The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license to practice medicine of Respondent, Carl Fromhagen, M.D., based on allegations that he violated Subsections 458.331(l)(k),(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been licensed in 1956 and issued License No. ME 0007027. Respondent is board-certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology (1967). He is 74 years old and now has an office- based practice treating only gynecological patients. Patient K. B., a 46-year-old female, first presented to Respondent on September 6, 1990, with menopausal complaints. Her patient's history reflects that she reported a family history of breast cancer. On February 12, 1992, Patient K. B. presented to Respondent with complaints of a mass in her left breast. Respondent palpated a mass in K. B.'s left breast and, although he did not note the size of the mass in his office records, the records contain a diagram showing the location of the mass. Petitioner testified that it was his practice that when he discovered a mass of less than 2.5 centimeters, he did not describe the size because its too hard to identify the exact dimensions smaller than an inch. Respondent ordered a mammogram for Patient K. B. which was performed on February 19, 1992, and was interpreted as revealing no evident neoplasm (cancer). Respondent saw Patient K. B. in his office on the following dates (after the mammogram): March 30, 1992; May 21, 1992; August 31, 1992; April 19, 1993; April 27, 1993; May 4, 1993; May 11, 1993; May 18, 1993; September 21, 1993; and November 16, 1993. In addition, Patient K. B. had telephone contact with Respondent's office staff to have prescriptions refilled and was mailed examination reminder notes. Patient K. B. testified that she and Dr. Fromhagen discussed the breast mass "every checkup, every time I was there." She inquired about a follow-up mammogram and Dr. Fromhagen indicated that she could wait two years. He did not mention a biopsy, excision, or referral to another physician at anytime. Patient K. B. and Respondent agree that Respondent examined and palpated the breast mass during her physical examinations which took place approximately every six months. During civil litigation that preceded the instant administrative hearing, it became apparent that there were two different sets of office records for Patient K. B. Patient K. B. testified that during the civil action she brought against Respondent in 1996, Respondent had produced medical records, purported to be hers that did not accurately reflect her treatment. She recalled that upon comparing the medical records Respondent had produced in the civil action with the records she had obtained from Respondent's office in December 1994, she discovered that Respondent had "augmented" her records, which she reported to her attorney. In May 1994, the offices of Dr. Paul Straub, who became Patient K. B.'s new treating physician as a result of a change in her group health insurance, requested her medical records from Dr. Fromhagen's office. Dr. Fromhagen testified in the instant hearing that "at the time . . . I compared the chart [Patient K. B.'s records] with . . . 'day sheets' and because I felt the records did not reveal everything that Dr. Straub should be aware of, I rewrote certain portions of them to reflect things that were on the day sheets that I hadn't already written down and then [in May 1994] sent the records to Dr. Straub." Patient K. B. testified that, "the night before my surgery" [December 1994] she received a call from Dr. Fromhagen's office asking if they could send her records to Dr. Straub. In the course of that discussion, Patient K. B. advised that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was scheduled for surgery. That same evening, shortly after the phone discussion with Dr. Fromhagen's office, Patient K. B. went to Dr. Fromhagen's office and obtained a copy of her medical records. These records did not contain the "rewritten portions" Dr. Fromhagen reported as having been done in May 1994. Dr. Fromhagen testified that he started keeping "day sheets" when he first started practicing in 1960. The "day sheets" (Respondent's Exhibit 2) are essentially a daily calendar organized by time which lists the name of patients to be seen that day and then notes such as "ovarin cyst," "vaginitis," "preg?" These "day sheets" were not mentioned in either of Dr. Fromhagen's depositions taken in 1996 in the civil action. In Petitioner's Exhibit 10, a July 3, 1997, letter to M. S. Sutton, an Agency for Health Care Administration investigator, Dr. Fromhagen attempts to explain his record- keeping practice for patients, Dr. Fromhagen acknowledges rewriting his charts and states, "I would carefully review the chart and address any portions that I felt were not completely explanatory, or that I thought need information to assist the subsequent physician. I now understand that I should have noted the changes as late entries and dated them the date written." No mention was made of "day sheets" in this letter. Dr. Fromhagen testified during a deposition taken in the civil action that his standard practice was "to make entries in the chart right away," that he never put it off, and that he had not done anything different in Patient K. B.'s case. Dr. Fromhagen acknowledged that during a deposition taken in the civil action he had incorrectly testified that he had not made changes in Patient K. B.'s medical record. The following is a comparison of the significant difference between Petitioner's Exhibit 9, Patient K. B.'s original medical record, and Respondent's Exhibit 3, Patient K. B.'s "augmented" medical record. Please note: Patient K. B. became Dr. Fromhagen's patient on September 6, 1990. No changes were made in the "Gynecologic History and Physical Examination" (Patient K. B.'s medical record) on any entry until March 30, 1992. Changes are highlighted. Date: March 30, 1992 Original record: "Mammogram was neg. palpation indicates mass much smaller. Will follow" Augmented record: "Mammogram reported as no evidence of neoplasm. Palpation indicates to me that mass is smaller. Discussed removing it" Date: May 21, 1992 Original record: "Dysuria General Malaise. Pelvic unremarkable. Urine - pus. Rx Macrodantin" Augmented record: "Dysuria. Mailaise. Pelvic unremarkable. Urine - pus. Rx Macrodantin" Date: August 31, 1992 Original record: "Introital lesions. Pelvic area feels congestion and cramping sensation. Pelvic- ulcers-blisters at introitus but very small. Herpes? Rx Zoirax" Augmented record: "Introital lesions. Lower abd cramping. Pelvic - herpetic ulcers at introitus. Rx Ziorax" Date: April 19, 1993 Original record: "Last mammogram revealed no concern. Dysuria. Frequent UTI. Had a cysto before. Rhinorrhea. Vulvar irritation. GenPE. Breasts unchanged. Pelvic - fungus. Rx She has Monistat. Urine - pus Macrodantin. RV Cysto" Augmented record: "Last mammogram revealed no neoplasm but mass still present and I suggested another x-ray now or removal of mass if she wishes. Dysuria. Has frequent UTIs. Had a Cysto before. Rhinorrhea. Vulvar irritation. Gen PE - nasal turbinates swollen. Breasts unchanged. Pelvic-fungus. Rx she has Monistat for fungus. Macrodantin RV Cysto" Date: April 27, 1993 Original record: "Cysto: stricutre. Proximal urethra & trizone inflamed and granules. Bladder capacity - first desire to void at 200 c.c. RV dilations" Augmented record: "Cysto-urethral stricture. Proximal urethra & trizone inflamed & granular. Urethra L46. Bladder capacity - first desire to void at 200 cc. Rx RV dilations" Date: May 18, 1993 Original record: "No urinary complaints now. Sounded #32 irrigated AgNO3. This concludes dilations" Augmented record: "No urinary complaints now. Sounded #32, irrigated AgNO3. This concludes diations. She has not gotten this years mammogram yet" Date: October 11, 1993 Original record: "Rem sent" [entry made by office staff]" Augmented record: "Reminder note sent - Exam due." [entry made by office staff]" Date: November 16, 1993 Original record: "On Premarin.625. Starting to awaken in the middle of the night again Nervous. No flashes. Bladder OK. New glasses. Trouble adjusting to fidders bifocals. GenPE, breasts & pelvic unchanged. Pap change to Premarin 1.25" Augmented record: "On Premarian.625. Starting to awaken in the middle of the night again. Very nervous. No flashes. Bladder OK. Finds it hard to adjust to her new bifocals. Gen PE unchanged. Breasts - mass still present. Again suggested she get a yearly mammogram or have mass excised. She has not arranged for a mammogram as she said she would. Pelvic unchanged. Rx Increased dose of Premarian to 1.25" The entries made in patient K. B.'s "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) were not noted to be "late entries" nor were they dated. Both expert witness opined that this fell below the standard of care. Most of the "late entries" made by Respondent in the "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) are a self-serving attempt by Respondent to create the impression that he had encouraged Patient K. B. to have follow-up mammograms or to have the breast mass excised. If the "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) was a true reflection of the treatment rendered Patient K. B. by Respondent, his treatment could possibly have met the "standard of care." I find that the "augmented" record does not reflect the treatment Patient K. B. received, but that the original record (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) is the more credible document and accurately reflects Respondent's treatment of Patient K. B. Dr. Nelson, who testified as an expert witness, testified that Dr. Fromhagen fell below the standard of care in that (relying on both the original record and "augmented" record) between March 30, 1992, and April 13, 1993, he did not "deal with the breast mass, did not report discussion of treatment options with the patient, did not order a follow-up mammogram within 12 months." Again relying on both records, Dr. Nelson testified that Dr. Fromhagen fell below the standard of care for maintaining medical records when he failed to record his examination of Patient K. B.'s breasts and palpation of the mass which he reported as having been done "every visit she made." Both Dr. Von Thron, who also testified as an expert witness, and Dr. Nelson agreed that the standard of care requires that for any revision of medical records, if a change is made, a line is made through the original so it can be read and then the correction is made and the change is dated and initialed. If an additional statement is entered into the medical record, it should be dated and initialed. Dr. Fromhagen did not date or initial the changes or additions to Patient K. B.'s medical record when he created the "augmented" record. Both expert witnesses testified that this fell below the standard of care for medical record-keeping. Dr. Von Thron, referring to the original record, opined that Dr. Fromhagen did not comply with the standard of care for essentially the same reasons as expressed by Dr. Nelson. He opined that the "augmented" record indicates that Dr. Fromhagen complied with the standard of care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 458.331(1)(k), (m), and (t), Florida Statutes (1993), and imposing the following: A $1,000.00 fine for each violation, for a total of $3,000.00; and A one-year suspension followed by two years' probation; Ten hours of continuing medical education in ethics; An appropriate medical education course in medical record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: George Thomas Bowen, II, Esquire Law Offices of Donald Weidner, P.A. 11265 Alumni Way, Suite 201 Jacksonville, Florida 32246 John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida for 30 years. He holds license number ME 0009656. Respondent, whose specialty is general surgery, began practicing in Orlando in 1963. At no time has Respondent' practice been limited to general surgery. When Respondent arrived in Orlando in 1961, he assisted a Dr. Cox. At the time, Dr. Cox and Respondent were the only physicians providing medical services, outside of public health clinics, to the predominantly black community of the Washington Shores area of Orlando. The subject patient (Patient), who was born on December 2, 1951, selected Respondent as her primary physician in 1977. At the time, Respondent was the physician for the Patient's husband and his mother. The Patient saw Respondent Periodically for-several years. Respondent's medical records of the Patient's initial visit record complaints of headaches and dizziness and a history of glaucoma in the Patient's left eye. The glaucoma arose from a traumatic injury suffered when she was eight years old. The Respondent's treatment of the Patient during 1977-1984 is not in question in this case. After a six-month period during which she did not visit Respondent, the Patient saw Respondent on February 14, and March 12, 1985, complaining of pain in her arm. After ordering X-rays and trying Feldene for the pain, Respondent found that the Patient responded better to Indocin, which is a mild pain reliever and anti-inflammatory medication. The X-ray reports, dated March 3, 1985, indicated that the Patient's cervical and dorsal spine were normal. According to the medical records, on February 14, the Patient's blood pressure was 146/96 in her left arm and 136/95 in her right arm and her pulse was 70 and 65 respectively On the March 12 visit, her blood pressure was 149/98 and her pulse was 81. On her next office visit, May 23, 1985, the Patient complained of nervousness, as reflected in the medical records. Her blood pressure was 152/104 and her pulse was 87. Respondent prescribed Inderide 40/25 for the Patient's hypertension and Centrax 10 mg. for the Patient's nervousness. This is the first time that he had prescribed either medication for the Patient. Respondent's medical records disclose what drugs were prescribed, the strength, and the frequency that they were to be taken. Respondent's records are not as clear as to how many pills were prescribed or whether the prescriptions were refillable. By reference to pharmacy records, however, one can determine with reasonable certainty how long the Patient was prescribed Centrax and Inderide by Respondent. With this finding, it is possible to determine from Respondent's records when a reference to a drug means that Respondent is acknowledging that the Patient is still taking the drug and when such a reference means that Respondent is giving the Patient a new prescription. Inderide is a controlled substance that combines a diuretic with Inderal, which is a beta-blocker. Both ingredients are antihypertensive agents. Inderide 40/25 contains 40 mg. of Inderal and 25 mg. of the diuretic. Besides blocking beta- receptor sites, Inderal does not otherwise affect autonomic nervous system activity. Inderal may also decrease intraocular pressure, such as that associated with glaucoma. 1O. The abrupt discontinuation of Inderal is contraindicated for a broad class of patients who have angina or may be at risk of having occult atherosclerotic heart disease. Additionally, Inderal may impair certain heart functions, which "may augment the risks of general anesthesia and surgical procedures." 1991 Physician's Desk Reference, Product Information, P. 2389. Centrax is a controlled substance derived from benzodlazepine, which has depressant effects on the central nervous system. As a benzodiazepine, Centrax is capable of producing psychological and physical dependence- According to the 1991 Physician's Desk Reference: Centrax is indicated for the management of anxiety disorders or for the short-term relief of the symptoms of anxiety. . The effectiveness of Centrax in long-term use, that is, more than 4 months, has not been assessed by systematic clinical studies. The physician should periodically reassess the usefulness of the drug for the individual patient. 1991 Physician's Desk Reference, Product Information, p. 1625. The 1991 Physician's Desk Reference recommends that patients taking Centrax for long periods have blood counts and liver function tests "periodically. " Special care is advised when using Centrax in combination with other antidepressants. Side effects of Centrax include dizziness and fatigue in about 10 percent of the patients and, less commonly, headaches and slight decreases in blood pressure. On May 30, 1985, the Patient returned to Respondent's office to have a dressing changed in connection with the removal of a growth from her arm. Her blood pressure was 128/92 and pulse was 78. The Patient next visited Respondent on July 23, 1985. As directed by Respondent, the Patient had been taking the recommended dosages of Centrax and Inderide for the past two months. On this visit, she complained of weak spells. She reported that her ophthalmologist had prescribed for her Timoptic, which is a beta blocker that is available in an eye solution. Timoptic reduces intraocular pressure, such as that associated with glaucoma. The Patient's blood pressure was 146/93 and her pulse was 55. Respondent's medical records note that the Patient was taking, in addition to the Timoptic and Indocin, Centrax and Inderide 40/25. At this time, Respondent ordered laboratory work on the Patient, including a complete blood count, fasting blood sugar, the SMAC series of 23 blood tests (which would disclose certain liver dysfunctions), an EKG, and an RPR seroiogical test. The test results were normal except for indicating borderline anemia. The Patient visited Respondent a week later on July 30. Her blood pressure was 140/82 and her pulse was 63. In response to her complaints of headaches, Respondent ordered a CT scan of her brain, continued the Centrax and Inderide, as well as Hemocyte tabs for the borderline anemia. By report dated August 7, 1985, the CT scan proved normal. The Patient visited Respondent about a week later on August 8. Her blood pressure was 121/77 and her pulse 50. On this visit, Respondent directed her not to take the Zantac, which he had prescribed two weeks earlier for a possible ulcer. The Patient had never taken any Zantac. His records also notes that the Patient only briefly took Fiorinal, which Respondent had Prescribed during the prior visit, due to nasal bleeding. Five days later, as reflected in the medical records, Respondent called Dr. Ferguson, who was then the Patient's ophthalmologist. They agreed that the Patient should discontinue the Timoptic due to the low pulse. On August 16, the Patient returned to see Respondent. Her blood pressure was 122/98 and her pulse had increased to 85. The medical records report that Dr. Ferguson had discontinued the Timoptic and had