Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been currently licensed as a physician in Florida, holding license ME 0033496. Patient 1 was a 32 year old female who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on March 24, 1988, due to upper and lower abdominal pain, vomiting, and early signs of dehydration. Respondent placed Patient 1 on intravenous fluids and administered medications to control the vomiting. Patient 1 underwent diagnostic studies, including an upper gastrointestinal series, and received medication for the abdominal pain. After five days of hospitalization and tests, the source of the pain had not yet been identified. However, the lower abdominal pain had ceased, and the upper abdominal pain had lessened considerably. In general, the patient had improved during the hospitalization. At this point, Respondent discharged Patient 1 from the hospital with a final diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. Respondent directed Patient 1 to return to his office for a follow-up visit. Five or six days after discharge, Patient 1 called Respondent and told him that her symptoms, which she now linked with taking birth control pills, had disappeared. Respondent advised her not to resume taking the pills, but to return to her gynecologist. With respect to Patient 1, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances. Patient 2 was a 37 year old male who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on May 9, 1988, after having been found by a relative in a state of semi-consciousness. The admitting diagnosis was a probable overdose of lithium and possibly Thorazine. Respondent treated the drug toxicity during Patient 2's three-day hospitalization. Respondent became increasingly lucid during his hospitalization, and Respondent successfully managed the event of drug toxicity. Respondent tried to elicit from Patient 2 a medical and psychiatric history, but Patient 2 would or could not cooperate. Respondent was unable to identify any relatives or friends of Patient 2, including the person who brought him to the hospital. Respondent could not even find out where Patient 2 obtained the lithium and Thorazine that he was taking. Respondent treated the altered mental status that Patient 2 presented. There was no need during the short period of hospitalization to obtain a psychiatric consultation. Resumption of psychotropic medication so soon after the drug intoxication would have been imprudent. Consistent with the policy of Lykes Memorial Hospital, which has no psychiatrists on staff, Respondent referred Patient 2 to the Hernando County Mental Health Center. He directed Patient 2 not to take lithium or Thorazine until instructed to do so by a psychiatrist or other physician at the mental health center. Respondent and the hospital ensured that Patient 2 got to the mental health center following discharge. With respect to Patient 2, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances. Patient 3 was a 49 year old male who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on or about February 5, 1988, with complaints of difficulty breathing. At the time, Patient 3 had been diagnosed with lung cancer that had metastasized to the spine and had undergone maximum radiation therapy. He was paralyzed from the waist down and in the last year of his life. He steadfastly refused all diagnosis or treatment involving radiation. By his own request, Patient 3's standing medical orders were "Do Not Resuscitate." He only wanted to be made comfortable. The acute illness resulting in Patient 3's admission was pulmonary congestion. There is some likelihood that the symptoms of infectious bronchitis with which he presented at time of admission were exacerbated by his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There is a possibility that some of Patient 3's discomfort was caused by mucous plugs in the lungs, whose capacity had already been diminished by the other diseases. However, mucous plugs were not affecting Patient 3 at the time of discharge. Respondent discussed with Patient 3 the possibility of cleaning out his lungs with a bronchoscope, but Patient 3 refused. Respondent treated Patient 3's discomfort with oxygen, diuretics, and increased steroids. Patient 3 had been receiving steroids due to a spinal disorder resulting from the cancer. Patient 3 was already receiving bronchodilators at the time of his admission. There is also a possibility that Patient 3 suffered from superior vena cava syndrome in which one or more tumors would block veins of the thorax. However, diagnosis of the condition would have been invasive, and Patient 3 refused such interventions. Treatment of such a condition would likely have required radiation, and Patient 3 would not tolerate additional radiation treatment. Respondent discussed with Patient 3 the possibility of superior vena cava syndrome and the possible treatment, but Patient 3 declined this intervention. Patient 3 received no EKG while in the hospital. The emergency medical services team transporting Patient 3 to the hospital performed a rhythm strip, which provides information about limited cardiac functions. Although Patient 3's potassium levels were slightly below normal at discharge, they had improved during hospitalization. With respect to Patient 3, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances. Respondent's medical records represent the bare minimum required by law to justify the course of treatment. Matters discussed with Patient 3 were not always recorded. Patient 3's decisions concerning diagnosis and treatment were likewise not always recorded. But, on balance, the medical records adequately documented the course of treatment of Patient 3 while under Respondent's care at the hospital. Patient 4 was a 68 year old male who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on or about February 14, 1988, with complaints of a persistent cough and some gastric upset. He was suffering from exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respondent appropriately treated Patient 4's conditions. Patient 4 experienced problems with certain medications, which interfered with his progress, but he was drinking and eating without difficulty prior to his discharge. X-rays taken at admission and discharge revealed no significant change in Patient 4's condition during his eight-day hospitalization. At discharge, Respondent ordered Patient 4 to return for an office visit in two weeks. Patient 4's condition continued to improve following discharge. With respect to Patient 4, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint. ENTERED on October 11, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 11, 1993. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The pain or discomfort had lessened considerably. 14: adopted. 15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16-17: rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. and 21-23: adopted or adopted in substance. and 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted except that Respondent and the hospital ensured that the patient was referred to a mental health treatment center as soon as his condition was sufficiently stabilized to allow discharge from the hospital. 26: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 27: adopted or adopted in substance. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The record does not suggest how a psychiatrist would obtain a history from an unwilling patient. 29: adopted with respect to the period of the hospitalization through the point at which the patient could recommence active psychiatric treatment. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent duly referred the patient to an appropriate facility for the treatment of the patient's underlying mental health problems. 31: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 32: rejected as legal argument and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33-36: adopted or adopted in substance. 37-38: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 39: rejected as subordinate. 