The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Stipulated Facts Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in Florida holding license number ME 0009772. Respondent's last known address is 9430 Turkey Lake Road, Orlando, Florida 32819-8015. Respondent is Board certified in orthopedic surgery. Respondent provided medical treatment to two male patients between 1990 and 1991. Patient 1 was treated from approximately April 29, 1991, through August 12, 1991. At the time, Patient 1 was approximately 34 years old. Patient 2 was treated from approximately May 14, 1990, through June 20, 1991. Patient 2 was approximately 29 years old. Patient 1 Patient 1 had a history of hip dislocation with aseptic necrosis, chronic back and leg pain, and foot numbness associated with degenerative disc disease and lumbar stenosis. Lumbar stenosis is compression of the spine. Spine compression was particularly significant between the fifth lumbar and first sacral vertebrae. Prior to April 29, 1991, Patient 1's treatment was conservative and nonsurgical. On April 29, 1991, Patient 1 presented to Respondent to explore alternative therapy. Patient 1 complained of pain and numbness in his back, hip, and legs. Respondent diagnosed Patient 1 with lumbar spinal stenosis and possible disc herniation. Respondent recommended a myelogram. A myelogram was performed on May 13, 1991. The myelogram confirmed Respondent's diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis and possible disc herniation. The myelogram revealed a disc defect on the right side of L5-S1 as well as severe spinal and lateral recess stenosis. On June 11, 1991, Respondent performed a laminectomy on Patient 1, an L5-S1 disc excision, and an internal spinal stabilization using Harrington rods attached with lamina hooks. Use of lamina hooks resulted in the compression of Patient 1's underlying neural tissue. Compression of the underlying neural tissue caused Patient 1 to suffer perineal numbness. Respondent's medical records of June 17, 1991, show that Respondent knew Patient 1's perineal numbness was a result of compression of the sacral nerve root at L5-S1. On June 17, 1991, Respondent again performed surgery on Patient 1. Respondent replaced the lamina hooks with alar hooks. Respondent also replaced and adjusted the tension of the Harrington rods. On August 1, 1991, Patient 1 was admitted to Sandlake/Orlando Regional Medical Center ("ORMC") for surgical removal of the implanted hooks and Harrington rods. Respondent surgically removed the Harrington rods and attachment hooks. On August 12, 1991, Respondent's medical records showed that Patient 1 suffered from persistent numbness of the sacral nerve root areas. The area of numbness included the perineum, scrotum, and penis. Respondent did not perform an L5-S1 bone fusion during any surgery. Patient 2 On May 14, 1990, Patient 2 presented to the Emergency Room ("ER") at ORMC with primary complaints of back and right leg pain. The ER physician diagnosed Patient 2 with a herniated nucleus pulposus at L4-L5. The nucleus pulposus is the soft central portion of the intervertebral disc. Respondent admitted Patient 2 on May 14, 1990, and treated him with intravenous muscle relaxants. On May 15, 1990, a computerized axial tomography ("CAT") scan revealed a bulging, herniating disc at L4-L5. On May 17, 1990, Respondent discharged Patient 2 with instructions regarding back care and an exercise program. On August 24, 1990, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with recurrent disabling sciatic pain. A magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") scan was performed on August 28, 1990. The MRI revealed a prominent disc bulging at L4-L5 with material intruding into the spinal cord. On September 7, 1990, Respondent performed a lumbar laminectomy and disc excision at L4-L5. Respondent discharged Patient 2 on September 12, 1990. On December 11, 1990, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with recurrent back and right leg pain. Respondent prescribed analgesics including Soma with codeine and Naprosyn. On January 14, 1991, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with back and right leg pain. Patient 2 underwent a CAT scan to determine if recurrent disc herniation was present. The CAT scan failed to indicate any obvious asymmetric changes which would confirm Respondent's diagnosis of recurrent disc herniation. On January 21, 1991, Respondent performed a decompressive laminectomy on Patient 2. Respondent's operative report for January 21, 1991, indicates that Respondent found no evidence of a herniated disc. On February 26, 1991, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with complaints of recurrent leg and back pain. Respondent referred Patient 2 to Dr. William Bradford for treatment utilizing epidural blocks. On April 16, 1991, Patient 2 again presented to Respondent. Respondent placed Patient 2 in a molded, fiberglass body jacket. Back and leg pain subsided while Patient 2 wore the fiberglass jacket. On May 14, 1991, Respondent performed surgical stabilization of the lower lumbar spine utilizing Harrington rods. On June 17, 1991, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with persistent numbness of the perineal area as well as bowel and bladder incontinence. Respondent determined that the numbness and incontinence were caused by sacral nerve root irritation associated with the Harrington rod hooks. Respondent surgically adjusted the Harrington rods on June 20, 1991. Respondent did not perform vertebral bone fusion during any surgery. 2. Standard Of Care Respondent failed to practice medicine in his treatment of Patient 1 with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent improperly seated lamina hooks in Patient 1. As a result, Patient 1 suffered compression of underlying neural tissue. Respondent improperly used Harrington rods and hooks to achieve transient spinal decompression without performing essential vertebral bone fusion. Use of Harrington rods in the lumbar spine is an obsolete technology. It is fraught with dangers. Among other things, it eliminates the lordosis, or natural spinal curvature. Respondent failed to practice medicine in his treatment of Patient 2 with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent performed numerous surgeries on Patient 2 when CAT scans and other examinations failed to confirm recurrent disc herniation. In addition, Respondent failed to perform essential vertebral bone fusion on Patient 2. 