The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine, in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Rodriguez was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 9812 on September 17, 2009. Dr. Rodriguez's address of record with the Department is 1840 Northwest 122nd Terrace, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026. Patient D.H. was a 22-year-old patient of Dr. Rodriguez. She had been referred to Dr. Rodriguez by her mother, also a patient. Patient D.H. was the one who suggested initial treatment with Dr. Rodriguez. She had seen him about six times over a period of two months. On or about June 6, 2012, Patient D.H. presented to Dr. Rodriguez for chiropractic treatment. Dr. Rodriguez began treating Patient D.H. in one of the treatment rooms in his practice. As she was turning over on the examination table, Patient D.H.'s left breast was exposed. Dr. Rodriguez commented on her breast being exposed. Patient D.H. replaced her breast under her tank top. As Dr. Rodriguez continued with his treatment, her breast was again exposed, prompting Dr. Rodriguez to say that Patient D.H. was getting him excited, or words to that effect. Dr. Rodriguez touched both of her breasts with his hands. He then kissed her breasts. Patient D.H. testified that she was in shock because his actions were sudden and caught her off guard. Dr. Rodriguez left the room. Dr. Rodriguez's staff placed Patient D.H. in a massage chair in a common area of the office. After Patient D.H. stated that she still had pain, she was taken into another room for an additional treatment on her shoulder. In the new room, Patient D.H. lay down on the treatment table. After placing some patches on her shoulder, Dr. Rodriguez again touched her breasts. He placed his hand inside her pants and inserted two fingers into her vagina. She testified that she told him to stop. Dr. Rodriguez again told her how she excited him. Patient D.H. later testified that she was in shock and unable to react. Dr. Rodriguez and Patient D.H. made a "pinky promise" not to say anything, and then Dr. Rodriguez washed and dried his hands. He placed a Chinese herbal remedy above her left breast, told her to sleep, and left the room. When he returned, Patient D.H. began crying. Dr. Rodriguez gave her a hug and kissed her on the cheek. While Patient D.H. was in a treatment room with Dr. Rodriguez, he engaged in sexual contact with her which was outside the scope of her medical treatment. Other than as described, Patient D.H. made no complaint to Dr. Rodriguez, nor did she complain to an office staff member. Patient D.H. left Dr. Rodriguez's office and started driving to her cousin's house. She then pulled over and called the police and her mother to tell what had happened. Patient D.H.'s mother testified that she received a phone call from her daughter about 5:00 p.m., saying that Dr. Rodriguez had molested her, and immediately went to meet her. Patient D.H.'s parents took her to the Cooper City district office of the BCSO to report the crime. On June 11, 2012, in conjunction with a criminal investigation by the BCSO, Patient D.H. made a controlled telephone call to Dr. Rodriguez while in the presence of a detective. During the conversation, Dr. Rodriguez said that he did not want to discuss things on the telephone because he could not be sure he was not being recorded, and asked Patient D.H. to come see him at the office. Patient D.H. said she would be uncomfortable seeing him and that is why she had called on the telephone. Their conversation included words to the following effect: Patient D.H.: Do you . . . do you really do this to your other patients? Dr. R.: I don't. That's why I'm . . . I couldn't sleep this weekend. I . . . I . . . I'm exhausted. I'm physically and mentally exhausted. Patient D.H.: But why me? Dr. R.: I don't know. It just happened, hon. That's what I'm telling you, it just, it just happened. Patient D.H.: I just want to know why me? Dr. R.: I don't . . . I don't know . . . I, I just don't know. Um . . . you know, and I wasn't sure because you know, um . . . you know you, you um, when you came about, you showed me your breasts, um . . . . Patient D.H.: It wasn't . . . you know, it was an accident, I wasn't trying to personally . . . . Dr. R.: No, but you know, but when you did the other part, you know, then I thought that that was um. Patient D.H.: What other part are you talking about? Dr. R.: No dear, no, your breasts, and that was an invitation . . . or an open, you know, "here" and for some reason we were talking about stuff, it's a blank to me. I do not remember . . . if you asked me . . . it was just, I do not remember, um, how exactly everything happened, but it just happened. Patient D.H.: Don't you remember . . . don't you remember putting your hand on my breasts and putting your two fingers in my vagina? Do you remember that? Dr. R.: Yes. Patient D.H.: Yes, you do remember that, right? Dr. R.: Hon, I don't even want to, I don't even want to go there. I don't even want to be going there, because I didn't feel comfortable with that at all. Patient D.H.: How, how do you think I feel? I'm not comfortable at all myself. Dr. Rodriguez later engaged the services of a forensic audio engineer who generated an enhanced audio version of the above-described controlled telephone call. During this call, Detective Wernath's voice can be heard in the background, coaching Patient D.H. through portions of the conversation. The criminal investigation also found that a DNA sample from a buccal swab taken from Dr. Rodriguez matched DNA collected from Patient D.H.'s breast. As Mr. Rhodes testified, the chance of a false positive was less than one in 30 billion. Dr. Rodriguez has admitted the sexual activity, while maintaining that his conduct was invited by Patient D.H.'s actions. Specifically, Dr. Rodriguez testified that he believed that Patient D.H. intentionally made her breast "slip out" of her tank top several times, that it was not an accident. He testified that when he told her that he could see her exposed breast, she responded, "Oh, I