 17, 1986. The Respondent's office staff apparently made an attempt to refer the patient to a urologist that afternoon but was unsuccessful, due to the inability to contact the urologist's office. Apparently, the patient was instructed to call the Respondent's office the following Monday or Tuesday concerning the referral appointment. The patient maintains that he called the Respondent's office on Tuesday and was told that they could not send him to a specialist until the Respondent himself saw the patient. The Respondent disputes this and states that there is no such policy in his office that he had to see any patient before referral out to a specialist could occur. In any event, on October 22, 1986, Dr. Laski saw the patient again and called in the Respondent, who also examined the patient. The evidence of record does not indicate clearly why the Respondent took over the care and treatment of the patient from Dr. Laski at this point; however, that was apparently the case. When the Respondent initially saw Patient #1 on October 22, 1986, the Respondent did not enter in his medical records information which would either affirm or negate the presence of a mass or nodule, as identified by Dr. Laski. The Respondent testified, however, that he felt something "because, here, I'm palpating something, yes." Because he felt something in the left testicle, the Respondent ordered a urinalysis. The urinalysis was a routine "dipstick" urinalysis without microscopic slide or culture evaluation for bacteria. The Respondent testified that he wanted the urinalysis as diagnostic information because he was "palpating something". He did the urinalysis by dipstick method, such that he was able to evaluate the color, quality, and specific gravity of the urine sample. The results were negative. Dr. Carmichael testified, however, that the Respondent should have gone farther and done a microscopic evaluation in which white blood cells, if present, could have been visualized in the urine sediment. Dr. Carmichael testified that a urine culture could have been performed even though the patient had already been through two different antibiotic courses, because, as it was the Respondent's feeling that the epididymitis had not yet been resolved, there was the possibility of the presence of a type of bacteria which had not been affected by the antibiotics already administered. According to Dr. Carmichael, if the culture grew out of a pathogenic organism, "you would then have a very good likelihood that that is a causative organism, and you could tell what drug to use." The urinalysis, however, as Dr. Carmichael established, would not rule out epididymitis. The microscopic urinalysis, if done, could have been normal and the culture could have been negative; and epididymitis could still have been present. However, the lack of these tests contributed to the Respondent's inadequate assessment of the patient's status. The Respondent had Patient #1 visit a second time on November 5, 1986. On the second visit, the Respondent found, and the medical records showed, that there was a small area of "prominence" (nodule) in the epididymis. The Respondent chose to continue to observe the patient, however, to continue the prescription of the anti-inflammatory medication and ordered the patient to return in one month. Dr. Carmichael opined that another diagnostic procedure could have been used with the patient, presenting in this status at this point in his treatment course, which could have helped differentiate whether there was actually a definite mass present or not. That is, the Respondent could have ordered an ultrasound test, a procedure which uses high-frequency sound waves to outline areas of soft tissue that will not be depicted on x-rays. Dr. Herold, the Respondent's expert witness, acknowledged that ultrasound could be ordered if there is some uncertainty in the doctor's mind about the diagnosis, although he opined that it would not be the usual procedure to order an ultrasound test when the doctor suspects epididymitis to be the problem. Here, the Respondent still felt comfortable with his diagnosis of epididymitis. However, in the face of Dr. Laski's finding on October 17, 1986 that there was some sort of nodule present and that he was uncertain enough to feel the need to refer the patient to a specialist, it was established by Dr. Carmichael that if the ultrasound had been ordered of the genital area, it could confirm the diagnosis of epididymitis or, correspondingly, whether an actual tumor was present at that time. In any event, the Respondent's treatment plan as of November 5, 1986 was to continue observation and order Patient #1 to return in one month. The patient failed to return until January 12, 1987, for unexplained reasons. On that date, the Respondent examined the patient and immediately noted a hard, non-tender mass in the area of the epididymis. The Respondent then immediately referred the patient to a urologist, Dr. Antar, who testified on behalf of the Petitioner. On or about January 19, 1987, Dr. Antar evaluated the patient and determined that surgery was immediately necessary, because his immediate impression was that the mass was cancerous. Blood tests revealed that the tumor markers were very high, and Dr. Antar felt that there was no reason to observe further. Three days later, Dr. Antar performed a radical orchiectomy on the left testicle (removal of the testicle). The testicular tumor was a teratoma. A teratoma is a tumor which appears to be benign but behaves like a malignancy. Moreover, however, a biopsy of a lymph node from the left side of the patient's neck showed three elements of cancer: the teratoma, embryonal cancer cells, and choriocarcinoma cancer cells. Dr. Antar established that all three indications were coming from the left testicle. Thus, the cancer had metastasized from the left testicle to the lymph system. However, Dr. Antar established that through chemotherapy the cancer cells which had migrated were eliminated, since this type of cancer, although it is virulent, is particularly amenable to chemotherapy. The medical records show that the Respondent saw the patient on three occasions; October 22, 1986, November 5, 1986, and January 12, 1987. The patient had also been seen by Doctor Laski independently of the Respondent for the first four visits and in conjunction with the Respondent's initial examination on October 22, 1986. Thus, Dr. Laski, before the Respondent, had seen the patient four times in three weeks. It was Dr. Laski's judgement that the symptoms of the acute problem had gone away but that, because a nodule remained which Dr. Laski could not explain, he should be referred to a urologist. The Respondent then took over his care for unexplained reasons but did not carry out Dr. Laski's recommendations for a urological evaluation by a specialist. The Respondent contended in his testimony that he would always honor another physician's recommendation but did not specifically indicate in his testimony or in the medical record why Dr. Laski's recommendation that a urologist be consulted and see the patient was not carried out. Even though, in fact, the Respondent noted in his subsequent examinations the prominence in the left testicle, he simply continued to diagnose the problem as epididymitis and elected to continue to "observe". The medical record prepared by Dr. Laski included the recommendation that the patient be referred to a urological specialist. Thus, the Respondent should have known of this recommendation whether or not he actually conversed with Dr. Laski about the referral (the record does not indicate whether they actually conversed about this subject or not). In any event, as shown by Dr. Carmichael, the Respondent's notes in the medical record do not provide any explanation or justification for merely continuing to observe the patient. The medical records prepared by the Respondent do not support his decision not to follow up and have the patient actually referred to a urologist and not to conduct further tests or investigation of the left testicle, such as an ultrasound test. Given the course of treatment by the Respondent, consisting merely of continuing to observe for another month, along with the continuing of a prescription for an anti-inflammatory, with the unexplained inconsistent deletion of the prescription for an antibiotic, even though the Respondent believed that the epididymitis was continuing; the medical record kept by the Respondent for the patient did not justify this course of treatment. He did not order any further diagnostic tests and yet, according to the record, ignored the recommendation that a specialist consultation be effected. All three of the medical experts testifying established that such a tumor could have initially presented as epididymitis. Dr. Carmichael opined that when a person has a lump or soreness in the testicle, he frequently tries to relate it to some type of activity, like lifting or straining. He opined that the usual presenting complaint of a testicular tumor would be a lump, with some sort of soreness or discomfort. Dr. Antar, the urologist who ultimately saw the patient and operated, testified that people with