The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Bret L. Lusskin (Respondent) was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0007919. Respondent has been practicing medicine in Florida for approximately 33 years. Respondent is board-certified in orthopedic surgery. On January 8, 1992, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine (Board of Medicine) filed a Final Order of disciplinary action against Respondent in DOAH Case No. 90-1565, DPR Case Nos. 89-07389, 89-011684, and 89- 011856. By the Final Order, the Board of Medicine reprimanded Respondent's license and further ordered the following: Within 60 days, Respondent must be evaluated by a psychiatrist approved by the Physician's Recovery Network and must comply with all recommendations of said psychiatrist including entering into and complying with a contract with the Physician's Recovery Network, if applicable. Respondent shall not examine or treat any female patients without a female employee who is a health care professional licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation present in the room. Respondent must complete the continuing medical education course offered by the University of South Florida and the Florida Medical Association entitled, "Protecting Your Medical Practice: Clinical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in Prescribing Abusable Drugs," or an equivalent course approved by the Board. Respondent appealed the Board of Medicine's Final Order to Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 92-0251. The appellate court filed its decision, which was "Per Curiam Affirmed," on December 9, 1992, and issued its Mandate on February 26, 1993. On April 7, 1993, the Board of Medicine filed a Final Order of disciplinary action against Respondent in DPR Case Nos. 90-03022 and 92-03622, in which Administrative Complaints were filed against Respondent. One of the Administrative Complaints, Case No. 92-03622, filed on July 13, 1992, was based upon Respondent's failure to present himself for evaluation by a psychiatrist approved by the Physician's Recovery Network (PRN) within 60 days of the Board of Medicine's Final Order filed on January 8, 1992. The Final Order in DPR Case Nos. 90-03022 and 92-03622 approved a consent agreement involving the cases. The consent agreement provided, among other things, that Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact in the Administrative Complaints, that Case No. 92-03622 be dismissed, that Respondent be reprimanded, and that an administrative fine of $2,000 be imposed. On January 29, 1993, following the appellate decision, a psychiatric evaluation of Respondent was performed at the University of Florida, College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, by Dr. George W. Barnard, M.D., a psychiatrist, and Dr. Michael J. Herkov, Ph.D. Dr. Barnard was a professor and Director of the Forensic Psychiatry Division at the University, and Dr. Herkov was an assistant professor at the University. Dr. Barnard was approved by PRN. Among other things, Drs. Barnard and Herkov administered several psychological tests to Respondent. The tests were the Minnesota Multiphastic Personality Disorder (MMPI), Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI), and the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Drs. Barnard and Herkov opined, among other things, that Respondent suffers from a "dysthymic condition" and from "characterological problems that play a considerable role in his [Respondent's] behavior." Further, Drs. Barnard and Herkov opined that Respondent denies any responsibility for his inappropriate conduct, instead blaming his patients, and that such denial places Respondent "at serious risk to continue to engage in these inappropriate behaviors." Drs. Banard and Herkov made several recommendations. Concerned with the "intransigence of [the] characterological traits and the strength and pervasiveness of his [Respondent's] current denial," Drs. Banard and Herkov recommended, among other things, that Respondent participate in a structured and intensive inpatient psychotherapy treatment program, specializing in sex offenders; that, after the inpatient treatment, Respondent receive long-term psychotherapy in his local community with a therapist trained in dealing with sexual offenders, noting that prior outpatient psychotherapy had been ineffective; that periodic reports be made to the PRN; that Respondent become a member of the local Caduceus Group; and that Respondent continue the practice of always having a female assistant present when examining a female patient. Furthermore, Drs. Banard and Herkov stated that Respondent's "motivation for change appears to be poor, and any intervention program hinges to a great extent on patient [Respondent] willingness to change" and that Respondent "may have to be faced with dire consequences before he possesses the necessary motivation to participate in such a program." Respondent desired a second opinion. On April 9, 1993, a second psychiatric evaluation of Respondent was performed at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, by Dr. Anthony Reading, M.D., a psychiatrist, and Dr. Irving B. Weiner, Ph.D. Dr. Reading was the Chairperson of and a professor at the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at the University. Making no specific diagnosis, Dr. Reading opined, among other things, in the evaluation that Respondent does not represent an ongoing danger to female patients through inappropriate sexual behavior and that Respondent has a number of emotionally constricted personality attributes which are under control. Dr. Reading recommended, among other things, that the requirement of having a female professional present during Respondent's examination of female patients be continued and that Respondent receive outpatient psychiatric treatment, conducted by a PRN-approved individual who is trained in the therapy particularly associated with Respondent's problems and who has no prior social or professional relationship with Respondent. A copy of Dr. Reading's evaluation was forwarded to the PRN. A review of the evaluations by Drs. Banard and Reading was conducted by Dr. Raymond Pomm for the PRN. Dr. Pomm was a PRN staff psychiatrist who renders opinions to PRN's director, Dr. Roger Goetz, regarding psychiatric, chemical dependency and boundary violation cases. Based on Dr. Pomm's review, PRN took the position that Dr. Reading's evaluation was based on incomplete information and was, therefore, invalid. Wanting to obtain an independent review, PRN forwarded a copy of the two evaluations performed by Drs. Banard and Reading to Dr. James Edgar, a psychiatrist at the South Tampa Medical Center, Tampa, Florida, for his review. Having reviewed the evaluations, Dr. Edgar reached several conclusions and notified PRN of his conclusions by letter dated May 5, 1993.2 Dr. Edgar concluded that Respondent suffers from "a characterological disorder characterized by narcissistic traits of self-centeredness and relative callousness to the needs of others, denial of personal responsibility for his action and a preference for getting his own needs met without much regard for the needs of others." Dr. Edgar determined that Respondent's prognosis was "extremely guarded if not poor" and that Respondent "shows no evidence of motivation for treatment." Further, Dr. Edgar concluded that Respondent had misrepresented himself to Dr. Reading and that Respondent was a "significant risk" to patients. Moreover, Dr. Edgar concluded that, if Respondent was to be allowed to continue his practice under the auspices of the PRN, Respondent should be participating in a "well structured treatment plan." Dr. Edgar provided specifics regarding the treatment plan, including an autonomous female attendant, inpatient treatment and, after the inpatient treatment, outpatient psychotherapy. Also, Dr. Edgar indicated that he was "pessimistic" that the inpatient treatment would have any significant impact on Respondent's personality structure. Dr. Edgar's report was presented to the PRN. After reviewing the evaluations and Dr. Edgar's report, PRN required Respondent to present himself for admission for inpatient therapy and provided Respondent with a choice of facilities for the therapy. The Menninger Clinic at the C.F. Menninger Memorial Hospital in Topeka, Kansas, was chosen. It was agreed by Respondent and PRN that they would abide by the recommendations made by The Menninger Clinic. On or about May 3, 1993, Respondent presented himself to The Menninger Clinic for evaluation by Dr. Donald E. Rosen, M.D., Director of the Professionals in Crisis Program at The Menninger Clinic, and by Dr. Rosen's staff. However, inpatient admission did not occur. In his report, Dr. Rosen stated, among other things, that Respondent "clearly did not desire inpatient treatment (or treatment in general)"; that Respondent, during the initial interview, "denied the presence of any psychiatric symptoms, psychological conflicts, or presence of any treatment goals that he would hope to accomplish in a treatment process"; and that Respondent was openly cautious and withheld some information, with his withholding being "overt and in other ways, more subtle." Dr. Rosen was, therefore, unable to make any specific recommendation, stating, among other things, that "no specific recommendations for ongoing psychiatric treatment are made at this time." Further, in his report Dr. Rosen addressed the situation of a female attendant being present during Respondent's treatment and examination of female patients. Dr. Rosen was concerned with Respondent's manipulative behavior and stated that, considering Respondent's "long-standing history of sexual relations with his patients, his lack of guilt about these relationships, his inability to see this behavior as a personal ethical issue, and the overt manipulativeness that surrounded this evaluation," he could not "state with confidence that the patient [Respondent] will not attempt to make his employees allow him to see female patients without a female healthcare professional in the room at all times." It is undisputed that Dr. Rosen did not make any recommendations. By letter dated May 6, 1993, to Respondent and written at Respondent's