3. Proximate Cause And Severity Of Injury Respondent's failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances was the proximate cause for permanent neurological damage to Patient's 1 and 2. Both patients suffered sacral nerve root paralysis. Sacral nerve roots feed functions in the pelvis, bladder bowel, and sphincter. Both patients suffered permanent incontinency, including loss of bladder and bowel function. Each patient requires a colostomy and must wear diapers. Patient 1 has suffered sexual dysfunction in that he has lost the sensation necessary for a natural erection. The neurologic injuries to Patients 1 and 2 are major and permanent. Nothing can restore the functional loss suffered by either patient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t) in his treatment of Patients 1 and 2, imposing an administrative fine of $7,500, and restricting Respondent's practice as follows: Respondent shall not perform any spinal surgery on patients unless and until Respondent appears before the Board of Medicine and demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Board that he is able to do so with skill and safety; and The Board of Medicine may place other reasonable conditions on Respondent's practice of orthopedic surgery at such time as the restriction in the preceding paragraph is lifted. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3966 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. -39. Accepted as stipulated fact 40.-41. Rejected as recited testimony Accepted in substance Rejected as recited testimony Accepted in substance 45.-51. Rejected as recited testimony Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent stipulated to Petitioner's proposed findings of fact, paragraphs 1- 39. Respondent's only additional proposed finding of fact is unnumbered and is rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Kenneth J. Metzger, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack L. Gresham, M. D. 9430 Turkey Lake Road Orlando, Florida 32819-8015
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state department charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez was a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida having been issued license number ME96703. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez is board certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology and Pain Management. At all times material to this case, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez was employed by Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) Physician's Services Group, as a medical director of the pain management program. On October 7, 2008, C.C. presented to Dr. Diaz- Ramirez's office for evaluation for continued treatment of her long-standing back pain. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez examined C.C. and noted her assessment as chronic low back, right leg, and hip pain with severe right L2-3 foraminal stenosis, status post L3- S1 fusion, and lumbar postlaminectomy syndrome. There was no indication on October 7, 2008, that C.C. was having problems with her sacroiliac joint. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez discussed her treatment plan with C.C. and noted the following in C.C.'s medical records: Today we reviewed the actual CT scan films from 07/10/2006. We have also reviewed her laboratories from July. The pain is persistent. It seems to be spinal in origin. We have decided to perform bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections for pain management of her symptoms. She will continue with current analgesics. She was instructed to take her oxycodone every six hours. We will be performing these injections twice and we will see her in follow-up 2-3 weeks after the injections. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez signed an order for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections to be done two times. This order was on a document entitled Discharge Instructions.2/ When the order for the first bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections was put into the scheduling system for the Sarasota Memorial Health Care System Pain Management procedure area, the procedure was erroneously scheduled as a sacroiliac joint injection. Because of the scheduling error, all of the documentation for the procedure, including the physician order for the procedure and the consent form, was filled out for a sacroiliac joint injection. On October 15, 2008, C.C. presented for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Prior to performing the procedure, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez examined C.C. C.C. advised Dr. Diaz-Ramirez that her pain had increased and moved. However, the pre-operative history and physical notes hand written by Dr. Diaz-Ramirez at 8:35 a.m. on October 15, 2008, state that the history and physical remain unchanged from October 7, 2008, except for a sprain of C.C.'s left ankle. Prior to doing the procedure on October 15, 2008, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez talked with C.C. and explained to C.C. that a sacroiliac joint injection would be performed. It was Dr. Diaz- Ramirez's opinion that based on the examination and her discussion with C.C. that a sacroiliac joint injection was appropriate for C.C.'s pain on that day. C.C. signed a consent form for a sacroiliac joint injection. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez performed the sacroiliac joint injection on C.C. After the procedure, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez went back to her office to dictate her notes. For the first time that day, she looked at her original order and saw that on October 7, 2008, she had ordered bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections for C.C. Realizing that there had been a scheduling error, she contacted Ronda Layton (Ms. Layton), the clinical coordinator for the pain management center. This was not the first time that a scheduling error had taken place, and Dr. Diaz-Ramirez reported the scheduling error to Ms. Layton so that the problem could be addressed. Dr. Diaz-Ramirez and Ms. Layton went to the bedside of C.C. and told her that a wrong procedure had been done. C.C. was advised that she had been scheduled for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections, but a sacroiliac joint injection had been performed. C.C. was also advised that Dr. Diaz-Ramirez felt that the sacroiliac joint injection was the appropriate procedure for the pain that C.C. was experiencing that day. After talking with C.C., Dr. Diaz-Ramirez dictated her report on October 15, 2008. She noted that her pre-operative diagnoses were "[l]eft low back pain, sacroiliac pain and lumbar spinal stenosis." This is the first time that Dr. Diaz-Ramirez specifically noted that C.C. was experiencing sacroiliac pain. Her notes further stated: The patient is a [redacted] year-old [redacted] patient with chronic low back pain with lumbar spinal stenosis scheduled for bilateral L2-L3 transforaminal epidural steroid injection. We performed sacroiliac joint steroid injection for management of her symptoms. On October 28, 2008, Dr. Diaz-Ramirez made an addendum to her report dated October 15, 2008. The addendum stated: After the procedure was done, it was discovered that the intended scheduled procedure was not performed. The patient was made immediately aware and full disclosure was made. Under the circumstances of the evaluation this morning, the sacroiliac joint injection would not have been an inappropriate procedure to perform for this patient and she actually received immediate relief in the area of her pain. The patient understood. She agrees and she will be seen for her intended scheduled procedure of a bilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injection at L2-L3 at her next visit. On October 15, 2008, C.C.'s pre-operative pain level on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the worst and one being the least, was ten. Her post-operative pain level was seven, and her pain level at discharge was between nine and ten. C.C. was scheduled for bilateral L2-3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections for October 22, 2008, and Dr. Diaz-Ramirez performed the scheduled injections on that date. C.C.'s pre-operative pain level on October 22, 2008, was seven. Her post-operative pain level was four, and her discharge pain level was between four and five.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Diaz-Ramirez did not violate section 456.072(1)(bb) and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2011, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2011.
