The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.10 et. seq., Florida Statutes, as set forth in Petitioner's Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female African-American who has completed medical school. On March 19, 1997, Petitioner completed an "Application for Residency," seeking to participate in Respondent's clinical anesthesiology residency program. That program is operated in conjunction with the Public Health Trust. Applicants selected to participate in the residency program become employees of Respondent. The terms and conditions of employment are subject to the policies of both Respondent and the Public Health Trust. Petitioner's application to participate in the residency program related that she had completed an internship at University of Maryland/Harbor Hospital (Harbor) and two years of anesthesiology residency at King/Drew University, Los Angles (King). Petitioner signed the application on March 19, 1997. On April 30, 1997, Petitioner submitted an "Application for Graduate Medical Education at the Jackson Memorial Medical Center" that required her to "list chronologically your activities from time of graduation from Medical School to present. Specify type of post graduate training if any." Petitioner listed the internship at Harbor and the residency at King. She signed the application under the declaration: "I hereby declare that I have examined this application; and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete." Petitioner was accepted into Respondent's clinical anesthesiology residency program based, in part, on the information reflected in the foregoing applications. That acceptance created an employee/employer relationship between Petitioner and Respondent. On July 17, 1997, Petitioner submitted a completed "Personnel Form" to Respondent. The Personnel Form required her to disclose all her activities since her completion of medical school. On that form Petitioner listed her previous internship at Harbor and her previous residency training at King. She verified it was correct to the best of her knowledge and signed the form. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Brian Craythorne was a Professor of Medicine at the University of Miami and the Chairman of Respondent's Department of Anesthesiology. Dr. Craythorne had supervisory responsibility for Petitioner and was instrumental in selecting her to participate in the residency program. In April 1998, Dr. Craythorne received routine information from the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) setting forth the number of hours of training from other anesthesiology residency programs for which each resident participating in Respondent's residency program had received credit. The information from the ABA also set forth the number of hours of training for which each resident had received no credit. From that information, Dr. Craythorne learned that Petitioner had a total of 39 hours of residency training in anesthesiology from other programs for which she had received no credit. Three of the 39 hours of training for which she had no training were at King, which was reflected on her application and related paperwork. The training at King is not an issue in this proceeding. The additional 36 hours of residency training for which she received no credit was from Howard Hospital. 1/ The program at Howard, which was equivalent to a three-year program, was not reflected on any application or related document Petitioner submitted to Respondent before April 1998. Petitioner's failure to disclose her participation in the residency program at Howard was intentional. Petitioner's failure to disclose her participation in the residency program at Howard violated the clear policies of both Respondent and the Public Health Trust that require applications and related documents to be truthful, correct, and complete. Dr. Craythorne confronted Petitioner about the foregoing omissions in her applications and associated paperwork. In response, Petitioner submitted a letter dated May 27, 1998, in which she tried to explain why she did not obtain credit at Howard and why she had not divulged that information to Respondent. Petitioner asserted that she had sued Howard and had subsequently settled the litigation with instructions from her attorney that she could not discuss the litigation. 2/ Petitioner's letter of May 27, 1998, was not satisfactory to Dr. Craythorne. On June 3, 1998, Dr. Craythorne issued to Petitioner a "Disciplinary Action Report" (DAR) advising he was recommending that Petitioner be dismissed from the residency program (thereby terminating her employment with Respondent). The grounds for the action were her violation of Respondent's policies by making a false statement or statements on her application for employment and related documents and her violation of Public Health Trust Policy #305 pertaining to falsifying records or any other record of the Trust. Referencing Respondent's Department of Anesthesiology, the DAR also contained the following: Our department's recruiting and hiring practices . . . includes a policy/practice not to accept residents [sic] who have had more than one prior anesthesia residency experience for the clinical anesthesia years 1 through 3. [3/]] On June 29, 1998, Dr. Craythorne wrote a letter to Petitioner terminating her employment on the grounds set forth in the DAR. The termination letter advised Petitioner that she could request the Senior Vice President