Findings Of Fact Dong Hack Koo, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0027494. Koo was so licensed at all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint. At all times material to this cause, Koo maintained an office at 121 East 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. On July 10, 1985, Diane Rabideau, an Investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected Koo's offices and found them to be unclean, with evidence of roach eggs present under a sink. Rabideau also found a rectal speculum and two vaginal speculums lying on a sink. Koo told Rabideau that the rectal speculum and the two vaginal speculums had been used. No evidence was presented to indicate how long the speculums had been on the sink. If such instruments are not cleaned quickly and properly following use, there is a high chance of spreading infection to the next patient to use the instrument. Such instruments should be placed in a cleansing solution and scrubbed, then wrapped and sterilized. It is the community practice to clean such instruments as soon as possible after use. According to Dr. Rosin, any physician who performs abortions in an unclean office with instruments lying around that have not been properly cleaned, has practiced below the community standard of care. However, no evidence was presented to show that Koo performed abortions under such circumstances. Koo does perform first trimester abortions in his office. It was not disputed that abortions are a medical and surgical procedure which can be dangerous. Emergency situations can arise during abortions and these emergencies require the presence of emergency equipment such as suction and the ability to start an intravenous medication. Koo does maintain suction equipment and intravenous solutions in his office. However, when possible he immediately transfers emergency patients to another facility. Koo does perform abortions in his office without the presence of an assistant to aid in emergency situations. According to Dr. Rosin, the standard of care in the community requires that an assistant be present during an abortion to assist the physician should an emergency situation arise. Additionally, according to Dr. Rosin, a physician who performs abortions without emergency equipment or without an assistant has failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. When Rabideau visited Koo's office on July 10, 1985, she obtained a sampling of drugs kept by Koo for dispensing to patients. The sampling revealed that a majority of the drugs had expired. However, no evidence was presented that this is a violation of Florida Statutes. Rabideau also found that Koo maintained a number of Schedule III, IV, and V, controlled substances in his office which he dispensed to patients. In dispensing these controlled substances, Koo used the instructions for use which are printed on the packaging. He also, at times, taped a small piece of paper to the packaging with his telephone number and the name of the patient. Koo did not completely label these controlled substances, which he dispensed, with his name and address, the date of delivery, directions for use, the name of the patient, and a warning concerning the transfer of the substance. Koo maintains no inventory of the scheduled controlled substances which are kept in his offices and dispensed to his patients. On August 6, 1985, Diane Rabideau again visited Koo's office. While Rabideau waited, a female patient by the name of Mary Green was seen by Koo and left with a prescription. Rabideau then asked Respondent to present the medical records on the patient, Mary Green. Koo was unable to present any medical records for the patient which he had just seen and to whom he had just dispensed medication. Koo's office procedure regarding patient medical records is to record histories and examination results on the patient medical records during the patient's visit. These medical records are kept in individual folders under the name of each patient. When a patient presents for treatment, the medical records for that patient are pulled and given to the doctor. After each visit, the patient's medical records are refiled. On or about March 16, 1986, pursuant to a subpoena from the Department of Professional Regulation, Koo provided the original medical records on ten (10) abortion patients. These original medical records were examined by John F. McCarthy, a questioned documents expert for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. McCarthy's examination by electrostatic detection apparatus revealed that numerous indentations on the records superimposed with information from other records. For example, Exhibit 6 contained indentations from the writing on the face of Exhibit 10. Further, McCarthy found indentations on Exhibit 6 resulting from the writing on Exhibit 8. Thus, Exhibit 8 was on top of Exhibit 6 when it was prepared. Exhibit 8, however, is dated July 24, 1985, and Exhibit 6 is dated May 29, 1985. McCarthy's expert opinion is that at the time the various documents were prepared, they were on top of each other. It is therefore found that Exhibits 1-10, the original medical records on the ten named abortion patients, were not prepared at the time Koo saw the patients, but were instead all prepared at the same time, in response to the subpoena. It therefore must be found that the records were fabricated by Koo in response to the Department's subpoena. Prior to performing an abortion, a physician needs to verify whether the patient has Rh positive or negative blood type. The physician cannot rely on patients' representations that the Rh factor is positive or negative, but most obtain independent verification. This is because patients know that if they have Rh negative blood, they must receive a shot which is expensive. Koo relied on the patients' statements in ascertaining the Rh factor and did not obtain independent verification. In Dr. Rosin's expert opinion, the failure of a physician to obtain independent verification of the Rh factor poses a potential for harm to the patient and such failure is a failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized in the medical community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding Dong Hack Koo, M.D., GUILTY of violating Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therein SUSPEND his license to practice medicine for a period of six (6) months during which he be required to successfully complete continuing education courses in maintaining, controlling, dispensing, labeling, and inventorying controlled substance, and in maintaining adequate patient records to justify the course of treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1066 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (1) ; 2 (2); 3 (3); 4 (4); 5 (4); 6 (4); 7 (4); 8 (5); 9 (6); 10 (6); 11 (9); 12 (7); 13 (8); 14 (9); 15 (10); 16 (11); 17 (11); 18 (12); 19 (13); 20 (13); 21 (15); 22 (14); 23 (14); 24 (16); 25 (16); 26 (16); 27 (16); 28 (17); 29 (18); and 30 (19) That portion of proposed finding of fact 12 which concludes that Respondent does not maintain emergency equipment in his office is rejected as unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dong Hack Koo, M.D. 121 East 8th Street, Suite 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive DIRECTOR Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue As stated in the Order of Remand entered March 26, 1999.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 7, 1994, Mark Leibowitz, an attorney representing Patient E.G., sent a Notice of Intent to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) which advised of his client's intent to file a malpractice action against Respondent. The Notice of Intent was reviewed by Marie Kokol, an employee of AHCA. During the course of his representation of Patient E.G., Mr. Leibowitz obtained a copy of Respondent's medical records for Patient E.G. On or about April 5, 1994, Ms. Kokol requested that Mr. Leibowitz provide her with a copy of those medical records. Those medical records were received by Ms. Kokol at AHCA on or about April 18, 1994. The medical records received from Mr. Leibowitz were incorporated as part of Petitioner's investigative record as pages numbered 234 and 235. These records included Respondent's medical records for Patient E.G. for July 17, 1992, and July 29, 1992. In or about June 1994, the medical records received by Ms. Kokol were sent to AHCA's investigative office in Miami, Florida. On July 14, 1994, Georgina Jorge, an investigator employed by AHCA, issued a subpoena to Respondent for all medical records of Patient E.G. Respondent provided the medical records of Patient E.G. to Ms. Jorge, which were included in the investigative record as pages numbered 293 through 296. Included in the medical records received by Ms. Jorge pursuant to her subpoena issued July 14, 1994, were Respondent's medical records for Patient E.G. dated July 17, 1992, and July 29, 1992. These records were numbered pages 294 and 295. The medical records of Patient E.G. obtained from Mr. Leibowitz (pages 234 and 235) and the medical records received by Ms. Jorge pursuant to her subpoena (pages 294 and 295) should have been identical, but they were not. The subpoenaed medical records (pages 294 and 295) contain handwritten notations not found on the medical records obtained from Mr. Leibowitz (pages 234 and 235). Respondent's medical records for Patient E.G. for July 17, 1992, received pursuant to the subpoena contain the following handwritten notations not found on the medical records obtained from Mr. Leibowitz: unable to dilate today (illegible word) r/o (rule out) retinopathy Respondent's medical records for Patient E.G. for July 29, 1992, received pursuant to the subpoena contain the following handwritten notations not found on the medical record obtained from Mr. Leibowitz: Martha Delgado 326-6421 Pt. Did not keep appt. at BEIP as recommended. The additional notations contained in the medical records obtained pursuant to the subpoena were not dated or signed by Respondent. Dr. William Cobb served as the Petitioner's expert witness at the initial formal hearing. Dr. Cobb reviewed the medical records obtained from Respondent by the agency investigator and based the opinions expressed at the initial formal hearing on those records. A review of his deposition reveals that Dr. Cobb had access to the two sets of medical records and that he observed that there were discrepancies between the two sets of records. Dr. Cobb did not base the opinions he expressed at the initial hearing on the fact that there were two sets of medical records, one with the notations and the other without. Both before and after the Order of Remand, Dr. Cobb expressed the opinion that Respondent practiced within the standard of care on July 17, 1992. His opinions that Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint were unaffected by the existence of the additional notations on the subpoenaed medical records. A physician may make additional notations to a medical record when the record is reviewed after the initial examination at the end of the day without dating or signing the additional notation. A physician making additional notations to a medical record more than one day after the initial examination must date and sign the additional notation. Dr. Cobb expressed the opinion in his deposition, taken after the remand, that the failure to date and sign additional notations made more than one day after the initial examination would be a violation. 