The Issue Was Petitioner properly graded and given appropriate credit for his answers on the July, 1990 Florida Podiatric Medicine Licensure Examination (Florida Podiatry Examination).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Paul L. Sheehy, Jr., candidate No. 20017, was a candidate for licensure by examination as a Podiatrist, and the Board of Podiatry, (Board), was and is the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of Podiatrists and the regulation of the Practice of podiatric medicine in this state. Petitioner sat for the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination on July 27, 1991. Petitioner obtained a score of 70.0 percent, representing 210 correct answers. A passing grade requires a score of 72 percent, representing 216 correct answers. Shortly before the beginning of the hearing, Respondent agreed to give Petitioner credit for questions 16 and 180 of Clinical I of the examination thereby raising his total score to 70.666 percent. At the beginning of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge to questions 22, 37, 87, 89, 104, 149, 176 and 178 of Clinical I of the examination and questions 3, 16, 22, 50, 67 and 53 of Clinical II of the examination. During the hearing Petitioner withdrew his challenge to question 27 of Clinical I and question 12 of Clinical II of the examination, leaving only his challenge to questions 103, 114, 138, 144 of Clinical I of the examination. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner was qualified and met all the requirements to sit for the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination, and that Petitioner timely received a copy of the July 1990, Podiatric Medicine Licensure Examination Candidate Information Booklet (booklet). There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the Florida Podiatry Examination given on July 27, 1990 was misleading in that it tested subjects or disciplines not covered or contained in the booklet, or that it was prejudicial as applied to Petitioner. The first question at issue is question 103 of Clinical I which stated: CASE HISTORY 44 In the exhibit book are photographs for this examination. Identify the photograph in the respective exhibit. 103. Which of the following answer choices is the best description of exhibit #11? Ganglion Cyst Verruca Melanoma Kaposi's Sarcoma Petitioner answered, C, Melanoma and the Respondent's answer was, B, Verruca. Petitioner admitted that his answer was incorrect. However, Petitioner contends that the question comes within the area of histology, an area not specifically mentioned in the booklet to be covered by the examination. Therefore, he was mislead by the booklet into not studying the area of histology. While the booklet does not specifically mention histology as an area of study to be covered in the examination, there were several other areas of study listed in the booklet which conceivably would have covered this question. Therefore, there has been no showing that the Respondent's failure to specifically list histology as an area of study mislead or prejudiced the Petitioner. The second question at issue is question 114 which stated: CASE HISTORY 45 An elderly obese male presents with an acutely inflamed first metatarsophalangeal joint. The pain began late last night and he awoke in severe pain. His past medical history reveals two previous such occurrences which resolved and went un- treated. He reports a history of chronic renal disease and mild hypertension. He presently takes no medication and has no known allergies. He denies use of alcohol and tobacco. Physical exam reveals an acutely inflamed, edematous 1st MPJ. A 3mm ulceration is present dorsally with white, chalky material exiting the wound. Laboratory studies reveal a CBC within normal limits and an elevated uric acid of 9.0mg/100ml. 114. Which of the following would you expect to find on microscopy of the synovial fluid? trapezoidal-shaped violet crystals absence of leukocytes needle-like birefringent crystals reflective hexagonal crystals and many leukocytes Petitioner answered D, reflective hexagonal crystals and many leukocytes. The Respondent's answer was C, needle-like birefringent crystals. Petitioner contends that none of the answers offered were entirely correct but that answer D was the most correct, while answer C was incorrect. Case History 45 would describe gout and pseudogout, but the key is the description of the fluid removed from the joint which is a white, chalky material found only with gout. Additionally, gout produces needle-like crystals (urate) that are negatively birefringent when view under crossed polarizing filters attached to a microscope. Leukocytes would be present in this case history but it would not produce reflective hexagonal crystals or trapezoidal-shaped violet crystals. Answers A and B are entirely incorrect, and although the presence of leukocytes is correct, it is not relevant because leukocytes are a normally found in any infection. Therefore, answer C is the correct answer, notwithstanding the absence of the word negative proceeding the word birefringent. The third question at issue is question 138 which stated: CASE HISTORY 49 A 27 year old athletic individual presents with a severely painful and swollen right ankle following a basketball injury the day before. There is severe ecchymosis and blister formation about the ankle. X-rays reveal (1) a displaced oblique spiral fracture of the lateral malleolus which runs anterior-inferior to posterior-superior at the level of the syndesmosis (2) transverse fracture of medical malleolus. There is gross dislocation and mal position of the talus. 