40: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41-43 (through third sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 43 (fourth sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence with respect to this patient. 44-48 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 48 (except first sentence)-50: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 51-52 and 54: adopted or adopted in substance. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 55-56: adopted or adopted in substance. 57-59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7: rejected as legal argument. 8: rejected as recitation of evidence. 9: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as recitation of evidence. 12: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (first sentence): rejected as legal argument. 16 (second and third sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (fourth sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. (first sentence): rejected as legal argument. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (third sentence)-19 (first sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. 19 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 20: rejected as recitation of evidence. 21: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 22: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as recitation of evidence. 27: adopted or adopted in substance. 28-31 (second sentence): rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 31 (third sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 32-34: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance. 39-43: rejected as legal argument, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Barbara Whalin Makant, Staff Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0972 William B. Taylor, IV Macfarlane Ferguson P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33618
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, M. J. Warhola, was a doctor of osteopathic medicine and properly licensed as such by the State of Florida by license number OS 0001256, issued in 1957. He has been practicing osteopathic medicine at his present location in Tampa, Florida, for the past 17 or 18 years. Respondent first started treating Pearl O. Knowles in 1965. Generally, she was suffering from severe diabetes and was overweight. He also, over the years, treated her for arteriosclerosis. Among the drugs he was prescribing for her during the 1979-1989 time period were Placidyl (sleeping pill), Verstran (tranquilizer), Triavil (antidepressant), Dilantin (anticonvulsant) Teldrin (antiallergenic), Donnatal (sedative), Synalgos (painkiller), Talwin (painkiller), various antibiotics, and such other substances as insulin, stool hardeners, vitamins, diuretics, antihistamines, and antiemetics. During the period from January, 1979, through December, 1981, prescriptions written by Respondent for these varying medications for Mrs. Knowles or her husband were filled by area pharmacies in accordance with the following chart: MONTH/YR TOTAL MRS. K MONTH/YR TOTAL MRS. K Jan. 79 11 4 July 80 22 15 Feb. 79 15 7 Aug. 80 15 10 Mar. 79 10 5 Sept.80 26 19 Apr. 79 14 11 Oct. 80 20 10 May 79 13 10 Nov. 80 21 16 June 79 10 8 Dec. 80 22 17 July 79 11 6 Jan. 81 16 11 Aug. 79 15 10 Feb. 81 15 12 Sept.79 13 10 Mar. 81 25 17 Oct. 79 15 6 Apr. 81 26 17 Nov. 79 7 5 May 81 21 10 Dec. 79 17 12 June 81 11 4 Jan. 80 12 8 July 81 23 8 Feb. 80 17 12 Aug. 81 25 23 Mar. 80 21 17 Sept.81 5 5 Apr. 80 17 14 Oct. 81 20 14 May 80 24 22 Nov. 81 4 2 June 80 27 21 Dec. 81 2 2 TOTAL: 588 400 Many of the above instances are refills of the same prescription. According to Respondent, some prescriptions were authorized five refills without contact with him. Some, such as Prescription #27162 for 100 Triavil, initially filled on December 1, 1979, was subsequently refilled at least 11 times, and three other separate prescriptions for the same drug were filled multiple times. From January, 1979, through September, 1980, a period of 20 months, 30 tablets each prescriptions for Placidyl tablets, written by Respondent for Mrs. Knowles, were filled 46 times for a total of 1,380 tablets. During the same period, Triavil prescriptions for 100 capsules each written by Respondent for Mrs. Knowles were filled 22 times for 3,200 tablets, Talwin at 100 tablets 13 times for 1,300 tablets, at least 10 prescriptions for either Tylenol #3 or Fiorinol #3, both with codeine, at 50 tablets each for the Fiorinol at least totalling more than 509 tablets, as well as all the others stated in paragraph 2 above. Mrs. Knowles admits taking too much medication, but claims it is not the fault of Respondent. Whenever Respondent saw her and gave her a prescription for any medicine, he would tell her what dosage to take. She would see the Respondent every two or three weeks and get a new prescription each time and would also give her prescriptions at her request without her going to the office personally. Regardless of what instructions Respondent would give her concerning the dosage of the various painkillers and "nerve medicines" he would give her, she often exceeded the directed dose either by accident or in an effort to relieve the extreme pain she was experiencing in her hands and feet. Not only did she get drug prescriptions from Respondent, but by her own admission, she also saw other doctors during the period from whom she got "pain pills," as well as taking those given to her on her release from the hospitals to which she was admitted. She recognized that she was taking too many drugs at the time, but the pain was severe and she felt it was required. During this same period of time, from mid-1979 on through early 1982, while Mrs. Knowles was seeing Respondent for her diabetes and other chronic ailments, she was admitted to several hospitals in the area. On June 11, 1979, she was admitted to the Brandon Community Hospital (BCH) in Brandon, Florida (Brandon is a small community east of Tampa), in a confused and disoriented state. The admission diagnosis was diabetes with electrolyte imbalance. The attending physician noted at the time that the patient "is somewhat dependent on drugs." Approximately two months later, on August 15, 1979, Mrs. Knowles was again admitted to BCH, this time for uncontrolled diabetes and overdosing her drugs including Placidyl and Fiorinol. Again, the attending physician noted the failure of the patient to take care of her diabetes, her drinking, and her drug dependency. Mrs. Knowles thereafter stayed out of the hospital for about a year until, on September 1, 1981, she was again admitted to BCH, again for her diabetes. Secondary diagnoses on this occasion were hypertension and taxciencephalopathy, a disorder of brain function. At this time, she was seen in the hospital by Dr. Mark Stern. Based on the lab work performed and examination by Dr. Stern and other specialists to whom she was referred, it was concluded that her condition, aside from the diabetes and hypertension, was related to her overuse of drugs such as Talwin, Valium, Triavil, and the like. She was again seen by Dr. Stern at BCH on October 24, 1981, when she was admitted for an unintentional drug overdose. A drug screen done at the time of admission revealed a Placidyl level of 69.4 (normal level is 0.5 to 10, with toxic levels being greater than 20). A repeat test six and a half hours later showed the level of Placidyl at 62.4. Other lab tests showed opiates, benzodiazepan (tranquilizers such as Valium and Librium), and salecylates. When she was admitted on this occasion, she had with her a box containing several medicine bottles. Notwithstanding Petitioner's allegation that "Said labels were not labeled by Respondent," the testimony of Deborah Ann Brown, Director of Pharmacy at BCH, to whom the box of bottles was given for identification, shows that only one of all the bottles did not have the appropriate markings on it. It also appears that some of the medicines in the box had been prescribed for Mrs. Knowles' husband, Ira. Dr. Stern again saw Mrs. Knowles when she was brought to BCH on January 6, 1982, complaining of weakness and difficulty in walking. Again, her history showed she was taking antidepressants and Placidyl for chronic