don't mind." He testified that Patient D.H. was being flirtatious and, by her provocative actions, was encouraging his behavior. Dr. Rodriguez's testimony that he believed Patient D.H. encouraged his sexual misconduct is supported by his statements directly to Patient D.H. on the recorded call, when he thought no one else was listening, and is credible. But regardless of what Dr. Rodriguez may have perceived, or the degree, if any, to which Patient D.H. was complicit in Dr. Rodriguez's sexual misconduct, her involvement would not excuse his actions. A chiropractor is not free to engage in sexual activity with his patient even if the patient encourages or consents to it. There was scant evidence in the record to suggest that Dr. Rodriguez accepts or understands this professional responsibility. Patient D.H.'s testimony as to Dr. Rodriguez's actions was clear and convincing. Her testimony as to his actions is credited and is confirmed by his own statements in the controlled telephone call and at hearing. Respondent's touching of Patient D.H.'s breasts with his hand and mouth and insertion of his fingers into her vagina constituted engaging in sexual activity with a patient and was sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine. Patient D.H. engaged in a civil lawsuit against Dr. Rodriguez. She has since executed a release in that case. Dr. Rodriguez has not previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Board. Dr. Rodriguez credibly testified that he has installed video cameras in the treatment rooms to ensure that there will be no further incidents. He noted that the purpose of these cameras was to protect him. Dr. Rodriguez demonstrated little or no remorse, the focus of his spirited testimony being directed towards the provocative conduct of Patient D.H., not his own inappropriate actions. Revocation or suspension of Dr. Rodriguez's professional license would have a great effect upon his livelihood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, enter a final order finding Dr. Enrique Rodriguez in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; revoking his license to practice chiropractic medicine; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 29th day of March, 2019.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint are adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The Agency’s Administrative Complaint is UPHELD and the above-named Respondent’s license has been SURRENDERED. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent facility is closed and will remain closed. Respondent surrendered its original health care clinic license to the Agency together with the executed settlement agreement, and the license is deemed cancelled and void effective May 15, 2014. The Respondent admits the allegations of facts contained in the Administrative Complaint and has waived its right to have an administrative proceeding. 3. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing all client records within the timeframes prescribed in the authorizing statutes and applicable administrative code provisions. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. 4. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may have to be made to the clients. 5. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The 1 Filed November 19, 2014 3:17 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Respondent is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. 6. The Respondent shall pay the Agency an administrative fine of $5,000.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of this Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 7. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. Any requests for administrative hearings are hereby dismissed, and the above-styled case is hereby closed. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on thisee2f day of Ochlboe , 2014. Elizabeth Didek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correc ry of this Ping, Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this ay of Eee , 2014. spa j Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Thomas Jones, Esquire Facilities Intake Unit Health Care Clinic Unit Manager Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Arlene Mayo-Davis, Field Office Manager Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Electronic Mail Katrina Derico-Harris Warren J. Bird, Assistant General Counsel Medicaid Accounts Receivable ; Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) | (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Juan Pablo Broche, Esquire Medicaid Contract Management Quintero Broche, P.A. Agency for Health Care Administration 75 Valencia Avenue, Suite 800 (Electronic Mail) Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (U.S. Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity. -- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was constructively terminated from her employment with Respondent because of her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female of German and Turkish descent and has a somewhat heavy German accent. In 1995, Petitioner was employed with Bay Medical Center, a hospital in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner was employed as a unit secretary for one of the hospital units. She voluntarily resigned that position in 1997. In March of 1998, Petitioner was again employed by Bay Medical Center as a unit secretary. She was a member of a secretarial float pool and floated from one unit of the hospital to another as needed. Later, due to a hospital reorganization, the unit secretarial position was reclassified to a Clerical Support Associate (CSA) position. The CSA position included more duties than the unit secretary position and had a higher wage. As a CSA, Petitioner was responsible for providing essential clerical support as required by patient’s and clinical staff. Her duties included entering physician orders into the hospital’s computer system, scheduling tests and procedures for patients, charging and crediting patient bills, greeting patients and visitors, chart