1/ The only plausible explanation for the additional notations on the medical records for July 17 and July 29, 1992, is that Respondent made the notations after Mr. Leibowitz obtained his copy of E.G.'s records. While Dr. Cobb may be correct in his opinion that Respondent's failure to date and sign these notations would be a violation, the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent did not charge him with that violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations contained in the Recommended Order entered January 8, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 29th day of November, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed physician, committed record- keeping violations and repeated medical malpractice by committing three or more incidents of medical malpractice, as alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against medical doctors licensed in the state of Florida, who are accused of violating chapters 456 and 458 of the Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed as a medical doctor in Florida, having been issued license number ME 99126 on June 15, 2007. Respondent is not board-certified in any specialty recognized by the Florida Board of Medicine. Respondent has never had disciplinary action against his license to practice medicine. In May 2015, Respondent performed cosmetic surgery procedures, including liposuction and fat injection procedures (commonly referred to as a "Brazilian Butt Lift" or "BBL"), at Vanity Cosmetic Surgery (Vanity), Encore Plastic Surgery (Encore), and Spectrum Aesthetics (Spectrum). Liposuction is an elective cosmetic procedure that involves the removal of fat from a patient. Fat is removed with a cannula, or a long, thin, metal rod, attached to a suctioning device. The cannula is repeatedly passed through the patient's subcutaneous layer until the desired amount of fat is removed. Facts Related to Patient L.L. On May 2, 2015, Patient L.L., a 29-year-old female patient, contacted Vanity to undergo liposuction. On May 2, 2015, prior to her procedure, Patient L.L. underwent bloodwork that revealed she had a normal hematocrit level, normal hemoglobin level, and a normal red blood cell count. Respondent determined that Patient L.L. was of sufficiently good health to undergo liposuction. Respondent performed liposuction on Patient L.L. at Vanity on May 14, 2015. Several hours after being discharged to a hotel, Patient L.L. experienced pain, weakness, elevated heart rate (tachycardia), and excessive bleeding. Patient L.L. presented to Homestead Hospital, where she was admitted for three days of post-operative care and monitoring. L.L.'s recovery took several months and resulted in her losing her job. Upon admission, Patient L.L.'s hematology report revealed a low hematocrit, low hemoglobin, and a low red blood cell count, which signified severely diminished blood levels and necessitated her to be transfused with two units of blood and plasma. Facts Related to Patient D.M. On April 25, 2015, Patient D.M., a 31-year-old female patient, contacted Spectrum to undergo liposuction with gluteal fat transfer. On April 29, 2015, prior to her procedure, Patient D.M. underwent bloodwork that revealed she had a normal hematocrit level, normal hemoglobin level, and a normal red blood cell count. Also prior to her procedure, Patient D.M. indicated in her medical questionnaire that she was pregnant approximately five times. Because Patient D.M. disclosed her prior pregnancies to Respondent, Respondent knew, or should have known, that Patient D.M. had a potentially weak or thin abdominal wall. Respondent determined that Patient D.M. was of sufficiently good health to be an appropriate candidate to undergo liposuction with gluteal fat transfer. Respondent performed liposuction with gluteal fat transfer on Patient D.M. at Spectrum on May 15, 2015. Following the surgery, Patient D.M. experienced extreme pain, resulting in her admission to Westchester Hospital. Upon admission, Patient D.M.'s hematology report revealed a low hematocrit and low hemoglobin, which signified severely diminished blood levels and necessitated her to be transfused with three units of blood. During an exploratory surgery, Patient D.M. was found to have several holes in her liver and damage to her chest and abdominal wall. Facts Related to Patient N.F. On February 4, 2015, Patient N.F., a 35-year-old female patient, contacted Spectrum to undergo liposuction with gluteal fat transfer. On April 23, 2015, prior to the procedure, Patient N.F. underwent bloodwork that revealed she had a normal hematocrit level, normal hemoglobin level, and a normal red blood cell count. Also prior to her procedure, Patient N.F. indicated in her medical questionnaire that she was pregnant at least twice. Because Patient N.F. disclosed her prior pregnancies to Respondent, Respondent knew, or should have known, that Patient N.F. had a potentially weak or thin abdominal wall. Respondent determined that Patient N.F. was of good health and an appropriate candidate to undergo liposuction. Respondent performed liposuction with gluteal fat transfer on Patient N.F. at Spectrum on May 15, 2015. Following the surgery, Patient N.F. experienced abdominal pain, weakness, and an inability to walk, resulting in her admission to Baptist Hospital. During an exploratory surgery, Patient N.F. was found to have a hole in her small bowel (colon), which was leaking fluid into her abdominal cavity.1/ Facts Related to Patient P.N. On May 16, 2015, Patient P.N., a 35-year-old female patient, was scheduled to undergo liposuction with gluteal fat transfer at Encore. On May 4, 2015, prior to her procedure, Patient P.N. underwent bloodwork that revealed she had a normal hematocrit level, normal hemoglobin level, and a normal red blood cell count. Respondent determined that Patient P.N. was of sufficiently good health and an appropriate candidate to undergo liposuction. Respondent performed liposuction with gluteal fat transfer on Patient P.N. as scheduled. Following the surgery, Patient P.N. experienced extreme pain and heavy bleeding, resulting in her admission to Memorial Regional Hospital. Upon admission, Patient P.N.'s hematology report revealed a low hematocrit level, and low hemoglobin, which signified severely diminished blood levels and necessitated a blood transfusion. Facts Related to Concentration of Tumescent Solution Before harvesting Patients L.L.'s, D.M.'s, N.F.'s, and P.N.'s fat, Respondent infiltrated tumescent solution into the areas that were prepared to undergo liposuction. Tumescent solution is a mixture of natural saline, epinephrine, and lidocaine and is used to decrease the risk of excessive bleeding caused by large-volume liposuction procedures. Epinephrine, the active ingredient in tumescent solution, constricts blood vessels and reduces blood loss. The minimum concentration of epinephrine in tumescent solution needed to achieve its intended purpose of reducing blood loss is 1:1,000,000. This concentration was first popularized by Dr. Jeffrey Klein in 1965. After experimenting with several concentrations of epinephrine, Dr. Klein concluded that a 1:1,000,000 concentration of epinephrine appropriately balanced patient safety with effectiveness. The most dilute concentration of epinephrine Dr. Klein experimented with was 1:2,000,000. Dr. Klein's concentration of epinephrine in tumescent solution of 1:1,000,000 is the standard concentration in the state of Florida for BBL procedures. The medical records reflect that during each of the four procedures, Respondent used tumescent solution with an epinephrine concentration of 1:4,000,000. This concentration is too diluted to have the intended effect of restricting blood loss. However, the tumescent solution was prepared by the circulators who assisted during the surgeries. The circulators credibly testified that when preparing the tumescent solution, they used enough epinephrine to create at least a 1:1,000,000 concentration of epinephrine. The circulators prepared the tumescent solution by adding lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and one cubic centimeter (cc) of epinephrine to a one-liter (1000 cc) bag of normal saline. The circulators explained that the additional epinephrine that was used was not documented in the patients' operating room records because there was no designated space on the form for this information. In light of the circulators' credible testimony, no evidence was presented to support the conclusion that Respondent fell below the standard of care by using an inappropriate concentration of epinephrine in the tumescent solution. Further, there was no causal connection demonstrated between the patients' blood loss, a fairly common complication associated with BBL procedures, and the concentration of epinephrine used. Facts Related to Damage to Internal Organs During Patient N.F.'s liposuction procedure, Respondent used a cannula to remove 4,000 ccs of supernatant fat from Patient N.F.'s abdomen, waist, back, bra rolls, and flanks. While manipulating the cannula, Respondent pushed the cannula through Patient N.F.'s abdominal wall and punctured her small bowel. Because Respondent perforated Patient N.F.'s small bowel, Patient N.F.'s abdominal cavity was contaminated, and 10 to 15 centimeters of Patient N.F.'s bowel later had to be resected and removed. After Patient N.F.'s hospitalization, her mother confronted Respondent who admitted that he "messed up," and suggested that his instrument "cuts through muscle and fat like butter," and may have contributed to the perforation. During Patient D.M.'s liposuction procedure, Respondent used a cannula to remove 4,000 ccs of supernatant fat from Patient D.M.'s abdomen, waist, back, bra rolls, and flanks. While manipulating the cannula, Respondent pushed the cannula through Patient D.M.'s abdominal wall, damaging her chest wall, and Respondent punctured her liver at least five times. Respondent was responsible for ensuring that the cannula used during liposuction procedures was manipulated with precision and extreme care to avoid contact with the patients' internal organs. In order for the cannula to come into contact with an internal organ (with the exception of the heart and lungs), Respondent pushed the cannula at an inappropriate angle through a thick layer of muscle called the abdominal wall. The tough abdominal wall has a noticeably different consistency than the soft layers of subcutaneous fat. A surgeon is required to operate with a level of skill and care to be able to discern between subcutaneous fat and muscle tissue while passing the cannula through the patient. The standard of care in Florida requires surgeons to use extreme care to ensure that the abdominal wall is not breeched. This is especially true when the patient's medical history suggests the possibility of a thin abdominal wall. According to both Petitioner's and Respondent's experts the perforation of an internal organ during a liposuction procedure, even once, is an extremely rare incident. In fact, Respondent's world-renowned BBL expert, Dr. Mendieta explained, "I'm constantly thinking bowel, bowel, bowel perforation or I'm constantly thinking trying to avoid, so it is constantly on my mind in terms of what I am trying to avoid, so I'm always angling my cannula and making sure that I'm on the right plane."2/ Dr. Mendieta admitted that although perforating an internal organ is a "known complication" related to liposuction, it can result from medical negligence. Respondent argues he is absolved of any responsibility for the puncture of internal organs because Patients D.M. and N.F. signed consent forms that included the risk of "damage to deeper structures, including nerves, blood vessels, muscles, and lungs." Significantly, the informed consent forms for liposuction signed by the patients did not include damage to the liver, small bowel, or other intra-abdominal organs. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Greenberg, explained that the language in the consent form does not contemplate damage to internal organs shielded by the abdominal wall, and a lay person would be unlikely to make such an inference. Dr. Greenberg credibly testified that it is a violation of the standard of care to damage a patient's internal organs during a liposuction procedure, regardless of whether it is a known complication. Dr. Mendieta countered that the only way for a surgeon to violate the standard of care would be to either intentionally stab the patient, or to perform the surgery in such a reckless and careless manner, improperly angling the cannula, that damage to the surrounding structures is either inevitable or purposeful. As noted by all three experts, absent being present during the procedure, having it well-documented in the Respondent's notes, or talking with Respondent, it is not possible to tell with certainty what transpired. Respondent refused to testify on his own behalf. Respondent asserted his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination, instead of clarifying any of the disputed issues. Based on the forgoing, Petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the puncture of the patients' internal organs was the result of Respondent's violation of the standard of care and improper angling of the cannula during the procedures. Facts Related to the Alleged Medical Records Violation The circulators at Vanity, Encore, and Spectrum Aesthetics testified that they prepared the tumescent solution that Respondent used during his liposuction procedures at Respondent's direction. The circulators testified that when preparing the tumescent solution, they used enough epinephrine to create at least a 1:1,000,000 concentration of epinephrine. However, the additional epinephrine that was purportedly used was never documented in the patients' operating room records. Respondent argues that it was the responsibility of the circulators who prepared the solutions or the facilities at which he operated that maintain the records, which bear responsibility for the accuracy of the records. Respondent is the surgeon who performed the surgery on each patient. The operative records for each surgery bear the same signature in every signature block for "Surgeon Signature," "Physician Signature," "Osakatukei O. Omulepu, M.D.," and "Osak Omulepu, MD." In most instances, the signature is clearly legible as O.O. Omulepu. The record supports by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent signed or approved these records and bears responsibility for their accuracy. However, Respondent reviewed and signed the medical records, all of which omitted the additional ampule of epinephrine that was purportedly added, without correcting the apparent discrepancy.
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 that Respondent violated sections 458.331(1)(t) and 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in Petitioner's Second Amended Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $14,000.004/; issuing a reprimand against Petitioner for the record-keeping violations; placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years; and imposing costs of the investigation and prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK CLARK 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 23rd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, Division of Quality Assurance, Board of Medicine, formerly Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, is the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty of regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 458, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Chapter 93-129, Laws of Florida. Respondent, Muhammad S. Mustafa, M.D., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0047360. Respondent was licensed by endorsement on October 7, 1985, but did not, ostensibly, actively engage in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida until September 14, 1988. 4/ Respondent's last known address, as of the date of hearing, was 8245 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33604. Respondent received his medical degree from the Oklahoma University School of Medicine in 1970, performed an internship from 1970 to 1971 at the Altoona Hospital, Altoona, Pennsylvania, did a four-year residency in general surgery from 1971 to 1975 at The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and started practice as a sole practitioner in Cleveland, Ohio, in November 1975. Respondent's practice consisted of general surgery and family medicine, and he practiced in a predominately blue collar neighborhood until his license to practice medicine was revoked by the State Medical Board of Ohio, as discussed infra. While practicing in Cleveland, respondent had staff privileges at St. Vincent Charity Hospital, Luthern Medical Center, St. John's Hospital, and St. John's Westshore Medical Center, but by May 1988 had restricted his practice to Luthern Medical Center and St. John's Hospital. Respondent resigned his staff privileges at Luthern Medical Center and St. Johns in December 1989. The Ohio charges On May 11, 1988, the State Medical Board of Ohio, the licensing authority for medicine in the State of Ohio, notified respondent that it proposed to take disciplinary action against his certificate to practice medicine and surgery in Ohio. The gravamen of the Board's charges were as follows: That respondent's prescribing practices with regard to approximately 83 difference patients, as well as his overall prescribing as reflected by a listing entitled "Total Drug Amounts by Drug, Year and Month," constituted: "Failure to use reasonable care discrimination in the administration of drugs" and "failure to employ acceptable scientific methods in the selection of drugs or other modalities for treatment of disease," as those clauses are used in Section 4731.22(B)(2), Ohio Revised Code; "Selling, prescribing, giving away, or administering drugs for other than legal and legitimate therapeutic purposes," as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(3), Ohio Revised Code; and "A departure from, or the failure to conform to, minimal standards of care of similar practitioners under the same or similar circumstances, whether or not actual injury to a patient is established," as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. That as to Patient 152 respondent did between March 27, 1984 and December 12, 1985, and again between November 13, 1986 and April 1, 1987, prescribe controlled substance stimulants when the patient either gained weight or failed to lose weight, contrary to the provisions of Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code. The Board further charged that respondent's billing to Patient 152's insurance company for services rendered between March 27, 1984 and December 15, 1986, reflected a diagnosis of "hypertension, obesity, ingrown toenail, nerves, low back pain, and arthritis" when there was no indication in respondent's record that he had treated the patient for any condition other than obesity. Such conduct was alleged to constitute "publishing a false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading statement," as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(5), Ohio Revised Code, and the "obtaining of, or attempting to obtain money or anything of value by fraudulent misrepresentation in the course of practice," as that clause is defined in Section 4731.22(B)(8), Ohio Revised Code. That as to Patient 151 respondent did between February 21, 1979 and April 17, 1986, and again between November 13, 1986 and April 1, 1987, prescribe controlled substances and stimulants when the patient either gained weight or failed to lose weight, contrary to Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code. The Board further alleged that on respondent's billing to Patient 151's insurance company for services rendered between January 10, 1984 and November 13, 1986, the diagnosis of "menopause; arthritis; glossitis; bronchitis; hypertension; nerves; and chest wall pain" were entered when the majority of services rendered by respondent were for "obesity," a diagnosis not listed, and his records contain no indication that she was being treated for hypertension, nerves or arthritis. Moreover, an EKG and "comprehensive office exam" performed on November 13, 1986 and billed under a diagnosis of "chest wall pain" were in fact performed as part of the physical required prior to starting the diet program. Such conduct was alleged to violate Section 4731.22(B)(5) and (8), Ohio Revised Code. That respondent's reports and billing to two different attorneys with regard to Patient 140 (who had been involved in accidents in June and November 1985) reflected dates of service and patient complaints which were not reflected in the medical records. Such conduct was alleged to violate Section 4731.22(B)(5) and (8), Ohio Revised Code. That respondent prescribed controlled substances for Patient 241 in 1979, 1982 and 1983 through 1985 contrary to Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code, in that the patient had admitted to respondent in 1979 that he was addicted to Codeine and in 1985 that he was addicted to Percocet. Respondent was alleged to have first prescribed Percocet in 1983, upon the patient's complaint of back pain, without noting any physical exam or findings, and had continued prescribing it on a regular basis well into 1985. His prescribing of Codeine-based medications and Percocet continued after the patient's admission of addiction to those substances. Finally, citing 13 different patients as examples, the Board alleged that respondent routinely kept inadequate patient records which did not reflect examinations performed or physical findings made to justify the medications prescribed or dispensed; prescribed controlled substances and dangerous drugs based upon patient requests for medications or patient complaints, often without utilizing appropriate testing or other methods for evaluating the validity or etiology of the complaints; and routinely prescribed controlled substance stimulants for weight loss over extended periods of time without regard to whether or not the patient demonstrated weight loss. Such conduct was alleged to violate Section 4731.22(B)(2), (3) and (6), Ohio Revised Code. Moreover, respondent's acts or omissions with regard to certain prescriptions written on or after November 17, 1986, for patients 25, 34, 130, 166, 265, and 276, were alleged to constitute violations of Rules 4731-11-02 and/or 4731-11-04, Ohio Administrative Code, and therefore Section 4731.22(B)(20), Ohio Revised Code. The aforesaid notice of charges dated May 11, 1988, advised respondent of his right to request a hearing on the matter, his right to appear at such hearing in person or through his attorney, to present his position and argument, and to present evidence and examine witnesses appearing for or against him. Respondent timely requested such hearing, and was represented by counsel. The subject charges were heard before Wanita J. Sage, Esquire, Hearing Examiner for the State Medical Board of Ohio, on September 18, 1988. Thereafter, the Hearing Examiner rendered an extensive recommendation, which contained findings of fact, conclusions and an order. Such findings of fact sustained the charges filed against respondent, and are contained in petitioner's exhibit 2. The recommendation, which summarized the factual findings, concluded: The acts, conduct, and/or omissions of Muhammad S. Mustafa, M.D., as set forth in the above Findings of Fact, constitute: "Failure to use reasonable care discrimination in the administration of drugs" and "failure to employ acceptable scientific methods in the selection of drugs or other modalities for treatment of disease", as those clauses are used in Section 4731.22(B)(2), Ohio Revised Code; "Selling, prescribing, giving away, or administering drugs for other than legal and legitimate therapeutic purposes", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(3), Ohio Revised Code; and/or "A departure from, or the failure to conform to, minimal standards of care of similar practitioners under the same or similar