substituted another medication for intraocular eye pressure. The records also show that Respondent gave the Patient a prescription for Inderide 40/25 and Centrax 10 mg, as well as a potassium supplement for leg aches and Indocin for pain and inflammation. On August 29, 1985, the Patient returned to see Respondent. She stated that her head was ready to "explode," according to the medical records. She reported that she had been taken off all eye medication. Complaining of insomnia, the medical records note Respondent's observation of constant fidgeting indicative of anxiety. Respondent decided to increase the frequency that the Patient would take the Centrax from twice a day to three times a day. He also ordered T3 and T4 tests to determine if the Patient suffered from hyperthyroidism. About a week later, on September 5, the Patient revisited Respondent. Respondent prescribed an antihistamine for her complaints of hoarseness and a dry cough. The records disclose that the thyroid test results were normal. The Patient returned to Respondent on September 13. Noting less nervousness and hoarseness and only intermittent headaches, as reflected in the medical records, Respondent approved her returning to work. Her blood pressure was 130/1OO. The notes show that she is to "cont[inue]" the Inderide, Centrax, and Indocin. In the four months since the Patient commenced taking Inderide and Centrax, Respondent had seen her nine times or about once every two weeks. Respondent had also ordered substantial laboratory work to monitor the Patient's condition, consulted with her ophthalmologist with the result that she was taken off eye medication to see if her complaints would be eliminated, obtained a CT scan to rule out other sources of the headaches and related complaints, and obtained thyroid tests to rule out a thyroid malfunction. Sometime prior to the end of 1985, the. Patient changed ophthalmologists and retained Dr. Jerry Shuster to treat her glaucoma. Respondent had continued to prescribe Inderide 45/20, as he intended her to take it for an indefinite period to control hypertension. However, Respondent's prescription for Centrax had run out. On December 26, 1985, the Patient called Respondent to ask for a conference. As a result of this conversation, Respondent called Dr. Shuster and learned that, while treating her for her eye problems, he too had noticed her nervousness. The physicians agreed the nervousness would be helped by restarting Centrax. On December 26, following his conversation with Dr. Shuster, Respondent reissued the Patient's prescription for Centrax, Inderide, and Indocin. The Centrax prescription was for 60 pills with no refill; if taken at the maximum prescribed frequency, the Centrax prescription would run out in about 20 days. By contrast, the Inderide prescription was for 30 pills and allowed three refills; at one pill daily, this prescription would last 120 days. The Patient visited Respondent on January 16, 1986. Her pulse was 52, and she was treated for a vaginitis. A return visit on January 30 disclosed that her vaginitis had cleared up. The medical records note that her blood pressure was 121/89 and pulse was 69. The records also note that the Inderide, Centrax, Indocin, a cortisone (for the vaginitis), and Timoptic prescribed by Dr. Shuster would be continued. Based on the findings contained in Paragraphs 33 and 38 below, the word, "continued," as used in Respondent's medical records, means that the Patient was directed to continue taking medication from a prior prescription, not that she received a new prescription. In January or February, 1986, the Patient decided to discontinue the Centrax because of the fatigue that she associated with its use. She did not again take Centrax until about August, 1986, although she continued to take the Inderide. When she continued the Centrax, she had only what remained of the 20- day prescription that she had received on December 26, 1985. On March 11, 1986, the Patient next visited Respondent. Her blood pressure was 150/90. She complained of leg aches and exhaustion, and Respondent noted in his medical records his observations of fidgeting and restlessness. Respondent prescribed a potassium supplement for the aching leg and ordered a complete blood count, fasting blood sugar, and electrolytes test, which proved normal. Seven months passed before the Patient saw Respondent again. On October 15, 1986, she came to the office. Her blood pressure was 134/91 and her pulse was 73. She stated that she was suffering from nausea and dizziness. Respondent gave her another prescription for Inderide 40/25, Cortisporin for an unrelated ear infection, and Antivert 25 for the dizziness. Respondent prescribed no Centrax during the October 15 office visit. The Patient's pharmacy produced the prescription for Inderide, but, unlike the case with the simultaneous prescriptions for Inderide and Centrax on December 26, 1985, produced no prescription for Centrax. In the absence of any mention of Centrax in Respondent's medical records, which are thorough as to when Centrax and other medications were prescribed, there is no basis to find that Respondent wrote a new prescription for Centrax. Almost four months passed before Respondent again saw the Patient. On February 6, 1987, she visited the office because of back pain and stress-induced frequent urination. Her blood pressure was 140/87 and pulse was 75. Dr. Shuster had been prescribing her Timoptic and steroids for her glaucoma. Respondent approved the use of a heating pad and provided no other treatment. Nine months later, on November 11, 1987, the Patient returned to Respondent's office. She was suffering from pain in her right eye and suggested that the Timoptic being prescribed by Dr. Shuster was responsible. She was still taking the Inderide 40/25 that Respondent had prescribed, but had not been prescribed any more Centrax since December 26, 1985. Respondent gave her a new prescription for Centrax 10 mg., to be taken as needed but not more than three times daily. The prescription for Centrax was for 60 tablets with two refills. At the maximum allowed frequency, the Patient received a 60-day supply of Centrax. Respondent also ordered the T3, T4, and TSH thyroid tests, a complete blood count, and SMAC blood test. The results of the thyroid tests, which were reported on November 13, were normal for T4 and TSH and very slightly elevated for T3. Almost two leeks later, on November 23, 1987, the Patient returned to Respondent's office. Her blood pressure was 123/84 and her pulse 77. She was tired and weak and experienced numbness in her right leg, but she said that she was sleeping well. Respondent's notes reflect that he directed her to continue her medications, to take a vitamin B12 injection, and to call him the following day. The notation, "cont[inue] med[ication]s" did not mean that Respondent gave the Patient a new prescription; in this case, he had just given her a three months' supply only 10 days earlier. No prescriptions were produced by the Patient's pharmacy for any new prescriptions on or about November 23. Further, Respondent's testimony concerning his unwillingness to prescribe more than a limited amount of Centrax at one time is credited. On December 1, 1987, the Patient returned to the office. Her blood pressure was 127/78 and pulse 72. The notes record a conversation among Respondent, the Patient, and her husband that concluded with the decision that the Patient would speak with Dr. Shuster about her vision. Respondent prescribed Indocin, which had been used frequently in the past for an arthritic condition and general body aches. Two weeks later, on December 15, the Patient returned. Her blood pressure was 122/95 and pulse was 82. The records note that she appeared calmer. Respondent spoke with Dr. Shuster about the Patient's anxiety about losing her vision in the damaged eye, and they agreed that she needed an antidepressant. According to the records, Respondent prescribed Tofranil 25 mg. and that she continue to take her Centrax. Tofranil, which is a member of the dibenzazepine group, is an antidepressant that acts primarily by stimulation of the central nervous system. The 1991 Physician's Desk Reference suggests that the physician Prescribe a tranquillizer with Tofranil, if manic episodes occur. The use of Tofranil ended two weeks later when the Patient returned to Respondent's office on December 29 complaining of nausea. Recognizing this as an adverse reaction to Tofranil, Respondent took her off the medication. Her blood pressure was 131/96 and pulse 73 during this visit. In response to a complaint of hoarseness, Respondent ordered a chest X-ray and referred her to an ear, nose, and throat specialist. Chest and pelvic X-rays proved normal, as well as a mammogram taken at the same time. In response to complaints of diarrhea and stomach cramps, Respondent Prescribed Tagamet. He also continued the Prescription for Centrax, but did not provide her with a new Prescription at the time. However, on January 8, 1988, the Patient's Pharmacy filled a new Prescription from Respondent for the Patient for 60 Centrax tablets and refillable three times. The prior Centrax Prescription could have been exhausted by this time, if the Patient took three tablets a day. The new prescription gave her a 80-day supply, if she used it at the maximum rate. The ear, nose, and throat