maintenance, and otherwise assisting as needed. Petitioner eventually, was assigned as a full-time CSA in the Critical Care Unit (CCU). The CCU was a very small unit with only eight open beds and was the least active unit in the hospital at that time relative to the duties of a CSA. The lower activity resulted in less work and less stress for the CSAs assigned to the CCU. Because of the light workload and low- stress environment for CSA’s, P.J. Dotson, Petitioner's supervisor in the CCU, used the CCU to train new CSAs. Because Petitioner had experience with the work, she occasionally helped train new CSAs. At some point, Ms. Dotson determined that the CSAs in the CCU were only performing two and a half to three hours of clerical work during an eight-hour period. The small amount of productivity by the CSAs was unacceptable. In order to increase the CSAs’ productivity, Respondent changed the job role of the CSAs in the CCU, including Petitioner's, and added basic patient care tasks. Some of the new tasks included feeding patients and helping patients on and off bedpans. Additionally, the CSAs' hours changed to require them to come in earlier. On December 12, 2000, Petitioner was disciplined by Ms. Dotson for complaining to a physician about Respondent's decision to change the job requirements of the CSAs in the CCU. The physician was Respondent's "customer," not Petitioner's supervisor and Ms. Dotson felt that it was inappropriate for Petitioner to discuss her employment situation with a "customer." Ms. Dotson’s position was a reasonable position by an employer. After the disciplinary action, Petitioner declined the upgraded CSA position because she did not want to change her working hours and did not want to do hands-on patient care. Rather than terminating Petitioner's employment, Respondent allowed Petitioner to transfer to the EKG department to work as an EKG technician which position also included some clerical tasks. Petitioner served as an EKG technician for two months. During those two months, Petitioner experienced numerous performance problems and was disciplined several times by Ms. Dotson. Petitioner admits she simply was not very good at direct patient care and performed poorly as an EKG technician. On February 20, 2001, Ms Dotson issued Petitioner a Notice of Corrective Action based on a number of issues that had arisen beginning around January 15, 2001. The Notice states, "During week two, we started experiencing several problems with the paper work [Petitioner] was doing. Files were not in correct order (alphabetical), Cardiology Associates were complaining about paperwork, [and] the unsigned copies of Echo reports were not getting to M.D.s for their signature.” These problems were detrimental to efficient and timely patient care in an area of health care, cardiology, where efficiency and timeliness of care are very important. Due to these concerns, Ms. Dotson changed Petitioner's orientation schedule and established specific times to achieve performance goals. However, the changed schedule did not help resolve Petitioner's performance problems. After Petitioner was fully trained to perform an EKG procedure, Petitioner "developed the inability to perform this task" within a few weeks. Petitioner also improperly double-billed a large number of Respondent's patients. The double billing was a major oversight on Petitioner's part that could have been seriously detrimental to Respondent's ability to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients if the problem had not been discovered and resolved by Ms. Dotson. On March 8, 2001, Petitioner received a final written warning because her work-related problems persisted. At that time, Ms. Dotson informed Petitioner that she needed to find a different position within Bay Medical Center, resign, or be terminated. Ms. Dotson also took this opportunity to coach Petitioner on how to sell herself to other managers, so Petitioner could acquire another position. One of the areas Ms. Dotson discussed with Petitioner was her communication skills. Ms. Dotson explained that she needed to communicate better because she has an accent, does not articulate well and often speaks with her hands in front of her mouth thereby making it difficult for others to understand her. In addition, Ms. Dotson explained to Petitioner that she demonstrated a somewhat negative attitude and failed to take responsibility for her mistakes. These traits were concerns for managers in the various departments throughout the hospital. These traits were also demonstrated at the hearing. There was no evidence that any action taken by Ms. Dotson was done for discriminatory purposes or that the reasons given for such action were pretextual. Indeed, Petitioner admitted that Ms. Dotson did not discriminate against her. However, because of these traits, Petitioner had a difficult time finding another position within Bay Medical Center, even though there was a high turnover rate among CSAs throughout the hospital. Eventually, Petitioner was accepted by Ms. Pat Owens to serve as a CSA on Three South, a medical/surgery unit at Bay Medical Center. Indeed, Petitioner’s transfer to Three South was against hospital policy since Petitioner was slated for termination from her earlier position and had received her final warning. However, in order to help Petitioner, the transfer was allowed. Although Petitioner had served as a CSA in CCU previously, the working atmosphere of Three South was very different. Three South was, as Petitioner described it, a "very, very busy floor." Three South had 39 beds and over 200 physicians on staff. However, during Ms. Owen’s time as manager of Three South, Ms. Owens did not formally discipline Petitioner regarding her job performance. Ms. Owens did not testify at the hearing. Petitioner admits that she made mistakes while Ms. Owens was her supervisor. She testified that there were "minor things" that Ms. Owens would make her redo. However, under these facts, the fact that Ms. Owens chose not to discipline Petitioner formally is not evidence of discrimination. The