request, Dr. Rosen confirmed that Respondent presented himself for inpatient admission but was not admitted. Furthermore, Dr. Rosen stated the reasons for Respondent not being admitted, which were because Respondent "denied the presence of any psychiatric symptoms, denied any psychological problems you [Respondent] wished to work on, and had no goals for what you [Respondent] hoped treatment would accomplish." These reasons were the same reasons expressed in Dr. Rosen's report. Inpatient treatment could not be accomplished, if Respondent refused to admit that he had psychological problems and that he needed to work on his psychological problems, and to establish goals for what he hoped the treatment would accomplish. By certified letter dated August 3, 1993, to Respondent, PRN confirmed its request made May 26, 1993, that Respondent not practice medicine until he completed inpatient treatment. Furthermore, in the letter PRN notified Respondent that, before he could return to the practice of medicine, his treating psychiatrist must confirm that he is able to return to the practice of medicine with reasonable safety to the public. By letter dated February 10, 1994, to the then Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), PRN notified the Department that Respondent was in violation of the Board of Medicine's Final Order filed January 8, 1992. PRN recapped, among other things, the evaluations performed, including the evaluation at The Menninger Clinic, and the results of the evaluations. Furthermore, PRN advised the Department of the request PRN made to Respondent in May 1993 that Respondent refrain from practicing medicine until he had undergone inpatient treatment at The Menninger Clinic and the same request it had made in August 1993. PRN concluded, among other things, that Respondent had violated the Final Order; that it (PRN) was unable to monitor Respondent, as to refraining from practicing medicine; that Respondent continued to need inpatient therapy at The Menninger Clinic; and that Respondent presented a danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. On July 20, 1994, Dr. Burton Cahn, M.D., a psychiatrist, wrote a letter addressed to "To Whom It May Concern," stating that Respondent "does not represent either a danger to himself or to others." Prior to writing the letter, Respondent was Dr. Cahn's patient from November 1989 through 1991. Dr. Cahn never conducted any diagnostic tests, such as the MMPI, on Respondent. Also, Dr. Cahn is a personal friend of Respondent. By letter dated September 6, 1994, the Compliance Officer for the Board of Medicine notified Respondent that he had complied with all of the requirements of the Final Order dated January 8, 1992. The letter further reminded Respondent of the restriction that a licensed female healthcare professional was required to be present when he treated or examined female patients. However, the Compliance Officer issued the letter in error. She had failed to communicate with the PRN, prior to issuing the letter, to determine whether Respondent had completed the requirements as to the PRN, such as being evaluated by a PRN- approved psychiatrist and complying with the recommendations of the psychiatrist. If the Compliance Officer had communicated with the PRN, she would have been informed by PRN that Respondent had not completed its requirements. Further, legal counsel with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)3 informed PRN that Respondent was under no obligation to comply with PRN's request of May 1993 and August 1993 to refrain from practicing medicine until he undergoes inpatient treatment at The Menninger Clinic. Moreover, the legal counsel further informed PRN that Respondent was only required to comply with the recommendations of the psychiatrist. By letter dated November 1, 1995, to the legal counsel of AHCA, the PRN again expressed, among other things, its concern that Respondent was capable of manipulating his staff when treating or examining a female patient. The PRN advised the legal counsel that it considered Respondent's impairment to affect his ability to practice medicine and that his impairment "constitutes an immediate, serious danger to the public health, safety and welfare." Subsequently, on February 22, 1996, the Administrative Complaint in the present case was filed by the Petitioner. At that time, the prevailing opinion amongst all of the PRN-approved psychiatrists, except for Dr. Rosen, was that Respondent was suffering from a psychological illness. Moreover, the prevailing opinion amongst all of the PRN-approved psychiatrists, except for Dr. Rosen, was that inpatient therapy was required. Dr. Rosen was unable to make any diagnosis or recommendations. Even though Respondent presented himself for inpatient admission, he was not admitted due to his denial that he had a psychological illness that required therapy; without Respondent admitting that he had a psychological problem, no treatment could be effectuated. Without treatment, Respondent remained ill; he suffered from a psychological illness. Without treatment, Respondent was a danger to his female patients and was unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to his patients by reason of illness.4 After the filing of the Administrative Complaint in the present case, the parties agreed that Respondent would be evaluated by a psychiatrist acceptable to the PRN. After consideration, including the location of Respondent's practice, which was on the East Coast, and Respondent's wish for a psychiatrist on the East Coast to conduct the evaluation, Dr. Ronald Shellow, a psychiatrist in Miami, was recommended by PRN, but PRN also indicated that Dr. Shellow was not an expert in the behavioral disorder with which Respondent had been diagnosed by other PRN approved psychiatrists. On August 7, 14, and 23, 1996, Dr. Shellow conducted an evaluation of Respondent, with each session lasting one hour. Dr. Shellow administered the Bender-Gestalt and the House-Tree- Person psychological tests. In his report dated September 2, 1996, Dr. Shellow states, among other things, that Respondent related to him the incident involving the female patient, on which the Administrative Complaint in the present case was filed, but that Respondent "would not say whether this had happened with other patients." Clearly, Respondent was not being forthright with Dr. Shellow because, prior to this incident, other incidents involving female patients had occurred. This additional information was not available to Dr. Shellow for his consideration in his evaluation. Again, Respondent was withholding information. In his evaluation, Dr. Shellow opined, among other things, that Respondent was not suffering from a psychiatric disturbance and that Respondent had no psychiatric disorder; however, based on Respondent's history, Dr. Shellow Respondent did have a dependent personality disorder. Dr. Shellow concluded, among other things, that the reoccurrence of the incident with another female patient was "unlikely" as long as Respondent's marriage remained "satisfying" and he continued to "see his psychiatrist on a quarterly basis." Dr. Shellow indicated that Respondent's present psychiatrist, Dr. Cahn, concurred with him. Subsequently, Dr. Shellow received a copy of the evaluation conducted by The Menninger Clinic from Dr. Cahn. Having reviewed The Menninger Clinic's evaluation, which revealed past encounters by Respondent with his female patients, by letter dated November 14, 1996, to Dr. Pomm of the PRN, Dr. Shellow notified PRN that his opinion had not changed. Dr. Cahn had begun treating Respondent again in 1995. His opinion remained, and remains, unchanged. Dr. Cahn is of the opinion that, even though Respondent was suffering from a personality disorder when he first began treating Respondent in 1989, Respondent no longer suffers from a psychological illness and, therefore, requires no psychiatric treatment.5 Dr. Cahn agrees that a personality disorder is a psychological illness. Considering the proof, the opinions of Dr. Cahn are less than persuasive, and it is concluded that Respondent continues to suffer from a psychological illness.6 Furthermore, Dr. Shellow expressed in his letter dated November 14, 1996, that he was of the opinion that Respondent could practice medicine with skill and safety under certain conditions. Dr. Shellow stated that if Respondent "is to continue practicing medicine with skill and safety, he should be in psychotherapy on some sort of sontinuing [sic] basis, and he should be supervised to prevent these actions from occurring again." Regarding the monitoring of Respondent's practice, Dr. Shellow was of the opinion that any monitoring should be devised and decided upon by the PRN and that, with Respondent being in his 60's, Respondent should enter into a contract with the PRN for as long as he practices medicine. Also, Dr. Shellow opined that some way should be developed to use Respondent's skills, but that, if Respondent prevented anyone in his office from reporting to the PRN, Respondent was not practicing medicine with skill and safety. At no time did Dr. Shellow receive or review the evaluations of Drs. Banard, Reading or Edgar. On December 2, 1996, AHCA filed an Order of Emergency Restriction of License against Respondent. His medical practice was restricted as to his treating or examining female patients, monitoring by PRN, and entering into a contract with PRN. On December 30, 1996, Respondent executed an advocacy contract with PRN. In the contract, Respondent designated, among other things, Dr. Cahn as his treating psychiatrist, with whom he would have quarterly psychiatric treatment meetings; Dr. Michael Langone, M.D., as his supervising practitioner; and Gretchen Nelson, a registered nurse, as the female chaperon during his treatment or examination of female patients. Dr. Cahn is known to the PRN. He has been a referral psychiatrist for PRN for several years. Nowhere on the advocacy contract was there a provision to identify the relationship of the supervising practitioner and the chaperon to the physician who is being monitored. Dr. Langone was an associate and employee of Respondent. Nurse Nelson was an employee of Respondent. On January 16, 1997, PRN executed the advocacy contract. By