for Medical Affairs (Dr. Gerard A. Kaiser) to review the decision to terminate her participation. The letter also advised Petitioner that "[u]nless the Senior Vice President rescinds the proposed action, it will become effective following his review and decision." On July 21, 1998, Dr. Kaiser advised Petitioner that he had reviewed the facts surrounding her termination and agreed with the termination decision. Consistent with her rights pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement, Petitioner requested and received a hearing before the Peer Review Committee, which was composed of other participants in the anesthesiology residency program. On December 1, 1998, the Peer Review Committee issued its report upholding Petitioner's termination for the reasons cited by Dr. Craythorne. On December 23, 1998, Ira C. Clark, president of the Public Health Trust, advised Petitioner that he had upheld her dismissal based on his review of the Peer Review Committee's findings and recommendation. Petitioner thereafter filed a grievance pursuant to her collective bargaining rights. On October 21, 1999, an evidentiary hearing was conducted before an arbitrator. On November 1, 1999, the arbitrator entered his Opinion and Award upholding Petitioner's termination of employment. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint of discrimination with the FCHR on or about March 27, 2000. The gravamen of the complaint was that Respondent fired her in retaliation for her complaint to Dr. Craythorne that another resident had made a derogatory racial comment towards her. On December 10, 2001, the FCHR entered a determination of "no cause," determining that there was no cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. On January 14, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice with the FCHR. The Petition alleged the following facts in support of her claim of discrimination: On April 1, 1998, a racial remark was made to me by Dr. Kirsten O'Neal, which was, "we know how lazy you Blacks are." I reported it (the statement) to Dr. Craythorne and Dr. Brindle, as well as in writing (copies are in my file). Dr. Craythorne asked me if I had any witnesses, I said yes. The following month they decided to investigate my application, and terminated me on July 1998 (sic). The Petition described the disputed issues of fact as follows: I was terminated because I did not put on my application that I had worked for Howard Hospital in Washington, D. C. They stated the reason I was terminated is because the ABA (American Board of Anesthesiology) requires that you only attend two programs if you have received credit. I did not receive any credit. Please see the enclosed pamphlet from the ABA at page 9. The Petition set forth the following ultimate facts entitling Petitioner to relief: When JMH terminated me, it was because I made a claim of racial discrimination, which I reported prior to investigation of my application. Had I not complained of racial remarks that was made to me by the above Dr. Kirsten O'Neal, it would not have come up about my application. The evidence established that Petitioner complained to Dr. Craythorne that Dr. O'Neal had made the derogatory, racial remark set forth in the Petition. 4/ There was no evidence to establish a link between the complaint made by Petitioner to Dr. Craythorne pertaining to Dr. O'Neal and the decision to terminate her participation in the residency program. Respondent established that Petitioner was terminated because she failed to adhere to Respondent's and the Public Health Trust's clear policies requiring applications and other employment documents to be truthful, correct, and complete.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing 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 filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of deviating from the applicable standard of care, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and failing to keep adequate medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty the Board of Medicine should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0066606. Respondent has been board certified in plastic surgery since 1983 and is also board certified in hand surgery. Respondent has previously practiced in Kentucky. He relocated to Florida in 1994 to join a former physician colleague, Dr. Bolt, who had developed cancer and later died in early 1995. Respondent joined the Center for Cosmetic Surgery (Center), which Dr. Bolt had sold to two persons, including Jeff Davis. The record does not disclose whether Mr. Davis is a physician, but Respondent described him and the other principal/owner as felons. The Center held out Respondent as the medical director. This representation was obviously with Respondent’s knowledge and at least tacit consent. After Dr. Bolt’s death, Respondent recruited three more physicians for the Center, but none of them was board certified in plastic surgery. Mr. Davis served as the patient coordinator at the Center. The position of patient coordinator had significant marketing responsibilities. Typically, a prospective patient would contact the Center and schedule a free consultation. At the appointed time, the prospective patient would visit the Center and speak with a physician, such as Respondent. No physical examination would take place. During the discussion, the physician would make notes on a Physician’s Report, which the prospective patient would take to Mr. Davis, whose