circumstances, whether or not actual injury to a patient is established", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. The testimony and evidence presented in this Matter amply establish that Dr. Mustafa, in the routine course of his practice, prescribed controlled substances and dangerous drugs for patients for excessive periods of time, without establishing valid medical indication or diagnosis. He prescribed potentially addictive controlled substances, often in dangerous combinations, for patients for years without adequately evaluating their complaints or attempting alternative therapies. In the case of Patient 241, Dr. Mustafa admitted that he had prescribed Codeine for this patient for a period of over one month in 1979 as treatment for his admitted Codeine addiction. Several years later, Dr. Mustafa began prescribing Percocet upon this same patient's complaint of back pain, without any evidence of evaluation, and continued to do so over a two-year period. When Patient 241 then admitted that he was addicted to Percocet, Dr. Mustafa continued to prescribe it for three addi- tional months as treatment for his addiction. Such prescribing contravenes both federal and state laws, including each of those provisions listed above. Dr. Mustafa's claim that there was no adequate treatment program available in 1979 does not satisfactorily explain his prescribing for Patient 241's addiction in 1985. The patient records clearly demonstrate Dr. Mustafa's willingness to prescribe whatever patients requested, even when objective data indicated that there was no valid medical indication for such drugs and no medical basis for the patients' complaints. In the case of Patient 36, Dr. Mustafa liberally prescribed synthetic thyroid hormone at her request, despite the fact that he had obtained tests showing her thyroid levels to be normal. He provided this same patient with narcotic pain medications, even when her complaints of pain were apparently related to urinary tract infections, menstrual cramps, or other conditions which would not appear to justify the use of controlled substances. In the case of Patient 308, Dr. Mustafa prescribed combinations of controlled substances and dangerous drugs, including narcotic analgesics, tranquilizers, hypnotics, barbiturates, antipsychotics, tricyclic antidepressants, and stimulants, even though he was aware that her complaints generally [had] no physical cause, but rather stemmed from emotional problems. On one occasion, he actually telephoned in a prescription for Compazine for Patient 308 when she was in the hospital under the care of another physician for treatment of a drug overdose. Even though Dr. Mustafa was admittedly aware that she had been hospitalized on three occasions due to drug overdoses, he continued afterwards to prescribe dangerous combinations of drugs for her, including the substances on which she had overdosed. In the case of Patient 130, Dr. Mustafa regularly prescribed and administered large amounts of narcotic analgesics over an approximately four year period. Dr. Mustafa admitted that Patient 130 was chemically dependent on narcotics, but claimed they were necessary to control his back pain. Yet, the patient record clearly indicates that Dr. Mustafa made no effort to independently evaluate or diagnose, but rather relied solely upon this patient's representations as justi- fication for his inappropriate prescribing in response to this patient's requests for addictive drugs. Furthermore, the patient record indicates that Dr. Mustafa abruptly discontinued prescribing pain medications and tranquilizers for Patient 130 in early 1987. In general, the patient records demonstrate lack of independent evaluations by Dr. Mustafa of patients' complaints of pain, for treatment of which he prescribed large amounts of controlled medications for excessive periods of time. Such prescribing violates each of the above provisions of law. Further, the patient records of Patients 152, 151, 25, 26, 36, 218, 236 and 265 support the State's allegations that Dr. Mustafa routinely prescribed controlled substance stimulants for weight loss purposes over extended periods of time, whether or not a patient demonstrated weight loss. Dr. Mustafa admitted that it had been his standard practice to prescribe a controlled substance anorectic upon a diet patient's initial visit, without first attempting to achieve weight loss through other means, such as diet or nutritional counseling. In addition, Dr. Mustafa often prescribed Lasix, a diuretic, for weight control purposes. As indicated by the testimony of Dr. Junglas, there is no valid medical indication for the use of a diuretic for weight loss. Such pre- scribing of diet medications also violates each of the above provisions of law. Certainly, both the patient records and the testimony of Dr. Mustafa support the Board's allegations that Dr. Mustafa, in the routine course of his practice, kept inadequate patient records which did not reflect examinations performed or physical findings made to justify the medications he prescribed or dispensed to his patients. Although Dr. Mustafa appeared to claim that he had done examinations or made physical findings which justified the medications he prescribed, he stated that he simply didn't have time to write down everything he knew about his patients. The patient records generally reflect only patient requests for refills of medications, non-specific patient complaints, and lists of drugs prescribed or administered by Dr. Mustafa. They are generally devoid of evidence of appropriate diagnostic testing; documentation as to the nature or severity of the patient's reported pain, illness, or injury; evidence of investigation of alter- native therapies; thorough histories, physical examinations, and diagnoses; in short, infor- mation necessary to assure that the patient receives appropriate treatment. Such records evidence Dr. Mustafa's violations of each of the above provisions of law. As indicated by the testimony of Dr. Donald Junglas, Dr. Mustafa's treatment with regard to each of the 17 patients whose records were reviewed at hearing violates each of the above provisions of law. Further, the prescriptions identified as State's Exhibits #6A through #6H and summarized by the "Prescription List by Patient Number" and the listing of "Total Drug Amounts by Drug, Year, and Month" (State's Exhibit #1) indicate that Dr. Mustafa's inappropriate, long-term prescribing of controlled substances was not confined to those 17 patients, but rather was common in his practice. Dr. Mustafa's prescribing of controlled substances for weight reduction for Patients 152 and 151 after November 17, 1986, constitutes "violating . . ., directly or indirectly, . . . any provisions of this chapter or any rule promulgated by the Board", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(20), Ohio Revised Code, to wit: Rule 4731-11-04, Ohio Adminis- trative Code, as in effect on and after November 17, 1986. Rule 4731-11-04(B) requires that a physician's use of controlled substances for purposes of weight reduction in the treatment of obesity be only as an adjunct in a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction. It further requires the physician to determine, before instituting treatment with a controlled substance, that the patient has made a "substantial good-faith effort to lose weight in a treatment program utilizing a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction, nutritional counseling, behavior modification, and exercise, without the utilization of controlled substances, and that said treatment has been ineffective. Further, the physician must obtain a thorough history, perform a thorough physical examination, and rule out the existence of any recognized contradictions to the use of the controlled substance. Further, according to this rule, the physician may not initiate or must discontinue utilizing controlled substances immediately upon determin- ing that the patient has failed to lose weight while under treatment with a controlled substance over a period of 14 days, such determination to be made by weighing the patient at least every fourteenth day. Dr. Mustafa's prescribing of Schedule IV anorectics for Patients 152 and failed to meet these requirements. Patient testified that he had never tried dieting before seeing Dr. Mustafa. Dr. Mustafa's lecturing Patient 152 about snacking does not constitute the institution of a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction. The documentation in the patient records, parti- cularly in the case of Patient 151, fails even to establish that these patients' overweight constituted obesity which might have justified the use of a controlled substance in the event that other treatment methods had been proven ineffective. Further, Dr. Mustafa failed to discontinue prescribing Schedule IV anorectics for Patients 152 and 151 when they failed to lose weight, as required by Rule 4731-11-04(B). In fact, although Dr. Mustafa admittedly become aware of this Rule in December, 1986, he prescribed Schedule IV anorectics for Patient 152 when he demonstrated weight gains on February 5, March 5, and April 1, 1987, and he prescribed Schedule IV anorectics for Patient 151 when she demonstrated failure to lose weight on January 9, February 5, and March 5, 1987. Pursuant to Rule 4731-11-04(C), Ohio Adminis- trative Code, Dr. Mustafa's violations of Rule 4731-11-04(B) also violate Sections 4731.22(B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. Further, Dr. Mustafa's prescribing for Patients 25, 34, 130, 166, 265, and 276, on and after November 17, 1986, constitutes "violating . . ., directly or indirectly . . . any provisions of this chapter or any rule promulgated by the Board", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(20), Ohio Revised Code, to wit: Rules 4731-11-02 and/ or 4731-11-04, Ohio Administrative Code, as in effect on and after November 17, 1986. With respect to patient 25, Dr. Mustafa violated Rule 4731-11-04(B) by prescribing the Schedule IV controlled substance Fasin 30 mg. for purposes of weight reduction on both December 19, 1986, and February 13, 1987, without: instituting a regimen of weight reduction based upon caloric restriction, first determining the ineffectiveness of other methods of weight reduction, or determining whether or not she failed to lose weight by weighing her at least every fourteenth day. Further, Dr. Mustafa violated Rule 4731-11-02(D) by telephoning in a prescription for 30 Tranxene 7.5 mg., a Schedule IV anxiolytic, for Patient 25 on April 2, 1987, without documenting any exam- ination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose for this controlled substance. On seven occasions from November 19, 1986, through April 29, 1987, Dr. Mustafa prescribed Vicodin, a Schedule III narcotic analgesic, for Patient 34 without documenting any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose for his use of this addictive controlled substance. In fact, four of these prescriptions were issued after Dr. Mustafa had discussed with Patient 34 the addictiveness of Vicodin and the need for him to take less of it. Such acts and omissions violate both paragraph (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. Dr. Mustafa's acts and omissions with regard to Patient 130 also constitute violations of both paragraphs (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. Without documenting any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose other than the patient's requests for pain medication, Dr. Mustafa administered IM injections of Demorel 100 mg., a Schedule II narcotic analgesic, to Patient 130 on December 13, 1986, January 6, 1987, and April 7, 1987. In addition to the Demerol injection, he also prescribed 100 Tylenol #4, a Schedule III narcotic analgesic, for this patient on April 7, 1987, solely upon Patient 130's request for pain medications