letter dated February 4, 1997, PRN notified the legal counsel for AHCA that an advocacy contract had been entered into between it and Respondent. In March 1997, PRN experienced a problem as to the female chaperon, Nurse Nelson. The PRN telephoned Respondent's office to confer with Nurse Nelson. Upon speaking with Nurse Nelson, among other things, PRN learned that she was not aware of her responsibility as the female chaperon to the advocacy contract and that she was employed by Respondent. By letter dated March 24, 1997, PRN notified Respondent that it had contacted his office several times and had problems contacting the individuals indicated in the advocacy contract; that the contract needed to be reviewed with the individuals; and that the individuals would be receiving random monitoring telephone calls from PRN to access compliance with the contract. Further, PRN notified Respondent that copies of the contract mailed to the female chaperon and the office staff person designated to handout and collect the Patient Survey Form were returned, and PRN requested that Respondent make sure that the individuals receive copies of the contract. After discovering that Respondent had designated an associate and employee as the supervising practitioner, PRN was concerned that Dr. Langone may have a conflict of interest. Also, PRN discovered that Dr. Langone was leaving Respondent's practice. PRN decided to no longer approve Dr. Langone as the supervising practitioner. By letter dated June 2, 1997, PRN notified the legal counsel for AHCA that PRN had attempted to monitor Respondent's practice without success and that Respondent was currently not being monitored by PRN. Furthermore, PRN stated that Respondent, in its opinion, continued to require monitoring by it. Respondent has not been charged with a violation of the advocacy contract. PRN has not notified the Petitioner that Respondent was not in compliance with the contract. Neither Dr. Cahn nor any individual designated in the contract has notified the PRN that Respondent was not in compliance with the contract. Dr. Cahn, Respondent's approved treating psychiatrist, is of the opinion that by having a licensed female professional present when Respondent examines or treats a female patient, Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Dr. Pomm of PRN is of the opinion that, with a monitoring contract in place and compliance with the contract, Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. However, Dr. Pomm is also guarded as to the success of any future contract due to Respondent's history of manipulation and personality disorder.
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 Subsection 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes, in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Suspending Respondent's license until he is able to demonstrate that he is able to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Placing Respondent on probation, under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Board of Medicine, for five years following the removal of the suspension. Imposing an administrative fine of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 486.125(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of medicine pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 458, Florida Statutes. Mr. Westrope is, and was at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physical therapy assistant in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PTA1170. Beginning in or about September 2004, D.D. was being provided physical therapy services through Girling Health Care, Incorporated (Girling). Girling contracted with Rehab Action, Incorporated (Rehab) to provide home health physical therapy to patients. Rehab contracted with Mr. Westrope to perform the physical therapy in the patients' homes. In or about September 2004, Mr. Westrope was assigned to provide physical therapy to D.D., who had undergone a complete knee replacement. D.D. had been assessed by Mr. Westrope’s supervising physical therapist, Gaspard de Laaf, on September 29, 2004, prior to Mr. Westrope beginning his physical therapy services on September 30, 2004. Mr. Westrope was required by Rehab to complete a visitation slip at the end of each physical therapy session. Mr. de Laaf had provided instruction to Mr. Westrope on how to complete the form. Mr. Westrope would send the completed form to Mr. de Laaf, who reviewed the form and sent it to Girling for reimbursement. When Mr. Westrope provided physical therapy to D.D., she would lie on her bed and perform therapy exercises, and then move into the kitchen where Mr. Westrope would measure the bend in her knee. When each session was over, Mr. Westrope would complete a visit slip for the treatment, and D.D. signed them to verify that she received the services. D.D. is visually impaired and can only see light. In order to sign the forms, D.D. requested Mr. Westrope to place the forms near the end of the kitchen table so that she could align her arm with the table edge so that her signature would be in a straight line. D.D. always signed her signature as "D.A.D." D.D. prided herself on her independence and did not allow anyone else to sign the visit slips for her. Mr. Westrope provided physical therapy services to D.D. on September 30 and October 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, and 22, 2004. Mr. de Laaf evaluated D.D. and provided physical therapy services to her on October 25, 2004. Mr. Westrope provided services to D.D. on October 28, 2004. Mr. Westrope completed and submitted visit slip documentation for physical therapy treatment of D.D., which he claimed to have provided on October 16, 2004; October 18, 2004; October 20, 2004; October 30, 2004; and November 1, 2004. However, Mr. Westrope did not provide services to D.D. on those dates. On or about November 3, 2004, D.D. contacted Girling complaining that she had not received physical therapy from Mr. Westrope in a while. On or about November 4, 2004, Mr. de Laaf was notified by Girling regarding the complaint it received from D.D. Mr. de Laaf then prohibited Mr. Westrope from seeing any Girling patients after Girling indicated that it did not want Mr. Westrope performing any of its services. Mr. de Laaf then resumed the treatment of D.D. On or about November 5, 2004, Tammy Hain, R.N., and Rob Hudson, O.T., who are supervisors employed by Girling, visited D.D. to verify that she had not been receiving physical therapy from Mr. Westrope on October 16, 2004; October 18, 2004; October 20, 2004; October 30, 2004; and November 1, 2004. D.D. verified that she had not received services on those dates. D.D.'s daughter has been assisting D.D. with her financial transactions for 15 years and is familiar with D.D.'s signature. At the final hearing, D.D.'s daughter reviewed for the first time the visit slips submitted by Mr. Westrope for services to D.D. After reviewing the visit slips, D.D.'s daughter concluded that the signatures on the visit slips for October 16, 2004; October 18, 2004; October 20, 2004; October 30, 2004; and November 1, 2004, were not written by D.D. D.D.'s daughter verified that D.D. always uses her middle initial “A” when signing her signature. The signatures on the disputed dates do not contain D.D.'s middle initial and are different in appearance from the signatures on the visit slips on which Mr. Westrope documented services that he did provide to D.D. On five occasions during the time that Mr. Westrope was providing services to D.D., Robert Hudson also provided occupational therapy services to D.D. on five occasions. At the end of the therapy sessions with Mr. Hudson, D.D. signed the visit slips “D.A.D.” The parties stipulated that if Mr. Westrope did not provide the services to D.D. on the dates he indicated on the visit slips, then Mr. Westrope violated the rules of the Department and Subsection 486.125(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Michael G. Westrope, P.T.A., violated Subsection 486.125(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of a $2,000 fine and a six-month suspension followed by one year of probation with the terms to be set by the Department at the conclusion of the suspension period and requiring Respondent to complete five hours of Continuing Education in physical therapy medical records documentation. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 7th day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Board of Medicine was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the medical profession in Florida. Respondent was licensed as a physician in Florida under license No. ME 0040325, and at all times pertinent was assigned as Medical Director of Manatee Glens Corporation, (Manatee). Manatee is a corporation which operates a community mental health center and which provides out patient therapy sessions for residents of various Adult Congregate Living Facilities, (ACLF'S). One of the facilities where Manatee personnel provide therapy is Campbell House in Sarasota. A part of Respondent's responsibility as Medical Director of Manatee was to supervise the treatment of patients residing in the ACLF's, to review the appropriateness of treatment and to review the authorizations for treatment. Patient #1 and his wife, Imogene, were married for 52 years. He was a retired officer in the United States Army, and after his military service, worked for several years in the real estate and securities field in the Sarasota area. Some time after his retirement, Patient #1 was diagnosed as having Parkinson's Disease. In 1986, he began hallucinating. His condition deteriorated badly and reached the point where he could not make decisions. Because of that, Imogene obtained a durable Power of Attorney to allow her to conduct her husband's affairs. In March, 1993, when Imogene could no longer care for her husband at home, she placed him in Campbell House. At the time of the placement, Imogene provided the staff with the power of attorney and her home phone number. By this time Patient #1 had ceased communicating and, she believed, could neither talk nor read. Shortly after his placement, on March 30, 1993, the patient was interviewed by Anne Phillips, an outreach therapist for Manatee, to determine if he was a suitable participant in Manatee's outreach program. After she explained the program to him in detail and in what was described as simple terms, Ms. Phillips requested that the patient sign the consent for treatment form for enrollment in the Manatee program. As a result, Patient #1 signed a consent form authorizing Manatee Glens Corporation to provide him with therapy services at the ACLF. There is no evidence that the patient was coerced or threatened in order to make him sign the form. However, Petitioner claims, as does Imogene, that the signature is not valid because Patient #1 was not mentally competent to consent to, or otherwise authorize, such treatment for himself. There is evidence to the contrary, however. Ms. Phillips indicates the patient appeared able to concentrate on what he was being told and to understand what he was being asked to sign. On March 31, 1993, the day after Patient #1 signed the consent form, Manatee Glens began providing therapy services to him. Respondent authorized the treatment plan utilized for the patient. Imogene had never authorized any treatment for her husband, and when, in mid-October, 1993 she learned that he was receiving the therapy sessions, she asked that they be discontinued. By that time, the patient's mind had deteriorated to the point where he did not recognize his wife. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether the patient was able to participate in or benefit from the therapy sessions which were conducted. Treatment records indicate that at times he seemed to be aware of his peers but he could not name them and could not discuss anything about them. There is some substantial doubt as to whether he even knew the name of the counselor who conducted the therapy sessions, Anne Phillips. He would, at times, sleep through all or a part of a session and often had trouble giving yes or no answers to simple questions. On the other hand, Mr. Djelic, the home operator who observed the patient on a daily basis, reports he regularly read the newspaper and occasionally read a magazine. He was capable of feeding himself, getting dressed and letting others know when he had to go to the bathroom and, in the opinion of Mr. Djelic, was relatively functional. His medications at the time included Senement which has the side effects of confusion, depression and memory impairment. He had both good and bad days depending upon the effects of his medication and his Parkinson's disease. When he was examined by Dr. Schwartzbaum on March 8, 1993, he was diagnosed as having Parkinson's disease, but there was no indication of any mental health limitation, and none of the records presented at the hearing indicated any diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. The evidence of that diagnosis came solely from the patient's wife and is hearsay. Respondent did not examine the patient in question before authorizing the treatment complained of. He reviewed the patient's medical records, including the report by Dr. Schwartzbaum, and from them concluded that when the patient signed the consent form on March 30, 1993 he was knowledgeable, aware and cognizant about what he was signing, what the treatment entailed, and that he would be paying for the treatment. Respondent also determined that the patient participated in identifying some goals for treatment. Based on this information, Respondent concluded that the patient was competent to sign the consent form. There was no evidence that Patient #1 had ever been declared incompetent by a court or that a guardian had been appointed to manage his affairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in this matter charging Dr. Einisman with a violation of Section 458.331(1)(p), Florida Statutes, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease which is not supported by any independent evidence or record. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence not proven by competence evidence of record. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. First and second sentences accepted and incorporate herein. Remainder not proven by competent evidence of record. - 11. Not proven by competent evidence of record. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. First 5 sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Sixth sentence not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. Seventh sentence accepted and incor- porated herein. Eighth sentence accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted but considered in light of the fact that the witness is the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven A. Rothenburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 Richard D. Saba, Esquire 2033 Main Street, Suite 303 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case, as set forth in the Prehearing Stipulation, are as follows: Whether Respondent was terminated from the State Medicaid Program; [Case No. 14-2488, Count I] Whether Respondent failed to update his practitioner profile within fifteen days of the filing of the order terminating him from the State Medicaid Program; [Case No. 14-2488, Count II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with T.J.[1/] for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with T.J.; [Case No. 14-1342, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with M.B. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with M.B.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with C.J. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with C.J.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with D.K. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with D.K.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with A.H. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with A.H.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] and Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with S.D. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with S.D. [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II]
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Medicine (the “Department”) is the State agency responsible for licensing and monitoring physicians in the State of Florida. The Department regulates the practice of medicine in accordance with section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2014 codification. Respondent is a licensed Florida physician, certified in the area of pain management, holding license number ME 97134. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was practicing medicine at one of two locations: the Back Authority for Contemporary Knowledge, (a pain management clinic known as the “Back Center” located in Melbourne, Florida); and Advantacare (in its Altamonte Springs and Daytona Beach offices). Respondent was employed at the Back Center from January 2008 through September 2011, and at Advantacare from March 2012 through April 2013. Respondent provided pain management services for numerous patients during his tenure at each of the clinics. While at the Back Center, he saw 50 to 60 patients per day in an 8-hour workday, doing about 15 medication injections per day. At Advantacare he was seeing about 30 patients per day. By all accounts, Respondent is a skilled and proficient pain management physician. At Advantacare, Respondent would see patients for regular office visits at the Altamonte Springs office on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; Wednesday would be set aside for administering injections under a fluoroscope, described as sort of a C-shaped X-ray machine, performed at the Daytona Beach office. None of the sexual behavior alleged in the Administrative Complaints occurred during injections performed under fluoroscope. A general policy existed at the Back Center that required physicians to have another facility employee (medical technician, nurse, other) present in an examination room when a physician was providing care to a patient not of the same gender as the doctor. This “chaperone” policy is standard in the health care industry. There is no credible evidence that Respondent was ever shown the Back Center’s policy in writing, although it is probable the policy was accessible on the website of the entity (Osler Corporation) that owned the Back Center for a period of time. As a practicing physician, Respondent was also presumed to be aware of and to follow the chaperone policy and he admitted knowing about the policy in general. Respondent was, however, verbally apprised of the policy by his supervisor, Dr. Hynes, by the clinic operations manager, Mr. Pachkoski, and by the chief administrative officer, Cathy Bird. Respondent acknowledged that it was best to have another person in the examination room if he was providing treatment to a female patient. If no chaperone was available, it was his stated practice to keep the door open. Respondent did not feel like assistants were always available to chaperone, but neither his supervisor (Dr. Hynes) nor a co-physician (Dr. Zaidi) remembers Respondent complaining that staff was not available at the Back Center. The testimony of all six complainants in this case contradicts Respondent’s contention; each of them said they were treated by Respondent (alone) in a room with the door closed. When asked directly whether he ever treated female patients at the Back Center in a room with the door closed, Respondent admitted that it happened on occasion. The best and most persuasive evidence in this case is that a chaperone policy did exist and that Respondent did not follow the policy. Between September 2008 and January 2013, Respondent treated six female patients who are the subjects of the Department’s Administrative Complaint. Each of the patients is identified only by their initials in an attempt to maintain their confidentiality and privacy. The six patients will be addressed in chronological order based on the dates of their alleged mistreatment by Respondent. Patient S.D. Patient S.D. was a patient of Respondent between September and December 2008. S.D.’s status as a patient was stipulated to by the parties.2/ While she was Respondent’s patient, S.D. was also an employee of the Back Center. During the period of time Respondent was treating S.D., they engaged in a series of emails which could be construed as very sexual in nature. For example, on September 23, 2008, Respondent and S.D. had the following email exchange: S.D. – “You buying Dinner….Or am I your [f***ing] dinner????”Respondent – “What do you think? I want u as breakfast, lunch and dinner. My precious love.” S.D. – Ok so what am I going to eat LOL??? Let me guess a protein shake”Respondent – “If I shake it hard enough yes.” Then, on September 25, the two had this email exchange:Respondent – “NO I WANT U TO FEED ME!!! AND NO YOU R NOT GOING THERE!