job was to sell the surgery. Using incentives such as free nose jobs, Mr. Davis was responsible for pricing surgical procedures and scheduling surgery, once the prospective patient agreed to have a Center physician perform the agreed-upon surgery. Mr. Davis was also responsible for collecting money from patients in payment for their surgery. Typically, one of Respondent’s patients would schedule surgery two to three months from the date of making the appointment. Before surgery, Respondent would see the patient before surgery for a physical examination and preoperative testing. Respondent determined what preoperative testing was necessary on a patient-by-patient basis. Following this visit, Respondent would dictate the findings from the physical examination and the treatment plan. A transcribing service was responsible for transcribing the dictation and filing it in the patient’s chart. In May or June of 1996, Respondent provided notice to the principals of the Center that he would be terminating his employment. He terminated his employment on November 1, 1996. After his departure, Respondent learned that Center employees had misinformed his patients as to Respondent’s nonavailability due to illness or surgery. It is unclear whether this situation existed before Respondent’s announced departure. Tensions developed between Respondent and the principals of the Center. Respondent determined that he could lawfully contact those patients still needing care, so he sent those patients an announcement that he was associating himself with the American Institute of Plastic Surgery. Litigation between Respondent and the Center principals followed, including a legal action by Respondent to obtain patient records. The litigation over the records concluded with the agreement by the Center to provide records as needed, but they have provided Respondent with incomplete records. A. S. first contacted the Center in June 1995 after seeing an advertisement on television. She chose the Center and two other facilities for plastic surgery that she was considering. At the time, A. S. was 48 years old. Wanting to improve her appearance, A. S. wanted a face lift and work on her lower eyelids. She had had her lower eyelids done in 1978 or 1979 and had had a “mini-lift” in 1984. A. S. met Respondent during her first visit to the Center. A. S. and Respondent spoke for 15-20 minutes. Respondent asked her what procedures she wanted done, and she said that she wanted a face lift and work on her lower eyelids. He showed her a copy of his resume and marked a picture of a face, as they discussed procedures. A. S. did not fill out any forms or questionnaires. Respondent did not explain much concerning the procedures that A. S. was contemplating. He mentioned that she would have a thin line, which would not be noticeable, under her eyes and told how long the stitches would remain in place. He did not discuss the possibility of scarring or other risks associated with the surgery. Following her visit with Respondent, A. S. saw Mr. Davis. They discussed costs and financing. Mr. Davis gave her an estimate of the cost of the surgery that she was considering. A. S. had already checked another plastic surgery center and, later on the same day that she visited the Center, she visited the third, and last, plastic surgery facility that she was considering. The next day, Mr. Davis called A. S. and asked if she had made a decision. Mr. Davis said that Respondent had told him that Respondent wanted to do A. S.’s nose, evidently for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Davis offered the nose work at no additional charge. Although Respondent had not offered to do A. S.’s nose for free or for a charge, he was aware that Mr. Davis would offer free additional work of this kind as an incentive to the patient to select the Center for the work that she was already considering. A. S. talked the matter over with her daughter. A. S. decided to have the surgery at the Center. She then informed Mr. Davis of her decision. Three to five days later, A. S. visited the Center to discuss payments with Mr. Davis because she did not have all of the money necessary for the surgery. During this visit, Mr. Davis suggested a brow lift. He said that Respondent was good at this procedure and would be working in this area anyway. At the end of this visit, a nurse gave A. S. some paperwork prohibiting her from smoking for two weeks before the surgery due to the anticipated bleeding. A. S. had smoked one pack of cigarettes a day since she had been a teenager. A. S. discussed the effect of smoking on the surgery with the nurse, but not with Respondent. As directed, she stopped smoking and never resumed smoking again. A. S. next visited the Center on June 26, 1995, for the surgery. No one performed a physical examination of A. S. On this date, Respondent performed a browlift, rhinoplasty, and facelift. After A. S. awoke from the general anesthesia, she did not receive any instructions from Respondent or staff regarding the care of her bandages, which extended across a large part of her face and top of her head. She was scheduled to return to the Center two days later. A. S.’s daughter drove her home. Once they got there, she noticed that her mother’s face seemed grey. A. S. told her to call Respondent. The daughter informed his answering service of her mother’s condition. She then waited one-half hour for Respondent or his staff to contact her. After hearing