specialist, Dr. Stephen E. Howery, saw the Patient on January 4, 1988. He noted that the Patient complained of persistent hoarseness since July, 1987, and suffered from hayfever. His impression was that she suffered from polypoid degeneration of the vocal cords and recommended antihistamines. If this treatment did not work, he recommended a laryngoscopy and stripping of the vocal cords. The Patient visited Respondent on January 12. Her blood pressure was 123/92 and pulse 69. Apparently, Dr. Howery's initial conservative treatment, which was identical to Respondent's successful treatment of the same complaint two and one-half years earlier, did not help. Outpatient surgery was performed on or about January 14, 1988. The surgery, which required general anaesthesia, was successful. In preparation for the throat surgery, the Patient stated that she was taking Centrax, Inderide, Tagamet, and Timoptic, which were all discontinued prior to surgery. Following the throat surgery, the Patient began to experience difficulty in urination. She contacted Respondent, who suggested that she go to the emergency room of a nearby hospital for catheterization. After a couple such visits, when the Patient again could not void her urine, Respondent advised that she go to the hospital. In the meantime, Respondent contacted the patient's gynecologist, Dr. Chisholm. He examined the Patient on January 20 and found no gross abnormalities except for a two cm. ovarian cyst that was not the cause of the Patient's urinary problems. Respondent also contacted a uroiogist, Dr. Helmley, who eliminated the obstruction by Performing a cystoscopy and urethral dilation on January 22 which also required a general anaesthesia. At this time, Dr. Chisholm and Respondent agreed that the Patient required the services of a psychiatrist Dr. Lillian Saavedra met the Patient while she was still in the hospital. The Patient was released from the hospital on January 24, 1988. At about this time, the Patient decided not to see Respondent anymore. She required hospitalization the beginning of February, 1988, spending two weeks in a psychiatric unit of a local hospital. By this time, she was on a variety of medications, most if not all of which had not been Prescribed by Respondent. Dr. Saavedra's final diagnosis at the conclusion of the hospitalization was that the Patient suffered from somatization disorder, possible family discord, hyperthyroidism, and glaucoma in her left eye. After a few months, the Patient discontinued seeing Dr. Saavedra and taking the antidepressant that she had prescribed for the Patient. The Patient saw another psychiatrist and later a chiropractor, and her complaints gradually diminished. Nothing in the record establishes that Respondent failed to obtain adequate laboratory testing to evaluate the condition of the Patient. From May, 1985, through January, 1988, hyroid tests, in addition to various X-rays and a CT scan. These proved normal. The implication in the allegation of inadequate laboratory testing is that Respondent misdiagnosed the Patient's condition. The record is clear that he did not fail to detect thyroid problems because, during this period, she had. none. Although the low pulse rate was properly a matter of concern, Respondent reacted to it by causing the discontinuation of Timoctin. Later, Respondent's pulse rate evidently acclimated to the beta blockers. Similarly, Respondent did not fail to diagnose the polyps on the vocal cords that were later corrected by surgery. The initial treatment of the ear, nose, and throat specialist, was the same as Respondent's successful treatment of the condition two and one-half years earlier. In view of Dr. Howery's conservative initial approach to the problem, it is impossible to infer that Respondent failed to make a missed diagnosis or untimely referred the Patient to a specialist. Respondent did not fail to diagnose any dependency upon Centrax. There are two breaks in the Centrax prescriptions. Following the commencement of Centrax on May 23, 1985, the Patient took the drug continuously far four to seven months, before a break occurred prior to the December 26, 1985, prescription. The Patient discontinued taking Centrax in January or February, 1986, so, except for what tablets may have been unused from the December 26 prescription, the Patient took no Centrax for almost two years before Respondent gave new a new prescription on November 11, 1987. Within two months, however, the Patient discontinued the use of Centrax again. Although the first period during which the Centrax was Prescribed-- four to eight months--may have exceeded the period for which the drug may normally be expected to :e effective, there is no evidence that any dependency resulted during this time. The second period of use was not Particularly long-- only two months--and followed nearly two years during which the Patient had not used the drug. If taken at the maximum frequency, the Centrax would have lasted only four and one-half months from November 11 through the early January, 1988, renewal. Nothing in the record establishes that Respondent's referral of the Patient to a psychiatrist was untimely. The medical records reflect that the Patient was making some progress in late 1987. She reported sleeping fairly well during her November 23, 1987, office visit, and she appeared calmer during her December 15, 1987, visit. It is impossible to attribute her emotional and mental decline in February, 1988, to anything that Respondent did or did not do. Nothing in the record establishes that Respondent should have observed symptoms requiring psychiatric care sooner than he did. Also, the referral to the urologist was timely following the throat surgery. Nothing in the record establishes that it was unreasonable to try two catheterization before having unused from the December 26 prescription, the Patient: took no Centrax for almost two years before Respondent gave new a new prescription on November 11, 1987. Within two months, however, the Patient discontinued the use of Centrax again. Although the first period during which the Centrax was prescribed-- four to eight months--may have exceeded the period for which the drug may normally be expected to be effective, there is no evidence that any dependency resulted during this time. The second period of use was not particularly long-- only two months--and followed nearly two years during which the Patient had not used the drug. If taken at the maximum frequency, the Centrax would have lasted only four and one-half months from November 11 through the early January, 1988, refill. Nothing in the record establishes that Respondent's referral of the Patient to a psychiatrist was untimely. The medical records reflect that the Patient was making some progress in late 1987. She reported sleeping fairly well during her November 23, 1987, office visit, and she appeared calmer during her December 15, 1987, visit. It is impossible to attribute her emotional and mental decline in February, 1988, to anything that Respondent did or did not do. Nothing in the record establishes that Respondent should have observed symptoms requiring psychiatric care sooner than he did. Also, the referral to the urologist was timely following the throat surgery. Nothing in the record establishes that it was unreasonable to try two catheterization before having the Patient examined by a urologist. Respondent's medical records amply justify the various treatments that the Patient received during the years that she was seen by Respondent. The medical records are, at times, somewhat obscure as to the number of tablets prescribed at a given point. However, the records disclose A. uniform use of certain terms which, as corroborated by the pharmacy's records, provide the information from which the number of tablets can be calculated. The major exception is the Inderide, but Respondent intended to maintain this drug indefinitely. Nothing in the record establishes that Respondent failed to practice medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment that a reasonably prudent physician recognizes as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. In this finding, the relevant level of care, skill, and treatment imposed upon Respondent is not relaxed because he, a general surgeon, elected to practice general medicine or because he chose to provide medical services to a community in need of such services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 7: adopted except that the evidence did not demonstrate that Centrax could not be useful for treatment of anxiety over the periods for which Respondent prescribed it to the Patient. 8: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. Petitioner failed to prove that Centrax was inappropriately prescribed foi the Patient. 9-10: adopted. 11: adopted except that May 23, 1985, is the date that Respondent first prescribed Centrax for the Patient. 12-13: adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: rejected as recitation of testimony. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 and 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23 and 29-35: rejected as recitation of testimony. Dr. Garoni's testimony has not been given much weight for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing. 24: rejected as recitation of testimony. 25: adopted in substance. 