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I’M UR MAN AND I SAY NO.”S.D. – “Then act like it and stop flirting with the [f***ing] skank!”Respondent – “WHY? GETTING JEALOUS SWEETHEART?”S.D. - “No I guess I have no reason to be.” Respondent – “EXACTLY, YOU HAD ME AT LUNCH AND LEFT TO GO TO WORK. SO YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING, PRECIOUS.” Respondent denies that the exchange of emails with S.D. suggests anything of a sexual nature. He said, e.g., that in his Iranian culture, talking about eating someone was tantamount to saying you cared deeply for them. Respondent’s denial of the sexual nature of the emails is not persuasive. S.D. did not testify at final hearing nor was her testimony preserved by way of a deposition transcript. The Department offered into evidence an exhibit comprised of various emails between S.D. and Respondent, two of which were discussed above. At least one co-worker, Lizamar Korfhage (a physician’s assistant at the Back Center), heard S.D. yell loudly in the office--as S.D. was being terminated from employment--that she (S.D.) and Respondent were having sexual relations. Cathy Bird, former chief administrative officer at the Back Center, had discussed the alleged affair with S.D. during several conversations before S.D.'s employment with the Back Center ended. Bird also talked with Respondent about the situation after S.D. was fired from the Back Center. Respondent was concerned that S.D. would tell Respondent’s wife about the affair and sought Bird’s guidance in the matter. Based upon the entirety of the clear and convincing evidence presented, Respondent was involved in a sexual relationship with S.D. at some point in time when S.D. was also a patient of the Back Center. Patient T.J. Patient T.J. was a 37-year-old patient when she saw Respondent at the Back Center on October 29, 2010. T.J. had seen Respondent professionally some 16 or so times previously. No inappropriate conduct had occurred on any of those visits. On the October 29 visit, T.J. was escorted into an examination room by a nurse as usual. Respondent came in and, after examining her, suggested that trigger point injections might help alleviate her pain, which she described as being a “2” on a scale of 1 to 10.3/ She agreed to the plan of treatment. Respondent had T.J. sit on an armless stool and lean her arms and head onto a desk. Respondent stood on her left side and began administering injections into her neck. As he leaned against her body, T.J. felt what she described as Respondent’s erect penis rubbing on her upper arm or shoulder. She felt like Respondent was intentionally rubbing her in what she later concluded to be a sexual manner. When he finished the injections, Respondent did not act any differently than usual. T.J. felt like something “weird” had just happened, but decided not to report it because she was not completely sure about her perceptions. Respondent, in contradiction to T.J.’s testimony, said he generally stayed four to five inches away from his patient when administering the injections, but would sometimes come into contact with them. T.J. returned for a follow up visit on November 24, 2010, receiving another injection by Respondent. She reported no misconduct by Respondent on that date. On December 23, 2010, T.J. returned to the Back Center for additional treatment. This time, her pain was radiating all the way down to her buttocks area and was described as a “3” out of 10. She was again escorted to an examination room to wait for Respondent. Respondent came in and closed the door, as was his usual practice during T.J.’s visits. After examining her, Respondent suggested injections for sacroiliac joint pain. T.J. was told to lie on the examination table on her left side. Respondent had T.J. lower her jeans to just below her knees. She had her left leg out straight and her right leg bent at the knee and across her left leg. Respondent then began to press his fingers on different parts of her inner thigh searching for the source of her pain. The pain was centered between her knee and buttocks area, and Respondent made an injection in that area. Respondent then had T.J. roll over to her right side as he pulled the table slightly away from the wall and placed himself between the wall and the table. Respondent began pushing on her inner thigh again, starting at her knee and moving upward toward her buttocks. As he did that, his tone of voice changed and he began panting. He continued to touch and probe her thighs as his hands went higher until he ultimately touched her vagina. T.J. immediately said, “That’s it” and quickly got off the examination table and pulled up her jeans. Respondent appeared sweaty and red-faced, looking to T.J. like a person who had just engaged in sex. T.J. then began to consider whether Respondent’s behavior during the October 29, 2010, visit had indeed been sexual in nature as well. She concluded that it was, and decided not to see Respondent for treatment in the future. She did not, however, report either of the incidents to the Back Center immediately. She ultimately did so, telling physician's assistant Korfhage about the incident some 10 months later. After seeing a report on television in 2013 that Respondent had been accused by another patient of sexual misconduct, she decided to make a report to the police about her own experiences with Respondent. When the police did not prosecute, she contacted an attorney in order to file a civil action against Respondent. T.J. appeared to be honest and forthright during her appearance at final hearing. Her testimony about her version of the events was credible, clear, and convincing. In his testimony at final hearing, Respondent did not specifically refute T.J.’s testimony so much as he explained how his normal process would not allow for the kind of touching T.J. alleged to have occurred. Respondent did not specifically or directly deny touching patient T.J.’s vagina, saying only that there would be no reason to do so. Patient D.K. (also known as D.W.) D.K. was a regular patient of Respondent and the Back Center. She had an appointment on January 13, 2011, to see Respondent for pain she was experiencing in her lower back and sides. On previous visits to the Back Center, Respondent had done localized injections to help D.K. deal with the pain. On those visits, she had simply rolled her pants down below her waist and leaned against the examination table in order for Respondent to do the injections. On the January 13 visit, she was told to lie on the table and pull her jeans down to her knees while Respondent went to prepare the medications. Respondent returned, closing the door as he came into the room. Respondent began injecting medications into her back and both sides. He then moved lower and administered injections into her thighs although she had not complained about any pain in that area. Respondent then moved her jeans down to her ankles and began administering injections into her calves. While he was injecting her, she felt him rubbing his erect penis against her thighs and heard his breathing get heavier. She could also feel Respondent lean closer to her and felt his breath on her thighs as he injected her calves. After the injections were complete, D.K. said Respondent was sweating, flushed, and “looked like my husband after we’ve had intercourse.” D.K. left the office and returned to her car. She immediately began to mentally process what had occurred to her, but did not immediately tell anyone at the Back Center. She was shocked and upset by the event but waited a few days before telling her husband what had happened. She then reported the events to someone at the Back Center. The Back Center asked her to come in so she could discuss the situation with Dr. Hynes, medical director of the Back Center. Later, D.K. made a complaint to local law enforcement about the incident. D.K. has also contacted an attorney to look into filing a civil lawsuit against Respondent. In response to the complaint by D.K., Dr. Hynes mandated that Respondent have a medical assistant with him during any contact with female patients. Despite the prohibition, Respondent continued to see female patients in an examination room without others present. He was confronted several times by the site operations manager about this violation, but Respondent did not change his behavior. D.K. was a credible witness. She provided a clear and unequivocal description of what transpired during her visit to the Back Center on January 13, 2011. Patient C.J. Patient C.J. presented to the Back Center experiencing pain as a result of shrapnel wounds received while she was serving in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. C.J. did not testify at final hearing so her physical demeanor could not be assessed. Her deposition transcript was admitted into evidence over objection. In May 2011, C.J. was referred to the Back Center by her treating physician at Patrick Air Force Base. She took the referral, called the Back Center, and was assigned to Respondent for pain management services. C.J. went to the Back Center on May 4, 2011. She was experiencing significant pain and was physically uncomfortable. C.J. was processed in by a receptionist and then led to an examination room by a female employee. The employee took C.J.’s blood pressure, gathered some personal information, and left the room. On that date, C.J. was wearing jeans, a blouse, and open- toed shoes. She had on “full underwear” that day. Respondent came into the room and examined C.J. as she sat on the examining table. He advised C.J. that an injection might benefit her. As C.J. remembered it, the injection was to be in the side of her neck, and then in her back or hip. Respondent left the room to obtain the