138. If the initial treatment above were to fail, then treatment should consist of: immediate open reduction. wait 4-6 days, then perform open reduction and internal fixation. open reduction contraindicated at any time with this type of fracture. fusion of ankle joint. Petitioner answered A, immediate open reduction and the Respondent's answer was B, wait 4-6 days, then perform open reduction and internal fixation. The correct initial treatment for the patient would have been attempted close reduction as indicated by the correct answer to question 137 which Petitioner answered correctly. An attempted close reduction is an attempt to correctly align the fractured bone by manipulation as opposed to surgically opening the area and aligning the bone visually by touch which is the open reduction and internal fixation procedure. After an attempted alignment of the bone, an x-ray will determine if there is proper alignment. If there is proper alignment, then the area is immobilized with a cast or some other device until the fracture heals. If the x-ray shows that proper alignment of the bone has not been obtained (the initial treatment has failed) then open reduction and internal fixation would be proper provided the swelling, ecchymosis and blistering are not present. Otherwise, as in this case, the proper method would be to wait a period of time, 4-6 days, for the swelling, ecchymosis and blistering to go away. Petitioner's contention that the swelling had gone down since there had been immobilization of the area with a cast, posterior splint or unna boot and a waiting period is without merit since those devices would not have been used before determining by x-rays that the initial treatment (closed reduction) had failed. The fourth and last question at issue in question 144 which stated: CASE HISTORY 50 A patient presents with a painful left ankle. The pain occurs following ambulation and is relieved by rest. There is minimal periartic- ular atrophy and the joint is slightly warm. X-rays reveal non-uniform joint narrowing, subchondral sclerosis and marginal osteophytes. 144. It can be expected that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. significant cartilage damage will occur. total joint replacement will be required. total remission can be expected following treatment. Petitioner answered B, significant cartilage damage will occur and Respondent's answer was A, that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. There were a series of questions preceding this question concerning the patient in Case History 50. The first question asked for a diagnosis which the Petitioner correctly answered as osteoarthritis. The second question concerned advising the patient on treatment which the Petitioner answered correctly by giving instructions on protecting the joint and taking simple analgesics. The third question concerned activity levels such as jogging and climbing steps which Petitioner answered correctly by advising to avoid squatting. However, in selecting B as the answer to question 144 the Petitioner did not consider the suggested treatment and advise given in the previous answers. His reasoning was that he could not assume that the patient would follow his suggested treatment or advise on prevention and activity. Additionally, the Petitioner felt that other factors such as the patient's age, weight, general health, level of activity and occupation that were missing from the case history were necessary to make a proper evaluation of whether the patient would respond favorably to treatment. Respondent admitted that either answer A or B would be correct but he picked B because he knew the disease was progressive and in time would get worse causing significant cartilage damage. Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease that is not uniformly progressive that responds to treatment but cannot be cured. There will be recurring episodes of pain (flareups) triggered by factors such as the weather or a person's activity. Based on the factors in the above case history, there is sufficient evidence to show that the patient will favorably respond to treatment but may experience flareups. It was reasonable and logical for the Respondent to assume that the Petitioner in answering question 14 would consider his preceding answers and assume that the patient would follow the suggested treatment and advice. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that significant cartilage damage would occur based on the facts given in Case History 50. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the grades which the Petitioner received on the July, 1990 Florida Podiatry Examination were incorrect, unfair, or invalid, or that the examination, and subsequent review session, were administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade he received on the July 1990, Florida Podiatry Examination. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2118 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 4.-6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8, respectively. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Hewitt E. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 76081 Tampa, FL 33675 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Board of Podiatry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses in the health professions and occupations, including chiropractic physicians. See § 456.073, Fla. Stat. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine ("Board") is the entity charged with the responsible for imposing penalties against chiropractic physicians for violations of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes. See § 460.413(2), Fla. Stat. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Whitney was a chiropractic physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 4840. Dr. Whitney's address of record is 1011 North Federal Highway, Unit 106, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009. Dr. Whitney has been a licensed chiropractic physician in Florida since January 1985 and has never had disciplinary action taken against his license. On or about September 7, 2001, Williston Orthopedic Rehab, Inc. ("Clinic"), opened in Williston, Florida. Dr. Whitney was the medical director of the Clinic; Robert Andrews was the owner of the Clinic. Mr. Andrews had worked with Dr. Whitney in his chiropractic practice for more than 10 years. A sign was erected in front of the Clinic identifying the facility and the services provided. Dr. Whitney's name, "Dr. Robert Whitney," was prominently shown on the sign, and he was identified as "Medical Director." The services provided by the Clinic, as shown on the sign, were as follows: Automobile Accidents - Injuries Work Related Injuries Physical Therapy Alternative Medicine Chiropractic Care Massage On or about September 7, 2001, several photographs were taken of Dr. Whitney and others standing in front of the sign. The photographs appeared in the September 13, 2001, edition of both The Williston Pioneer newspaper and of the Williston Sun Suwannee Valley News newspaper, together with articles about the new Clinic, its staff, and the services offered. Dr. Whitney was identified in one article as a "Doctor of Chiropractic," and Mr. Andrews was identified in the same article as the "practice administrator." Dr. Whitney had no ownership interest in the Clinic and had no role in the administration of the Clinic. His primary duty as medical director was to review charts, and he worked at the Clinic part-time. Mr. Andrews ordered the sign that was placed in front of the Clinic, and Dr. Whitney