26-28: rejected as irrelevant. Petitioner failed to prove that the Centrax was responsible for any of these problems. To the contrary, the record suggests other factors responsible for these symptoms. 36 (except for (c)): rejected as recitation of evidence. 36(c): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The indication as to amount of pills and renewability, however, is oblique and barely satisfies the requirements of recordkeeping. 37-38: rejected as recitation of evidence. 39: rejected as legal argument. There were obvious shortcomings in Dr. Garoni's testimony concerning the subject medications, and he candidly admitted his lack of familiarity with the subject drugs. Doubtlessly, Dr. Garoni is a "reasonably prudent similar physician," as described by Section 458.331(1)(t). However, it is obvious that Dr. Garoni's prudence has led him to exercise an abundance of caution when prescribing medications such as Centrax and Inderide. Dr. Garoni candidly testified, as to Tofranil and Centrax: "I'll be honest with you, I don't feel confident to tell you whether you ought to give those two drugs together. I mean, I think that's out of my field. I would never prescribe those two drugs at all . . .." Deposition of Dr. Garoni, P. 32. His testimony is elsewhere qualified with "I think" and "I feel," when referring to Respondent's treatment of the Patient. The strategic problem for Petitioner was that Dr. Garoni was not qualified to opine on the appropriateness of the medications. This fact does not of course mean that Respondent improperly prescribed medications for the Patient because Respondent, like Dr. Garoni, holds himself out as specializing in general surgery. Nothing prevented Petitioner from offering testimony from a physician qualified to opine as to the proper use of these drugs. If Petitioner felt constrained to limit itself to a physician practicing Respondent's self-declared specialty, then another general surgeon would have to be found. However, Respondent's actual practice is, by his own admission, not confined to general surgery. In this case, an internist or general practitioner would have qualified as a similar physician. In addition, nothing would have prevented Petit:Loner from supplementing the testimony of the similar physician, whether he or she was Dr. Garoni, an internist, or a general practitioner. In this manner, Petitioner could have offered the testimony of an expert specially trained or experienced in the use of these medications. 40: rejected as recitation of testimony. 41: rejected as subordinate. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent The proposed findings of Respondent have been adopted in substance except as otherwise indicated: 1-2: rejected as subordinate except as to Respondent. 7 (last sentence): rejected as legal argument. 10 and 12-13: rejected as recitation of evidence. 11: rejected as subordinate. 18 (after third sentence): rejected as subordinate. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22-23: rejected as subordinate. 23 (second): rejected as irrelevant. 25: rejected as recitation of testimony and legal argument. 26 (last sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 28: rejected as recitation of evidence. 29: rejected as subordinate. 30: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 33: rejected as repetitious and recitation of evidence. 34 and 38: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 35: rejected as legal argument. 36: rejected as recitation of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard A. Grumberg Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Harvey M. Alper Massey, Alper & Walden, P.A. 112 W. Citrus St. Altamonte Springs, FL 32714-2577
The Issue This case concerns an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against Respondent, charging violations of provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. In particular, it relates to the treatment of the patient Sandra Gilhousen in the placement of an IUD and in the performance of an abortion. Respondent is also charged with misprescription of a controlled substance, Ionamin, for that patient. Respondent is also charged with misprescription of Ionamin, Demerol and Quaalude for the patient Betty Boling. Finally, Respondent is accused of misprescription of Demerol for the patient Margo Stewart. These allegations are more completely described in the conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact William J. Lee, M.D., is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida according to licensure by the State of Florida, Department of professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, License No. ME012345. At all times relevant to this cause, he has held that license and has practiced general medicine and general surgery at Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Dr. Lee is a graduate of Emory University in 1958 and received an M.D. degree from Emory in 1964. His internship was done at the University of Florida, followed by residency and general surgery at the University of Florida from 1965-1968, which was completed at the Duval Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1969. After appropriate service of the subject administrative complaint, Respondent made a timely request for formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. SANDRA GILHOUSEN On January 5, 1983, Sandra Gilhousen went to the office of Respondent in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, for purposes of the placement or insertion of an IUD. She filled out a patient history information form to the extent as reflected in a copy of that form found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. That information included home address, employment status, occupation, phone number and age. No information was given or requested on the subject of her past medical history, other than Dr. Lee asking if she suffered any allergies. During the examination process and the subsequent placement of the IUD, the patient indicated that her menstrual cycle had concluded two or three days before, when in fact, she had missed a normal cycle and had suspicion of being pregnant. When the Respondent placed the IUD, there was some seepage of blood indicating to him that the menstrual cycle had just concluded as the patient had indicated. On the other hand, the uterus was enlarged which was consistent with pregnancy. The uterus was found to be mildly boggy upon the placement of the Intrauterine Device. It was the expectation of the patient that the placement of the IUD would cause her to abort the fetus. No pregnancy test was performed prior to the placement of the IUD and no laboratory work was done. These procedures were not performed, according to Lee, because he believed her when she said she had just concluded menses and she had a healthy appearance. Prior to the placement of the Intrauterine Device, Dr. Lee checked the patient's blood pressure, lungs, masses in the abdominal cavity and for pelvic irregularities. None of the results of these observations were recorded in her records with Dr. Lee. The notations in her record related to the visit simply indicates insertion of IUD and the cost of that service plus the cost of the device. At the conclusion of the procedure, Dr. Lee gave the patient a pamphlet related to the IUD and asked for her to make a return visit to make certain there were no complications. The patient Gilhousen and an acquaintance, Betty Boling, returned to Dr. Lee's office on January 7, 1983. The purpose of the visit was not the return visit contemplated by Dr. Lee related to the IUD. On this occasion, Gilhousen was provided a prescription for Ionamin, a medication which is a controlled substance used for weight control. Prior to being provided this prescription from Dr. Lee for 30 units in 30 milligram amounts, the blood pressure of the patient was taken. A copy of the prescription may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. At that time, the patient weighed less than on the date of the final hearing in this cause. On the final hearing date, the patient was 5'5" tall and weighed 120 pounds. The patient Gilhousen had been weighed before the prescription was given but the weight is not recorded in her records held by Dr. Lee. No indication whatsoever is made of the prescription of the Ionamin or of any examination given prior to prescribing that substance. Dr. Lee did not do a full-scale examination, more than blood pressure and weight, when he prescribed the Ionamin, because in his mind he had observed the patient through an examination two days before when he placed the IUD. A pregnancy test was performed after January 5, 1983, not by Dr. Lee, and Gilhousen had her pregnancy confirmed. She then requested Dr. Lee to perform an abortion, with the understanding that the procedure would have to be done at the convenience of Dr. Lee, in that she did not wish to pay for that service immediately. Dr. Lee was made aware of the results of the pregnancy test prior to subsequently performing the requested abortion. He expected that he would be able to gain the assistance of Betty Boling when he performed that procedure. After a telephone conversation on the evening of January 14, 1983, Gilhousen went to Dr. Lee's office around 8:30 p.m. for the purpose of having the abortion done. As with the case with the IUD, no written consent was given to have the