medications as C.J. waited. Upon his return to the room, Respondent injected Depo- Medrol 40 mg, Toradol 30 mg, Lidocaine 2% 0.5 mL, and Marcaine 0.5 mL into the left side of her neck. After the initial injection, Respondent left the room while the medication took effect. C.J. began to feel very relaxed and sleepy. Respondent recollects that C.J. complained of feeling light-headed, but does not believe any medication he injected would have caused that to happen. Respondent later returned to the room and prepared to give C.J. another injection into her hip area. She sat up on the table as Respondent pulled one end of the table slightly away from the wall.4/ After moving the table, Respondent had C.J. lie down on her side, lift her blouse, and unbuckle her jeans. She then slid her jeans and underwear down past her hips as directed. At that point, Respondent began injecting a solution into C.J.’s hip. As the injection was proceeding, she felt Respondent slide his hand over her hip and “in my groin area.” While doing that, Respondent’s crotch was pressed against C.J.’s buttocks. C.J. felt what she believed to be Respondent’s erect penis pushing against her buttocks as he administered the injection. After the injection was completed, Respondent came around from behind the table and told C.J. she would need to come see him again in a few weeks. C.J. got up from the table and began to realize that “something was not right” about the treatment she had just received. When C.J. went to the front desk to check out, she asked a nurse to identify the medications which had been injected but was unable to get that information. C.J. then left the Back Center and immediately called her nurse case manager at Patrick Air Force Base to report what had occurred. Her nurse advised C.J. to call 911 to report the incident; C.J. did so as she walked out to her car in the parking lot. A policeman arrived some 20 minutes later and took her statement. The officer then went inside to talk to Respondent. He said Respondent appeared to be surprised and shocked by C.J.’s allegation. The police decided not to file any charges against Respondent based on C.J.’s complaint. The reporting police officer (Middendorf) seemed to question C.J.’s veracity or truthfulness on the day of the incident. He said C.J. was upset and seemed lethargic, except when she was talking on the telephone to “one of her superiors.” According to Middendorf, C.J. acted consistent with someone who may be under the influence of drugs. He did acknowledge that C.J. had just come out of a pain management clinic. Middendorf also felt C.J. was either confused or not telling the truth concerning where Respondent had allegedly touched her. C.J., who was obviously distraught at the time, indicated both her pubic area and her outer thigh when she told Middendorf that Respondent had touched her “groin.” Middendorf challenged her about that and C.J. became defensive and argumentative. He did not provide any credible testimony as to why he believed she might be lying to him. His statement that C.J.’s voice changed when she was talking to her office on the phone is not conclusive evidence that she was not telling him the truth. C.J. never returned to the Back Center. She obtained pain management treatment elsewhere. Inasmuch as C.J.’s demeanor could not be judged because she did not appear in person, her testimony must be considered using other factors. In this case, the testimony was very similar to the facts described by other patients of Respondent concerning their treatment by him. The events as described by C.J. were believable and convincing, especially when compared to the allegations by other alleged victims. Neither C.J. nor any of the other alleged victims/complainants has talked to other alleged victims about their experiences, so there does not appear to be any collusion between the victims. Patient M.B. Patient M.B. was already a regular patient at the Back Center when she first saw Respondent on July 7, 2011. Respondent’s notes in M.B.’s chart indicate the patient was presenting for “initial evaluation” that day, but that was not correct; she had already been seen several times by other physicians at the Back Center. M.B. had chronic lumbalgia (low back pain) and lower extremity dysesthesia (a burning sensation) which was increasing progressively. Respondent examined M.B., discussed his findings, and scheduled a follow-up appointment for August 2, 2011, at which time he gave her an injection of 1% Xylocaine with approximately 30 ml of Lidocaine 1% on both of her side hips. He also injected a block with a solution containing 2 ml of Marcaine 0.5%, 2 ml of Lidocaine 2%, and 2 ml of Depo- Medrol 80 mg into M.B.’s joints. M.B. reported no suspicious or untoward behavior by Respondent during the July 7 and August 2 appointments. On August 29, 2011, M.B. returned to see Respondent. She presented with pain in her hips and left side. Nurse Bobbi McDonald escorted M.B. to the examination room and took her vital signs before leaving. Respondent came into the room, alone, and closed the door. At that visit, M.B. was wearing khaki mid-thigh cargo shorts, a blouse that tied around her neck, and bikini underwear. Respondent asked about her pain, touched points on her body to identify the exact pain locations, and adjusted her back manually. He then suggested injection of a steroid as a stop-gap measure prior to scheduling her for a fluoroscope injection later. M.B. agreed to the plan. Respondent left the examination room to get the medication. When he returned, he was alone and again he closed the door. Respondent told M.B. to pull her shorts down below her waist and to cover herself with a paper gown. She pulled her shorts and underwear down about halfway across her buttocks, which was lower than she would normally pull them for fluoroscope injections. Respondent began to clean the area for the injection and asked M.B. to pull her garments down further, below her buttocks. Respondent then pulled the table out from the wall and he went between the table and the wall. He injected M.B.’s hip about five times with a solution containing Depo Medrol 80, Toradol 60, Lidocaine, and Marcaine 1 ml. As he injected her, M.B. could feel Respondent’s groin touching her hip. She could feel what she believed to be Respondent’s erect penis rubbing against her in a back and forth motion. By this time, her paper gown had fallen off, exposing her buttocks and vaginal area. After the last injection, M.B. felt Respondent’s fingers touching her vagina. As she pushed upward to get off the table, M.B. felt Respondent touch her vagina again. She got off the table, pulled up her pants, and sat down as the doctor began talking to her. M.B. did not say anything to Respondent. She immediately believed that she had been sexually assaulted, but was too confused and shocked to say anything to anyone. M.B. did not initially report Respondent’s behavior to the Back Center. She later reported her allegations to the Melbourne Police Department and also filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and the Back Center. (M.B. would continue to return to the Back Center, but did not see Respondent again for any of her treatments.) M.B.’s testimony was not as immediately believable as that of some of the other witnesses. Based on her personality, fear of the process, or some other factor, she seemed to be fairly emotionless in describing the incident. However, inasmuch as her testimony was corroborated by what other patients had experienced, her clearly enunciated statements are convincing. Further, M.B. exhibited extreme visual cues as to her intense dislike for Respondent at the final hearing. The testimony of M.B. alone would not be clear and convincing evidence of any wrongdoing by Respondent. However, her testimony is corroboration of and support for the testimony of other victims. Respondent's employment at the Back Center was terminated shortly after M.B.'s appointment with him. There is no evidence as to Respondent's employment from September 2011 until he went to Advantacare in March 2012. Patient A.H. Patient A.H. presented to Advantacare (Daytona Beach office) on January 9, 2013, in an effort to address pain she was suffering as a result of an automobile accident that occurred in October 2012. She wanted to reduce her pain while also reducing the amount of medications she was taking. A.H. had a job which required driving, so she needed to be as drug-free as possible. A.H. was escorted to the examination room. She remembers that Respondent came in, closed the door, and propped it shut. Respondent remembers the door to that room being open, that it would open by itself unless something was placed against it. The medical technician assigned to Respondent said the door did not have any problems, but it would always be half open. There is no corroborated evidence as to whether the door to the room was open, closed, or ajar when A.H. was being examined. Respondent examined A.H. and began to show her some exercises and stretches that he thought might alleviate some of her pain. As she was sitting in a chair being shown how to stretch, A.H. felt Respondent’s erect penis pushing against her back. She quickly told Respondent “I’ve got it” in order to stop his actions. She got up quickly and moved to another chair in the office. A.H. clearly described what she had felt and had no confusion or doubt about what happened. Her testimony about the incident was credible. Respondent then told A.H. to lie on the table on her side with her arms stretched out in front of her. Despite what had just happened, A.H. complied with his directions.5/ When she got into position, Respondent had A.H. move her body over to the very edge of the table and began to manipulate her back. As his hands continued down her back, she felt his hands go down inside her panties. As this happened, she could feel Respondent “humping” her, grinding his groin area against her backside. Respondent then told A.H. to change positions on the table, moving her feet to the opposite end. Amazingly, she again complied with his instructions. Respondent began touching her upper thigh near her vagina and “did the same thing he had done before.” At that, A.H. quickly moved off the table and onto