insomnia. Dr. Stern recalls that Mrs. Knowles telephoned him on October 9, 1981, and requested prescriptions for Placidyl, Triavil, and Talwin, but he refused to prescribe them for her. He terminated his relationship with her in August, 1982. During the period she was his patient, however, he did prescribe for her such substances as painkillers, sleeping pills, and antianxiety drugs, the same generic types of drugs as prescribed by Respondent, by written prescriptions, some of which called for multiple refills. Though Mrs. Knowles advised Dr. Stern that she was being treated by Dr. Warhola, Dr. Stern did not discuss her with Dr. Warhola or even contact him. Even when Mrs. Knowles threatened to get drugs from Respondent when Dr. Stern refused to give her prescription over the phone in October, 1981, Dr. Stern still did not contact Dr. Warhola. Between the fourth and fifth BCH hospitalizations, on December 21, 1981, Mrs. Knowles was admitted to Tampa General Hospital (TGH) and was examined by Dr. Jeffrey L. Miller, a rheumatologist internist, at the request of her regular physician, Dr. Sugarman. When Dr. Miller first saw her, Mrs. Knowles was overmedicated. She was confused, and her speech was slurred. She indicated to Dr. Miller that she was taking Triavil and other drugs as well, such as Zomax and Placidyl, but refused to tell him all the drugs she was taking. Those she mentioned are addictive, and it appeared that she was addicted because she had been hospitalized for nonaccidental overmedication and because her condition was consistent with addiction. Mrs. Knowles denied having a drug problem. In Dr. Miller's opinion, however, Mrs. Knowles was not receiving the proper therapy. Her diabetes did not require the drugs she was getting. Her other symptoms, in his opinion, did not justify the apparent liberal prescriptions she was getting and should have been treated with psychotherapy rather than drugs. In his opinion, therapy should be tailored for an individual like Mrs. Knowles so that the medication is limited and regulated to prevent addiction and the buildup of tolerance to a drug, which results in larger and larger doses. The evidence also shows, however, that Mrs. Knowles was a difficult patient. Dr. Sugarman was having difficulty with her and requested the consult by Miller. What must also be considered is that Mrs. Knowles' leg, about which she constantly complained of the pain, was subsequently surgically removed in 1982 as a result of her diabetes. The pain associated with this condition leading up to the amputation was real and required relief to some degree. In any case, Dr. Miller did not ever discuss Mrs. Knowles with Respondent or advise him of her addiction. Mrs. Knowles still receives painkillers and "nerve medicine" from her current physician, Dr. Sugarman, whom she sees every two weeks. She stopped seeing Dr. Warhola when she started seeing Dr. Sugarman, who, she felt, was more current in some of her problem areas than Respondent. She did not leave Respondent because she was dissatisfied with him. In fact, he was the only one who helped her blood clots. According to Respondent, he gave Mrs. Knowles the Placidyl for sleep because she had a lot of pain as a result of her diabetes and needed it to help her sleep. At this same time, Mrs. Knowles' husband was a severe alcoholic and, since she was under a lot of strain because of that, he gave her the drug to help her sleep. The call he got from Dr. Stern on October 26, 1981, when she was in BCH, indicating she was mixing drugs, was the first indication he had that she was abusing drugs. He told Stern she was not to get any more, and he, Respondent, has not prescribed any for her or seen her since. In fact, he was not informed of her hospitalizations in June or August, 1979, or in September, 1981. It is, even by the testimony of Petitioner's expert, Dr. Gladding, not uncommon in Florida for M.D.s to admit a D.O.'s patient to a hospital and not ever notify the D.O. of that fact. Mrs. Clifton M. Wood of Winter Haven, Florida, was first taken to see Respondent for a diet regimen in 1980. On the first visit on February 7, 1980, he gave her a physical examination which included a complete laboratory workup, cardiogram, and weight and pressure check. He gave her some pills which had instructions for use on the bottle, but did not tell her what they were. Each time she came to his office for a visit thereafter, on a monthly basis, either Respondent or his nurse would weigh her and take her blood pressure and adjust her medication as required. During the course of treating Mrs. Wood, Respondent gave her phedymetrazine, an appetite suppressant, methahydrine for high blood pressure, Donnatal, and vitamins and minerals. He gave Mrs. Wood only the drugs he felt she needed in the amount she needed. Mrs. Wood was admitted to Winter Haven Hospital on October 26, 1980, because a neighbor who was concerned about her brought her in. At the time, Mrs. Wood had trouble with dizziness, her balance, and falling. Before this incident, however, Respondent on one or more of his visits, had given her pills for her blood pressure and potassium pills for her to take in water. According to Dr. Gordon Rafool, who had also treated Mrs. Wood since 1979 and who admitted her to the hospital in October, 1989, at the time of admission, she was, among other things, dehydrated and had an electrolyte imbalance (lack of body salt, specifically potassium), the latter possibly being caused by the intemperate use of a diuretic. A diuretic is often used in cases of heart failure, high blood pressure, and, though not recommended, weight reduction, to get rid of body water. Since it was important to know what medicines Mrs. Wood was taking to help determine the reason for her condition, Dr. Rafool and other hospital personnel tried to get an identification of the drugs in Mrs. Wood's possession when she was brought in. The hospital pharmacy could not identify them, and no drug screen was done, but Dr. Rafool obtained a written authorization of Respondent to permit Respondent to release any information regarding drugs dispensed or prescribed to the patient by him. This authorization was forwarded to Respondent's office with a request for Mrs. Wood's medical records, but they were never released. Dr. Warhola's office manager, Mrs. Zacchini, states the request and authorization on Mrs. Wood were received, but were apparently inadvertently filed in the office record without the requested records being sent out. Though Dr. Rafool says that numerous follow-up calls were made to Respondent's office, Mrs. Zacchini denies any were received from either the hospital or Dr. Rafool. In any case, there is no evidence to indicate any calls were made to or received by Respondent directly, and he denies every having received any. Mrs. Wood still considers Respondent to be a good doctor, but she has not gone back to see him since her release from the hospital because Dr. Rafool told her to stay away from him. She has been seeing Dr. Rafool, who has been treating her with pills for her arthritis and high blood pressure. Petitioner presented the deposition of Dr. Lloyd D. Gladding, D.O., over the partial objection of Respondent, whose objection was not to the use of the deposition, but to specific parts thereof based on particular grounds. For example, Respondent objected to Dr. Gladding's testifying as an expert because, he contended, there had been no showing by Petitioner that the witness's experience compares to that of Dr. Warhola. He contends the witness does not practice in the same geographical area nor is there a showing he is a similar health care provider with a similar specialty or a similar type practice. However, Dr. Gladding's curriculum vitae, admitted without objection, shows he is currently co-chairman of a family practice seminar in his area and a clinical preceptor (teacher) at an osteopathic medical school and has been engaged in a family practice in the Fort Myers area since 1978. This area is geographically not far removed from the Tampa Bay area (the distance is not significant) and there is no showing that the patient conditions involved