abortion done. Nonetheless, it was discussed with Dr. Lee and it was the desire of the patient Gilhousen to have the abortion. When Gilhousen arrived, the Respondent was smoking marijuana and asked her if she would be interested in marijuana, hashish or cocaine, which she declined. Dr. Lee was unattended by other staff at this time and throughout the abortion procedure. The patient was taken to a patient examining room and placed on an examining table where the abortion was done by D&C. The room had an operating light, necessary instruments to conclude the procedure, an electrocardiogram, suction devices, epinephrines, IV fluids and emergency drugs. No monitoring equipment was used during the procedure other than checking her blood pressure. Blood pressure had been checked prior to the procedure and Dr. Lee had listened to the patient's heart and lungs and a pelvic examination had been made. The procedure took approximately 40 minutes and the observation was made by Dr. Lee that the pregnancy was in the range of four to five weeks. No pregnancy test or laboratory work was done prior to the termination. Laboratory tests were not done because, according to Dr. Lee, this was Betty Boling's friend who didn't have any money. A pregnancy test was not done because Dr. Lee felt that this was an additional expense not necessary in that he believed the patient when she said that she had been informed of a positive pregnancy test. Missing information through laboratory work included Rh typing and a hemoglobin test. Related to the hemoglobin test, Dr. Lee observed that the patient's outward appearance was acceptable and that the mucous membranes had good color. Dr. Lee recognized the possibility of Rh factor problems in the sense of the mother being negative and the father positive as it might affect the next pregnancy of the patient pertaining to Rh incompatibilities. Again, the Rh testing was not done for financial reasons. Moreover, per Lee, the patient wanted the procedure done on that evening and the patient, as he understood it, did not wish to become pregnant in the future. Being unable to locate Betty Boling to assist, Dr. Lee decided to go forward with the procedure without an attendant being present. The patient was given Valium to calm her nerves and Dr. Lee utilized Stadol and Phenergan for sedation and as analgesic. Through this combination, the patient was placed in a sort of "twilight condition" on a plane which made her unconscious, but not a deep unconscious state. While giving her this medication, he asked her if she felt "sexually aroused." In Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, the amounts and types of medication are recorded in the patient's chart and it is noted that the D&C was done and tolerated well. It is also noted that the patient was picked up by a friend and the charge of the procedure is given. Ergotamine was given to retract the uterus and minimize bleeding. No other information is recorded in the patient's chart. The patient's recovery from the medications in terms of regaining consciousness took longer than might be expected given the amount of medication. Notwithstanding the patient's slow recovery, Dr. Lee left the patient unattended later in the evening for reason that he felt that she was "ready to go home." After leaving the patient unattended, Respondent tried to gain the assistance of Betty Boling to take her home. Boling did not agree. When Dr. Lee returned to his office, which is also his place of residence, visitors came by and he consumed alcohol with those people. He then left a second time to make purchases at a store and when he returned, a Mr. Hobbs, who was a friend of Gilhousen, had arrived to pick the patient up. Hobbs observed Lee staggering and with slurred speech, indications of intoxication. Hobbs and Dr. Lee took Gilhousen to a car and she left with Hobbs. Gilhousen came back to Dr. Lee's office on January 15, 1983, to pick up her car and asked Dr. Lee if she needed to be prescribed any antibiotics for her post procedural circumstance. He told her that this would not be necessary at present and advised her to monitor her temperature. As reflected in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5, Gilhousen was later seen at Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville related to her post abortion condition and was found to be acceptably recovering. It was noted on the basis of a pelvic sonogram that the abortion had been a success. Dr. Doris Newell Carson, M.D., a board-certified gynecologist and obstetrician, who practices in Jacksonville, Florida, was qualified as an expert and gave her medical opinion on the quality of the Respondent's performance in treating Ms. Gilhousen. Her testimony was premised upon an examination of the medical records of Dr. Lee pertaining to Sandra Gilhousen. Dr. Carson felt that in the insertion of an IUD, that Dr. Lee should have obtained the history of the patient's medical condition with particular emphasis on menstrual period and allergies because of the possibility of allergic reaction being brought about with the placement of the IUD. Physical examination was necessary to include heart, lungs, and abdomen and examination of the position of the uterus. In addition, it was necessary to take the blood pressure of the patient and to have laboratory work done related to hemoglobin, a gonorrhea culture and pap smear. Dr. Carson also felt that it was necessary to determine pregnancy by test, prior to the placement. All of these matters should be recorded in the patient records, per Dr. Carson. In addition, written permission should have been received prior to the placement of that IUD. Any physician who failed to do these things and document them, would have demonstrated less prudence than a reasonably prudent, similar physician. As established in prior facts found, Dr. Lee failed to record any of these matters and failed to obtain necessary medical history and to have necessary testing and laboratory work up envisioned by Dr. Carson. Her opinion as to what is needed for the placement of the IUD in the patient Gilhousen in order to achieve community standards in the place where Dr. Lee practiced is accepted. Based upon her opinion, Dr. Lee is found to have practiced medicine in the placement of that IUD with less care and skill than a reasonably prudent similar physician in his community would have been expected to give. Dr. Carson did not feel that Gilhousen, according to the patient's height and weight, needed Ionamin to control the patient's weight. Ionamin, a controlled substance, is a stimulatory drug which has addictive qualities, from Dr. Carson's understanding. The prescribing of the Ionamin on the information available to Lee was not the act of a prudent, similar physician who might be confronted with the same conditions and circumstances as Dr. Lee was when he prescribed Ionamin for Gilhousen, per Carson. Carson did not feel there was a medically justifiable reason for issuing the prescription of Ionamin. Moreover, Dr. Lee was deficient in the mind of Dr. Carson by not recording the issuance of the prescription in the patient's medical records. Dr. Carson's observations about Ionamin and the quality of Dr. Lee's performance in prescribing Ionamin to Gilhousen on January 7, 1983, are accepted. Dr. Carson was questioned on the matter of the abortion procedure which was performed on January 14, 1983. In giving her opinion, she was made aware of certain hypothetical facts related to the setting, time of day, nonavailability of a medical attendant, Dr. Lee's leaving the patient unattended, Respondent smoking marijuana and the offering of marijuana and other drugs to the patient, in addition to the matters set forth in the patient's record. In Dr. Carson's mind, a complete physical, including blood pressure, would be necessary prior to the termination; laboratory work, to include hemoglobin, to measure the amount of iron in the blood would be necessary; a CG culture and RH typing; and discussion with the patient as to allergies to medications would be necessary. In addition, a pregnancy test prior to termination would be indicated. The physician would also need a medical assistant in attendance and written permission would be necessary prior to the termination of the pregnancy. Dr. Carson would have used a D&E as opposed to D&C for termination of this early pregnancy and would not have used the form of anesthesia chosen by Dr. Lee. Her choice would have been a local block. Her testimony as to the choice of procedures and type of anesthesia does not lead to the conclusion that his choice of technique and anesthesia is below the level of care acceptable for a reasonably prudent, similar physician in the Jacksonville community. In Dr. Carson's opinion, it was inappropriate for Dr. Lee to smoke marijuana on the night of the abortion before conducting that procedure and to offer marijuana, hashish and cocaine to the patient. Dr. Carson felt that it was necessary to monitor blood pressure, and other vital signs related to pulse and respiration, the amount of flow from the site of the abortion and to give medication for pain as needed. Dr. Carson finds the act of leaving the patient unattended an unacceptable performance by Dr. Lee. Dr. Carson also believed that the patient's medical history, laboratory information and observations related to the physical