nothing, the daughter called the answering service again and waited another half-hour. After a third call and another half-hour wait, Respondent called A. S. and told her to cut the bandage under her neck. By cutting the bandages, A. S. revealed an open cut on her neck. When she returned for her followup visit two days later, A. S. asked Respondent about the cut, which extended along the right side of the neck below the ear. Respondent assured her that it would close up, which it did. When Respondent expressed concerns about her eyes and a dent in her nose, Respondent assured her that they would discuss these matters after the swelling went down. About one week later, Respondent returned to the Center for a second followup visit. During the second followup visit, Respondent removed the stitches. Now that some of the swelling had gone down, A. S. discovered that Respondent had not performed the surgery on her lower eyes. A. S. could not recall Respondent’s explanation for not performing this surgery. A. S. complained to Respondent that, since the surgery, her right eye had become smaller than her left eye, the right eyebrow had become lower than the left eyebrow, and the right side of her face from the eye down had become looser. Also, she complained about the extensive marks, scarring, loose skin, redness, and a dent under her chin; the dent in her nose and a misshapen right nostril; a swollen bump on her left cheek; a big chunk of skin gone from her hairline; and a gully on the left side of her face. Respondent assured her that he would fix these problems with revisions to the eyes and nose and the area under the neck. He did not offer any revisions to hair line, whose appearance worsened as the swelling reduced. Respondent later performed some relatively minor revisions to the right side of A. S.’s face at no cost to A. S. He reset the remaining revisions for a date in mid-December, 1995. Despite A. S.’s persistence at trying to obtain the additional revisions, Respondent failed to perform them. Repeatedly, Center employees canceled scheduled surgery dates, claiming that Respondent was ill or busy with unscheduled surgery. They rescheduled the December surgery to a date in mid- February, 1996. When she reported on this date, a Center employee took her to Mr. Davis, who informed her that the Center had lost money on her surgery and would not perform revision surgery until she paid additional money. They rescheduled her surgery for a date in late March. When A. S. reported on the date for her surgery in March, Mr. Davis told her that they would not do the revision surgery until she paid another $300. A. S. charged this sum on her credit card, so they would do the surgery. Mr. Davis told her that Respondent was too busy, and he rescheduled the surgery for April 8. On April 8, when A. S. reported for surgery, a Center employee sedated A. S., but, after A. S. waited a couple of hours, another Center employee informing her that the surgery could not take place either because Respondent was not coming into work that day or he was in emergency surgery. When A. S. called from home later that day to reschedule the surgery, a Center employee told her that Respondent was in surgery. The employee advised A. S. to call the Center each morning to see if Respondent had any cancellations. A. S. did as advised, but the Center was never able to accommodate her. Subsequently, A. S. sent Respondent two or three letters and left telephone messages for him to contact her on at least ten occasions. Realizing that Respondent and the Center would not perform the revision surgery, A. S. went to another plastic surgery facility in 1998 for work on her right nostril and under her neck. A surgeon repaired the nostril, but, due to financial constraints, could not do all of the work required to repair the damage under A. S.’s neck, which would require about $4000 in surgery. In the meantime, Respondent sent A. S. a card announcing the relocation of his practice to the American Institute for Cosmetic Surgery. A. S. wrote Respondent a letter at his new address, but Respondent never responded. A. S. never sued Respondent. All she wanted was that he perform the revisions that she could not afford to purchase elsewhere so as to reduce or, if possible, eliminate the deformities that Respondent caused surgically. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in several ways. First, preoperatively, his evaluation of A. S. was scanty. He did not take an ample history, and he did not adequately evaluate her medical status. He did not prepare a surgical plan with a description of all risks and a discussion of these details with the patient. Perhaps most importantly, Respondent never performed a physical examination of A. S. before surgery. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care operatively. The results in this case are so substandard in number and degree as to preclude assigning the outcomes to bad luck, as opposed to a hurried, careless surgery. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care postoperatively. He did not adequately the many problems that he caused. Perhaps most obviously, he failed to adequately treat the open wound in the neck, and he failed to form a plan to address the many revisions necessitated by his careless surgery. The Board of Medicine has previously disciplined Respondent for, among other things, his deviation from the applicable standard of care in treating three plastic surgery patients whose surgery he performed in 1995-96 and 1998.