in the two cases at issue would or could be affected significantly by the geographical location of the patient or that treatment of these conditions varies greatly from location to location. In fact, according to this witness, he finds patients from widely differing areas (Pennsylvania, where he was trained, as opposed to Florida, where he practices) to be the same. Accepting the witness as an expert, then, with reference to Mrs. Knowles and her condition, he has had patients with a similar series of health problems where the patient was placed on multiple drug regimens. Sometimes, these patients developed drug dependencies for the different medications he prescribed. In the case of Mrs. Knowles, based on the number of Placidyl prescribed by the Respondent over about a year, she received enough to take two per day, which would constitute 1,500 mg. of the drug per day (two tablets of 759 mg. each). The drug company's recommended daily dose is between 590 and 750 mg. given at bedtime, with an additional 109 to 200 mg. later on, if needed. The fact that Mrs. Knowles was also getting other drugs, including a different type of sleeping pill, makes Dr. Gladding feel the prescriptions by Respondent were excessive. He admits, however, he does not know how much pain the patient was in and this makes it difficult to render an opinion. Because of this, he cannot unequivocally say that the dosage prescribed was excessive. Good practice is to prescribe as few Schedule II drugs as is possible. However, without knowing the patient, her attitude, and her actual condition, an opinion as to the appropriateness of the drugs prescribed, unless clearly inappropriate, would be merely guesswork. As to the patient Mrs. Wood, Dr. Gladding could not read Dr. Warhola's notes of what drugs he gave her. Therefore, in analyzing Respondent's prescriptions, he relied on and referred to a federal drug analysis of the unmarked drugs she got from Respondent as including barbiturates or their derivatives. This analysis was not introduced into evidence, and Dr. Gladding's reference to it is hearsay which cannot, by itself and without other independent evidence of the identity of the drugs, support a finding of fact even though it would appear some were drugs that would not be used in weight control. However, there were drugs identified independently, such as the potassium replacement and the weight reduction drug, which were appropriate and, in addition, the tranquilizer could also be appropriate. In any case, Dr. Gladding does not know what Mrs. Wood told Respondent about the problems she was having sleeping. If she did tell him this, even the barbiturates could be appropriate. Dr. Gladding has also been confronted with a situation where a patient of his has been hospitalized and the hospital calls him for information on the patient on an emergency basis. He knows, he says, everyone in the local hospitals and generally provides the requested information on the spot without a formal release. He is more concerned with the patient's welfare than with technicalities. However, in the case of Mrs. Wood, there was not an emergency situation and there was no showing Respondent was ever personally contacted. In addition, there was evidence of only one written release, not three, as reflected by the witness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Dr. Warhola be dismissed, but that he be officially reminded of the necessity to conservatively prescribe controlled substances in the course of his practice. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32391 Gerald Nelson, Esquire 4950 West Kennedy Boulevard Suite 693 Tampa, Florida 33609 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee. Florida 32301 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint placed by the Department of Professional Regulation against Eduardo G. Romero, M.D., Respondent in this cause for his treatment of two patients for weight control. Those patients are D.H., and S.T. who presented herself to Respondent as patient In his treatment of these patients, Respondent, at count one, is said to have violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by gross and repeated 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. Further, he is said at count two to have violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including a controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. A third count in the administrative complaint was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing and is not to be considered. Finally, in the fourth count, Respondent is said to have violated Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.
Findings Of Fact Respondent at all times pertinent to the administrative complaint was licensed as a physician by the State of Florida and continues to hold that license at present. In 1985 Respondent discontinued his family medicine practice and started a practice for treating patients for obesity and weight control. He purchased the obesity and weight control practice from a Dr. Scheininger. The obesity and weight control practice was conducted in the area of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. As a part of this practice, on occasion, Respondent would treat persons for minimal weight loss who could not be perceived as typical of the patients that he saw in his practice, nor can they be said to have been overweight and certainly not obese. In the conduct of his weight control practice, Respondent had one other person in his employ. That person was Diane Lee Smith, medical assistant. Ms. Smith's duties involved answering the telephone, writing certain basic information on patient's charts, laboratory testing, and the conduct of EKGs, and helping Respondent in his consultations. She also would take blood pressure readings from patients, pulse rates, take their weight and height and certain measurements of the patients' arms, waists, hips and upper thighs. Respondent in his practice would discuss the nature of his diet program, and do a physical examination to include checking pulse, monitoring heart rate and observing the fundi. If the patient upon those basic clinical observations seemed to need a more complete examination, he would order blood tests, urinalysis, and an EKG. In dealing with the patients, he had these patients provide certain information concerning health history, dietary habits and any exercise regimen that the patients participated in. Respondent did not take on the treatment of patients who had significant past medical histories. Respondent would speak to his patients individually and in a group concerning his weight control program. In these conversations he spoke to them about dietary habits, exercise habits and on occasion, would employ medication as a means of assisting in weight control. One of the drugs of choice by the Respondent in his treatment was Phendimetrazine. This is an anorexic that can be, used for a short duration as an appetite suppressant. It has a potential for abuse, but only in the instance when it is over- prescribed does it present the risk of addiction. The patients who used Phendimetrazine could gain a tolerance to it, thereby needing increasing dosages to profit from the pharmacologic effect. That phenomenon develops less quickly than with amphetamines. D.H., who had been a patient of Dr. Scheininger and had received diet pills from him to treat her weight condition, by a means which is not clear in the record, was contacted about further treatment for her weight condition. The lack of clarity concerns the matter of whether the contact was through Dr. Scheininger or Respondent's offices. Nonetheless, she arranged with the Respondent's office for an appointment to address her desire to lose a minimal amount of weight. This appointment was at the instigation of the Department of Professional Regulation, who upon complaint of the activities of Respondent, utilized D.H. as a means of investigation. The appointment took place on February 26, 1986. Her explanation of her reason for being at Respondent's office, as given to Respondent, was to the effect that she felt she needed to employ the assistance