testicular cancer can present as having epididymitis. Dr. Antar testified that they need to be treated with antibiotics for two to three weeks, to be rechecked to be sure the epididymitis is dissolved and that the testicle has returned to normal. Dr. Herold also opined that the inflammation of epididymitis can occur as a result of trauma or as a reaction to the presence of a tumor. If the Respondent had such an awareness, as described by these experts, he did not act on it, however. He elected merely to continue the anti-inflammatory medication and part of the course of treatment already tried by Dr. Laski, in spite of the fact that his employee and colleague had already shown, and entered in his medical record, that the rest of the supposed epididymitis symptoms had disappeared, that there still remained a tenderness and small mass on the left testicle and that a consultation with a specialist was in order. Respondent's reaction upon first seeing the patient on October 22nd was that there was a tenderness in the left testicle and a swelling in the epididymitis, as well. The Respondent's testimony and his medical records simply do not explain why he ignored Dr. Laski's recommendation that a specialist see the patient and be consulted, if all he himself was going to do, at least for the ensuing one and one-half months, was to continue the anti- inflammatory therapy the patient had already been given.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Medical Examiners finding that the Respondent has violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as found and concluded above, for which a penalty of a $1,000.00 fine and one year's probation should be imposed. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Final Order determine that Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, has been violated, for which the penalty of a reprimand and administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 be imposed. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, as to both Counts, that 20 hours of continuing medical education in the area of oncology and five hours in the area of risk management, over and above that required for licensure, be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 6th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-930 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. 11-20. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Respondent did not submit numbered proposed findings of fact and it is, therefore, difficult to rule on the proposed findings of fact specifically. Nevertheless, the first two paragraphs of the proposed findings of fact are accepted. The third paragraph is, for the most part, established by the evidence of record. However, it is rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter to the extent that they differ from the proposed findings of fact in the third paragraph in the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. The fourth paragraph of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact is accepted but not necessarily for the material import the Respondent proposes. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Whalin Makant, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 James Facciolo, Esquire KENT, HAYDEN, ET AL. 200 West Forsyth Street Suite 1330 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue At the hearing, DPR dismissed Count II, alleging a violation of subsection 458.331(1)(h) Florida Statutes. The remaining issues for resolution are whether, as alleged in Counts I, III, IV and V, Dr. Robinson violated subsections 458.331(1)(n),(q), and (t) Florida Statutes by failing to maintain adequate records, by inappropriately prescribing controlled substances, and by failing to properly evaluate and treat multiple medical problems.
Findings Of Fact Jerry Mason Robinson, M.D., has been continually licensed (license number ME 0011811) as a physician in the State of Florida since 1965. He was Board-certified in Family Practice in 1973 and was recertified in 1979 and 1985. He has continually practiced medicine since 1967 in Deltona, Florida, as a sole practitioner in family practice. Patient Fleming Dr. Robinson began treating Jesse Fleming when he came to his office on March 14, 1979, with complaints of being unable to breathe, a feeling of suffocation, and inability to sleep. The patient was found to be suffering from refractory heart failure and was admitted that same day to Seminole Memorial Hospital. Jesse Fleming was discharged as improved on March 23, 1979. His final diagnosis, reflected on the discharge summary, was: refractory heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and Pickwickian's syndrome. The notation "Pickwickian Syndrome" also appeared on the first clinical data sheet, dated March 14, 1979, in Dr. Robinson's office records for this patient. Pickwickian Syndrome, in lay terms, is a condition occurring in obese individuals wherein the abdominal fat presses on the diaphragm, cutting off the breathing and causing sleep at odd and inappropriate times. While Dr. Robinson initially felt that the condition was Pickwickian Syndrome, after the patient lost substantial weight in the hospital, he felt the proper diagnosis should be narcolepsy, a similar condition. He started him in the hospital on Dexedrine tablets, 5 mg. each morning, to increase his alertness. Narcolepsy is a very rare disease characterized by periods where the patient falls asleep uncontrollably many times during the day. The patient also has cataplexy, which is episodes of collapse that occur intermittently with emotional stress, laughing, giggling and fear. Another aspect of narcolepsy is called hypnagogic hallucinations, where an individual has vivid dreams. And the fourth part is called sleep paralysis where the patient cannot move on occasion without being touched. While there is no single test available to unconditionally diagnose a case of narcolepsy, the competent experts agree that a complete history and physical examination is required. The patient should be asked about sleeping patterns and about the symptoms described above. Testing through an electroencephalogram (EEG) and polysomnography is helpful. It is also important to specifically eliminate other causes of somnolence such as medications or other physical conditions, such as thyroid disorders or anemia. Dr. Robinson's records for Jesse Fleming are void of any documentation of the basis for his diagnosis of narcolepsy. The hospital discharge summary of his course in the hospital mentions only that the patient was found to be somnolent and sleeping all the time. He was on Valium in the hospital, 2 mg., 4 times a day to reduce anxiety. Valium is considered to be a central nervous system depressant and has drowsiness as one of its components. There is another notation on the records, on the occasion of an office visit, that the patient fell asleep in the office. This alone, does not indicate a case of narcolepsy. Although Dr. Robinson continued Mr. Fleming on Dexedrine or similar drug, Eskatrol, from the time that he was discharged from the hospital in March 1979, the first notation of a diagnosis of narcolepsy does not appear until March 20, 1981. The term appears intermittently as a diagnosis thereafter, but without description of any symptoms. Dexedrine is a Schedule II controlled substance. It is generally considered one of the amphetamines, a central nervous system stimulant. It has a high liability for habituation, or psychological dependence and overwhelming desire to continue to use the medication. It should not be used in those conditions in which it causes unnecessary stress on the vital organs of the body. It increases the demand of the heart for oxygen and can compromise an already failing heart. It is dangerous to give Dexedrine with thyroid hormones because the hormones make the heart more sensitive to Dexedrine and to the body's own form of Dexedrine, which is adrenalin. If given at all with Digoxin or Digitalis, Dexedrine should be given only with great care because these drugs slow the heart rate, an opposite effect of Dexedrine. In the past amphetamines were widely used to assist in weight control. That use was restricted and the treatment of narcolepsy is one of the remaining legitimate uses. And at least one expert in this proceeding, Jacob Green, M.D. would designate Ritalin, or a similar sympathomimetic drug as the treatment of choice for narcolepsy. In late 1981, Eskatrol was no longer available and Dr. Robinson began prescribing Dexedrine spansules, 15 mg., 200 or 100 at a time, at approximately monthly intervals. The patient has continued on this medication through 1985 and up to the time of the hearing. Around June 1979, Dr. Robinson began to prescribe Synthroid, a thyroid hormone, for Fleming's hypothyroidism at the same time that the patient was taking the amphetamine. On one occasion when the patient complained that he could not sleep, Dalmane, a sleeping medication was prescribed. Dexadrine spansules are a time-release medication which allows the effects of the drug to remain in the body for a longer period, including night time, when sleep is appropriate. Also while Fleming was on Eskatrol