hospital was not satisfied with the way Three South was being managed by Ms. Owens. The unit staff were not following various hospital protocols impacting patient care. Numerous complaints were made by both patients and doctors regarding the quality of care being delivered by the unit staff. Therefore, in April, 2002, Ms. Andi Bush was hired as the manager of Three South. She was hired in order “to get Three South into shape.” Ms. Bush also became Petitioner's supervisor and demanded considerably more performance and compliance with protocols of all the employees on Three South. After Ms. Bush became manager, Petitioner claims that Ms. Bush commented on Petitioner's accent and that "[Ms. Bush's] hearing would be perfect if anybody else would talk to her. But whenever I said something to her or tried to quote her [sic] about something, all of a sudden she had this major problem." This alleged evidence is not convincing. Ms. Bush wears a hearing aid and relies on "lip-reading" because she has a significant amount of hearing loss due to nerve damage. She often has difficulty hearing others' words and asks others to repeat themselves. This difficulty was demonstrated at the hearing. In addition, Petitioner did not provide any details about the times Ms. Bush allegedly commented on her accent. There is no evidence in the record about how often or in what context any such comment allegedly happened. Given the facts that Ms. Bush is hearing impaired and reads lips and that Petitioner often speaks with her hands in front of her mouth, has an accent and does not enunciate her words, comments by Ms. Bush regarding Petitioner’s accent do not support a finding of discrimination. Ms. Bush, unlike her predecessor, enforced the hospital protocol’s and demanded that her staff comply with those protocols. It was clear that Ms. Bush's job, as the new manager of Three South, was to impose accountability and discipline on that unit. Indeed, Petitioner testified that, during Ms. Bush's initial meeting with the employees on Three South, Ms. Bush made it clear that she believed Three South was a "mess" and that "she was going to straighten it out." Petitioner failed to provide any evidence that Ms. Bush applied the rules or issued discipline inconsistently among the employees or that employees of other nationalities were treated better than her. There is no comparator evidence in the record to demonstrate that Ms. Bush's discipline of Petitioner was for discriminatory purposes. Under Ms. Bush's administration, Petitioner was disciplined on several occasions for various performance issues. On May 23, 2002, Petitioner was issued a written warning for failing to enter a physician's order. The order requested a consultation with a cardiologist to determine what treatment the patient needed. Because Petitioner did not enter the order, the consultation was delayed for over 24 hours. When the consultation was eventually performed, the cardiologist determined that the patient needed a pacemaker. Petitioner's mistake could have had dire consequences for the patient involved. Petitioner does not deny that she failed to enter the order but claims that she was told by her co-workers that she did not need to enter the order because the patient was going to be transferred to a different floor. However, Petitioner knew that other co-workers could not instruct her not to follow the hospital’s protocol for entering a physician’s order in a timely manner. The discipline she received was clearly not pretextual and was appropriate for her failure to enter the physician’s order. On June 5, 2002, Petitioner received a written warning for excessive absenteeism. Again, Petitioner does not deny that she was excessively absent. Instead, Petitioner alleges that her absences "weren't really more extensive than anybody else's." Petitioner later admits, however, that these other employees were also punished for their tardiness and absenteeism. Petitioner provided no other evidence that Respondent applied its attendance policy inconsistently among the employees. Given these facts, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner’s disciplinary action was discriminatory or pretextual. On July 3, 2002, Petitioner was suspended following two different incidents. First, Petitioner placed several documents in the wrong patient's chart. Second, Petitioner failed to properly consult a physician regarding a patient care issue. Both of these incidents could have had detrimental impact on the health and safety of Respondent's patients. Petitioner offered no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the report of these incidents. On August 7, 2002, Ms. Bush held a corrective action meeting with Petitioner to discuss the following incidents: (1) Petitioner's repeated failure to enter consultations into the computer; (2) Petitioner's repeated failure to consult physicians in a timely manner; (3) a patient complaint that her call light was not being answered during Petitioner's shift; and (4) Petitioner’s failure to file a stack of documents as she was assigned to do, but instead twice sent them to medical records to file. Petitioner denies making these mistakes, but her denial is based on her lack of memory for the events. Indeed, Ms. Bush based the disciplinary action on complaints and witness statements she received form a variety of sources. Again there was no evidence that the Ms. Bush’s actions were discriminatory or pretextual. Finally, on August 14, 2002, Petitioner was given her annual performance appraisal. Petitioner was rated as "unsatisfactory" based on her record of discipline and the real potential of her performance failures to adversely impact patient care. Based on her previous performance problems and the performance appraisal, Petitioner was told that she could no longer work as a CSA at Bay Medical Center. Indeed, Ms. Dotson who was consulted regarding Ms. Bush’s decision, concurred that Petitioner should not be transferred to any CSA position or position involving patient care due to past mistakes which were potentially detrimental to