of a physician to lose some weight for cosmetic purposes. Certain entries made by Respondent and his assistant, Ms. Smith, concerning the February 26, 1986 visit and a subsequent visit on April 9, 1986, may be found in the Joint Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. It also includes information provided by D.H. in the form of a medical information questionnaire. It includes dietary information as well. In the course of the initial visit of February 26, 1986, Respondent discussed D.H.'s dietary and exercise habits and suggested approaches about diet. D.H. is a woman of five foot two and a half inches tall, whose birthdate is August 18, 1947. At the time of her visit, her weight was somewhere in the range of 117 to 122 pounds. The doctor's office scale showed her to be 122 pounds. Any one of these weights were within the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company tables of what is considered to be normal weight for a woman of this height. On February 26, 1986, in the course of the visit Respondent checked the heart rate and examined the fundi and made records of these observations. No entry was in the record concerning blood pressure. Having considered the testimony it is found that the blood pressure was taken but no medical record was made of that blood pressure reading. No tests were ordered such as EKG, blood sugar, cardiac testing, blood count, urinalysis, liver and kidney studies, nor was the patient given a complete physical examination. These things were not done because Respondent was persuaded that the patient was a person who enjoyed good health and to undertake these steps would be extravagant and unnecessary. In discussion with the patient D.H. the impression was given to the Respondent that the patient had not succeeded in trying to control her weight to her satisfaction by exercise and diet. As a consequence, Respondent decided to prescribe Phendimetrazine. On February 26, 1986, D.H. was given a prescription of 35 mg. tablets, 60 in amount. The exact details of the explanation of the use of this medication by D.H. and its possible side affects is somewhat sketchy. However, enough is known to conclude that the Respondent made some explanation. He did not make a written entry in the medical records of the patient to the effect that he had explained how to use this medication and the possible complications in its use. Neither did he make those entries following his prescribing of Phendimetrazine, 105 mgs., 30 tablets, as a part of the April 9, 1986 visit by D.H. On the April 9, 1986 visit, basically the same procedures were followed in terms of weight which was shown on the chart as 117 pounds, heart rate and on this occasion, blood pressure was recorded. There is a note that the patient D.H. runs three to six miles three times a week. Respondent charged D.H. $50 for each visit. The medication which she obtained was turned over to the Department of Professional Regulation. As part of the Department of Professional Regulation's investigation of the Respondent, it utilized the services of S.T., who presented herself to the Respondent as patient B.B. S.T. is a Jacksonville deputy sheriff. Her visit with the Respondent occurred on April 21, 1986, and followed the basic sequence related to the prior patient D.H. A copy of certain information pertaining to the patient S.T. as kept by the Respondent may be found at Joint Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. It reflects that this patient is five foot five inches tall, and at the time of the visit weight 128-1/2 pounds, which again is within the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company tables of appropriate weight for a woman of that height. Certain measurements were made of her waist, hips, arm and upper thigh, her blood pressure was taken, heart rate and fundi. Information was given by her concerning her health condition and dietary habits. Respondent, through his office, provided dietary information to this patient as with patient D.H. Patient B.B. was a patient who enjoyed good health and who was there to seek the assistance of the Respondent for purpose of losing a few pounds so that her clothes would fit her better, according to her explanation. No evaluative actions were taken other than those items presented in the aforementioned exhibit. As with D.H., Respondent was convinced that no further testing was needed for a patient who, by his clinical observation, appeared healthy. Phendimetrazine was prescribed for this patient in the amount of 105 mgs., 30 tablets. The explanation of the use of this medication was as is described before with the patient D.H. Respondent charged S.T. $50 for the visit. As with D.H., Respondent discussed dietary practices and the need for exercise with S.T. at length. S.T.'s comment to the Respondent was that she had not been able to lose the weight that she desired by her attempts at diet and exercise. In response, Phendimetrazine was prescribed to aid in this attempt. The Phendimetrazine for the two patients was not only prescribed by Respondent, it was dispensed by him. In addition to Respondent's testimony about the propriety of his treatment of the two patients, several other physicians, who are licensed in Florida offered their opinions. Dr. Stanley Weiss, who is a Board Certified Bariatric Physician testified for the Petitioner. Dr. Samuel J. Alford, Jr. and Dr. Kenneth Lasseter offered testimony for the Respondent. Dr. Weiss indicated that he does not consider the need for cosmetic weight loss to be a medical problem per se. In addition, he stated that he would not have taken on the treatment of D.H. and S.T. who did not have medical problems. Dr. Weiss in a significant portion of his practice treats patients who clearly suffer from problems of obesity. Consequently, when he gives the opinion that in every case of weight control a battery of tests involving EKG, blood sugar, cardiac testing, blood count, urinalysis, liver and kidney studies and a complete physical should be pursued, he is referring to a class of patients different from the patients in this case, by the history of Dr. Weiss' practice. In essence, Dr. Weiss is stating that it was inappropriate for the Respondent to take on the patients and treat them when the patients did not need medical attention and at the same time is stating that a series of tests should have been employed which are common to the treatment of the truly obese patient. This runs contrary to the opinion of the Respondent and of Drs. Alford and Lasseter who do not feel that the tests were in order for persons who by clinical observation, seem to be healthy. The opinion of the Respondent and Drs. Alford and Lasseter concerning the necessity of testing is the more appropriate choice on this occasion and it was not a violation of community standards or failure to practice medicine with reasonable care for the Respondent to fail to conduct the tests that have been alluded to in the rendition of facts. Dr. Weiss believes it was violative of community standards and failure to practice medicine at an acceptable level for Respondent to prescribe Phendimetrazine for the two patients in the instances set out in these facts. The use of Phendimetrazine, according to Dr. Weiss, for these patients who were not obese, is a failure to appropriately prescribe medication. His opinion is accepted. Respondent and Drs. Alford and Lasseter believe that the use of Phendimetrazine for the two patients was appropriate. Their opinion is not accepted. The fact that the two patients indicated that they had not achieved success by diet and exercise does not alter the impression of the facts and deference being paid to Dr. Weiss on the issue of the use of Phendimetrazine. It was not inappropriate for Respondent to consult with the patients D.H. and S.T. about their perceived problems. It was inappropriate to prescribe Phendimetrazine to gain a cosmetic result in an instance where there was no medical reason to utilize that legend drug. This fact is as supported by remarks of Dr. Weiss. Dr. Weiss is critical of the Respondent's medical records, in that they do not note that Respondent explained the possible side effects of the use of Phendimetrazine, and as they are lacking in an explanation of the ongoing or continuing care and in the absence of the aforementioned tests that Dr. Weiss would have conducted on the patients. That latter circumstance is not so much a failure to keep records as an allegation of failure to practice. If the tests were not done, it is to be expected that no record would have been made of the tests. Moreover, the tests were not indicated. Respondent and Drs. Alford and Lasseter do not find Respondent's recordkeeping to be inadequate. Having considered the issue of the need to record side effects or to put more information in the record concerning ongoing and continuing care, it suffices that some explanation of side effects was made and it is not necessary to make a written indication that the explanation was given to the patients. The general nature of the care and treatment of the patients is known by reference to the records. The only failure of recordkeeping which is significant is the failure to have recorded the blood pressure reading on D.H. in her visit of February 26, 1986. This constitutes a failure to keep a written medical record of an examination result.