a chair, where she sat rigid and refused to move. Respondent seemed calm and relaxed, showing no sign of having acted inappropriately. A.H. did not tell anyone at Advantacare about the incident on that day because she could not fully grasp what had happened. As she began to understand the situation better, she was worried about reporting the incident because it would be her word against the doctor’s. A.H. did tell another doctor (Dr. Jacobson) about the incident when she saw him the next day for a regularly scheduled appointment. Dr. Jacobson had been an employee with Advantacare and presumably relayed A.H.’s allegations to the center. A.H. also reported the incident to the Board of Health and to law enforcement. She later contacted an attorney about filing a civil lawsuit against Respondent. A.H. did not return to Advantacare for treatment after this event because of the traumatic impact of the incident. Respondent has no independent recollection of A.H. as a patient, but said he did not touch her inappropriately. A.H.’s testimony was believable. She was a credible witness and articulated her testimony clearly. It is strange that A.H. would continue to obey Respondent even after he had touched her inappropriately, but she was obviously a compliant person, especially as it relates to physicians. Respondent’s defenses to allegations by patients Respondent claims he never saw a written chaperone policy at the Back Center but that he knew that it existed. According to him, there was insufficient staff available to make it possible to comply with the policy. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is rejected as being contrary to better, more persuasive evidence. Respondent said he was on several medications for “five or six years” prior to the final hearing, including Zoloft for mild depression, Lisinopril for hypertension, and Toprol for hypertension. One of the possible side effects of those medications is impotence or erectile dysfunction. However, during the time he was taking these drugs, Respondent fathered his two children. There is no competent evidence that Respondent suffered from impotence or erectile dysfunction during the time of any of the allegations about sexual misconduct. Respondent usually wore a lab coat when treating patients. The coat is long and had large pockets in the front, at about groin level. Respondent would keep empty syringes in his coat pocket. He suggests that female patients who said they felt his erect penis were actually feeling the syringes. His suggestion is not very plausible or persuasive. Respondent demonstrated at final hearing the normal physical stance he took when doing an injection of a patient in an examination room setting. He suggested that his body would be turned at a 45-degree angle from the patient rather than facing them directly, thus eliminating the possibility of full frontal contact with the patient. He also said that he generally stood four or five inches away from the patient, but might come into contact with the patient occasionally. Neither the statements nor his demonstration were persuasive. Respondent’s contention is that each and every one of the patients who alleged sexual misconduct was lying. He suggests that patient D.K. was overweight and thus would not have sexually aroused him. Also, he maintains that her description of the injections being performed while Respondent was rubbing against her would have necessarily resulted in horrible pain at best or a broken needle at worst. He claims that since patient M.B. was married to a policeman, she would have necessarily taken photographs of her numerous injections to preserve a record and she would have complained immediately. Her failure to do so, he suggests, impugns her testimony. Respondent contends that patient T.J.’s tardiness in reporting her allegations suggests the allegations were false. Respondent refutes A.H.’s allegations on the basis that there was a disagreement as to the physical layout of the medical office. Respondent contends there is no evidence that patient S.D. (his alleged lover) was his patient, even though there is a stipulation to that effect. Despite these speculative defenses, the evidence presented by the alleged victims is credible and accepted as fact. Failure to update practitioner profile A letter dated March 27, 2013, advising Respondent of his termination from participation in the Medicaid Program, was mailed to Respondent at two separate addresses: 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard, Suite 610, Melbourne, Florida 32901, i.e., the address of the Back Center, and 930 South Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida 32901, the address for Osler (the company with whom the Back Center merged at some point in time). The letter to 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard was received on April 1, 2013, and an acknowledgement was signed by Chandra Carrender, a Back Center employee. Respondent’s employment with the Back Center had been terminated some 16 months previously, i.e., in August 2011. The letter mailed to 930 Harbor City Boulevard was returned as undeliverable. The termination letter provided Respondent notice of his right to contest the decision. He was given 21 days from receipt of the letter to file a Petition if he wanted to challenge the termination. Respondent did not file a challenge, so on or about June 21, 2013, a Termination Final Order was filed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), setting forth Respondent’s termination from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. The termination was issued pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes. By law, Respondent was required to update his Florida practitioner profile within 15 days of receipt of the Termination Final Order. The Termination Final Order was mailed to Respondent, return receipt requested, at two different addresses: The 930 South Harbor City Boulevard address and the 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard address. Respondent denies having received the letter or TFO until just prior to the formal administrative hearing in this matter. Licensed physicians in the State of Florida are required to maintain a current address of record with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and the Department of Health. Neither Respondent nor the Department provided evidence as to what Respondent’s official address of record was at the time the TFO and the letter were sent to Respondent at the two Harbor City Boulevard addresses. According to the deposition testimony of Michael West of the AHCA Medicaid Program Integrity office, the notices were sent to Respondent’s “address of record” per section 409.913(6), Florida Statutes. West’s testimony, however, did not specify what address that was. It might be logically presumed that one or both of the Harbor City Boulevard addresses were the “address of record,” because that is where the notices were mailed. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence as to Respondent’s official address of record at the time the Termination Final Order was mailed. The statutory section referred to by West states: Any notice required to be given to a provider under this section is presumed to be sufficient notice if sent to the address last shown on the provider enrollment file. It is the responsibility of the provider to furnish and keep the agency informed of the provider’s current address. United States Postal Service proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of such notice to the provider at the address shown on the provider enrollment file constitutes sufficient proof of notice. Any notice required to be given to the agency by this section must be sent to the agency at an address designated by rule. Respondent did not update his Florida practitioner profile because he claims never to have received a copy of the TFO or the letter. Neither Respondent nor the Department provided direct evidence of Respondent’s “address last shown on the provider enrollment file” as of March 27, 2013.6/ Other factual considerations Respondent was terminated from employment at the Back Center in September 2011. The termination occurred as follows: T.J. reported the alleged October 29, 2010 incident in April 2011. Dr. Hynes was already aware of another incident (from D.K. in January 2011). Dr. Hynes met with Respondent to discuss his alleged behavior. Respondent denied the allegations, saying that people just seem to like him and take advantage of him. He said the patients were lying about the incidents. Dr. Hynes mandated at that time that Respondent have a chaperone in the examining room with every female patient. Rather than being allowed to exercise “medical judgment” like other doctors in the clinic, Respondent was ordered to always use a chaperone with all female patients. After patient C.J.’s allegations came to light in May 2011, Dr. Hynes told Respondent that three times was enough; something had to be done. The Back Center commenced preparation of a termination letter. The letter was to tell Respondent that, pursuant to his Employment Agreement, the Back Center was providing him the 180-day notice of termination of employment “without cause.” The purpose of that letter was to allow Respondent time to find a job and not have a blemish on his record. One of the bases for the termination letter was that Respondent had been referred to the Physicians Recovery Network (PRN) for counseling to address his behavior. Dr. Hynes presumed Respondent was obtaining that counseling. However, when C.J. reported the incident on May 4, 2011, Dr. Hynes found out that Respondent had not been going to PRN as he had previously indicated. At about the time the 180-day letter was being drafted, another incident (by patient M.B.) was reported to the Back Center. Upon hearing of that allegation, Dr. Hynes verbally fired Respondent, effective immediately, with cause. The 180-day letter was not actually delivered to Respondent until after the verbal termination, so the letter was moot when it arrived. Respondent did not tell his next employer, Advantacare, that he had been terminated from employment by the Back Center. He also did not advise Advantacare about the sexual allegations made by patients