examination should be recorded in the patient records and they were not. Per Dr. Carson, the failure to do those things she described related to the pregnancy termination would constitute substandard care to the patient, as would his use of marijuana and offering of illegal drugs to the patient. With the exception of Dr. Carson's opinions about the abortion technique, D&C, and type of anesthesia, her perception about appropriate care is accepted. By her description, this substandard care is tantamount to failure to provide care that a reasonably prudent, similar physician in a similar circumstance would have provided and Dr. Lee has not been sufficiently prudent in his treatment of Gilhousen on the date of the abortion, as shown in contrasting his performance as reported and Dr. Carson's idea of acceptable performance. BETTY BOLING Betty Boling requested assistance from Dr. Lee to control her weight. This request was made on January 7, 1983. Her blood pressure was checked and her weight taken. No other information was sought from the patient related to her history and no further examination was made of the patient as to her physical condition. Neither of these observations related to blood pressure and weight were recorded in her patient records, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's composite No. 2, admitted into evidence. Boling was then prescribed 30 units, 30-milligram Ionamin by Dr. Lee. The record in this proceeding is left in the posture that the only basis of knowing the true circumstance of the patient Boling related to the need of weight reduction is her comment that she was overweight when she requested the provision of diet medication. This does not sufficiently justify the prescription of Ionamin and promotes the conclusion, based upon Dr. Carson's perception of the Gilhousen situation where Ionamin was prescribed, that there was no medical justification for prescribing Ionamin to Boling and that to do so was substandard care and not the care expected of a reasonably prudent, similar physician in dealing with the Boling case. (The prescription may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) On July 14, 1981, Dr. Lee prescribed for Betty Boling 30, 50-milligram Demerol units. On August 23, 1981, an additional 20, 50-milligram Demerol units were prescribed for Boling by Lee. On November 1, 1981, an additional 20, 50- milligram Demerol units were prescribed by Dr. Lee for Boling. On December 7 or 8, 1981, an additional 30, 50-milligram Demerol units were prescribed by Dr. Lee for the benefit of Boling. On December 7, 100, 300-milligram Quaaludes were prescribed for Boling by Dr. Lee. Finally, on February 19, 1982, 100 300- milligram units of Quaaludes were prescribed by Dr. Lee. The prescriptions of Demerol and Quaaludes may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3. Prescriptions indicate the basis for prescribing the Demerol was related to pain and the Quaaludes related to sleep. None of these prescriptions or the reason for the prescriptions are indicated in the patient records of Betty Boling, found as part of Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 2, as a copy. Although Dr. Lee claimed to have conducted a physical examination on the patient before prescribing the Demerol and Quaaludes, that testimony is not believed. Moreover, Dr. Lee has no specific recollection of why he prescribed the Demarol for the patient as to the exact details. Dr. Lee had on occasion prescribed Demerol for migraine headaches for Boling. Dr. Lee indicated that other analgesic medication given for the migraine headaches had not been successful and that was why Demerol was used for the patient Boling. Dr. Lee's indication that he might not have entered the details of the prescription of Demerol and Quaaludes for Boling in her records on the occasions in question because of her concern that other persons who had access to her patient records not see those entries, is not tenable and is not accepted as fact. Especially in view of the fact that Boling does not have any recollection of such a request. Notwithstanding the risk to health in prescribing Quaaludes continually as recognized by Dr. Lee in his testimony at hearing, he prescribed Quaaludes in 100 units and in a further 100 units 70 days thereafter in the strongest dosage available. The methaqualone or Quaaludes were for purposes of assisting Boling in sleeping and the explanation given by Dr. Lee about the possibility of using more than one tablet per day within the 70 days in which the original 100 tablets had been prescribed is not accepted. Dr. Carson, after examining the Boling records, did not find any justification in the records for prescribing Demerol and Quaaludes, in the sense of a medical reason for such prescription. As Dr. Carson identified, Demerol is a narcotic analgesic, equivalent to morphine, with 60 milligrams of Demerol being comparable to 10 milligrams of morphine sulfate. Per Carson, Demerol is a drug highly susceptible to abuse, leading to addiction. For that reason, it is not appropriate for migraine headaches in that migraine headaches are repetitive in nature, thereby promoting greater chance of addiction. Demerol is a very potent respiratory depressant and can have allergic manifestations. Demerol and Quaaludes are Schedule II controlled substances. Quaaludes are a sedative which are used for inducing sleep and might be used for people suffering insomnia. Quaaludes have high potential for addiction and the substance became a street drug and has, since the time of this case, become illegal in the State of Florida. To use Demerol and Quaaludes together, according to Dr. Carson, would potentiate depression, thereby compounding effects of the drugs taken singularly. Dr. Lee's prescription of the Demerol and Quaaludes as described in the Boling circumstance, related herein, in the mind of Carson represented a failure of Lee to practice medicine with a level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent, similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances and represented malpractice. It also was a prescription of controlled substance in bad faith not within the course of professional practice. These opinions by Dr. Carson, related to the Demerol and Quaaludes, and the practices of Dr. Lee in prescribing the substances for the patient Boling are accepted. MARGO STEWART No testimony was given related to the allegations found in Count Six pertaining to Margo Stewart and that count was abandoned by the prosecution.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Medicine, has been the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the medical profession in Florida. Respondent was a licensed physician in Florida under license number ME 0039846. On September 23, 1988, Respondent saw Patient #1, a 55 year old female, who presented with a primary complaint of chronic pain in the neck and low back resulting from an automobile accident. The patient history taken by the Respondent revealed a head injury, a back injury and a whiplash injury, all within the previous five years. The patient also had a history of unstable blood pressure, especially in times of stress, and a history of alcohol abuse which had been in remission for the past two years. Respondent examined the patient and found she was suffering from depression but evidenced no suicidal ideations or indications of psychosis. Respondent diagnosed a major depressive reaction and myofacial syndrome of the neck and low back. Dr. Morales treated this patient from September 23, 1988 to February 1, 1990, prescribing various antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications including Limbitrol, Prozac, Valium, Halcion and Tranxene for her. He also prescribed various opiates including Percodan and Percocet. Respondent claims he made a copy of each prescription he wrote for the patient medical records of each patient so that he could keep track of the number of pills he prescribed for that patient. He claims that the quantity of a prescribed medication was kept in a separate area of the patient's chart and not with the clinical notes. Though Respondent claims this procedure was a common office practice and done consistently in every patient's chart, the evidence indicates otherwise. His method of recording medication in the clinical record was inconsistent. At some places in the record he would indicate the exact number of a specific pill prescribed. At other places in the record, he would not. Examples of this practice, as seen from the medical records of Patient #1 available, shows the following entries: October 20, 1988, Rx for Valium for patient #1 but no indication of the amount prescribed is found in the records. March 2, 1989, Rx for Percodan QID (4 times a day), but no indication in records of the amount prescribed. July 8, 1989 Rx for Percodan - 60 tabs. August 2, 1989 Respondent notes to continue with Percoset, but no notation in records as to amount. September 7, 1989 Rx for Percocet but records do not reflect amount prescribed. November 15, 1989 Rx for 60 Percocet. December 6, 1989 Rx for 30 Percocet pills. While Patient #1 was under Respondent's care, she was admitted to the hospital twice. On September 18, 1989 she was admitted to Largo Medical Center for narcotics addiction and was discharged on September 28, 1989. On September 18, 1989, while the patient