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses Count III, and finds the Respondent guilty of violations as alleged in Counts I, II and IV, for which, in keeping width disciplinary guidelines, his license shall be suspended for a period of 30 days and he shall be directed to attend at least 21 continuing medical education course credits concerning appropriate drug prescribing unrelated to requirements for license renewal. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5055 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner' s Facts Subordinate to facts found. Accepted with the exception that reference to the necessity of conducting various tests is contrary to facts found. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Subordinate to facts found. Contrary to facts found. Subordinate to facts found. Respondent' s Facts 1.-16. Subordinate to facts found. 17,18. Are not accepted to the extent of indicating that D.H. only went there for purposes of diet pills and presented herself as only wanting diet pills is contrary to facts found, otherwise they are acceptable. 19.-21. Subordinate to facts found. Constitutes the reasoning which Respondent would have trier of fact employ to arrive at facts and is not fact finding, with exception of reference to the fact that there is no notation in the chart that D.H.'s blood pressure was taken on February 26, 1986. Same response as prior paragraph. 24,25 Subordinate to facts found. 26. Unacceptable. 27.-41. Subordinate to facts found. 42. Not necessary in its first sentence and the second sentence is contrary to facts found. 43.-46. Constitute a discussion of the testimony and not fact finding. The overall conclusions of these physicians has been reported in the fact finding in the Recommended Order. 47. Further discussion of the opinion of the witness, Dr. Weiss, and is not fact finding. The balance of that paragraph deals with the claim that the Respondent instructed the patients to return in one week which is not accepted. Nor is the conjecture of what the patient S.T. intended to do on her visit to the Respondent. Finally, the remarks attributable to Dr. Alford are again the discussion of the testimony and not fact finding. 48,49. Subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Harrison, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 south Dadeland Boulevard One Datran Center, Suite, 406 Miami, Florida 33156-7815 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Florida Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0735
The Issue Whether the standard of care for the practice of optometry required that patient, J.P., be dilated by Respondent at the January 1998 appointment. Whether the standard of care for the practice of optometry required Respondent to note in patient J.P.'s patient record the reason for not dilating J.P. at the January 1998 appointment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of optometry in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been licensed as a certified optometrist in the State of Florida, holding license number 1734. Respondent practices optometry in Chattahoochee, Florida. Respondent received his Doctor of Optometry degree from the University of Alabama in Birmingham in 1982. He is licensed to practice optometry in Georgia and Florida, and in the latter since June of 1982. Respondent has been a certified optometrist in Florida since 1984-1985. Respondent specializes in diseases of the retina which include, but are not limited to, diabetes and hypertension. Respondent is engaged in the private practice of optometry, but also practices hospital-based optometry as a physician- consultant with Florida State Hospital. He has lectured and published extensively in the area of optometry, including issues on public health and the importance of high blood pressure and diabetes. Respondent sits on the Council on Optometric Education which is an 11-member board that accredits all of the optometry schools and residency programs in the United States and Canada. As a certified optometrist, Respondent is competent to perform a dilated fundus examination. Respondent's examination and treatment of J.P. Respondent provided optometry services to patient, J.P., a registered nurse, for the first time on February 21, 1989. This was J.P.'s initial patient visit. Respondent performed a dilated fundus examination on J.P. which indicated his peripheral retina was completely normal. J.P. did not report any history of high blood pressure/hypertension at that time. On August 20, 1990, Respondent performed a full and general examination of J.P.'s eyes and all of the components of that examination were recorded in J.P.'s patient record. J.P. did not report any history of hypertension at that time. No dilation was performed nor was it required. In late 1994, J.P. was working as a nurse at Florida State Hospital when a patient slapped him on the face. J.P. suffered a corneal abrasion. On December 13, 1994, Respondent examined J.P. Respondent diagnosed J.P.'s problem as "mild iritis," and medical treatment was afforded. Respondent performed a thorough examination of J.P.'s retina, including the peripheral examination with dilation. All aspects of the retina were within normal limits. There was no sign of any hypertensive changes at that time, nor any sign of any trauma related to the incident. J.P.'s injury resolved satisfactorily, and, J.P. had no further trouble whatsoever. J.P. was told to return in one week for a follow-up visit, but he did not. J.P. has not had any trouble with his eyes after the December incident and after being treated by Respondent in December of 1994. J.P. has had borderline high blood pressure/hypertension since he was a teenager. He started taking daily medication in 1990. J.P. advised Respondent of his hypertension and the nature of his medication on a form when he visited in 1994. J.P.'s hypertension was well-controlled with medication at the time of J.P.'s December 1994 visit through his next examination in January 1998. He suffers no symptoms from his high blood pressure/hypertension. J.P. returned to Respondent in January 1998 to obtain a prescription for reading glasses. J.P.'s January 1998 visit with Respondent was not his initial presentation or visit. J.P was questioned about his hypertension and J.P. told Respondent it was in good control. J.P. had been seeing Dr. Richardson, a local physician. Dr. Richardson refers patients with ocular complications of systemic diseases to Respondent for examination. Dr. Richardson, who was familiar with J.P.'s health, did not express any concern to Respondent regarding J.P.'s hypertension. Because Respondent had not examined J.P. for over two (2) years, he performed a comprehensive examination and all of the minimal procedures for vision analysis including consideration of J.P.'s patient history and visual acuity's, which were done and recorded. He performed an external