a patient’s health. Respondent gave her two weeks to find a different position within the hospital, resign, or be terminated. Respondent, through its personnel department, tried to assist Petitioner to find a position within the facility. After reviewing the printout of available positions with Petitioner the only positions that were open, and for which Petitioner was qualified, were in Dietary, Housekeeping, and Laundry. Petitioner did not offer any evidence of any other positions outside those areas that were available and for which she was qualified. Petitioner refused to apply to any of these positions and, instead, resigned on August 28, 2002. The evidence did not demonstrate that her resignation was forced or caused by any discriminatory actions by Respondent. Again, Petitioner failed to provide any evidence that Respondent discriminated against her and the Petition For Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 25th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Margie Beach-Gutierrez 5807 Butler Drive, Apartment 4 Callaway, Florida 32404 L. Taywick Duffie, Esquire Price H. Carroll, Esquire Hunton & Williams, LLP 600 Peachtree Street, Suite 4100 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ruth Theresa Healey, was, at all times material hereto, licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0983072 by the Board of Nursing. On May 20, 1988, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Broward Convalescent Home for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Included in Respondent's responsibilities were the assessment of each patient under her care; the administration of medication to her patients according to the physician's orders; and the correct documentation of each medication administration on each patient's medical chart. Under Respondent's care on May 20, 1988 was the patient, E.M. The physician's orders for E.M. during Respondent's shift indicated that she was to be fed with one-half strength Entrition at 60 cc's per hour with water flushes through the gastrostomy tube (G Tube) which had been inserted into her abdomen. One-half strength Entrition is a nutrition substitute which is supplied in a self-contained package. On May 20, 1988, the supply of one-half strength was on special order and would not be available for use at Broward Convalescent Home until the next morning during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. E.M.'s G Tube was clearly marked on E.M.'s chart and easily observed upon patient assessment since it was protruding from her abdomen. Sometime during Respondent's shift, a naso-gastric tube, NG Tube, was also inserted into E.M. Without a physician's order, the insertion of a NG Tube into a patient with an existing G Tube could prove harmful to the patient and is contrary to the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. It was Petitioner's contention that Respondent inserted the NG Tube into her patient. Petitioner's position was supported by the testimony of Geraldine Hamilton, a nurse who came on duty the morning of May 21, 1988. Ms. Hamilton recalled that Respondent admitted to Ms. Hamilton that Respondent was in trouble because she, "put an NG Tube in one of the patients who has already got a G Tube." However, Respondent, at the hearing, consistently denied having made the statement. She asserted, instead, that a co-worker, Bunster Martinez, inserted the NG Tube. During Respondent's shift, she had sought Mr. Martinez's advice concerning the procedure she should use to feed E.M. since the one-half strength Entrition was not available. Mr. Martinez was not present at the hearing. Respondent's speech pattern, as observed at the hearing and as noted through the testimony of others is not clear. Rather, it is cryptic and disjointed. Given Respondent's poor diction and syntax, Respondent's consistent denial that she inserted the NG Tube and the lack of corroborating evidence that Respondent did, in fact, insert the NG Tube, the literal meaning of Respondent's statement to Ms. Hamilton is unclear. Respondent did not perform an assessment of E.M. which would have revealed the G Tube. Instead, contrary to the physician's order, Respondent began the administration of full strength Entrition through the NG Tube. In an attempt to create one-half strength Entrition, Respondent knowingly administered full strength Entrition for one hour at 85 cc. per hour followed by water flushes. However, the quality of one-half strength Entrition can not be obtained by diluting full strength Entrition in this manner, and the administration of full strength Entrition could have harmed F.M. Respondent's failure to perform an assessment of her patient and her action with regard to this feeding were contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice and constituted unprofessional conduct on her part. Also, although Respondent administered to E.M. full strength Entrition through the NG Tube, she entered the feeding on E.M.'s chart as Entrition one- half strength at 60cc/hour via G tube. Accordingly, Respondent knowingly falsified the medication administration report. The following morning, May 21, 1988, when the presence of the NG Tube was questioned, Respondent abruptly and forcibly removed the NG Tube from E.M. The procedure Respondent used to remove the NG Tube was also contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, constituting unprofessional conduct on her part and placing her patient in more jeopardy. Respondent acted somewhat incoherently on several occasions around the end of May, 1988. She was observed "talking to herself", was unresponsive to questions and appeared disoriented. No competent evidence was presented that such conduct resulted from a physical or mental condition or from medication. Respondent was previously suspended by the Board of Nursing and required to undergo psychiatric treatment. She was subsequently reinstated. No competent and substantial evidence was presented that Respondent disobeyed the previous order or any order of the Board of Nursing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the