was not consulted about the information that was to be placed on the sign or asked to approve the contents of the completed sign. Dr. Whitney did not see the sign prior to arriving at the Clinic on or about September 7, 2001, to have his photograph taken for the newspaper stories. As soon as Dr. Whitney saw the sign, he notified Mr. Andrews that it failed to identify him as a chiropractic physician. Dr. Whitney immediately told Mr. Andrews to have the sign modified to include the designation "D.C." after his name. Mr. Andrews agreed to modify the sign, but he failed to have the sign corrected. The sign remained in front of the Clinic for several weeks before it was removed. Dr. Whitney left his position at the Clinic several weeks after he asked Mr. Andrews to correct the sign. The sign in front of the Clinic was misleading in that it did not, in any manner, identify Dr. Whitney as a chiropractic physician. He was identified only as "Dr. Robert Whitney," the "Medical Director" of the Clinic. The inclusion of "chiropractic care" among the services provided at the Clinic is not sufficient, standing alone, to provide notice to the public that Dr. Whitney is a chiropractic physician. Although Dr. Whitney did not disseminate or cause the dissemination of the misleading information in the sign, the sign remained outside the Clinic for several weeks with his apparent acquiescence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Robert Whitney, D.C., guilty of having violated Section 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a $500.00 administrative fine and a letter of concern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine based on allegations that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, arising from his treatment and care of Patient M.R., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0077248. Respondent is a vascular surgeon, who is not board-certified in his area of practice. On November 27, 2000, Patient M.R., a 70-year-old male, was admitted to ORMC for a right-side carotid endarterectomy. Patient M.R. initially presented to Respondent in October 2000 with a number of health conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (related to a 54-year history of smoking), cerebral vascular disease, atherosclerotic changes, and hypertension. Patient M.R. had a significant cardiac condition which resulted in a bypass procedure. It was determined at that time that Patient M.R. had significant stenosis in both carotid arteries which would require Patient M.R. to undergo two separate procedures, known as carotid endarterectomies. The left carotid artery was the subject of the first procedure in October 2000. Patient M.R. tolerated this procedure with no complications. Subsequent to the first carotid endarterectomy, but prior to the second, Patient M.R. suffered a transient ischemic attack (TIA), which is commonly referred to as a "mini-stroke." The symptomatic clinical presentation placed Patient M.R. in a high-risk category for peri-operative stroke. Respondent performed a right carotid endarterectomy on Patient M.R. on November 27, 2000. This requires the clamping of the artery in two locations, using a shunt to allow for the flow of blood. The incision must be made length wise in the controlled portion of the artery using an instrument to clear out the interior or lumen of the artery. This is done to reduce the stenosis and allow for better blood flow, without disbodying any particle from the wall of the artery. Once this is completed, the incision is patched, the clamps and shunt are removed, and the outer skin incision is closed. During the course of the above-described carotid endarterectomy, Respondent used a patch angioplasty with intra- operative shunt, which was manufactured from a pediatric feeding tube, and peri-operative neurologic monitoring. Immediately after the operation, the patient appeared to tolerate the procedure well, but was lethargic. Patient M.R. exhibited good movement in all four extremities and appeared to be neurologically intact, although he underwent extreme fluctuation in blood pressure. Patient M.R. was placed on ventilator support. The next morning, November 28, 2000, Patient M.R. had swelling and a hematoma in his neck on the right side, in the area of the incision. Respondent returned Patient M.R. to surgery, for exploration and evacuation of the hematoma. During the course of this second operation, Respondent observed a lot of swelling and edema in the operative site, but not much blood. Respondent evacuated the hematoma, and the carotid artery was found to have good blood flow. Later in the evening on November 28, 2000, Patient M.R. developed an acute neurologic deficit and was returned to the intensive care unit (ICU) at ORMC. Respondent ordered a Computerized Tomographry Scan (CT Scan) of the patient and an arteriogram. The results of the CT Scan showed a probable right occiptal infarct (stroke). The arteriogram showed significant occlusion of the right carotid artery extending to the carotid siphon. Patient M.R. was returned to the operating room in the early morning hours of November 29, 2000. Respondent made the decision to reopen the surgical area in an effort to resume blood flow in the right carotid artery that was seen to be occluded on the angiogram. Assisting Respondent on this November 29, 2000, procedure were John Horowitz, M.D., a board- certified vascular surgeon with nine years of experience, and Joseph Muller, M.D., a third-year general surgical resident at ORMC. During the November 29, 2000, procedure, Respondent reopended the previous incision in the skin and partially opened the patch that had previously been used over the carotid artery itself. Respondent performed a thrombectomy using a Fogarty "balloon" catheter in an effort to extract any debris that was causing the stenosis in the carotid artery. The balloon is placed into the carotid artery itself and is pushed up into the artery until it has passed whatever occlusion is present. Then the balloon is inflated and pulled back out, pulling with it any debris that is located within the artery. Near the conclusion of this November 29, 2000, procedure, a small piece of tubing was discovered in the surgical field. The piece of tubing was handed to Dr. Horowitz, who examined it and then placed it on the surgical tray. This piece of tubing was the same size, slope, and material cut from the feeding tube which was used as a shunt in the first surgery on November 27, 2000. There is conflicting testimony regarding the precise size and location of this piece of tubing that will be discussed below. What remains undisputed based upon the record in this case is that Respondent completed the surgical procedure on November 29, 2000, by closing the incision in the carotid artery and also in the skin of the neck. Dr. Muller is currently a surgical resident at ORMC, as he was at the time of the November 29, 2000, procedure. Dr. Muller testified that he had approximately two years and five months of residency training prior to the procedure in question. He estimated that he had