or Dexedrine, Dr. Robinson intermittently prescribed Brethine (a stimulant) for his lung problems, and on an on-going basis, Digoxin, for his heart condition. Assuming without the medical record basis to substantiate it, that the narcolepsy diagnosis was accurate, the prescription of Dexedrine to Jesse Fleming was dangerous and inappropriate. The patient records for Fleming are replete with references to irregular heart beats. On some occasions the nurse recorded "very irregular" apical pulses. These irregularities are sometimes a harbinger of heart failure and can occur in, or be exacerbated by, amphetamine therapy, especially in combination with thyroid hormones. In his testimony at hearing, Dr. Robinson stated that when he observed the notation of an irregular pulse he would check the patient himself to assure that the patient was alright. However, these observations are not reflected in the chart, except on one occasion when an EKG was taken and was found to be within normal limits. Good medical record-keeping is an essential aspect of a reasonable prudent physician's practice. Records are the mainstay of communications between physicians and provide a reminder to the physician with a busy practice. The records should provide objective findings and, from the patient, subjective findings. They guide the physician into what he was thinking previously and what needs to be done in the future. In a mobile society, when patients move from doctor to doctor, when specialists are brought in for consultation, when a regular doctor is absent, it is essential that another physician be able to view what has happened in the case from the medical records. Everything that is done needs to be justified in and documented in the records. The absence of a notation leads to the justifiable conclusion that the treatment was not undertaken or the test was not performed. Dr. Robinson failed to maintain adequate records to support his treatment of Jesse Fleming. The bases for his diagnosis of narcolepsy was utterly lacking, as was the basis for the decision to persist in prescribing Dexedrine under dangerous and potentially life-threatening conditions. Patient Kipp Fred Kipp was first examined by Dr. Robinson on June 8, 1978. He came to the office to get some prescriptions for medication that he was already taking. He had angina and a bad cold and was getting ready to return to Ohio, his summer residence. The history given by the patient on that first visit indicated that he had undergone two hip operations and an operation on his cervical spine for fusion. He had two aneurysm operations on his aorta, he had a hemorrhoidectomy and an amputation of his left second finger. At various times in the past he had been treated for severe arthritis in his back and foot, angina, hypertension, diabetes, pneumonia and hepatitis. His medications were Naprosyn for arthritis, Isordil for angina, Diabinese for diabetes, Hydrodiural for his hypertension, Percodan for his pain in his back, and Nitroglycerin for his angina. Dr. Robinson examined the patient and refilled his Naprosyn and Isordil. He told him to come back to see him in the fall when he returned to Florida. Fred Kipp returned to Dr. Robinson's office on December 7, 1978, complaining of chest pain. He was admitted to Seminole Memorial Hospital for pre-infarction angina and was discharged on December 11, 1978, with diagnoses of angina pectoris and coronary artery disease. From December 1978, until present, Dr. Robinson has been Fred Kipp's regular family physician. During this time he has treated him for angina or coronary artery disease, arthritis, hip problems, diabetes, back pain, shingles, vascular problems and chronic severe pain associated with all of these conditions. During this period the patient was hospitalized at least six times, primarily with heart trouble, but also for uncontrolled diabetes and impending gangrene. During a September 1984 admission to Central Florida Regional Hospital (formerly known as Seminole Memorial Hospital), the patient was diagnosed as having severe ankylosing spondylitis, a progressive spinal disease where the vertebrae ultimately become fused. The initial diagnosis was based on the patient's statement of his prior history, but the diagnosis was later confirmed by Dr. Robinson with an x-ray and CAT scan. The condition is very painful. During the course of his treatment of Fred Kipp, Dr. Robinson has kept the patient on Percodan for pain, in addition to his various medications for his multiple problems. Percodan is a Schedule II controlled substance containing oxycodone and aspirin. It is an analgesic with opium-like properties and is useful for moderate to moderately-severe types of pain. Because of the nature of the drug it has a potential for habituation and dependency, particularly when used on a regular long-term basis for chronic, as opposed to acute (temporary) pain. In order to avoid the habituation and dependency, less-addictive modalities should be tried before Percodan is selected as the treatment of choice. Dr. Robinson's office records for Fred Kipp do not reflect the consideration of alternatives. However, Dr. Robinson was aware that alternatives such as non-steroidal and anti- inflammatory agents were tried by consulting physicians, including by Dr. Broderick with Seminole Orthopaedic Associates. Fred Kipp is a very large man, approximately six feet, eight inches tall and weighing from 247 to 281 pounds. The dosages of Percodan prescribed for him by Dr. Robinson were not excessive, given the patient's size and physical problems. He has received between 200 and 300 Percodan per month for the last six years. At no time did he ever claim to have lost his prescription in order to get more drugs. Although the use of a strong narcotic with a chronic pain patient is the last resort of a reasonable, prudent physician, the use of Percodan was necessary and appropriate in Fred Kipp's case to allow him to maintain a reasonable quality of life. This finding is based not upon Dr. Robinson's office records, but rather on the competent expert testimony of his witnesses, who examined the patient and his records, and on the hospital records and consulting physicians' records in this case. Dr. Robinson's office records are deficient as to documented analysis of the patient's pain (subjective and objective observation) and efforts with less addictive modalities. While Dr. Robinson claimed that he requested Fred Kipp's records from his prior treating physician, his own records do not reflect that fact, nor was the attempt repeated when the first request was unproductive.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner on the basis of alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act, Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. In an eight-count Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been charged with four violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license number is ME0022079. Facts regarding Patient #1 The Respondent provided medical treatment to Patient #1 from April 20, 1987, through April 12, 1988. During the period of that treatment Patient #1 was approximately 92 years old and was diagnosed as having organic brain syndrome. Respondent obtained a brief past medical history of the patient and failed to document the patient's current complaints or review any prior medical records of the patient. On May 26, 1987, Respondent diagnosed the patient with pedal edema and ordered Hygroton 25 mg., but failed to document in the medical records the number of times per day the patient was to take the medication or the dosage for the medication. On June 6, 1987, the patient presented with shortness of breath and a blood pressure of 110/80. Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On July 14, 1987, and September 22, 1987, the patient again presented with shortness of breath and pedal edema and Respondent only recorded the lungs as clear and took her blood pressure. Respondent did not perform any other tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On October 26, 1987, when the patient presented with shortness of breath, Respondent noted an arrhythmia and blood pressure of 136/82. However, Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the course of the symptoms. When the patient presented with arrhythmia, the applicable standard of care 5/ required Respondent to perform an EKG, to check her digoxin levels, and monitor her electrolytes and renal functions. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not meet the applicable record-keeping standards 6/ because the records were incomplete, inadequate, and illegible. Specifically, the records did not have diagnoses, did not have a plan of treatment, and did not include thorough examinations or histories, making it impossible to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #2 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #2 from July 11, 1978, until September 13, 1988. Patient #2, a male, was seventy-one years old when such treatment began. The patient had a history of gastric ulcers. Nevertheless, Respondent prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications which exacerbate or increase difficulties with gastric ulcers and bleeding without obtaining a complete history or conducting a full examination. Respondent's medical records did not document whether Respondent assessed the risk to the patient, discussed the risk with the patient, or made any determinations that the risks outweighed the benefits for the patient. In 1978, the patient presented with a chronic cough and chronic bronchitis. However, Respondent did not perform any chest x-rays to determine the origin of the cough or to rule out lung carcinoma. Over the years, the cough persisted and in 1982-1983, the patient experienced shortness of breath and increased ankle edema. Respondent prescribed diuretics without determining the etiology of the edema and without conducting renal status or electrolyte monitoring. In 1985, the patient was hospitalized with severe ankle swelling. Respondent did not aggressively treat the possibility of deep vein thrombosis or cellulitis, nor did he treat the patient with anticoagulants to lessen the risk of a blood clot going to the lung. The applicable standard of care required anticoagulant treatment under these circumstances. In 1987, the patient suffered a severe weight loss with the chronic cough. The Respondent's records do not reveal any attempt to make a diagnosis. On December 15, 1987, the patient complained of abdominal problems, which could have related to the steroidal anti-inflammatory medications prescribed. The Respondent's records fail to document any laboratory tests or examinations by Respondent to determine the cause of the complaints. Respondent breached the applicable standard of care by failing to perform an EKG on the patient when he presented with dizziness, light-headedness or syncopal episodes from September 1987, until July 12, 1988. When the patient presented on August 30, 1988, and September 13, 1988, with very serious complaints of precordial chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations, a reasonably prudent physician would have suspected that the patient was having a heart attack. Despite the symptoms, Respondent made a psychiatric diagnosis, rather than fully evaluating the heart and cardiac status. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not comply with the applicable record-keeping standards in that they did not contain thorough examinations or histories, and did not have diagnoses or plans of treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #3 Respondent provided care to Patient #3 from November 17, 1987, until May 16, 1989. Patient #3, a female, was eighty-five years old when such treatment began. Respondent should have been aware from the patient's initial presentation, that the patient did not qualify to reside in an adult congregate living facility and should have taken steps to have her admitted to a skilled nursing facility. Respondent's failure to do so is a breach of the applicable standard of care. Respondent's initial examination of the patient was limited and Respondent failed to conduct an EKG to reveal the origin of the patient's pedal edema or irregular heartbeat. Respondent also failed to diagnose, treat, or refer the patient for a consult to evaluate her vision and hearing loss. Even though the diagnosis was not made in the Respondent's records, it is apparent from the medications prescribed by Respondent that the patient was being treated for congestive heart failure. She also had pedal edema, shortness of breath, and cardiac arrhythmia. Respondent failed to perform or conduct the appropriate tests and examinations to make a diagnosis of the patient's condition or to provide effective treatment. The patient had frequent episodes of high blood pressure for which Respondent prescribed diuretics. Respondent's prescribing of Tenormin violated the applicable standard of care and subjected the patient to serious cardiac risks. Respondent's medical records for the patient were illegible for the most part and in many instances omitted information about the diagnosis and course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding Patient #4 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #4 from April 1985 until January 5, 1988. Patient #4, a male, was seventy-four years old when such treatment began. When the patient originally presented to Respondent, he was on cardiac medications, had complaints of possible arrhythmias, and had a history of organic brain syndrome and tardive dyskinesia. Respondent was required by the applicable standard of care to evaluate the patient's cardiac condition, renal status, and potassium level. Respondent breached the standard of care by failing to conduct these evaluations and examinations. On October 1, 1985, the patient presented with back pain. Rather than conducting a physical exam to determine the source of the pain, Respondent violated the standard of care and treated the pain symptomatically. The patient was prescribed an anti-psychotic drug, Mellaril, and throughout Respondent's care exhibited side effects, including falls with resulting abrasions. Respondent failed to discontinue the drug or take appropriate measures to determine the extent of the patient's condition and implement a course of treatment. On July 23, 1987, Respondent prescribed an amount of Dalmane considered excessive for geriatric patients. These inappropriate prescriptions constitute a departure from the applicable standard of care. Respondent's medical records for the patient were replete with omissions of physical exams, diagnoses, and plans of care, and were inadequate as to patient history and justification for course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding prior discipline Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine. The prior disciplinary action was based on deficiencies in Respondent's record-keeping. The prior disciplinary action does not appear to have improved Respondent's record-keeping in any significant way.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of all of the following: (a) an administrative fine in the total amount of $4,000.00 (representing a $500.00 fine for each of the eight counts); (b) a one-year period of suspension of the Respondent's license; and (c) a one-year period of probation following the suspension, during which probation period the Respondent shall be required to have his records reviewed by a supervising physician approved by the Board, such supervising physician to provide quarterly reports to the Board regarding the sufficiency of the Respondent's record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 2nd day of February 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: During times material hereto, and particularly from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985, Respondent, Eusebio Subias, M.D., was a licensed medical doctor in Florida, board certified in Psychiatry and an eligible Medicaid provider of psychiatric services pursuant to the Medicaid contract he is party to with DHRS dated October, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Medicaid regulations and guidelines require physicians to meet board certification in psychiatry before they may provide reimbursable psychiatric services to Medicaid eligible recipients. As part of his agreement to participate in the Medicaid Program, Respondent agreed to keep such records as are necessary to fully disclose the extent of services provided to individuals receiving assistance in the state plan. Respondent also agreed to abide by the provisions of pertinent Florida administrative rules, statutes, policies, procedures and directives in the manual of the Florida Medicaid Program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1986, the Surveillance & Utilization Review System unit of the Medicaid Office indicated that the amount of Respondent's medicaid billing greatly exceeded that of his peers. Based on that indication, the Office of Program Integrity asked Respondent to provide them with copies of certain medical records for the year 1982. Respondent provided the Department with those records as requested. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). Those records were forwarded to the peer review committee for evaluation. The records were reviewed by both the local and state peer review committees. The 1982 records contained inadequate information for the peer review committee to document or otherwise justify the number of office visits per patient. The records did not contain reasons for treatment, reasons for frequency of visits or what specific services were rendered to patients. (Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17, Pages 3 and 4 and Composite Exhibit 3). On April 21, 1986, Petitioner notified Respondent that it determined that he overbilled Medicaid in the amount of $17,820.09 for the calendar year 1982. Respondent was then notified that a similar review would be conducted for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. That review and the results thereof are the subject of this proceeding. The Department subsequently requested, and Respondent provided medical records for 85 specific recipients which were selected by means of the "Disproportionate Stratified Random Sampling" (DSRS). (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent's 1983-85 records contain substantially more details than the records he provided Petitioner during the 1982 review period. Petitioner had its medical consultant, Dr. Forsthoefel, review the 1983-85 records. He was a member of the peer committee which made the peer review determination in 1982 which was used as a guide for the degree of overutilization. Forsthoefel denied those office visits that he determined were not supported by documentation in the medical records and concluded that the visits were not medically necessary. As a result, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter advising that he had overbilled medicaid in the amount of $79,093.05 for the years 1983-1985. (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 13). By letter dated September 5, 1986, Respondent requested a meeting to discuss the Department's proposed action and such a meeting was granted on October 31, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Dr. Forsthoefel, Dr. Conn, Petitioner's Chief Medical Consultant in 1982, Millie Martin, and Respondent attended the October 31 meeting. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to individually review each of the approximately 3200 medical records for patients he treated during the years 1983-85 such that he could explain and document the medical necessity of each of the patient's office visits. He also requested that Petitioner have the records reviewed by a psychiatrist. Neither Dr. Conn nor Dr. Forsthoefel are psychiatrists. Dr. Conn left soon after the meeting began. Dr. Forsthoefel, unable and unwilling to comply with Respondent's request that each medical record be individually reviewed, concluded that continuing the meeting would not be productive and left after approximately 2 hours. The Department again denied those visits which it had early concluded were not medically necessary based on the review by its medical consultants. By letter dated November 10, 1986, Petitioner again advised Respondent that the Department would seek a $79,093.05 overpayment for the years 1983-85 and advised him of his rights to a formal hearing. Drs. Mutter and Tumarkin were commissioned by Petitioner to review the medical records under scrutiny with each doctor reviewing one half of the records. Based on their review, Respondent was denied reimbursement for even more office visits based on their opinion that the records did not contain sufficient documentation or notations that would indicate continued office visits were medically necessary. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17a and 18). Dr. Tumarkin made his comments on Respondent's medical records in green ink. Those records which did not contain green marking were records numbered 3 and 27 resulting in the Department's overstating the overpayment claim by $125.01. Respondent introduced information regarding Medicaid's denial of claims which should have been billed to Medicare. During the period from May 1985 through December 31, 1985, certain denials fall within the 1983-85 review period and since the Department never paid such claims, the Department agreed at hearing to reduce its overpayment amount by $6,421.44. Also at hearing, Petitioner determined that it made an error in its computation of the figures stated in the November 10, 1986 letter and was now seeking $78,661.93 minus $6,421.44 for the amount claimed to be overbilled by Respondent as $72,240.49. Respondent, who is of hispanic origin, treats a substantial number of Spanish speaking patients. Respondent graduated from medical school in Cuba at the age of 22 and participated in a rotating internship at Mercy Hospital in Hampton, Ohio. He came to Florida in 1963 and was licensed in 1964. In April, 1963, Respondent was employed at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the third Spanish speaking doctor to practice in South Florida and was the first to be promoted to a chairmanship at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the first clinical director at Coral Reef's Hospital. He is a member of several medical societies and was involved in the development of several psychotic drugs, including Elavil. Respondent is board certified in psychiatry. Respondent has staff privileges at Hollywood Memorial Hospital and three other area hospital. He has practiced psychiatry for more than 25 years in the United State and is accomplished in the treatment of severe psychotic patients. Respondent was tendered and received as an expert in psychiatry. Southeastern Florida was inundated during the early 1980's with mentally ill refugees during the Mariel Boat Lift. That area has a uniquely high need for psychiatric services due to its characteristic as a metropolitan area with a large homeless population. The Marlowe Study which was commissioned by Petitioner to review the need for psychiatric services in Dade County during the period which coincided with the Respondent's 1983-1985 office practice here under review, concluded that insufficient resources were earmarked for the treatment of mentally ill residents of Dade County, Florida. Respondent prefers to treat severely psychotic patients on an outpatient basis. He has been very successful in utilizing this method of treatment and it has resulted in substantial public benefit in the form of substantial financial savings that would have otherwise been required to hospitalize such patients for treatment. Respondent is paid $35.01 for a 45 minute session for each Medicaid patient whereas the average cost for inpatient treatment at an area hospital is approximately $400.00 per day. Respondent modified his record keeping practice in 1982 so that his medical records for 1983-85 contained the minimum requirements for medical records necessary to support Medicaid billings as specified in Rule 10C- 7.030(1)(m) and 10C-7.062(1(n) Florida Administrative Code. All of the medical experts testified that Respondent's records for the period at issue here met the minimum requirements specified in the required regulations and DHRS's procedure manuals. Those requirements are: dates of services; patients name and date of birth; name and title of person performing the service, when it is someone other than the billing practitioner; chief complaint on each visit; pertinent medical history; pertinent findings on examinations; medications administered or prescribed; description of treatment when applicable; recommendations for additional treatments or consultations; and tests and results. Petitioner presented testimony through Ms. Martin to the effect that Respondent had admitted during his October 1986 meeting with the medicaid consultants that he had, from memory, gone back and recreated his medical records for 1983-85. Respondent denied this at hearing and credibly testified that based on the deficiencies found in the latter part of 1982 concerning his medical records, he commenced to prepare a complete medical record for each patient visit. Respondent's testimony in this regard is credited and none of the medical professionals, save Ms. Martin, presented any evidence which would call into question the accuracy of Respondent's records during the period 1983- Ms. Martin's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Dr. Forsthoefel candidly admitted that he is not qualified to render an opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specialized psychiatric services. Respondent is the first psychiatrist reviewed by the Medicaid officials of Petitioner for over-utilization as Petitioner's officials were unaware of any other psychiatrist who had been reviewed prior to Respondent. The peer review process for determination of over-utilization and mis- utilization of Medicaid services is designed so that the physician being reviewed may discuss individual patient records and cases with the Committee, as well as the Medicaid consultants who later apply peer review findings, and such discussion will be considered in arriving at a final determination. (Peer Review SOP, April, 1987, Respondent's Exhibit 12). An integral part of peer review for the physician being reviewed is to be able to discuss individual cases with the reviewer prior to a final determination being made concerning medical necessity and appropriateness. Such interplay and explanations regarding certain aspects of a case can lead to a more detailed determination concerning an overpayment issue. Respondent's October 1986 review should have been a complete new review of individual records affording him an opportunity to discuss specific cases with the physician consultants, provide him an opportunity to substantiate certain treatments based upon his recollection and justify the treatment modality he utilized for the 85 patients which comprised the random sampling. 