a final order be entered suspending Respondent's license for a period of one year, and thereafter, until she can demonstrate the ability to practice nursing in a safe and proficient manner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12 day of October 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 12 day of October 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3401 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 2. Subordinate to the result reached. In part, addressed in paragraph 3 ;in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. In part, subordinate to result reached; in part, addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. In part, addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6; in part, subordinate to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 7. In part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence, in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. In part, addressed in paragraphs 10 and 11. In part, subordinate to the result reached, in part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. Addressed in paragraph 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Ruth Theresa Healey, R.N. 1075 N.E. 39th Street, Apartment 110 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation filed in this cause, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent, Randall E. Pitone, M.D., is a medical doctor licensed (license number ME 0029098) by the State of Florida since 1976. Respondent is a diplomate in psychiatry having received certification from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was in the practice of psychiatry in the State of Florida. Respondent has been affiliated with or authorized to practice in a number of hospitals in the Pinellas County area. He enjoys a good reputation among the community of practicing psychiatrists and has covered for several of them during the course of his practice. The Respondent became Patient 1's treating psychiatrist in 1982 when the patient was almost 18 years of age. Patient 1 has a borderline personality disorder and other problems for which she required treatment. In order to more effectively provide treatment for borderline patients, Respondent attended at least two courses related to borderline personality disorder during the early 1980s. From September, 1982 through May, 1988, Respondent treated Patient 1 with individual psychotherapy. During this time, Patient 1 was hospitalized on several occasions and Respondent counseled with her within the hospital setting and at his office. Borderline patients are typically very needy, seductive, and manipulative in their approach to others. During her period of treatment Patient 1 frequently attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with Respondent who diplomatically refused her advances. On each of these occasions, Respondent explained to Patient 1 that he could not have a romantic relationship and continue therapy. Also during this period, Respondent was married and devoted to his family. In May, 1988, Respondent and Patient 1 ended their formal physician- patient relationship. Patient 1 was not sincerely pursuing therapy. Additionally, she had a new boyfriend with whom she seemed happy. Respondent encouraged her to seek therapy but she mistakenly believed that she did not need it. Although she would periodically drop by to visit with Respondent, she did not make appointments for therapy. Nor did she obtain therapy from another psychiatrist despite Respondent's encouragement for her to do so. Respondent's wife left him sometime in 1988. Her departure was very difficult for Respondent. The couple divorced in June, 1988, and Respondent's former wife remarried shortly thereafter and moved to Georgia. Respondent's children resided with him until sometime in 1989 when they moved to their mother's home. Subsequently, Respondent allowed Patient 1 to move into his home. She resided with him from June, 1989 until April, 1990. Throughout this period of cohabitation, Respondent included Patient 1 in his family activities. She went to his brother's home with him for Christmas and went on a cruise to Jamaica with his relatives. Respondent did not hide their relationship from his family or friends. During this period Respondent and Patient 1 engaged in sexual intercourse. Patient 1 has been hospitalized on several occasions since 1982. During one such hospitalization, on or about October 30, 1988 (after formal therapy had ended), Dr. Helm consulted with the Respondent regarding Patient 1's suspected drug abuse. Patient 1 has a serious addiction to alcohol, cocaine, and crack cocaine. This addiction dates at least as far back as the summer of 1989, and perhaps earlier. Respondent knew of Patient 1's addiction to cocaine and of her abuse of other substances. Respondent prescribed medications for Patient 1 in a misguided effort to wean her from street drugs. Whenever Respondent refused to give Patient 1 prescriptions, she would become outraged and destructive. On one such occasion, Patient 1 exited the car in which the couple was travelling and bolted in front of an oncoming truck. As a result Patient 1 was hospitalized with a broken pelvis. Between May, 1988, and March, 1990, Respondent wrote or authorized the prescriptions listed in attachment A for Patient 1. These prescriptions were given to Patient 1 despite the fact that she was no longer formally receiving psychotherapy from Respondent. Moreover, many of the prescriptions issued are not of the type generally associated with the treatment of psychiatric patients since they are more commonly associated with pain relief. Amitriptyline is a legend drug. Dalmane is a brand name of flurazepam, a legend drug and controlled substance. Valium is a brand name of diazepam, a legend drug and controlled substance. Xanax is a brand name of alprazolam, a legend drug and controlled substance. Darvocet is a brand name of a compound containing propoxyphene, a legend drug and controlled substance. Tylenol #3 and Tylenol #2 are brand names of acetaminophen