for vacation. Dr. Mustafa had previously notified this patient on January 12 that he would prescribe no more tranquilizers or pain medications for him. Dr. Mustafa admitted at hearing that this patient had been chemically dependent upon narcotics, though he claimed that he had needed them to control his pain. Upon Patient 166's request, without document- ing any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose, Dr. Mustafa prescribed for her 100 Vicodin, a Schedule III narcotic analgesic, on December 24, 1986, and 50 Vicodin on January 29 and again on April 23, 1987. Such acts violate Rule 4731-11-02(D). With respect to Patient 265, Dr. Mustafa initiated treatment with Adipex-P, a Schedule IV stimulant anorectic controlled substance, on December 9, 1986, without first determining the effectiveness of other methods of weight reduction, without instituting a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction, and without obtaining a thorough history or performing a thorough physical examination to rule out the existence of any contradiction. Dr. Mustafa continued to prescribe Apidex-P through April 31, 1987, without weighing Patient 265 at least every fourteenth day and without immediately discontinuing such treatment when this patient showed a weight gain on February 10, 1987. Such acts and omissions violate Rule 4731-11-04(B). Furthermore, from December 9, 1986, through May 11, 1987, Dr. Mustafa prescribed Valium for her on three occasions, two of which prescriptions he telephoned in. On five occasions during this period, he prescribed Darvon Compound 65 for her, including one occasion when Patient 265 indicated that she had 30 tablets left from a previous prescription, two occasions where Dr. Mustafa provided her with postdated prescriptions, and one occasion where he telephoned in a prescription. At no time did Dr. Mustafa document any examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose other than the patient's stated complaint, for his prescribing of these controlled substances. Such acts and omissions constitute violation of both paragraphs (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. In an approximately five month period from November 17, 1986, through April 28, 1987, Dr. Mustafa prescribed for or administered to Patient 276 a total of 519 dosage units of controlled substances, including: 25 Demerol 50 mg., a Schedule II narcotic analgesic; 2 IM injections of Demerol 50 mg.; 2 IM injections of Demerol 75 mg.; 60 Fiorinal, a Schedule III barbiturate analgesic; and 430 Darvocet N-100, a Schedule IV narcotic analgesic. Of these, 230 dosage units were prescribed by telephone. Throughout this period, Dr. Mustafa failed to document examination, evaluation, diagnosis, or purpose for this prescribing other than patient requests and complaints. On one occasion, he did note a physical finding of severe pain and tenderness in the back, radiating downward; however, no further evaluation was done and no diagnosis was indicated. On another occasion, Dr. Mustafa noted a diagnosis of severe migraine headache, but failed to state any information upon which that diagnosis was based. In view of the addictiveness and volume of the substances so prescribed, it is concluded that Dr. Mustafa's acts and omissions with regard to Patient 276 constitute violations of both paragraphs (C) and (D) of Rule 4731-11-02. Pursuant to Rule 4731-11-04(C), Ohio Administ- rative Code, Dr. Mustafa's violations of Rule 4731-11-04(B) also violate Sections 4731.22(B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. Pursuant to Rule 4731-11-02(F), Ohio Adminis- trative Code, Dr. Mustafa's violations of Rule 4731-11-02(C) and (D) also violate Sections 4731.22(B)(2) and (B)(6), Ohio Revised Code. Further, in view of the nature and/or amounts of the drugs prescribed and the circumstances with regard to such prescribing, Dr. Mustafa's acts and omissions with regard to Patients 130, 265, and 276 are found to constitute purposeful, knowing, or reckless violations of paragraph (C), and thus, pursuant to paragraph (F), also violate Section 4731.22(B)(3), Ohio Revised Code. Dr. Mustafa's acts, conduct, and/or omissions, as set forth in Findings of Fact #7 and #13, above, constitute: "Publishing a false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading statement", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(5), Ohio Revised Code; and "The obtaining of, or attempting to obtain, money or anything of value by fraudulent misrepresentations in the course of practice", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(8), Ohio Reviewed Code. Claim forms submitted by Dr. Mustafa or his office staff to insurers for reimbursement for Dr. Mustafa's services for both Patient 152 and Patient 151 reported diagnoses for which he had not treated those patients. The fact that diagnoses appeared on claim forms, but not in the patient records, cannot be attributed merely to Dr. Mustafa's poor documentation. Although Dr. Mustafa's patient records clearly indicate that the EKG's done in November, 1986, were part of physical examinations for initiation of diet programs, these EKG's were claimed under diagnoses of hypertension for Patient 152 and chest wall pain for Patient 151. In fact, the "Weight Reduction Program" form contained in Patient 152's file indicates that he had no history of hypertension or heart disease. It must be concluded that false diagnoses were reported for purposes of obtaining reimbursement from the insurer for performance of these routine tests. Although not included in the Board's allegations, it is noted that a similar billing was submitted on behalf of another patient reviewed in this Matter, Patient 25 (See Finding of Fact #19). Although Dr. Mustafa denied knowledge of or responsibility for these false billings, copies of the claims, many of which were signed by Dr. Mustafa, were made a part of the patients' records. Furthermore, contrary to Dr. Mustafa's contentions, he is responsible for the billing procedures of his office. It must be concluded that Dr. Mustafa knew or should have known of the fraudulent billings submitted on behalf of Patients 152 and 151. Further, Dr. Mustafa's acts, conduct, and/or omissions, as set forth in Findings of fact #15 and #16, above, constitute: "Publishing a false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading statement", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(5), Ohio Revised Code; and "The obtaining of, or attempting to obtain, money or anything of value by fraudulent misrepresentations in the course of practice", as that clause is used in Section 4731.22(B)(8), Ohio Revised Code. Dr. Mustafa submitted billings and reports of Patient 140's attorneys, listing dates of service and fees not reflected in the patient record. In addition, he billed both attorneys for a January 28, 1986, office visit. Dr. Mustafa's attempts to explain these discrepancies are not convincing. The reports to the attorneys listed no specific treatments or medications for the dates reported; thus, they could not be adequate substitutes for clinical notes which Dr. Mustafa claimed to have recorded on separate cards. Further, Dr. Mustafa claimed that he had made clinical notes on cards, later discarded, because Patient 140 had come to his home, rather than to his office, for treatment; yet he had earlier testified that his office was in his home (Tr. at 41). Also, Dr. Mustafa's attempt to blame his receptionist for the double billing of the January 28, 1986, visit is not well taken. Dr. Mustafa signed the reports submitted to both attorneys and was responsible for their accuracy. It is evident that the billings submitted to Patient 140's attorneys for reimbursement for professional services fraudulently misrepresented the extent of and fees for Dr. Mustafa's services. Although not part of the Board's charges, it is further noted that the patient record for Patient 166 contains a billing submitted to an attorney which contains both dates of service and fees which are not reflected in the patient record (see Finding of fact #31). * * * * * The testimony and evidence in this Matter sub- stantially shows that Dr. Mustafa, in the routine course of his practice, engaged in inappropriate, indiscriminate prescribing of controlled substances and dangerous drugs. The patient records evidence his willingness to prescribe at the patient's request, without regard for medical indications or patient welfare. In at least one case, he admittedly prescribed narcotics to a known addict for an inappropriate period of time without referring him to an authorized treatment program. Both the State's exhibits and the testimony of its expert, Dr. Junglas, rob Dr. Mustafa's claim, that his prescribing was in accordance with acceptable community standards for the time, of credence. Dr. Mustafa admitted that he had ignored the warnings of drug manufacturers and FDA labeling with regard to his long-term prescribing of controlled substances, relying on information he claimed to have obtained from his colleagues. At best, Dr. Mustafa's prescribing practices reflect a willful ignorance of the properties and effects of drugs. Neither willful ignorance nor the lack of moral character demonstrated by Dr. Mustafa's fraudulent billings would seem to be remediable. PROPOSED ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the certificate of Muhammad S. Mustafa, M.D., to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Ohio shall be and is hereby REVOKED. This Order shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of notification of approval by the State Medical Board of Ohio, except that Dr. Mustafa shall immediately surrender his United States Drug Enforcement Administration certificate and shall not order, purchase, prescribe, dispense, administer, or possess any controlled substances, except for those prescribed for his personal use by another so authorized by law. Further, in the interim, Dr. Mustafa shall not undertake treatment of any individual not already under his care. Wanita J. Sage Attorney Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner's proposed findings of fact, conclusions and order were adopted by the State Medical Board of Ohio on December 6, 1989. Respondent appealed the Board's order through the courts and on May 4, 1992, the Ohio Supreme Court refused respondent's request that it take jurisdiction of the case. Consequently, the order of the State Medical Board of Ohio revoking respondent's license to practice medicine became effective June 15, 1992. Other matters At hearing, respondent offered the opinion of Adnan E. Mourany, M.D., Soundiah Selvaraj, M.D., and Marcello Mellino, M.D., by way of deposition (Respondent's exhibits 9-11), concerning respondent's reputation as a physician. Dr. Mourany is licensed to practice medicine in the State of Ohio, as well as Indiana, Minnesota and New York, and has practiced since 1986. He is Chairman of Surgery and Chief of Otolarynology at St. John's Westshore Hospital, and has known respondent professionally and personally since 1979. Dr. Selvaraj is licensed to practice medicine in the State of Ohio, and has practiced since 1974. he is Chief of Internal Medicine and Ambulatory Care at the Luthern Medical Center, and has known respondent professionally since 1976. Dr. Mellino is licensed to practice medicine in Ohio, and has practiced for 13 years. He is a cardiologist, and has known respondent professionally since 1978. It was the opinions of Doctors Mourany, Selvaraj and Mellino that respondent was an excellent surgeon who enjoyed a reputation as a good physician. 