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in his treatment of A. S. and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Bin C03 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim M. Kluck Carol Gregg Senior Attorneys Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jerry C. Lingle 1419 Northeast 16th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lawrence D. Urban was a licensed osteopathic physician in Florida having been issued license number OS 001232. From January 1983 through at least March 17, 1984, Respondent maintained offices in Clearwater and Zephyrhills. He practiced in the Clearwater office on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week and in the Zephyrhills office on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Respondent employed Wendell Bloom to work in the Zephyrhills office as a business manager and assistant to Respondent. Bloom had no medically related license such as physician's assistant, nurse, technician, etc. As an assistant to Respondent, Bloom drew blood, performed vascular analyses, mixed IV solutions, and administered IV solutions. He worked at the Zephyrhills office Monday through Friday. Bloom had standing orders from Respondent that if a new patient came in Bloom would draw a blood sample, send it to the lab for analysis and make an appointment for the patient to see Respondent when the results of the blood analysis was received. Respondent described his practice in Zephyrhills as holistic, involving nutrition, chelation, and cancer therapy using laetril. Chelation treatment involves the intravenous injections of solutions containing EDTA (Ethylenadiaminetetracetic acid), vitamins, including B12, B complex and C, and the minerals, calcium and magnesium. On many occasions Bloom commenced IV chelation injections containing EDTA before Respondent arrived at the office and completed some of these after Respondent had left the office. On at least five (5) occasions Bloom injected patients with IV solutions containing EDTA without Respondent being present any time during the procedure. Drawing blood without a doctor present in the office constitutes the practice of medicine. Injecting IV solutions in patients constitutes the practice of medicine without a doctor present. In the Zephyrhills office Respondent referred to Bloom as Dr. Bloom in the presence of patients. No sign or disclaimer was posted in the office that Bloom had no prior medical training and was not licensed in any medically related health professional field in Florida. Respondent knew that patients might believe Bloom to be a medical doctor. In administering an IV solution to a patient there is always a danger of an allergic reaction or an anaphylactic reaction, even if a patient has previously tolerated the treatment. Respondent acknowledged that serious side affects would result to a patient receiving an IV solution containing EDTA if the patient suffered kidney failure. Bloom also operated the vascular analyzer machine in the office. As described by Bloom, by attaching clips from the machine to the fingers and toes the machine will tell you if there is any kind of clotting or obstruction any place within the cardiovascular system. Further, by putting transmission gel on the clip and holding it over an artery, transmissions from the clip with the return echo is transformed onto a chart which will denote the elasticity of the artery. This machine is not universally accepted in the medical profession. By Final Order entered August 26, 1983 (Exhibit 1) the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners found Respondent guilty of filing false reports, fee splitting, and abetting an unlicensed person to practice osteopathic medicine. He was sentenced to a reprimand, placed on probation for six (6) months and directed to report to the Board at the end of the probationary period. If, at this time, Respondent's report on the status of his practice satisfies the Board that the financial aspects of his practice is in accordance with the law, the reprimand will be withdrawn. Terms and conditions of the probation were not delineated. Respondent appeared before the Board at its March 17, 1984 meeting. After Respondent reported that the financial aspects of his practice were poor, but in conformity with the law, one of the Board members inquired if Respondent was working with any non-osteopathic physicians in his practice, which was one of the accusations for which he was reprimanded and placed on probation. At this point Respondent told the Board that he had a helper who was a "non- anything" who was drawing blood, doing vascular analyses of patients, giving IVs to patients undergoing chelation therapy and whatever Respondent told him to do. (Exhibit 2) After hearing these disturbing facts the Board voted to extend the Respondent's probation while an investigation of his practice was conducted. The charges considered at this hearing were those resulting from that investigation.