or apap with codeine, legend drugs and controlled substances. Percodan is a brand name of oxycodone with aspirin, a legend drug and controlled substance. Percocet is a brand name of oxycodone with acetaminophen or apap, a legend drug and controlled substance. Legend drugs are required by federal or state law to be dispensed only on a prescription. Respondent inappropriately prescribed legend drugs/controlled substances to Patient 1. Respondent prescribed drugs for Patient 1 after they were living together and engaging in sexual relations. The types and quantities of prescriptions written by Respondent for Patient 1 were not justified by examinations and records maintained by the Respondent, were not issued in the course of medical practice, and were clearly excessive. By prescribing the drugs listed in attachment A, Respondent failed to provide Patient 1 with that level of care, skill and treatment, which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as acceptable under the conditions and circumstances of this case. Respondent also failed to seek consultation in connection with his concerns over Patient 1. Instead, Respondent set himself up as her sole provider and savior. This action was medically inappropriate and further evidences Respondent's loss of objectivity in this instance. In effect, Respondent became a patient in need of treatment as a result of his erroneous and misguided efforts to assist Patient 1. On April 11, 1990, an order of emergency restriction of Respondent's license was issued by Larry Gonzalez, acting as Secretary of the Department. That order placed specific restrictions on the Respondent's license which include: -the prescription of controlled substances utilizing sequentially numbered triplicate prescriptions; -the review of each prescription by a supervisory physician; -the prohibition of providing medical services to Patient 1; and -the submission of monthly reports by a monitoring physician which includes specific information regarding Respondent's practice, any problems, a review of prescriptions and patient records. To date, Respondent has complied with the restrictions placed on his license. Additionally, Respondent has sought and obtained psychiatric counseling in connection with his errors in thinking related to his relationship with Patient 1. Respondent developed a rescue fantasy in which he perceived that he alone could assist Patient 1 recover from her illnesses. This was not a medically sound approach to the dilemma within which Respondent became embroiled. As Respondent fell in love with Patient 1, he lost his professional perspective and undertook this ill-fated rescue of her. An examination of Respondent's medical records does not suggest that the activities which gave rise to the allegations of this case have occurred regarding other patients. From the circumstances of this case, it is unlikely another incident or series of incidents of this type will recur. Sexual activity between a psychiatrist and his patient has detrimental effects on the patient. In this instance, that conduct had detrimental effects on both the Respondent and Patient 1. Since Respondent fell prey to Patient 1's manipulative nature, his judgment became impaired and she was able to orchestrate an inappropriate response from Respondent. It cannot be found, however, that Respondent used their relationship to induce Patient 1 to engage in sexual activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties: suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of one year during which time the Respondent shall continue counseling, followed by a two year period of probation under the terms set forth in the emergency order issued April 11, 1990, together with an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 14 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-3276 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 20 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 21 it is accepted that Respondent provided the prescriptions as described, however, he had formally ended psychotherapy of Patient 1 in May, 1988. It was inappropriate for him to issue the prescriptions. Paragraphs 22A. and 22C. are accepted. Paragraph 22D. is rejected to the extent that it finds Respondent did not maintain appropriate records, otherwise, rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Note: there is no paragraph 22B. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24A. is accepted. Paragraphs 24B. and 24C. are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 25 it is accepted that Respondent prescribed substances for Patient 1 inappropriately and excessively, otherwise the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 26, 27, 30 and 31 (because it allowed her to manipulate Respondent into prescribing inappropriately--he should have been the physician not a co-patient) are accepted. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. To the extent addressed in findings paragraphs 3 through 7, Respondent's paragraphs 4 through 9 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or a recitation of testimony. With the exception of the last sentence, paragraph 10 is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as speculative or conjecture--it is accepted that Respondent was in a stress-filled, emotional situation. Paragraphs 11 through 14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 through 23 are rejected as recitation of testimony but see findings of fact paragraphs 27, 28, and 29. Paragraphs 24 through 28 are rejected as recitation of testimony. With regard to paragraph 29 it is accepted that the Respondent does not pose a threat to the public under his current circumstances. Otherwise, paragraph 29 is rejected as recitation of testimony or irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is accepted. ATTACHMENT A Date Drug Prescribed 5/14/88 Dalmane 6/02/88 Valium 7/15/88 Percodan 7/20/88 Percodan 7/27/88 Xanax 7/27/88 Percodan 8/12/88 Percodan 9/06/88 Percodan 9/13/88 Zantac 9/23/88 Percodan 10/7/88 Darvocet N-100 10/29/88 Xanax 11/18/88 Percodan 