2/ Respondent was not permitted to meaningfully discuss those individual cases even though he requested an opportunity to do so. This is so despite Petitioner's consultant's admission that such a consultation would have aided them and perhaps changed their opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments rendered by Respondent. (Testimony of Conn, Forsthoefel, Tumarkin and Whiddon). While some experts would treat severely psychotic patients on a less frequent basis than Respondent and hospitalize them sooner, Respondent's method of treatment is well accepted among qualified board certified psychiatrists. Dr. Tumarkin's different treatment philosophy wherein he favored inpatient treatment for severely psychotic patients while Respondent showed a preference for outpatient treatment, is in no way indicative of inappropriateness by Respondent's method of treatment since his method was proven to be successful. Additionally, one expert, Dr. Tumarkin would have allowed more visits as being medically necessary and appropriate had he been advised by Petitioner's representatives that he should apply the community standard for medical necessity and appropriateness of psychiatric services. A Medicaid provider of psychiatric services is required to provide services equivalent to that of their peers. Had Dr. Tumarkin consulted with Respondent, his opinion concerning medical necessity and appropriateness would have been affected and he would have requested such had he known that he was allowed to. This is especially so based on the fact that his treatment preference is more hospital oriented. It is thus concluded that Respondent was not given a fair opportunity to present circumstances relevant to the overpayment amount in question here, despite his request to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14). A review of a Peer Comparison Analysis with Respondent's practice respecting the number of office procedures per patient performed by him in contrast to other medicaid psychiatrists, indicates that Respondent saw his patients, on average, less than the average for other psychiatrists in Dade, Monroe and Broward Counties between the years 1983-85. (Petitioner's Exhibit 22). Dr. Stillman is board certified in psychiatry and has been practicing for more than 30 years. He reviewed, as Respondent's expert witness, all of the 85 patient charts in question. Dr. Mutter rendered a specific report about the even numbered charts that he reviewed. His reports indicates, with respect to many charts, that he was unable to find specific documentation supporting the reasons and medical necessity for treatment. This testimony was sharply contradicted by that of both Dr. Stillman and Respondent who easily located specific record documentation which indicated the medical necessity and reasons for services provided to patients by Respondent. Examples of over-utilization from Dr. Mutter's report were inquired about and on each occasion, Respondent and Dr. Stillman were able to identify documents not referred to by Dr. Mutter that substantiated the medical need and reasons for treatment. Drs. Subias and Stillman's testimony was not contradicted by Petitioner. Without going through each patient's records, a review of the findings concerning several patients is illustrative and will be herein discussed. Patient number 85, S. T., Jr. 3/ was a schizophrenic, suffering from epilepsy with borderline intellectual functioning. He was a very psychotic patient who was, during his early years, treated in an institution. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5). He was obese, apprehensive, disoriented, suffered from impaired insight and judgment, a depressed mood, flat affect and a constant feeling of rejection. Respondent commenced treating patient number 85 twice weekly as an outpatient and as his condition improved, he was seen once a week and office visits were reduced further as his condition continued to improve. Without this intense continuity of treatment, patient number 85 would have decompensated and would have required an extensive institutionalization. Respondent provided substantial documentation as to the need for each of S. T.'s visits. Patient number 83, C. C., was a schizophrenic who suffered from depression, was delusional with a flat affect, poor reality contact and went through extended periods of depression on a monthly basis. Respondent prescribed benadryl to counteract patient C. C.'s delusional symptoms and otherwise justified his method of treatments, frequency and reason for each visit. Respondent substantiated that it was medically necessary to treat patient C. C. on each occasion where treatment was provided. Respondent's medical records provided the documentation for treatment in each instance. Patient number 81, F. D., was a schizophrenic who suffered severe mental depression. His condition had deteriorated to the point whereby family therapy sessions had to be scheduled by Respondent. Respondent was able to keep F. D. out of the hospital, he remained with his family and his condition improved to the point where the frequency of visits were reduced. Respondent's records justified the medical necessity and reasons for the treatment he provided patient F. D. Respondent testified as to his method of treatment as to patients 88, 78, 77, 52, 56, 48, 46, 38, 40, 60, 68 and as to each of those patients, Respondent's records document that the patients treatment and visits were medically necessary and appropriate. Dr. Stillman demonstrated that on each occasion, there was substantial record documentation which supported the necessity for the treatment as provided by Respondent. Based upon the inconsistent evidence presented by Petitioner respecting its claim that Respondent failed to document the medical necessity for the treatment he provided to the patients during the years 1983-85 and the direct evidence presented by Respondent which established that all of the services rendered by him to Medicaid recipients were medically necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the treatments here in dispute were unnecessary, inappropriate or were not otherwise documented by the medical records under review. Moreover, all of the experts agree that the treating psychiatrist is best able to determine the medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments to render to a patient as that psychiatrist has direct contact with, and is best able to fully apply his or her training and experience. Respondent amply demonstrated that the services here at issue were medically necessary, appropriate and was of clear benefit to the patient. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing any basis for an overpayment as claimed. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of- Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that there was no overpayment to Respondent during the years 1983- 85. Respondent is entitled to a refund of all monies held pursuant to the overpayment calculation by the Department in this cause together with 10% for annual interest pursuant to Rule 10C-7.060(12), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 21st day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a medical doctor should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Bernardo G. Bilang, was a licensed medical doctor having been issued license number 0026846 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine (DPR or Board). He has been licensed by the Board since July 19, 1976. Respondent presently practices medicine at 1201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 11, Clearwater, Florida. His specialty, if any, is not of record. Around 10:45 p.m. on February 2, 1986, N.K., a seventy-four year old female, was transported by ambulance to the emergency room of Morton F. Plant Hospital, Inc. (hospital) in Clearwater, Florida. When admitted, she complained of nausea, diarreah, dehydration, vomiting, fatigue and not feeling well. Also, she had experienced some pain in her back. With the exception of the back pain, which had begun more than a day earlier, all other symptoms had begun on February 2. Doctor Linda L. Shaffer was the emergency room physician on duty on the evening of February 2. Doctor Shaffer initially observed that the patient looked "acutely ill." She examined the patient and found her to be coherent and alert but very weak, as evidenced by her lack of grip strength In slurred speech, the patient answered questions very faintly and generally in one word answers. As might be expected, the patient was dehydrated. Her vital signs at 11:00 p.m. here as follows: rectal temperature - 104.6 degrees; blood pressure 152 over 96; respiration - 24; and pulse - 101. She also had tenderness across the middle of the back on both sides but did not have a stiff neck. After a preliminary physical examination and history were completed, and while the patient remained in the emergency room area for a few hours, Dr. Shaffer ordered a chest x-ray, electrocardiogram, complete blood count, electrolyte panel, chemical profile, two tests of kidney function, blood cultures, and urinalysis. The patient was then placed on a cardiac monitor, had a foley catheter inserted to obtain a urine speciman, and was given tylenol to reduce her temperature. Also, an IV was started. After finding the chest to be essentially clear and the abdominal examination negative, Dr. Shaffer diagnosed the patient as follows: "fever/dehydration - possible sepsis?" The latter diagnosis (sepsis) meant the patient may have had either a bacterial or viral infection in her blood stream affecting her entire system in a "generalized way." For a seventy-four year old patient, sepsis is a serious condition and can be life threatening if not promptly treated. The normal treatment for sepsis is antibiotics, fluids, medicines to elevate the blood pressure and reduce the temperature, and occasionally the use of steroids. It is noted, however, that a viral infection will not respond to antibiotics. If the use of antibiotics is indicated, they must be started immediately to kill the infection. After concluding her examination, Dr. Shaffer ruled out the threat of cardiac arrest and believed the patient, although "seriously ill," was not suffering from a terminal ailment. Nonetheless, she was concerned with the patient's low white blood cell count (3500) which was indicative of an infection, and one more likely of a viral nature. At the same time, she knew that influenza "was quite prevalent at the time" and might produce symptoms like those experienced by N.K. However, she stuck by her preliminary diagnosis of a possible bacterial infection. Respondent was on call the evening of February 2 for patients such as N.K. who were admitted to the hospital but had no personal physician. 