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.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent Lucien Armand, M.D., violated Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2006), by violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2) and (4), and Section 458.351, Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2006); and Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006), as alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health before the Board of Medicine on June 20, 2008; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Lucien Armand, M.D., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 33997. Dr. Armand is board-certified in general surgery by the American Board of Surgery. Dr. Armand’s mailing address of record at all times relevant to this matter was 2071 Southwest 52nd Way, Plantation, Florida 33317. At the times relevant, Dr. Armand practiced medicine at 4100 South Hospital Drive, Suite 108, Plantation, Florida 33317. The office at which Dr. Armand practiced medicine was located very close to Plantation General Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “Plantation”). Dr. Armand has been the subject of three prior disciplinary matters arising out of five separate cases. Penalties were imposed in those three disciplinary matters. The Department summarized those disciplinary matters in paragraph 37 of its Proposed Recommended Order: In DPR Case Numbers 0019222, 0019123 and 0091224, Respondent was fined, received a reprimand, and was required to complete 30 hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) in general vascular surgery and risk management within the surgical practice. In Case Number 94-10100, Respondent was required to submit to and comply with an evaluation at the University of Florida, to pay a fine, was reprimanded, was required to complete twenty hours of CME in general surgery in performing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, and was placed on Probation for two (2) years. In Case Number 1999- 58474, Respondent was restricted from performing Level II or above office surgery as defined in Rule 64B8-9.009(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, until the Respondent demonstrated to the Board that he had successfully completed the University of Florida Comprehensive Assessment and Remedial Education Service (UF C.A.R.E.S.) course and complied with all recommendations, was reprimanded, was placed on probation for two (2) years, was required to attend the Florida Medical Association “Quality Medical Record Keeping for Health Care Practitioners” course, was required to perform 100 hours of community service, and was required to reimburse the Department for costs. Dr. Armand, who is 70 years of age, has been practicing medicine for 46 years. He has practiced medicine in Florida since 1979. During the eight months prior to the final hearing of this matter, Dr. Armand was working in South Sudan pursuant to contract with the United States State Department. October 6, 2006, Surgery on Patient W.C. On September 14, 2006, Patient W.C. presented to Dr. Armand and was diagnosed as having a slow-growing left inguinal hernia. Dr. Armand scheduled Patient W.C. for surgical repair of the inguinal hernia. The surgery was scheduled for October 6, 2006, at Dr. Armand’s office and, at the request of Patient W.C., under local sedation. At approximately 9:30 a.m., October 6, 2006, Patient W.C. arrived as scheduled at Dr. Armand’s office, accompanied by his wife and child. Patient W.C., who was not asked to execute any paperwork concerning the operation, was taken into a room where he was directed to lie down. There were two nurses in the room. Patient W.C. was given one shot of some form near the site of the procedure. This shot is the only medication he remembers receiving. He denied any recollection of having received medication intravenously, intramuscularly, or rectally. According to Dr. Armand, Patient W.C. was given “local anesthesia, Xylocaine 1% and ½% during the procedure and I gave some oral sedation, 10mg. of Valium, by mouth.” Page 171, Lines 19-21, Vol. II, Transcript of Final Hearing. At some point during the surgery, Patient W.C.’s intestines eviscerated, pushed themselves out through the hernia, making the hernia impossible to repair in the office. Due to the evisceration of Patient W.C.’s intestines, Dr. Armand eventually closed the incision and decided to transport Patient W.C. to Plantation to complete the procedure. Dr. Armand’s testimony that he closed and took patient W.C. to Plantation because Patient W.C. began “fidgeting” is not credited. While Patient W.C. did not have any clear recollection of the surgery while at Dr. Armand’s office, he did recall that “I was shaking myself and one of the nurses put something on my head and I went to sleep.” Page 40, Lines 20-22, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing. Patient W.C. later indicated that “[o]ne of the ladies sprayed something on my face,” at which point Patient W.C. “went to sleep.” Page 41, Lines 23-24, and Page 42, Line 8, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing. Patient W.C. did not remember anything else from this point in the surgery until he awoke at approximately 2:00 p.m., October 6, 2006, in a room at Plantation. Patient W.C. was transported to Plantation after he “fell asleep” by Dr. Armand. When Patient W.C. arrived at the Plantation emergency room, he was noted to be “sleepy” and, based upon Dr. Armand’s representation to the emergency room physician, Cornell Calinescu, M.D., was described as “somewhat sedated secondary to Valium and Clonidine.” Patient W. C. was also described by Dr. Calinescu and an emergency room nurse as able to speak. Upon admission to Plantation, Dr. Armand performed emergency surgery on Patient W.C. under general anesthesia, completing the procedure he had begun in his office. The surgery was