examination, with a slit lamp, which was done and recorded. Respondent also performed a pupillary examination, which was recorded as normal. Visual field and confrontation testing were done and recorded. He also graded the blood vessel status for any abnormalities. He recorded the cup-to-disk ratio having performed an internal examination by direct ophthalmoscopy. There were no recorded arteriosclerotic changes, and no hypertensive retinopathy. He graded the ratio between the arteries and the veins, which was normal at two-thirds. An extra ocular muscle balance assessment was done. Respondent, using a direct ophthalmoscope, was able to view the majority of the retina and assess the blood vessel status for any signs of retinopathy, at which point there was no sign of retinopathy, which was consistent with the patient's history of having controlled hypertension. Tonometry was performed and the results for a glaucoma check recorded. Refraction was performed and results with acuity recorded. J.P. had no physical limitation or medical condition, such as diabetes, which may have required this examination. J.P.'s blood pressure or hypertension was reported as being in good control, and the record does not reveal otherwise. While performing the vision analysis, Respondent had a good view of the retina because J.P. did not have cataracts or other media opacities in the lens or cornea or vitreous of the eye that could cause problems seeing the retina, which might require dilation. Respondent also weighed the risks of dilation. Respondent's explanations for not performing the dilated fundus examination and for not noting same in J.P.'s patient chart are reasonable. A treatment plan was devised for J.P. and J.P. was apprised of the findings of the examination. Respondent advised J.P. to return in one year. J.P. did not return. Respondent issued a prescription for glasses for J.P. J.P. never encountered any unresolved medical problems nor encountered any medical problems with his eyes that resulted from the lack of a dilated fundus examination on his eyes in January 1998. This examination was not medically indicated. Standard of Care for performing a dilated fundus examination and notation in the patient's record A dilated fundus examination is performed to enable the optometrist to examine the anterior part of the eye, -- in particular, the peripheral part of the retina -- and to assess the condition of the lens, looking for cataracts, for example. Eyedrops are placed in the eye to enlarge or dilate the pupil. This helps the optometrist to view a larger area of the retina in greater detail than can be done without dilation of the pupil. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B13-3.007 provides for "minimum procedures for vision analysis" and specifically subsection (2)(f) provides: "An examination for vision analysis shall include the following minimum procedures, which shall be recorded on the patient's case record . . .[i]nternal examination (direct or indirect ophthalmoscopy recording cup disc ratio, blood vessel status and any abnormalities) " Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B13-3.007(4), not referenced in the Amended Administrative Complaint, provides: "Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the minimum procedures set forth in paragraph (2) above shall be performed prior to providing optometric care during a patient's initial presentation, and thereafter at such appropriate intervals as shall be determined by the optometrist's sound professional judgment. Provided, however, that each optometric patient shall receive a complete vision analysis prior to the provision of further optometric care if the last complete vision analysis was performed more than two years before." Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B13-3.010 provides the "standard of practice for licensed optometrists." Subsection(10)(a) provides: "To be in compliance with Rule 64B13-3.007(2)(f), certified optometrists shall perform a dilated fundus examination during the patient's initial presentation and thereafter whenever medically indicated. If in the certified optometrist's sound professional judgement, dilation should not or can not be performed because of the patient's age or physical limitations or conditions, the reason(s) shall be noted in the patient's medical record." There is no cited agency precedent interpreting subsection (10)(a). The Board's expert, Kenneth Lawson, O.D., is a certified optometrist licensed to practice optometry in the State of Florida. He has been a consultant for the Board of Optometry for approximately three (3) years and has reviewed twenty-five (25) to thirty-five (35) cases involving complaints filed against optometrists. According to Dr. Lawson, Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B13-3.010(10)(a) was enacted in 1995 because there had been an ambiguity with respect to the dilation standard of care. It is Dr. Lawson's opinion that this rule requires a certified optometrist to perform a dilated fundus examination on every initial patient and where medically indicated. He interprets the word "initial" to mean the first time the patient is seen by the optometrist and also when the patient has not been examined by an optometrist for a period of three (3) years. Dr. Lawson opines that every patient becomes an initial patient every three (3) years if not examined and dilated within the three-year period. He also believes dilation is required during every visit if there has been trauma to the eye or if the patient has had a history of ocular trauma or other factors such as hypertension, regardless of whether the hypertension is under good control during each visit. See Conclusion of Law 46. As a rule, however, Dr. Lawson dilates every patient over sixty-five (65) years old every year and all patients under sixty-five (65) every two years. These time periods can vary depending on the health of the patient. For example, Dr. Lawson stated that there is a low risk or probability that hypertension would lead to blindness or impairment of visual acuity if the hypertension is well-managed by medication and the patient is younger than sixty (60). Dr. Lawson conceded that the Board's rule does not require dilation every year, only every three years. Dr. Lawson also opines that there should be some documentation on the patient's chart indicating why dilation was not performed. Dr. Lawson relied on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) textbook, volume IV, to support his position that an "initial" patient is one who has not received any services from the physician within a three-year period. Dr. Lawson believes that the words "initial" and "medically indicated," appearing in subsection (10)(a), are referenced by the three-year period. He concludes that it is the standard of care for dilation to be performed every three (3) years. However, the CPT instructs physicians on how to bill for procedures and enables an optometrist to receive a higher rate of reimbursement rate for the visit; it is not a standard of care. The textbook or physician code book was not offered in evidence and is not a credible source. Dr. Lawson's explanation of the relevant standard of care is not persuasive. Walter Hathaway, O.D. and Adam Gordon, O.D., M.P.H. testified on behalf of Respondent as expert witnesses. Dr. Hathaway is a certified optometrist in the State of Florida and has practiced for thirty-four (34) years. He has served as an expert reviewer for the State of Florida, Board of Optometry, and has served as an expert witness twelve (12) times. Dr. Hathaway opined that a dilation is required during the patient's initial evaluation or presentation and when medically indicated; for example, when the patient has a history of diabetes, flashes, or floaters, which indicates retinal detachment. Dr. Hathaway opined that a dilated fundus examination is not required in all cases where a patient reports a history of hypertension if the hypertension is under control. Dr. Hathaway was asked to consider a hypothetical set of facts based upon the facts of record regarding J.P.'s health and Respondent's examinations of