observed approximately ten to 15 carotid endarterectomies. Dr. Muller testified that he observed a clear and slightly opaque piece of pediatric feeding tube coming out of the lumen of the artery as Respondent was evacuating debris after the inflation of the Fogarty balloon catheter and after about three passes of the catheter. Dr. Muller also testified that the piece of tubing in question was two or three centimeters in length. The other witnesses to this event testified that the piece in question was two to three millimeters in length. Dr. Muller's description of the position of the surgeon and assistant surgeon was also contrary to that of the other witnesses. Dr. Muller also testified that he did not know Patient M.R.'s medical history or his previous hospital course of treatment. Dr. Horowitz, the senior physician assisting, is a board-certified vascular surgeon who has performed several hundred carotid endarterectomies. He testified that he was called in by Respondent to assist on the surgical procedure which took place in the early morning hours of November 29, 2000. He found the piece of tubing located somewhere within the surgical field, remote from the carotid artery. He was certain that it was after Respondent had cleared the artery with the use of the Fogarty balloon catheter and had cleared the surgical wound. Dr. Horowitz testified that he saw a piece of tubing among the debris that had been evacuated from the surgical wound. It was not in the lumen of the artery. He picked up the piece of tubing in question with his thumb and forefinger and examined it. He testified that it was approximately two to three millimeters in length. He agreed that the material was consistent with the pediatric feeding tube that was used to create a shunt for the first procedure. Dr. Horowitz's testimony is credible and persuasive. Dr. Horowitz also gave his opinion that based upon his observation of the November 29, 2000, procedure, he did not believe that Respondent deviated from the standard of care in his treatment and care of Patient M.R. Patient M.R. was returned to the ICU, where he deteriorated and showed evidence of complete lack of brain stem reflexes. Patient M.R. was later pronounced brain dead, and he subsequently died on November 30, 2000. Gregory Schreiber, M.D., was the anesthesiologist who was present for a portion of the November 29, 2000, procedure. Dr. Schreiber testified that he was present during the beginning portion and the end portion of the procedure, when anesthesia is introduced and when anesthesia is abated. He was not present in the operating room when the piece of tubing was found. Further, there was a drape that separates the operative field from the anesthesiologist during the course of this procedure, which would have prevented Dr. Schreiber or his assistant from being able to see into the operative field directly. Dr. Schreiber noted that Patient M.R. was considered a very high-risk patient, whose multiple co-existent diseases posed a constant threat to his life when he presented for this surgery. In addition to the testimony outlined above, Petitioner also introduced three affidavits into evidence. One affidavit was that of Lata Bansal, M.D., a neurologist who was brought in for consultation after the November 29, 2000, procedure. Dr. Bansal swore in her affidavit that when she first saw Patient M.R. he was already brain dead. She otherwise did not have specific recollection of Patient M.R. The affidavit of Peter D. Taylor, M.D., a cardiac specialist, stated that he recommended a Thallium stress test for Patient M.R. prior to carotid surgery. The stress test was conducted on October 17, 2000, and revealed no ischemia but moderately decreased left ventricle function. Because he had no ischemia, Dr. Taylor opined that Patient M.R. was at an increased but acceptable risk for carotid surgery. The affidavit of Marita Lu, Registered Nurse, who was present during the November 29, 2000, procedure, stated that she could remember very few details of Patient M.R.'s case, other than she has the "impression" that something was recovered from the wound and that when she asked whether there was a specimen, she was told there was no specimen. Nothing in her affidavit indicates to whom she asked this question regarding the specimen nor is there any indication who responded to her question. Respondent is a board-certified general surgeon who is eligible for a special certification in vascular surgery and who was working at a vascular surgery group in Orlando, Florida, as of October and November of 2000. Respondent no longer practices in the State of Florida. He currently is an assistant professor of surgery and director of endovascular surgery at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. Respondent described in detail each of the three procedures he performed. On November 27, 2000, the original procedure on the right carotid artery proceeded in routine fashion. Respondent provided an exemplar, which was admitted into evidence, of a pediatric feeding tube which is substantially similar to the pediatric feeding tube utilized in the November 27, 2000, procedure on Patient M.R. He utilizes a portion of the pediatric feeding tube as a shunt in his carotid endarterectomy procedures. He demonstrated at the final hearing that the pediatric feeding tube itself is so flexible as to be incapable of breaking. The only means of cutting it down is through the use of surgical instruments. He also indicated that there was no way to further cut down the tubing once it had been placed. The scrub technician cut the pediatric feeding tube into the appropriate length to be used as a shunt during the November 27, 2000, procedure. Respondent recalled that prior to this particular procedure, the tubing in question was not originally cut down to the appropriate size. It had to be cut down while in the operating room. It is during this cutting of the tubing that a tiny sliver, approximately two to three millimeters in length, was removed from the larger piece of tubing and entered the surgical field. Respondent did not know and did not have any way of knowing that the piece of tubing had entered the surgical field, as he was focused on preparing the artery itself for its incision while this tubing was cut. Respondent testified that the pediatric feeding tube in question was cut down to size before any incision was made in the carotid artery itself. Respondent performed the November 27, 2000, procedure as he normally does. After the procedure, Patient M.R. experienced extreme fluctuations in blood pressure. This can occur in patients due to multiple factors involving the nervous tissue and blood flow in the carotid artery, but there is no specific explanation for why it does happen. Subsequent to the November 27, 2000, procedure, Respondent monitored Patient M.R., addressing the extreme fluctuations in blood pressure along with the consulting physicians referred to above. Respondent noted that Patient M.R. developed a hematoma subsequent to the first procedure. He made a determination that the best course for Patient