at the Back Center. In summary, Respondent engaged in activities of a sexual nature with patients at the Back Center in December 2010, January 2011, May 2011, and August 2011 (in addition to his relations with S.D. in 2008–2010). He engaged in sexually related touching of a patient at Advantacare in January 2013. His employment with the Back Center was terminated in September 2011; his employment with Advantacare was terminated in April 2013. Former patients of Respondent expressed dismay that he was being charged with the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. They found Respondent to be a caring and professional doctor. It is clear Respondent did not treat all his patients the same way he treated the victims identified herein. Some of his co-workers said they did not see Respondent engage in any of the alleged actions. They did not receive any complaints from other patients. Respondent obviously has a stellar reputation with some of his patients and co-workers. That status, however, does not excuse his behavior with the victims in the present cases. It is also alleged that Bobbi McDonald was a rumor-mongerer and a liar. She appeared credible at final hearing and there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the dispersions cast by others. It should be noted that several witnesses identified by Respondent were displeased with the manner in which they were questioned by Department personnel prior to the final hearing. The witnesses expressed extreme discomfort when Department employees (attorneys) suggested that Respondent was “an addict” or a sociopath. While a state agency is bound to pursue all claims against individuals which it is responsible for licensing and monitoring, it is improper to harangue or disparage such persons in order to sway potential witnesses’ testimony. Upon full review of the evidence in this case, the potential witnesses who complained about the Department’s aggressive nature did not provide substantive testimony on the issues of this case. Thus, any harm which may have resulted from the Department’s statements would not affect the final decision herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health revoking Respondent, Albert Esmailzadeh, M.D.’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order assess the cost of investigating and prosecuting this case, and that payment of such costs be assessed against Respondent, Albert Esmailzadeh, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 19th day of November, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged by statute with regulating the practice of osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 459, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is and at all times material to this case was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, license #OS 0004352, last known address identified as 1232 S.W. 8th Place, Cape Coral, Florida 33991. From 1985 until 1992, the Respondent had a private general medical practice in Fort Myers. In 1991, the Respondent began to exhibit signs of emotional instability. In April 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) received a report that the Respondent was attempting to locate injectible Demerol allegedly for his own use. This information was forwarded to the Physician's Recovery Network (PRN), but remained unverified. The PRN is a program operated by the health care professions to assist practitioners impaired by mental illness, physical or mental disability or chemical dependence. Demerol is a Schedule II Controlled Substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On July 8, 1991, the DPR again received a report that the Respondent was writing inappropriate prescriptions for patients and obtaining the medication for personal use. This information was again forwarded to the Physician's Recovery Network (PRN), but remained unverified. The PRN contacted the Respondent about the allegation. The Respondent denied the report. In 1992, the Respondent began to exhibit profuse sweating, involuntary muscle jerks, and inattentiveness to his work. Some patients expressed concern to office staff about the Respondent's condition. In 1992, a DPR investigator visited pharmacies in the Fort Myers area. She learned that the Respondent had been contacting area pharmacies in an attempt to locate injectible Demerol. She further learned that the Respondent would arrive at a pharmacy with a Demerol prescription made out to a patient and which he would obtain supposedly on the patient's behalf. She collected a number of such prescriptions which had been filled by pharmacies. Many of the prescriptions were made out for patients at Meadowbrook Manor, a nursing home at which the Respondent had patients. A review of the patient records indicated that none of the patients had been prescribed Demerol. On March 27, 1992, an member of his office staff contacted the Respondent by telephone and determined him to be incoherent. She went to the Respondent's house to ascertain his condition. After gaining entry to the home, she found a number of Demerol bottles in an open dresser drawer, at least one of which was empty. She also discovered syringes in the drawer. The Respondent's eye was blackened. Blood was visible about the bathroom in the house. The staff member determined that although the Respondent had fallen during the night, he was reluctant to seek medical attention. Several hours after the staff member had arrived at the Respondent's house, he was incoherent. She called for an ambulance. The Respondent was subsequently transported to the hospital. Examination of the Respondent clearly indicated that he had suffered a head injury. While in the hospital, the Respondent was examined by a board certified psychiatrist. According to the psychiatrist, the Respondent exhibited substantially impaired memory, was very guarded with his communication and, notwithstanding the injury, indicated his intent to leave the hospital quickly. He was unable to recall the current month and date. He denied prior consumption of alcohol despite lab tests to the contrary. He also denied having previously been chemically dependent, although he had been involved in the intervention of said problem in 1981. The psychiatrist diagnosed the Respondent as having residual organic brain syndrome as a result of his chemical intake. Based on the diagnosis, the psychiatrist recommended that the Respondent begin an inpatient drug rehabilitation program. The psychiatrist also referred the Respondent's impairment to the DPR. In March of 1992, the DPR alerted the PRN about the Respondent's condition. The PRN assigned a local representative to encourage the Respondent to seek treatment. On March 31, 1992, the Respondent entered a treatment program at Palmview Hospital. While in the program, he admitted to having self-injected Demerol. The Respondent was resistant to treatment while at Palmview Hospital. Although he acknowledged having previously received inpatient treatment at another facility, he alternately admitted and denied abusing Demerol. On April 10, 1992, the Respondent discharged himself from Palmview Hospital. The discharge was against the advise of the treating physician at Palmview. At the time of the discharge, PRN representatives discussed the matter with the Respondent. The Respondent stated that he was leaving the inpatient treatment program and was going to being outpatient treatment from the Palmview facility. The treating physician at Palmview told the PRN that the Respondent required three to four weeks of inpatient treatment. It was the opinion of the treating physician that the Respondent was not capable of safely providing medical care to patients at that time. Based on the Palmview information, the PRN instructed the Respondent that he must complete inpatient treatment and that he could not practice medicine until it was decided that he could do so safely. In April 13-16, 1992, the Respondent obtained a second opinion from another physician affiliated with the Addiction Treatment Program at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida, where he was examined by a board certified addictionologist. According to the Mount Sinai addictionologist, the Respondent is addicted to Demerol and requires treatment. Based on the Mount Sinai information, the PRN instructed the Respondent not to practice and to seek immediate treatment for his addiction. On April 22, 1992, the Respondent reentered Palmview Hospital. Upon reentry, the Respondent denied using Demerol, but eventually acknowledged using the drug and being chemically dependent. It was determined during the second Palmview admission, that the Respondent was in need of approximately four months in a long term inpatient care treatment facility. On May 22, 1992, the Respondent was admitted to the Talbott-Marsh recovery program. He was diagnosed as having a personality disorder with antisocial, paranoid and narcissistic traits, and to being opiate dependent, On August 3, 1992, the Respondent left the Talbott-Marsh center without completing the program. The records and reports of the Respondent's condition were reviewed by Dr. Roger Goetz, M.D., the director of the PRN. Dr. Goetz, who also has personal knowledge of the Respondent's condition, is certified by the American Association of Addiction Medicine and has extensive experience as a medical doctor and in treating impaired physicians. Dr. Goetz asserted that the Respondent is suffering from a dangerous condition, that he is mentally ill and that he poses a threat to himself and to the public. Dr. Goetz opined that the Respondent is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients and that his continued practice constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order determining that Benjamin D. Goldberg, D.O., has violated Section 459.015(1)(w), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license (#OS 0004352) to practice as a physician in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1553 The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 22, 37. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Francesca Plendl, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Benjamin Goldberg, D.O. 1232 South West 8th Place Cape Coral, Florida 33991