5/ At hearing, respondent also presented proof that during medical school he received an award from the Governor of Oklahoma for having performed volunteer work with charitable organizations, and that during his practice in Cleveland he received a ten-year service award from Luthern Medical Center and an award from the United States Senate recognizing his volunteer work for the Cleveland Foundation. Respondent also participated in two projects in Cleveland, one in 1983 and one in 1987, to treat patients without charge. All such activities predated the charges filed by the Ohio Board of Medicine. Since revocation of his Ohio license, respondent attended three courses of continuing medical education programs. The first, "Medical Malpractice and Risk Management--1993," was apparently completed in October 1993; the second, "AIDS and Florida Law--1993," was apparently completed in October 1993; and the third, "Surgical Education and Self-Assessment Program," was apparently completed in November 1993. Other than having attended such courses, respondent's activities since the revocation of his Ohio license do not appear of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of September 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 September 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and holds license number ME 0043566. Respondent has never been the subject of a previous complaint from the Department of Professional Regulation (now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation). No patient involved in this proceeding incurred injury as a result of any procedure performed by Respondent or as a result of any medical record kept by Respondent, nor did any patient claim injury or make a complaint against Respondent. Respondent derived no financial gain from any act or omission alleged in the administrative complaint. All events pertaining to this proceeding occurred in 1987 or 1988. Prior to February 8, 1988, the effective date of Chapter 88-1, Laws of Florida, Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Section 25 of Chapter 88-1, Florida Statutes, became effective February 8, 1988, and amended the pertinent provisions of Section 458.311(1), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered, and reports of consultations and hospitalizations. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that a physician be incompetent to practice medicine in order to be disciplined pursuant to this paragraph. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner had adopted no rules pertaining to the keeping of records by a licensed physician. Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point) is a hospital located in Broward County, Florida. Unless otherwise indicated, all hospital records referred to in this matter are from Imperial Point. PATIENT #1 (C.S.) On August 8, 1988, Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #1, a male, who was 44 years old at the time of the procedure. This procedure was performed at Imperial Point on an outpatient basis. An upper endoscopy is the viewing of the mouth, the pharynx, the esophagus, the stomach and portions of the duodenum with a fiber optic instrument that allows direct visualization of the lining of these structures and allows therapeutic maneuvers. The records kept of this procedure performed on Patient #1 on August 8, 1988, include an outpatient hospital record entitled "Operative Report". The description of the procedure portion of this report includes the following: ". . . The gastric portion was infiltrated with 1:1,000 adrenaline . . ." Adrenaline, also known as epinephrine, is a vasoconstrictor that can be used to control minor bleeding and oozing. It is used regularly in gastroenterology to treat actively bleeding lesions or ulcers with evidence of recent bleeding prior to performing a more permanent type of hemostasis. Dr. Goldberg testified that epinephrine was usually injected into these areas by a needle. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that epinephrine should not be used in cases of trivial bleeding or oozing or after routine biopsies unless there is an imminent danger of a significant arterial bleed. The testimony of Dr. Cerda and Dr. Singh established that spraying epinephrine over an area that is subject to bleeding is a precautionary technique some gastroenterologists follow. Dr. Singh and Dr. Cerda have both either used this technique, or have observed its use by other physicians. The expert witnesses agreed that the injection by needle of epinephrine into the gastric wall would be a procedure that falls below an established standard of care. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to how the term "infiltrated" should be interpreted. Petitioner contends that the term "infiltrated" is synonymous with the term "injected", and that the medical records should be construed to mean that Respondent injected the gastric wall with a needle, and therefore practiced below the standard of care. This contention is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Respondent asserts that the medical record should be construed to mean that Respondent sprayed the gastric wall as a precautionary measure. This contention is consistent with the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent. This dispute is resolved by finding that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and does not prove that Respondent injected Patient #1's gastric wall with a needle. This conclusion is based, in part, on the definition of the term "infiltrate" and on the context in which epinephrine is sometimes administered by gastroenterologists during this type procedure. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the term "infiltrate" means to pass a liquid or a gas into something through its interstices or to permeate with a liquid or gas passed through interstices. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Twenty Sixth Edition (Dorland) has a similar definition of the term "infiltrate". According to Dorland, an "interstice" is small interval, space, or gap in a tissue or structure. According to Dorland, the term permeate means to penetrate or pass through, as through a filter. Also according to Dorland, the term inject means the act of forcing a liquid into a part, as into the subcutaneous, the vascular tree, or an organ. Based on these definitions, it is found that the use of the term "infiltrate" is more consistent with the practice of spraying epinephrine onto the gastric wall, and that the use of the term "infiltrate" does not prove that Respondent injected the epinephrine into the gastric wall with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #1 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. A pathology report dated August 8, 1988 contained in the medical file provided a pathological diagnosis as follows: "esophageal brushings: no evidence of malignancy." Brushings are the result of passing a small brush through the biopsy channel of an endoscope, rubbing it over an area of concern that might have either a malignancy or a fungal infection, taking the brush out of the scope, wiping it on a microscopic slide, and sending the slide to the pathologist for cytological examination. The reference to the "esophageal brushings" in the pathology report was error. The brushings taken from Patient #1 during the procedure on August 8, 1988, came from the stomach, a fact obvious to all of the expert witnesses in light of the operative report and operative drawing made by Respondent. Because Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent took esophageal brushings from Patient #1, its charge that he failed to properly document his reasons for doing so must also fail. 1/ Petitioner proved that Respondent's medical records, including his office notes as to Patient #1 failed to contain an adequate medical history for Patient #1 and failed to reflect the findings of any physical examination of Patient #1 by Respondent. Petitioner further proved that such failures fall below an established standard of care as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. PATIENT #2 (R.B.) Patient #2 was a 70 year old male seen by Respondent for a consultation because of the patient's history of hematemesis, which is the vomiting of blood. Respondent prepared a formal consultation note dated September 25, 1988. The consultation note contains a description of the patient's condition, references a rectal exam, which was positive for blood, and indicates that a physical examination of the patient was made. Respondent again saw the patient on September 27, 1988 and performed an upper endoscopy. Dr. Goldberg was critical of the medical records kept by Respondent as to this procedure and was of the opinion that the medical records were inadequate. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedure. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records pertaining to this patient were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. The records kept of this procedure reflect that Respondent "infiltrated" Patient #2 with epinephrine. This is the identical dispute over the meaning of the term "infiltrated" that pertained to Patient #1 as discussed above. For the reasons given in resolving the dispute as it pertains to Patient #1, it is found that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and that the use of the term does not prove that Respondent administered the epinephrine by injecting Patient #2 with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #2 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. PATIENT #3 (B.B.) Patient #3, a 65 year old female was admitted to Imperial Point with chest pains by her physician, a Dr. Fanfan. Patient #3 had a history of cancer which included the prior surgical removal of a tumor. On October 3, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy of Patient #3. A colonoscopy is an examination of the colon from the anus to the ileocecal valve using a fiber optic instrument. A colonoscopy is indicated to evaluate abnormal X-rays, changes in bowel habits, evidence of bleeding, suspicions of inflammation, tumors, or polyps. Respondent adequately performed the procedure on Patient #3. The colonoscopy detected that Patient #3 had polyps. Subsequent laboratory results established that these were hyperplastic polyps that required no follow-up. Had the polyp been an adenomatous polyp, which is a true neoplasm with malignant potential, a follow-up for recolonoscopy would have been appropriate in one year. Prior to receiving the pathology reports, on the polyp, Respondent recommended a six month follow-up for the patient. This follow-up recommendation was appropriate at the time it was made. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that a follow-up be performed was below an established standard of care. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that the follow-up for this patient with a history of cancer be in six months as opposed to one year fell below an established standard of care. The barium enema for this patient was originally scheduled by the attending physician, Dr. Fanfan. Dr. Fanfan clearly wrote a note on the same day following Respondent's report of the colonoscopy that the barium enema was pending, yet the attending physician did not cancel the barium enema. There is no disagreement among the experts that the barium enema was unnecessary in light of the findings of the colonoscopy. It is medically unnecessary and inappropriate for both tests to be performed on the same day. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent was responsible for the patient once he began his consultation and that Respondent should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Cerda, Dr. Eberly and Dr. Singh were of the opinion that the attending physician was responsible for scheduling the barium enema and that the attending physician or the radiologist should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Eberly testified that as the primary care physician, the admitting physician is the "captain of the ship" and has the responsibility to make final determinations with respect to tests of this nature. Because of the conflicting testimony from equally credible expert witnesses, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care by not cancelling Patient #3's enema. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #3 were inadequate. He had several criticisms of the records. Dr. Goldberg opined that there should have been a formal consultation note on Patient #3's chart that included past history, present illness, review of systems, allergies, pertinent laboratories, a thorough organ specific or system examination, an impression, an adequate discussion of the consultant's impression and the consultant's plans. He opined that the indications for Patient #3's procedure were inadequately dictated on the procedure notes and that Respondent's history pertaining to Patient #3 was inadequate because there was no pertinent review of systems or past history, no mention of the previous tumor, no mention of allergies, and an extremely scant examination. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of this patient's medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #4 (E.K.) On October 4, 1988, Patient #4, a 92 year-old female, was admitted to the hospital with an acute onset of vomiting, dehydration, and abdominal pain. Respondent was asked by Patient #4's attending physician to evaluate Patient #4 for a potential small bowel obstruction following an X-ray that was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #4 on October 7, 1988. An obstruction of the intestines is a blockage in the large or small intestine. The bowel behind the blockage may become inflated with fluid or air and may be seen on X-ray. The obstruction may result from a variety of abnormalities. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the upper endoscopy was contra- indicated and potentially dangerous to the patient because of the X-ray indicating a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that an upper endoscopy should be used only under compelling circumstances if there is a partial bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did the right tests on Patient #4, but in the wrong order since he did not first rule out an obstruction. Prior to performing the upper endoscopy Respondent monitored the patient for several days. During that time period, examinations indicated that the patient was having bowel movements. Both the attending physician's notes, Respondent's notes, and the nurse's notes indicate positive bowel signs on October 5 and 6, indicating that there was not a complete bowel obstruction. Respondent ordered a Golytely preparation administered to the patient, which usually consists of one or two liters of non-absorbable solution that basically washes the bowel out. That preparation would have been improper with a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the use of a Golytely prep in this patient was a gross judgment error. Dr. Singh was of the opinion that there was no contra-indication for using the preparation in this situation. Petitioner failed to prove that Patient #4 had a complete bowel obstruction or that the procedure, including the use of the Golytely preparation, violated an established standard of care. It is found that Respondent was acting within the scope of his discretion as the consulting physician to order the administration of the Golytely preparation and to perform the upper endoscopy. On October 11, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #4. Respondent stated on the operative report that the colonoscopy was indicated because of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis was not mentioned in any of Respondent's notes concerning Patient #4, and there was no notation as to the reasons Respondent thought the patient had diverticulitis. Although Respondent failed to document why he felt that diverticulitis was an appropriate indication for the colonoscope, there is no dispute that a colonoscope was, in fact, indicated. Further, the colonoscope established that the pretest diagnosis of possible diverticulitis was not incorrect. The colonoscopy revealed areas of colitis, and the pathology report noted an ulcer with acute and chronic inflammation. Respondent's experts testified that they were of the opinion that Respondent violated no established standard by listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscopy. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent practiced below an established level in listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscope. During the colonoscopy, Respondent found several mildly bleeding areas and infiltrated Patient #4 with epinephrine. For the reasons discussed pertaining to Patient #4, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care in administering epinephrine to Patient #4. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation report was inadequate. Dr. Goldberg bases his conclusion on the following observations. The report was difficult to read and failed to include any significant historical events concerning Patient #4. In his consultation report, the Respondent failed to note anything about having done a rectal examination on this patient, whether or not the abdomen was distended, and whether there were active or inactive bowel sounds. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that these findings would help to distinguish between an obstruction and an ileus or paralysis of the bowel. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that the patient's records of the upper endoscopy performed October 7, 1998, fail to reveal any significant findings. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #5 (J.T.) Patient #5, an 89 year-old male, was admitted to Imperial Point with a history of peptic ulcer disease and arthritis. This patient was seen by Respondent on a consulting basis. The patient was vomiting blood and Respondent was asked to see the patient to determine the source of the bleeding. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on October 13, 1988, and found a significant outlet obstruction. On October 17, 1988, a G.I. series was performed and a repeat upper endoscopy and pyloric dilatation was performed. The procedures performed by Respondent were properly indicated and had a beneficial result to the patient. Back-to-back pyloric dilatations were appropriate and clinical judgment was properly exercised. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the upper endoscopy of October 13, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report failed to document Respondent's findings in detail. Dr. Goldberg testified that an essential endoscopy report that physicians are trained to do should include the following: indications for the procedure, medication used to sedate the patient, identification of instrument used, description of the anatomical landmarks and their condition as visualized by the physician passing the endoscope, the removal of the scope, the physician's impressions and what the physician plans to do about those impressions, how the patient tolerated the procedure and what the patient's condition was after the procedure, and that the patient was sent to the recovery area. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the procedures performed on this patient on October 17, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report did not document Respondent's findings in detail and did not indicate if the scope was passed through Patient #5's dilated pylorus into the duodenum. In Respondent's impressions on the second endoscopy, he noted pyloric stenosis and duodenal ulcer. In his procedure note Respondent does not mention whether he passed the scope into the duodenum or how he knew there was a duodenal ulcer. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did not properly document what he did. On October 18, 1988, Respondent performed a repeat pyloric dilation on Patient #5. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to record the reasons for the second procedure and to document his findings. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the third endoscopy note did not adequately detail the examinations of the esophagus and stomach. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that every procedure note stands alone, and that if a physician does an endoscopy on day one and repeats it on day two, the physician still must make that report complete because it is not always going to be part of a document. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's records did not stand alone. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation note was sketchy and should have contained a history of allergies because of the need to give the patient medications for sedation. Dr. Goldberg's criticisms of Respondent's medical records do not prove that the medical records kept by Respondent were inadequate as measured by an established standard. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedures and that the records were adequate. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #6 (D.Y.) From October 19, 1988, until October 22, 1988, Respondent was consulting physician to Patient #6, a 72 year-old male, who was admitted to Imperial Point with rectal bleeding. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to Patient #6 because a formal consultation note was lacking. The medical records which were reviewed by Dr. Goldberg were incomplete when reviewed by him. A specific reference is made to a consultation note that is not contained in the hospital records. Respondent established that other medical records were missing from the hospital records. In light of the specific reference to the consultation note, it is found that the absence of this consultation note from the hospital records is insufficient to prove that there existed no consultation note. On October 20, 1988, Respondent performed an colonoscopy on this patient and a biopsy was taken in the segmental descending colon area. The colonoscopy could not be completed because the colonoscopy could not pass to the patient's cecum. The following recommendation was made by Respondent (the original is in all capital letters): IN VIEW OF NOT REACHING TO THE CECUM, THE PATIENT WOULD NEED BE (this is an abbreviation for barium enema) AND ALSO IF EVERYTHING IS NEGATIVE, RECOLONOSCOPY IN ONE YEAR AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IN THE BIOPSY OF THE POLYP, THEN ACCORDINGLY WILL PLAN. On October 21, 1988, the follow-up barium enema was performed by Dr. Nicholas M. Arfaras, a radiologist. The radiology report reflected the following finding: "Also in the sigmoid there is an approximately 1 cm. rounded filling defect identified near the junction with the descending colon. This is felt to be secondary to a polyp." The possible polyp detected by the barium enema should have been followed up. However, it was not established that Respondent was consulted by the attending physician about the results of the barium enema. Dr. Lipton, as the attending physician, would have had the responsibility for following up the recommendations made by Respondent and for bringing Respondent or another gastroenterologist in for further consultations following the barium enema if Dr. Lipton had believed it necessary to do so. This patient was discharged from Imperial Point by Dr. Lipton on October 22, 1988. The final page of the discharge summary for this patient reflected the following notation: "Condition was improved. The patient is to have a follow up in one week in the office with Dr. Lipton and with Dr. Gupta in two weeks." The evidence presented in this proceeding, including Respondent's office notes, does not reflect that Respondent had any involvement with this patient after October 21, 1988, until 1990, when he performed on the patient at North Broward Medical Center a procedure described as a "multiple colonoscopy with multiple biopsies and cauterization." This procedure in 1990 revealed multiple polyps. The polyp removed on colonoscopy in 1988 was an adenomatous polyp, a polyp with significant malignant potential. This patient needed a follow-up colonoscopy in one year. Respondent was the consulting physician and recommended reevaluation of the patient in one year. Follow-up care was not the responsibility of Respondent, but of the treating physician. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records in that Respondent failed to adequately document the indications for the colonoscopy performed on Patient #6 and why the colonoscope could not be passed to Patient #6's cecum. Dr. Goldberg opined that a physician doing a colonoscopy needs to tell why he did not get to the cecum so that the next physician colonoscoping this patient can take appropriate precautions. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #7 (C.R.) Respondent was a consulting physician to Patient #7, a 64 year old male who was hospitalized with rectal bleeding. Respondent saw this patient because of a possible colonic fistula, which is a connection with any piece of the intestine and some other structure. Respondent recommended a barium small bowel X-ray and a barium enema, both appropriate clinical recommendations. On November 11, 1987, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #7. Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the aforementioned procedure in that Respondent failed to document an adequate history as an indication of Patient #7's colonoscopy. This contention is rejected based on the testimony of Dr. Singh. The medical records provide adequate justification for the procedure. Dr. Goldberg was critical of Respondent's records pertaining to this patient and considered the records inadequate. He was of the opinion that the records should have better detailed his findings and should have recorded any follow-up plans for a repeat colonoscopy on the patient. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide a history or physical examination for Patient #1 as alleged in Count Two, which reprimands Respondent for that violation, and which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 against the Respondent for that violation. It is further recommended that all other charges against Respondent contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Robb E. Ross was a licensed physician engaged in the practice of family medicine as a sole practitioner. He was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in 1966 and holds license number 12433. He was board certified in family practice in 1970. Respondent also holds a license as a pharmacist. Respondent treated patient N.B. from September of 1970 through October of 1986. She initially presented as a new patient moving into the area, aged 61, for maintenance of her general physical medical care, primarily relating to her mild depression that she had for years following a mastectomy. While believing that patient N.B. had previously been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist, respondent never requested her prior medical records. Patient N.B. informed the respondent that she had been taking Biphetamine, a steroid amphetamine that is no longer produced, for the past ten years. Respondent continued patient N.B. in that treatment modality for over ten years, as well as treating her for other complaints. At some point, he did attempt to titrate her from Biphetamine, but she did not function as well with a substitute drug. When the drug Biphetamine was phased out of the market in either 1980 or 1982, respondent prescribed Dexedrine to patient N.B. and continued to do so approximately every six months. Respondent maintained her on Dexedrine due to her mild depression and the fact that she had been on amphetamines for many, many years. He was reluctant to take her off Dexedrine for fear that she could become overtly depressed. Since she did well with Dexedrine, respondent maintained her on that regiment due to the adverse side effects of other compounds utilized to control depression. The respondent's medical records for patient N.B. contain virtually no patient history or background information. For each patient visit, there is a brief notation which includes N.B.'s temperature, blood pressure and weight and also a reason for the visit. The reason noted on the records are either "check- up" or a brief statement of the patient's complaint on that particular day. The medication prescribed is noted, though very difficult to read. While the symptom or patient complaint is often noted, the patient records contain no statements of medical diagnosis, assessment or treatment plan. It is not possible to determine from N.B.'s medical records the reason that Dexedrine was prescribed for this patient. While N.B. complained of tiredness, she did not suffer from narcolepsy. Patient G.B. was under respondent's care from August of 1979 through May of 1985. He initially presented, at age 56, with problems relating to emphysema, lung collapse, exhaustion, impotency and aches and pains. Respondent prescribed various medications for him, including Nitroglycerin for chest pains. Respondent felt that due to his age and his complaints, patient G.B. had some type of arteriosclerosis. Patient G.B. frequently complained of being weak, exhausted and having no endurance or energy. For this reason, respondent prescribed Dexedrine for him on March 30, 1984. Other medications to increase his energy were tried before this and after this time. Nothing appeared to give him any relief. After determining that patient G.B. "liked his medicine too much," respondent terminated his treatment of him. The respondent's medical records for patient G.B. are brief and difficult to decipher. Again, the patient's temperature, blood pressure and weight are recorded for each visit, and there is a brief statement of the patient's complaint. There is no statement indicating a medical diagnosis or a treatment plan. The medications prescribed at each visit are written on the records, but are difficult to read. D.M. was a patient under respondent's care from December of 1976 until his death, at age 84, in March of 1986. He initially presented with stomach problems and subsequently had a host of other medical problems, surgeries and hospitalizations throughout the years. This patient was given so many different medications for his various physical problems that respondent did not always write each of them down on his records after each office visit. It appears from respondent's medical records that he first started patient D.M. on Dexedrine in January of 1984. At that time, D.M.'s chief complaint was "dizziness, falling, no pep." Respondent maintained D.M. on Dexedrine or an amphetamine type of compound from that period until his death, primarily because of his weakness, dizziness, falling down and low blood pressure. Other specialists were consulted regarding D.M.'s fainting and falling episodes, caused by postural hypotension, and were unable to remedy the problem. Respondent was of the opinion that the administration of Dexedrine enabled patient D.M. to function more properly and that it worked better than anything else. Patient D.M. expired in March of 1986. Respondent listed the cause of death as "cardiac arrest." The respondent's medical records on patient D.M. are typical of those previously described for patients N.B. and G.B. The office visit notes list patient complaints or symptoms and no medical diagnosis or comprehensive assessments. There are indications in the record that D.M. complained of chest pains in 1983, 1984 and 1985. The medications prescribed indicate the presence of cardiac disease. Respondent's record-keeping with regard to patients N.B., G.B. and D.M. are below an acceptable standard of care. They fail to include an adequate patient history and initial assessment of the patients. It is impossible to determine from these records what medicines the patients had taken in the past, what reactions they had to such medications, what medical procedures they had in the past or other important information regarding the patient's background. The respondent's only notation of treatment is a listing, and a partial listing in the case of D.M., of medications prescribed. His remaining notations are not acceptable to explain or justify the treatment program undertaken. Dextroamphedimine sulfate, also known as Dexedrine, is a sympathomimetic amine drug and is designated as a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Commonly, it is referred to as "speed" or an "upper." It is addictive and highly abusive. While individual patients react differently to Dexedrine, its consumption can cause psychosis, marked elevations of blood pressure and marked rhythmic disturbances. As such, its use is contraindicated in patients with coronary disease. In addition, because Dexedrine is an "upper" and makes a patient "feel good," it can mask a true physical condition and prevent the patient from being treated for the physical ailment he is experiencing. A patient should not be relieved of pain without first knowing what is causing the pain. In Florida, Dexedrine may only be prescribed, administered or dispensed to treat specifically enumerated diseases, conditions or symptoms. Section 458.331(1)(cc), Florida Statutes. Neither respondent's medical records nor his testimony indicate that patients N.B., G.B. and/or D.M. suffered from the conditions, symptoms or diseases which warranted the statutorily approved and limited use of Dexedrine. Respondent was not aware that there were statutory limitations for the use of Dexedrine. He is aware of the possible dangers of amphetamines and he prescribes Dexedrine as a treatment of last resort when he believes it will help the patient. Respondent further testified that his medical record-keeping is adequate to enable him, as a sole practitioner, to treat his patients, though he admits that his medical records could be improved.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 458.331(I), subparagraphs (cc),(q),(t) and (n), Florida Statutes, and that the following penalties be imposed: an administrative fine in the total amount of $2,000.00, and probation for a period of twelve (12) months, with the following conditions: (a) that respondent complete continuing medical education courses or seminars in the areas of medical record-keeping and the dangers and authorized use of compounds designated as Schedule II controlled substances, and (b) that respondent submit to the Board on a monthly basis the medical records of those patients for whom a Schedule II controlled substance is prescribed or administered during the probationary period. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 2nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3483 The proposed findings of fact submitted by counsel for the parties have been carefully considered. To the extent that the proposed factual findings are not included in this Recommended Order, they are rejected for the following reasons: Petitioner: The 48 proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner consist of summaries or recitations of the testimony of the witnesses presented by the petitioner in this proceeding. While the summaries and/or recitations constitute an accurate representation of the testimony received by those witnesses at the hearing, and are thus accepted, they do not constitute proper factual findings by themselves. Instead, they (along with the testimony presented by the respondent) form the basis for the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. Respondent: Page 4, Paragraph 1 The reference to 30 years is rejected as contrary to the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: David E Bryant, Esquire Alpert, Josey, Grilli, Paris and Bryant 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 David J. Wollinka, Esquire P. O. Box 3649 Holiday, Florida 33590 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