M.R. would be to evacuate the hematoma. In Respondent's opinion, evacuating the hematoma would speed up the healing process. Respondent performed this procedure on November 28, 2000. Patient M.R. tolerated this procedure well, and there was nothing remarkable about the procedure itself. Respondent palpated Patient M.R.'s artery during the course of this procedure and used the Doppler to reinforce his findings on palpation. A Doppler signal gives more specific information about the varied nature of blood flow in the internal and external carotid arteries. It was not Respondent's standard practice, nor is it necessary, to create a medical record that palpation of the artery has occurred, since it is such a basic and common occurrence that its notation on the record is not deemed to be necessary. Respondent continued to follow Patient M.R. subsequent to the November 28, 2000, procedure. When it was determined that Patient M.R. had suffered a stroke, Respondent was left with a choice of either doing nothing, or reopening the artery in an effort to save Patient M.R.'s life. Respondent chose to reopen the artery in an effort to determine whether anything could be done to save Patient M.R. Respondent opened the prior incision in the carotid artery on November 29, 2000, and inserted the Fogarty catheter in order to evacuate any debris that was located within the carotid artery. Respondent testified that it was at about this time that the piece of tubing was found; however, he further testified that he did not see the tubing in question come from the lumen of the carotid artery. Respondent's testimony is credible. It was Respondent's opinion testimony that the piece of tubing in question was located in the subcutaneous tissue outside of the artery. Its exact location within the various layers of subcutaneous tissue was not observed during the procedure. It was not possible for the piece of tubing in question to have entered the artery at this time. There was no evidence to suggest that the piece could have migrated into the artery at a later time. James Dennis, M.D., is a board-certified vascular surgeon who is the chief of the vascular surgery department at the University of Florida in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Dennis has sufficient education, training, and experience to qualify as an expert in vascular surgery under Florida law. Dr. Dennis testified that he reviewed all of the pertinent medical records concerning the treatment and care provided by Respondent to Patient M.R. and that based upon his review of these records and based upon his education, training, and experience, it was his opinion to within a reasonable degree of medical probability that Respondent deviated from the accepted standard of care in his treatment and care of Patient M.R., which constituted a violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Dr. Dennis also testified that in his opinion, Respondent violated Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in that he failed to compile appropriate medical records reflecting the treatment and care provided to Patient M.R. Dr. Dennis' standard of care opinions were based on several factors. First, it was Dr. Dennis' opinion that based upon the contents of the chart, the only time that the piece of pediatric feeding tube could have entered Patient M.R. was during the course of the November 27, 2000, procedure. Dr. Dennis testified that in his opinion, Respondent deviated from the standard of care in allowing the piece of pediatric feeding tube to enter Patient M.R.'s body. This would be his opinion even if Respondent did not see the sliver of tubing in question enter Patient M.R.'s body and even if the piece of tubing in question were so small and translucent as to be practically invisible. Dr. Dennis also testified that in his opinion, Respondent deviated from the standard of care during the November 28, 2000, procedure in that he failed to adequately palpate the carotid artery. Dr. Dennis was critical of Respondent's use of a Doppler to assess Patient M.R.'s pulse. In Dr. Dennis' opinion, the use of the Doppler was indicative a weakening pulse rate and that the proper practice would have been to palpate the artery by touch rather than by using a Doppler instrument. Dr. Dennis was also critical of Respondent during the November 28, 2000, procedure for his failure to find the piece of tubing in question. It is Dr. Dennis' opinion that the piece of tubing had to have been located within the lumen of the artery and that had Respondent adequately palpated the entire length of the carotid artery during the November 28, 2000, procedure, he would have located the piece of tubing within the artery and could have taken appropriate steps to remove the piece of tubing before Patient M.R. suffered his stroke later that night or during the early morning hours of November 29, 2000. Dr. Dennis' opinion that the piece of tubing in question had to have been located in the lumen of the artery was also based upon his assessment of the procedures performed. He discounted the theory that the piece of tubing was located within subcutaneous tissue outside of the artery because, in his opinion, the piece of tubing would have been discovered either during the November 28, 2000, procedure or earlier in the November 29, 2000, procedure if it had been outside the artery. However, according to Dr. Dennis, based upon the timing of when the piece of tubing was found, the tubing itself had to have been located within the lumen of the artery until it was removed in the November 29, 2000, procedure. Dr. Dennis also rendered the opinion that not only was the piece of tubing located within the lumen of the carotid artery, but that the piece of tubing is directly related to the stroke which Patient M.R. suffered later that day or the following morning, which caused his death. Dr. Dennis testified that the piece of tubing became lodged in Patient M.R.'s carotid artery and that as blood flowed by it, platelets attached to the tubing, slowly building up with the carotid artery, until Patient M.R. experienced 100 percent stenosis in the right carotid artery, leading to his stroke. In sum, Dr. Dennis' opinion was that Respondent deviated from the standard of care by allowing a piece of tubing to enter Patient M.R.'s carotid artery and that it was this tubing which lead to Patient M.R.'s stroke and ultimately his death. This is in spite of the fact that Dr. Dennis was not able to state within any degree of medical probability how the sliver of tubing could have entered the artery. Dr. Dennis also rendered an opinion during his final hearing testimony that Respondent deviated from the standard of care because he did not secure the piece of tubing at issue in this case and see to it that the tubing was sent to the pathology laboratory at ORMC for analysis. Morris Kerstein, M.D., a board-certified vascular surgeon, reviewed all of the pertinent medical records reflecting the treatment and care Respondent provided to Patient M.R. Dr. Kerstein had been practicing for 35 years, and he is currently the chief