01/6/89 Xanax 1 mg 01/09/89 Xanax 1 mg 01/10/89 Percodan 01/11/89 Xanax 01/16/89 Xanax 01/18/89 Xanax 01/21/89 Xanax 01/20/89 Tylenol 3 01/24/89 Tylenol 3 01/25/89 Tylenol 3 01/26/89 Xanax 01/31/89 Xanax 02/02/89 Percodan 02/04/89 Xanax 1mg 02/04/89 Percodan 02/04/89 Xanax 1mg 02/09/89 Percodan 02/10/89 Xanax 02/10/89 Percodan 03/03/89 Xanax 03/03/89 Percodan 03/13/89 Percodan 03/14/89 Xanax 1mg 03/17/89 Percodan 03/20/89 Xanax 03/24/89 Xanax 03/24/89 Percodan 03/27/89 Percodan 03/27/89 Xanax 03/29/89 Percodan 03/31/89 Percodan 04/07/89 Xanax 1mg 04/10/89 Percocet 5mg 04/11/89 Percodan 04/21/89 Percodan 04/24/89 Percodan 04/25/89 Percodan 04/25/89 Xanax 04/26/89 Percodan 04/28/89 Percodan 04/28/89 Xanax 04/29/89 Percodan 05/01/89 Xanax 05/02/89 Percodan 05/04/89 Percodan 05/05/89 Percodan 05/09/89 Xanax 05/11/89 Xanax 05/14/89 Xanax 1 mg 05/18/89 Xanax 1 mg 05/20/89 Xanax 1 mg 06/06/89 Xanax 1 mg 06/08/89 Percodan 06/09/89 Xanax 1 mg 06/09/89 Percodan 06/14/89 Xanax 1 mg 06/14/89 Percodan 06/16/89 Xanax 1 mg 06/23/89 Xanax 1mg 06/24/89 Percodan 06/26/89 Percodan 07/01/89 Xanax 07/07/89 Xanax 1 mg 07/07/89 Percodan 07/10/89 Percodan 07/15/89 Percodan 07/17/89 Percodan 07/20/89 Percodan 07/21/89 Valium 10 mg 07/21/89 Percodan 07/28/89 Percodan 07/30/89 Valium 07/31/89 Percodan 08/02/89 Percodan 08/04/89 Percodan 08/05/89 Valium 10 mg 08/07/89 Valium 10 mg 08/07/89 Percodan 08/09/89 Percodan 08/20/89 Valium 10 mg 09/01/89 Percodan 09/04/89 Valium 09/06/89 Percodan 09/19/89 Percodan 09/22/89 Valium 09/22/89 Percodan 09/28/89 Percodan 10/01/89 Percodan 10/02/89 Percodan 10/02/89 Valium 10 mg 10/04/89 Valium 10 mg 10/04/89 Percodan 10/05/89 Xanax 1 mg 10/06/89 Percodan 10/13/89 Darvocet-N. 100 10/13/89 Valium 10/13/89 Tylenol #2 10/17/89 Tylenol #2 10/19/89 Valium 5 mg 10/20/89 Tylenol #3 10/24/89 Tylenol #3 10/24/89 Valium 5 mg 10/25/89 Tylenol #3 10/26/89 Percocet 10/30/89 Percocet 10/30/89 Tylenol #4 10/30/89 Valium 10 mg 11/03/89 Percodan 11/17/89 Percodan 11/17/89 Valium 10 mg 11/24/89 Valium 10 mg 11/24/89 Percocet 11/27/89 Percocet 11/29/89 Percocet 01/02/90 Valium 10 mg 01/02/90 Percodan 01/12/90 Tylenol #3 01/12/90 Valium 10 mg 01/13/90 Xanax 1 mg 01/17/90 Tylenol #3 02/04/90 Xanax 1 mg 02/17/90 Percodan 02/20/90 Percodan 02/28/90 Percodan 03/10/90 Percodan 03/16/90 Percodan 03/17/90 Percodan COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb Chief Trial Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 730 Sterling Street, Ste. 201 Tampa, Florida 33609 Grover C. Freeman FREEMAN, LOPEZ & KELLY, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Ste. 500 Tampa, Florida 33607 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the applicant falsified her application for licensure as an employee-guard by failing to report her arrest and conviction of assault and battery contrary to provisions of Section 493.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Susan Jones is an applicant for licensure as an employee-guard. On her application, Jones responded to question 13 on the application regarding whether she had ever been arrested, in the negative. She had been arrested in 1973 for assault and battery. She was subsequently convicted of assault and battery and fined Fifty ($50) Dollars. Jones has been employed since 1978 as a security agent, checking carry- on baggage at the Ft. Lauderdale airports. She is employed by Lincoln Associates. Subsequent to her employment it became necessary for her to obtain licensure as an employee-guard. Her apparent motivation in not revealing her earlier arrest for assault and battery was its adverse affect on her continued employment in the position which she had held for some time and the fact that she had been told by friends that she did not have to report misdemeanors which had occurred over five years prior to her application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and facts in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that the licensure of Susan Jones as an employee-guard be issued by the Division of Licensing. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Jones 2601 South West 9th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Gerald Curington, Esquire Secretary of State's Office Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Marvin Sirotowitz, Bureau Chief Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent, a medical doctor, in his treatment of Patient M.A., failed to keep legible medical records in violation of section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2007); prescribed or administered inappropriate or excessive quantities of controlled substances in violation of section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2007); committed medical malpractice by practicing below the standard of care in violation of section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007); failed to perform a statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician in violation of section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2007); and violated any provision of chapter 458 or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto in violation of section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2007), as Petitioner alleges in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be imposed.
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 Paul M. Goldberg, M.D., violated sections 458.331(1)(g) and (nn), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts IV and V of the Complaint; Dismissing Counts I-III of the Complaint; Imposing $20,000 in administrative fines; issuing a reprimand against Dr. Goldberg's medical license; requiring Dr. Goldberg to complete the "Laws and Rules" Course; suspending Dr. Goldberg's medical license until such time as Dr. Goldberg undergoes a "UF CARES" evaluation; and placing Dr. Goldberg's license on probation for three years under indirect supervision with 100 percent chart review of cosmetic surgery patients and 25 percent chart review of all other patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 4th day of March, 2015.