was in the hospital, Dr. Farullah, a staff physician, called Respondent to discuss the patient with him. This conversation, including the Respondent's name, is itemized in the hospital records for this patient. It is appropriate practice protocol upon the admission of a patient to the hospital for the admitting physician to notify the patient's attending physician about the patient's diagnoses and condition. It would appear this was done here by Dr. Farullah. Nonetheless, Respondent claims he did not know the patient was hospitalized, contending he did not recall the conversation, and noting that the information regarding hospitalization might not have been included in it. Respondent claims he never heard of Dr. Farulla until a subsequent visit from the patient in his office on October 24, 1989. After the patient's discharge from the hospital, she came to Respondent's office for a 30 minute visit on October 4, 1989. Though this visit occurred only 6 days after her discharge from the hospital, Respondent claims the subject of her hospitalization was not discussed. Two days later, on October 6, 1989, the patient returned to Respondent's office for another 30 minute visit and again, the subject of her hospitalization did not come up. This patient was readmitted to the hospital on October 10, 1989 with a diagnosis of, among other things, drug dependency. She was discharged on October 20, 1989, but, again, Respondent claims he did not know of her hospitalization. He saw her on October 24, 1989 for another 30 minute visit during which, he claims, the subject of her hospitalization did not come up. This appears to be a conflict with his previous testimony , noted in Paragraph 8, supra, wherein he stated he never heard of Dr. Farullah until he met with the patient in his office on October 24, 1989. On April 10, 1990, in the course of filing a disability claim with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (DHRS), the patient signed a medical release form. Thereafter, HRS requested the patient's records from the Respondent, but they were not forthcoming. A second request was transmitted to the Respondent who replied that the records requested had been copied but not dispatched because no release form accompanied the request. Respondent indicated that upon receipt of the release form, the records would be forwarded, and on June 4, 1990, they were, in fact, sent by the Respondent. This was approximately 17 months before the burglary of Respondent's office to be discussed, infra. Respondent claims it was his policy, however, in responding to requests for information to the Social Security Administration, (disability claims are paid by Social Security), to provide only clinical notes, initial evaluation, and a medical summary update. Other records, including prescription records, are not sent. Respondent's office was burglarized on November 30, 1991 by one of his former employees. According to Respondent, all the medical records he had were taken during the break-in. Though they were ultimately returned, he claims they were incomplete when returned. However, comparison done by the Department's investigator, of the medical records of Patient #1 which were sent to HRS before the burglary with those taken from Respondent's office after the burglary, indicated they were the same, except for some duplicates. Nonetheless, Respondent claims that some of the records pertaining to Patient #1, including prescription records, were not recovered. This could explain the absence of prescription records in both sets of records, but that is not found to be the case here, however. According to the Board's expert, Dr. Boorstin, a Board Certified Psychiatrist who specializes in addiction psychiatry and opiastic medicine, the benzodiazepins prescribed for Patient #1 by the Respondent, were inappropriate because of her known alcoholism, and he failed to adequately monitor her for possible addiction or dependence. Even though her condition had been in remission for two years, Dr. Boorstin concluded it was below standard practice to prescribe those drugs to this patient. Dr. Boorstin also concluded that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records for this patient and did not justify the less than conservative prescription of anti-anxiety and pain medications to a known alcoholic. A physician must keep track of the drugs being used by a patient to be sure no abuse trends exist. The Respondent should have detailed with exactitude in his records the number of each specific medication. From September 30, 1988 to February 1, 1990, a period of 16 months, he prescribed various opiate-based pain killers to Patient #1, including Tylenol #3, Codeine, Percodan and Percocet. His prescription of the latter two, in Dr. Boorstin's opinion, fell below the appropriate standard of care. The patient's hospital records indicate she was suffering from drug addiction, and if, as the Department claims, Respondent knew of her hospitalizations and the reason therefor, his prescription of liberal amounts of opiate based drugs was inappropriate. The evidence shows the patient was admitted to the hospital on two occasions, both times for, among other problems, drug addiction. Less than one month after her second discharge, Respondent prescribed Percocet for this patient for pain relief at a rate of two tables every six hours. According to Dr. Boorstin, the usual adult dosage is one tablet every six hours. This is outlined in the Physician's Desk Reference, (PDR), a compendium of drugs and medications with manufacturer's recommendations for dosage. Though authoritative in nature, the PDR is not mandatory in application, and physicians often use it as a guide only, modifying strength and dosage as is felt appropriate for the circumstance. On at least one occasion, Respondent's medical records for this patient show he prescribed Percocet but not the amount prescribed. This is below standard. The same is true for the noted prescription for Percodan. Both Percodan and Percocet are Schedule II drugs. A notation in the records for a prescription for Valium also reveals no indication was given as to the amount prescribed. Again, this is below standard. Dr. Boorstin's opinion is contradicted by that of Dr. Wen-Hsien Wu, the Director of the Pain Management Center at the Schools of Dentistry and Medicine of New Jersey, the New Jersey Medical School, who testified by deposition for the Respondent. Dr. Wu claims he has prescribed medications in amounts and dosages far in excess of those prescribed by Respondent and for a much longer period of time. Wu is Board certified in anesthesiology and has published numerous articles on pain management. Dr. Wu contends there is no contraindication for the use of narcotic therapy in Patient #1's alcoholism. The use of narcotics is appropriate if the patient can return to function with careful monitoring. Here, it would appear that Patient #1 was monitored through her frequent visits to the Respondent's office. It is impossible to tell from the Respondent's patient records just how much medication he prescribed for his patient. Because of the failure to indicate the number of pills of each type Respondent was prescribing, it is impossible to form a conclusion as to whether the amount prescribed was appropriate or excessive. Notwithstanding Respondent's claim in his Proposed Findings of Fact that "...there is no indication of drug abuse in the prescribed drug area", the medical records show that on each admission of Patient #1, a diagnosis of drug addiction was made. To be sure, these records do not reflect the drug to which the addiction relates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered herein finding Respondent guilty of all allegations except prescribing in inappropriate amounts. It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $3,500 within 90 days of the date of the Final Order herein, be reprimanded, and within one year of the date of the Final Order herein, attend continuing medical education courses at the University of South Florida Medical School in appropriate medical record keeping and in the prescribing of abusable drugs. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 21. Accepted as a representation by Respondent. Accepted as Respondent's position but not accepted as fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. & 30. Accepted but repetitive of other evidence previously admitted. 31. & 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 38. Not appropriate Findings of Fact but merely recitations of the contents of records. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 42. Restatement of witness testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted as testimony of Respondent, but not as probative of any issue. 8. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein 12. & 13. Accepted. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted. 18. & 19. Accepted. 20. Accepted. 21. Accepted. 22. - 24. Accepted. 25. - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted. 32. Accepted. & 34. Accepted as opinions of the witness, but not as the ultimate fact. Accepted as to admissions but rejected as to Respondent not being advised. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven A, Rothenberg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33617 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