of the vascular surgery department at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Dr. Kerstein has sufficient education, training, and experience to qualify as an expert in vascular surgery under Florida law. Dr. Kerstein's opinion based upon his education, training, and experience is that Respondent did not deviate from the standard of care in his treatment of Patient M.R. First, Dr. Kerstein testified that in his opinion, Respondent's conduct during all three procedures at issue was appropriate. As to the November 27, 2000, procedure, there was no way for Respondent to be aware that the piece of pediatric feeding tube had entered the operative field. It was too small to be noticed, and it was of a translucent color which made locating it extremely difficult. He was not critical of Respondent for not cutting the tubing himself. He testified that if, in fact, the sliver of tubing entered the surgical area as a result of the scrub technician cutting the tubing, and a two to three millimeter fragment jettisoned into the surgical field, this would not constitute a deviation from the standard of care by Respondent. Dr. Kerstein testified that he felt the November 28, 2000, procedure was performed appropriately as well. He testified that it was not a deviation for Respondent to use a Doppler to feel for pulses in the arteries, and to the contrary, it reveals that Respondent was being meticulous beyond what the standard of care requires. He opined that Respondent certainly would have palpated the arteries in question, and to suggest otherwise based on the absence of a note to that effect is not an appropriate conclusion to draw. Dr. Kerstein rendered the opinion that he did not believe that the piece of tubing in question was located within the lumen of the artery of Patient M.R. He testified that there was no way for the tubing to enter the artery because the sliver in question came off of the longer tubing before an incision was made in the carotid artery. There is therefore no reasonable explanation as to how the piece in question could have entered the carotid artery in the first place. Dr. Kerstein also disputed the theory that not only was the piece of tubing located within the lumen of the artery, but also the piece in question actually caused Patient M.R.'s stroke. Dr. Kerstein relied principally on the radiographic studies. Both the CT Scan of the brain and the angiogram taken late in the evening of November 28, 2000, revealed a right posterior occipital infarct. The posterior of the brain is the back of the brain, and if the infarct was located there, it means that the cause of the stroke had to be something other than an occlusion in the carotid artery. This is because the arteries that feed the back portion of the brain are the basilar and vertebral arteries, not the carotid artery. Therefore, there could be no possible causal connection between the sliver in question and Patient M.R.'s stroke. Dr. Kerstein's opinion as to the cause of Patient M.R.'s stroke focused on his personal history rather than on the events of November 27, 2000. He noted that Patient M.R. presented with severe atherosclerotic changes, indicative of an advanced disease process. He noted that Patient M.R. suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which was the product of his 54-year smoking history. He also noted Patient M.R.'s significant cerebrovascular disease. He also stated that thrombosis (or clotting of the blood) is a known complication of this procedure and can happen for several plausible reasons other than a sliver of tubing in the artery. All of these conditions conspired to predispose Patient M.R. to suffer a significant event such as the stroke he suffered on November 28 through 29, 2000. Dr. Kerstein also noted that the piece of tubing was completely inert, and given its size and its location in the subcutaneous tissue outside of the carotid artery, the tubing would have had no impact whatsoever on Patient M.R.'s prognosis. The tubing in question is an example of inert material that can remain inside the body, such as the case of a bullet which is located too close to the spinal cord to allow for an operation to remove it, without causing the body any harm. Dr. Kerstein had no criticism of the medical records Respondent kept regarding the treatment he provided to Patient M.R. He specifically noted that the records were accurate and honestly reflected what had occurred during the procedure. The fact that no foreign object was noted in the first two procedures was appropriate because at that point, he had no reason to suspect the presence of a foreign object. The lack of reference to a cause of Patient M.R.'s atypical post-operative course was appropriate because in fact Respondent could not have defined a single reason why Patient M.R. was reacting the way he did. Finally, the operative note from the November 29, 2000, procedure was appropriate, as it also honestly and accurately depicted what had occurred; he made a specific comment on Respondent's note that the sliver was not indeed from the lumen, but that the exact location was unclear, finding this to be an unambiguous statement of fact. Dr. Kerstein also disagreed with the state's position with regard to the responsibility for maintaining possession of the piece of tubing post-operatively. Dr. Kerstein testified that it was the responsibility of the circulating nurse, an employee of the hospital, to arrange for the piece of tubing to be sent to the pathology lab for examination. The evidence is insufficient to support Petitioner's contention that the pediatric feeding tube sliver at issue caused Patient M.R. to suffer a stroke because of its location within the carotid artery itself. Radiographic studies were performed on Patient M.R. after the stroke. A CT Scan performed on November 28, 2000, revealed an acute right posterior cerebral artery distribution infarct. Further, a cerebral angiogram was performed on November 28, 2000, and revealed "markedly diseased circulation particularly in the right vertebral and basilar arteries." This note also revealed: "Severely diseased posterior fossa circulation." Based upon the location of the infarct in Patient M.R.'s brain, the cause of the stroke had to have been either the vertebral or basilar arteries that supply blood to the posterior part of the brain. In view of all the evidence, the expert testimony of Dr. Kerstein, together with that of Dr. Horowitz, was more persuasive than that of Dr. Dennis in regard to the standard of care and Respondent's actions in this matter.
Recommendation Based on all the evidence of record, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order holding that the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent has violated either Subsections 458.331(t) or (m), Florida Statutes, in his treatment of Patient M.R. and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael D'Lugo, Esquire Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A. 390 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel Lake, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