J.P. Based on his professional judgment, Dr. Hathaway concluded that Respondent was not required to perform a dilated fundus examination on J.P. during the course of his examination on January 6, 1998. Dr. Gordon is a licensed optometrist in the State of Alabama, has practiced for eighteen (18) years, and has been a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Alabama- Birmingham School of Optometry for sixteen (16) years. He also examines patients in a private group practice. Formerly, he served as a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Gordon was also asked to consider a hypothetical set of facts based upon the facts of record regarding J.P.'s health and Respondent's examinations of J.P. and stated, that in his professional judgment, a dilated fundus examination was not medically indicated for this patient on January 6, 1998. Likewise, Dr. Gordon stated that this examination is not required on all patients reporting a history of hypertension. Conversely, he would consider dilation if the patient reported his or her high blood pressure was out of control or if he or she stopped seeing a physician or had stopped taking medication for the condition, factors absent here. It was not medically indicated for Respondent to automatically give J.P. a dilated fundus examination in January 1998, because J.P.'s hypertension was under control at that time. J.P. testified that his hypertension had been controlled with medication through and including his January 1998 visit with Respondent. Further, J.P. had no problems with his eyes after his 1994 visit with Respondent. A dilation examination may have been required if J.P.'s hypertension had been uncontrolled or if J.P. exhibited some other medical problem such as diabetes, or if J.P. had stopped taking prescribed medication. These factors are not present here. The weight of the evidence supports only one finding: there was no medical indication which would have required Respondent to perform a dilated fundus examination on J.P. during his January 1998 examination. The weight of the evidence supports Respondent's exercise of professional judgement in not performing a dilated fundus examination on J.P. during the January 1998 visit. The weight of the evidence proves that the standard of care set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B13- 3.010(10)(a) for performing a dilated fundus examination does not require this examination automatically every three (3) years. Rather, dilation should be performed during the "initial presentation," and when "medically indicated" based on the certified optometrist's exercise of sound professional judgment in light of the patient's medical history and current health. Further, the weight of the evidence proves that the standard of care set forth in Subsection (10)(a) does not require a certified optometrist to note in a patient record the reason why a dilated fundus examination was not performed unless dilation was not performed based solely on the patient's age or physical limitations or conditions, all absent here. The latter criteria are the only ones stated in the rule, and the weight of the evidence does not prove that additional criteria should be considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 6th day of December, 2000.
Findings Of Fact On July 20, 1978, Mary I. Gallagher, the seven to three supervisor at Tampa General Hospital "was called up to 3 South in regard to Mrs. Seaton's actions." (T.6) There she found respondent with a patient. Respondent was confused and smelt of alcohol; her speech was garbled. Mrs. Gallagher did not believe respondent capable of performing her normal duties and sent her home. On August 4, 1977, respondent reported to work at Tampa General Hospital for the eleven to seven shift. As oncoming nurse, she took responsibility for the narcotics from the three to eleven nurse who had custody of the drugs. In doing this, she accepted a count of 25 ampules of morphine sulphate, even though the three to eleven nurse only had 24 ampules of this controlled substance. On September 23, 1977, "Mrs. Johnson, one of the three to eleven supervisors, notified [Joyce Millis, Assistant Director of Nursing at Tampa General] in writing that she had been called to 4 South by one of the staff nurses, Mrs. Sellers, who [reportedly] noticed the odor of alcohol on Mrs. Seaton's breath." (T.14) See petitioner's exhibit No. 2. On October 2, 1977, respondent administered Tuinal to a patient, but signed out for Nembutal rather than for Tuinal. This made the narcotic count incorrect. On October 3, 1977, respondent administered 500 milligrams of Aminophyline intravenously to a patient. A 500 milligram dose of Aminophyline is supposed to be administered slowly; it should take an hour or more. Respondent said she spent only 45 minutes administering the drug on that occasion. On October 27, 1977, according to a contemporaneous report of the incident, respondent told another nurse, Miss Findley, that a patient was "going to code," i.e., had suffered cardiac arrest, and that her blood pressure was 68/30. Miss Findley looked in on the patient, who did not appear to her to be in acute distress, and telephoned Dr. Hampton. When Dr. Hampton arrived, he found the patient's blood pressure to be 188/80. Later, Dr. Hampton telephoned; respondent answered the telephone and said to Miss Findley, "Dr. Hildehand is on the phone . . ." There was a patient named Hildehand on the floor at the time. See petitioner's exhibit No. 3. Physicians order that drugs be administered or that diagnostic tests be done on patients at Tampa General Hospital by specifying the procedure prescribed in writing in a particular place on the patients' charts. A nurse has the duty of examining each patient's chart and transcribing the physician's orders, if any, to a central index. After examining a chart for this purpose, the nurse signs the doctor's orders sheet, even if no orders have been given. In dispensing medications and otherwise carrying out physicians' orders, the nursing staff works from the central index, ordinarily without consulting patients' charts. A Dr. Tyner ordered that an antibiotic, Keflin, be administered to a patient at Tampa General. Although respondent signed off on the patient's chart, she failed to transcribe this order to the central index; as a result, the drug was not administered to the patient on respondent's shift, contrary to Dr. Tyner's order. On another occasion, a doctor ordered K-Lor for a patient but respondent entered K-Lyte on the central index. In anticipation of an operation, a physician prescribed Dalmane for a patient at Tampa General, and ordered that it be given at ten in the morning. Respondent administered this drug at ten the night before, spurning the patient's suggestion that she check the doctor's orders. On another occasion, respondent ordered a liver scan for a 96 year old patient in Tampa General with gastrointestinal bleeding. Curious, another nurse checked the patient's chart and found that no liver scan had been ordered. Still another time, respondent transcribed a physician's orders from a patient's chart to the central index and signed the patient's chart; but failed to transcribe an order for hemoglobin and hematocrit tests every twelve hours. In January of 1978, Ronald C. Baker, R.N., patient care coordinator at Centro Espanol Memorial Hospital, smelt alcohol on respondent's breath while she was on duty as a nurse in the emergency room. On February 13, 1978, respondent's supervisor, a Mrs. Phillips, observed respondent moving carefully and stiltedly, having trouble with her equilibrium. Mrs. Phillips smelt alcohol on respondent's breath and sent her home from El Centro, because she felt respondent was unable to perform her duties.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for two years. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mrs. Nancy A. Seaton 70 Davis Boulevard Apartment 12 Tampa, Florida 33606 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Nancy Ann Middendorf Seaton As a Registered Nurse 70 Davis Boulevard CASE NO. 78-2316 Apt. No. 12 LICENSE NUMBER 91995-2 Tampa, Florida 33614 /