1/ He was telephoned by Dr. Shaffer at 1:20 a.m. on February 3 concerning the patient's status. After being told the patient's symptoms, vital signs, available test results (which did not include the blood cultures, urine culture and chemistry profile) and Dr. Shaffer's preliminary diagnosis respondent requested Dr. Shaffer to admit N.K. to the hospital. He then gave telephonic orders to the nurse regarding N.K.'s future treatment. At that point, responsibility for the patient shifted to respondent. Respondent's first orders at 1:25 a.m. were (a) the patient be given nothing by mouth except medications (b) the IV be continued, (c) she be given atrophine and phenergaan intramuscularly if diarrhea occurred, (d) she be given compazine, if necessary, for nausea and vomiting, and (e) she continue to be given ten grains of tylenol every four hours for her fever. The patient was then transferred from a critical care room to a room where more stabilized patients are kept. According to a nurse on duty that evening, she did not consider N.K. to be a "problem" patient who required extra care or attention. It is noted here that the patient records reflect that respondent initially suspected that N.K. might have the flu, a fairly common ailment in the area at that time. At 1:40 a.m., the patient's vital signs were as follows: blood pressure 124 over 80; respiration rate - 24; and pulse - 92. There is no indication that her temperature was taken at that time but the records indicate that an hour earlier, it had droped to 103.1 degrees. At 2:25 a.m., the patient was moved from an emergency room bed to a semi-private room in the general ward. At 3:05 a.m., N.K.'s temperature was again checked and found to be 103.5 degrees. At 4:00 am., the patient's condition had begun to seriously deteriorate. She manifested signs of being "very lethargic," that is, it was difficult to awaken her, and she appeared to be weaker on her left side. According to Dr. Shaffer, such a localized weakness was indicative of "some process" involving the patient's brain and spinal cord. Also, N.K. still had a rectal temperature reading of 103.5 degrees. At 5:40 am., N.K.'s fingers and toes became cyanotic, that is, they turned blue in color, indicating a lack of circulation. Also, she was confused and her lethargy continued. By then, her respiration rate had increased to 32, almost twice the normal rate. Her blood pressure (138 over 70) began dropping which was a sign of sepsis shock, that is, the peripheral blood vessels were dilating causing the pressure to drop and circulation to be impaired. At 6:05 am., the head nurse, believing there to be an emergency situation, spoke with respondent by telephone. She relayed the previous findings from 5:40 a.m. and noted that the patient's temperature had risen to 104.7 degrees while her blood pressure had dropped to 126 over 70. The nurse did not recall whether she was able to reach respondent immediately or if it took a few minutes for him to return the call. In any event, respondent gave telephonic orders that mandol, a second generation antibiotic, be given to the patient intravenously every six hours, and she be given one gram of solu-cortef, a steroid medication, for shock. Also, he ordered an arterial blood gas analysis and that N.K. be given oxygen by nasal cannula when necessary. Although the telephonic orders were given at 6:05 a.m., the drugs had to be requested and obtained (after mixing) from the hospital pharmacy. In some cases, it takes several hours to receive a drug from the pharmacy, particularly during other than normal daytime hours. The steroid IV was eventually started at 6:30 a.m. but the mandol was never received and administered. When the patient's condition did not improve and actually continued to deteriorate, respondent was telephoned again by a nurse at 6:40 a.m. By then, the patient's entire skin had turned a bluish color indicating very poor circulation. After being briefed by the nurse, including the results of the just received blood gas report, but still without knowing the precise cause of N.K.'s ailment, Dr. Bilang issued a "CMO" order. This means "comfort measures only" and that no aggressive steps, such as resuscitative measures, be taken by hospital personnel to prolong the life of the patient. According to Dr. Shaffer, had resuscitative steps been taken at that time, the patient's chances for survival were around "twenty percent, maybe less." The patient expired at 7:13 a.m. The primary cause of death was listed as meningococcial meningitis, a bacterial infection having a 70% to 80% mortality rate, and a "quite uncommon" infection in a seventy-four year old patient. Laboratory results obtained several days after the patient's death revealed she had gram-negative sepsis. Doctor Bilang arrived at the hospital and pronounced the patient dead at 7:20 a.m. This was the first time respondent had seen and examined the patient. Respondent then dictated a history and physical examination which appear in the patient records. These reports were based on information previously provided by others. On February 21, 1986 respondent dictated a discharge summary which indicated a pre mortem physical finding. This report was also placed in the expired patient's records. Several months later, respondent prepared a second physical examination and history for the patient. This was dictated on July 31, 1986 and again was based on the notes of other persons. However, respondent made the following note at the beginning of the physical examination and history: "Disregard above notes. Patient expired prior to my seeing her in the ward." Two medical experts testified on behalf of the Board. They are Drs. Matthew M. Cohen and Laurence Neufeld, both board certified family practitioners in Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida, respectively. A Shreveport, Louisiana board certified internist, Dr. John M. Brady, presented expert testimony on behalf of respondent. In addition, Dr. Linda L. Shaffer, an experienced physician, testified from her perspective as an emergency room physician at the hospital in question. As might be expected, the experts reached differing conclusions regarding respondent's treatment of the patient. Pertinent findings based on the experts' relevant testimony are made below. There was a consensus among the experts that the emergency room doctor's role is to pass on to the admitting physician all the information the doctor has gathered from the examination and tests. It is then the responsibility of the admitting physician to ask the emergency room doctor appropriate questions concerning the patient, order vital signs to be taken at specified intervals, and give other directions to the monitoring staff (nurses) concerning steps to be taken in the event of changes in the patient's condition. The experts also concluded that the primary physician, in preparing a history and physical examination of the patient, should not rely on the emergency room doctor's notes and findings but should personally conduct his own physical and history in a more thorough manner. This is especially true when, as here, the emergency room physician is unable to conclusively establish the cause of the patient's illness. In Dr. Cohen's opinion, respondent should have suspected meningitis at the outset of N.K.'s admission. This was because of her lethargy, high fever and back pain, all being symptoms associated with that infection. Doctor Cohen also noted that respondent was cognizant of Dr. Shaffer's preliminary diagnosis of possible sepsis, knew that pneumonia and urinary tract infection were not the causes of the infection, and still had no idea what caused N.K.'s infection. Given these considerations, Dr. Cohen opined that respondent should have ordered further tests to confirm N.K.'s ailment, such as a lumbar puncture (spinal tap), an X-ray of her abdomen, a reexamination of the abdomen or a head scan. Doctor Cohen further suggested that after those tests were completed, it would have been prudent for respondent to "employ a sort of antibiotic recipe for dealing with a septic, elderly person." In other words, he should have used a group of intravenous antibiotics that would cover most of the possible causes for that type of infection. In addition to the foregoing omissions, Dr. Cohen was of the opinion that Dr. Bilang erred further when, after receiving advice from the nurse at 6:05 a.m. and 6:40 a.m. concerning the patient's rapid deterioration in health, he failed to institute aggressive antibiotic therapy and instead prescribed mandol, a drug Dr. Cohen felt was too little, too late. According to Dr. Cohen, respondent compounded his mistakes by issuing a CMO order when the patient did not have a terminal illness and without consulting the patient's family. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, the expert concluded that respondent did not conform with minimally acceptable medical standards in the community. Doctor Cohen next opined that it was inappropriate for respondent to prepare a history and physical after the patient's death and to base those items on information gathered by others. He labeled these matters "false and misleading" and a deviation from the standard expected of a doctor. Doctor Neufeld initially pointed out that respondent erred by failing to start a broad spectrum (third generation) antibiotic regimen when he assumed responsibility for the patient at 1:20 a.m. According to the witness, such a regimen was called for because respondent was aware of the patient's age, high fever, slurred speech, dehydrated condition, the very strong possibility of sepsis, and his own inability to promptly obtain blood cultures from the laboratory to aid in confirming or ruling out various ailments. Further, respondent had no concrete evidence that the patient was suffering from the flu, an illness he initially thought N.K. might have. Even if respondent was unsure if the infection was viral or bacterial, Dr. Neufeld pointed out that respondent nonetheless should have assumed the patient was septic and started an antibiotic regimen until the cultures were received from the laboratory or the fever subsided. Moreover, even if the patient had a viral infection, the antibiotics would not have harmed her. By respondent waiting until 6:05 a.m., and then ordering mandol rather than a stronger drug, Dr. Neufeld opined that respondent fell below the minimum standard of care for community physicians. Doctor Neufeld stated further that respondent deviated from the same standard of care by issuing a CMO order when the patient did not have a terminal illness. Doctor Neufeld echoed Dr. Cohen's sentiments that the prevailing community standards did not call for a CMO order unless the patient was afflicted with a terminal, irreversible illness and only after a physical examination had been performed by the physician. Doctor Neufeld found the physical examination documented by Dr. Bilang on pages 10 and 11 and the accompanying discharge summary on pages 13 and 14 of the patient records to misleading since both erroneously suggested a pre mortem physical finding. Also, Dr. Neufeld opined that the medical records did not justify the course of treatment to the patient. However, the basis for this opinion is not clearly delineated in the record. Doctor Neufeld conceded that though he would have gone to the hospital at 1:20 a.m. to examine the patient, respondent did not violate the standard of care by evaluating the needs of the patient by telephone. Even so, Dr. Neufeld maintained that respondent should have ordered antibiotics after his consultation with Dr. Shaffer. The expert differed in one respect with Dr. Cohen and agreed with respondent that the records, at least at 1:20 am., did not call for a spinal tap or head scan, and respondent's failure to perform those tests at that time was acceptable. Finally, although he acknowledged that an order for a third generation antibiotic regimen at 6:05 a.m. might not have been mixed and ready for patient use by the time the patient expired, Dr. Neufeld opined that respondent still had a duty to use all available measures to keep her alive until the drugs were received. According to Dr. Shaffer, she observed Dr. Bilang on a day to day basis and considered him a "caring, competent, practicing physician." However, she stated that respondent was sometimes too busy" and overextended" himself. As a consequence, she was "concerned" that he was taking care of too many patients at the same time. Although she did not consider herself qualified to render an opinion, she opined that respondent did not deviate from the minimally acceptable standards for Clearwater area physicians when he failed to initially order antibiotics for N.K. at 1:20 a.m. This was because, if a physician was unsure if a patient had a viral syndrome or a bacterial septic condition, he might wait "a little bit of time" to see what course of treatment was required. Further, the decision to order antibiotics is a "judgment call" by a doctor and depends in part on two "iffy" tests, a lumbar puncture and a gram stain of the blood smear. The latter test result was not available until several days after the patient expired. According to Dr. Brady, respondent's course of treatment and overall conduct, with one exception, fell within the minimal acceptable standards of care for physicians. The exception pertained to respondent's issuance of a CMO order. After reviewing the patient's records, Dr. Brady concluded that respondent could not have known the patient was suffering from a bacterial infection since nothing in the physical examination was suggestive of meningococcemia, the organism affecting the patient. Thus, he concluded that the patient's illness was probably not diagnosable until shortly before she died. This was because the patient did not have a stiff neck (nuchal rigidity), purplish skin rash, or signs of shock, which are the normal indications of meningitis, and because the infection is extremely rare and has an incidence rate of only one case per one hundred thousand persons in a given year. Even so, he conceded that if the disease occurs, its physical signs can manifest in a very short period of time and could have begun shortly after the patient was first examined by the emergency room physician around 11:00 p.m. Once respondent recognized the severity of the patient's ailment, and prescribed mandol at 6:05 a.m., Dr. Brady agreed that mandol would not have had any beneficial effect on the patient even if administered immediately after being ordered. Instead, the witness would have ordered a third generation antibiotic which is more effective in treating gram negative rods. While he characterized respondent's choice of mandol as "not the best thing to do", he nonetheless said "it was not an unreasonable thing to do" given the circumstances. The expert next agreed with the Board experts that a CMO order is appropriate only when the patient has a terminal illness and has requested that no life-sustaining measures be used. In this case, he agreed that the patient records did not justify this action. He added, however, that the patient would probably have expired no matter what resuscitative efforts were undertaken. Finally, while Dr. Brady did not think respondent was attempting to falsify his records by copying the notes of others in preparing the post-mortem physical and patient history, he noted that respondent should have indicated on his February 3, 1986 notes that he was copying the records of others. Having evaluated the testimony of the experts, the undersigned has resolved the conflicts in favor of the Board. Accordingly, it is found that respondent fell below the minimum standard of care by failing to initially recognize the patient's septic condition and prescribing a comprehensive antibiotic regimen, by failing to institute the same regimen at 6:05 a.m. after becoming aware of her critical condition, and by issuing a CMO order at 6:40 a.m. when the patient did not have a terminal illness. Further, respondent filed reports on February 3 and 21, 1986 which he knew or should have known were misleading and false, namely, a patient history, physical examination and discharge summary prepared post mortem which suggested that such reports were based on pre mortem findings by respondent. Finally, it is found that the records maintained by respondent were inadequate to justify the issuance of a CMO order since the patient did not have a terminal illness. By stipulation approved by Board order dated October 30, 1987, respondent was reprimanded by the Board, paid a $1,000 fine, was placed on monitored probation for a year, and agreed to take twenty hours of continuing medical education in the area of prescribing medicinal drugs. Official Board records indicate that respondent's license still remains on a probationary status presumably because of the pending proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the violations discussed in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order, and that respondent's medical license be suspended for two years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of July, 1989.