completed without further complication. As noted above, Patient W.C. has no recollection of arriving at the Plantation emergency room, how he got to the hospital, or anything else that took place after falling asleep in Dr. Armand’s office, until he awoke in a hospital room later in the afternoon. Dr. Armand’s Medical Records for the October 6, 2006, Surgery. Dr. Armand’s office notes for Patient W.C. lack any documentation as to what took place in his office on October 6, 2006. Dr. Armand did not record the date of the procedure; the type of procedure performed; pre-operative care; any drugs that were prescribed, dispensed, and/or administered; the type and dosage of anesthetic sedation used; or post-operative care. Dr. Armand’s medical records for Patient W.C. also failed to include any informed consent for the procedure performed on October 6, 2006. As noted above, Dr. Armand did complete an operative report after the emergency surgery performed on Patient W.C. at Plantation. Office Surgery; Level of Anesthesia. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Office Surgery Rule”) prescribes standards for the performance of office surgery. In providing those standards, the Office Surgery Rule defines three levels of sedation and the conditions under which each level may be achieved and must be performed. Level II and Level III office surgery require registration of the physician’s office to perform. Dr. Armand’s office was not registered to perform Level II or Level III office surgery at the times relevant to this proceeding. Only the first and second levels of office surgery are relevant to this case. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(3) describes the types of procedures appropriate for “Level I” office surgery, which Dr. Armand has argued he performed on Patient W.C., as follows: Minor procedures such as excision of skin lesions, moles, warts, cysts, lipomas and repair of lacerations or surgery limited to the skin and subcutaneous tissue performed under topical or local anesthesia not involving drug-inducted alteration of consciousness other than minimal pre- operative tranquilization of the patient. Liposuction involving the removal of less than 4000cc supernatant fat is permitted. Incision and drainage of superficial abscesses, limited endoscopies such as proctoscopes, skin biopsies, arthrocentesis, thoracentesis, paracentesis, dilation of urethra, cysto-scopic procedures, and closed reduction of simple fractures or small joint dislocations (i.e., finger and toe joints). . . . . 5. Chances of complication requiring hospitalization are remote. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(4) describes the types of procedures appropriate for “Level II” office surgery, which the Department argues Dr. Armand utilized on Patient W.C., as follows: Level II Office Surgery is that in which peri-operative medication and sedation are used intravenously, intramuscularly, or rectally, thus making intra and post- operative monitoring necessary. Such procedures shall include, but not be limited to: hemorrhoidectomy, hernia repair, reduction of simple fractures, large joint dislocations, breast biopsies, colonoscopy, and liposuction involving the removal of up to 4000cc supernatant fat. Level II Office surgery includes any surgery in which the patient is placed in a state which allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining adequate cardiorespiratory function and the ability to respond purposefully to verbal command and/or tactile stimulation. Patients whose only response is reflex withdrawal from a painful stimulus are sedated to a greater degree than encompassed by this definition. [Emphasis added]. While the Department relies in part upon the language of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(4) that “[s]uch procedures shall include, but not be limited to . . . hernia repair . . .” to support its argument that the procedure performed by Dr. Armand on Patient W.C. was in fact performed as Level II surgery, this reliance is misplaced. Regardless of the proper interpretation of this language of the Rule (whether it clearly puts physicians on notice that all hernia repair surgery must be conducted as Level II surgery or not), at best it establishes a proscription. Such a proscription, cannot, however, be relied upon to establish the “fact” that Level II surgery was performed or not. The question of whether Dr. Armand performed the procedure defined as “Level II” office surgery is the disputed issue of fact in this case. Resolving this factual dispute requires an ultimate factual determination, which involves the application of a legal standard (the Rule) to the historical facts (what Dr. Armand actually did) as found by the trier-of-fact based upon the evidence. The Rule is not evidence of what Dr. Armand did; rather it is the yardstick against which Dr. Armand’s conduct must be measured and, ultimately, judged. The evidence either way concerning the level of surgery performed by Dr. Armand consisted of his testimony denying that Level II surgery was performed, the testimony of Patient W.C. concerning his condition, the description of Patient W.C.’s condition by emergency room personnel, and the opinion of the Department’s expert witness, Christian Brikedal, M.D., as to the level of surgery. Dr. Armand’s denial that he performed Level II surgery was not convincing because it was inconsistent with the patient’s description of his condition on October 6, 2006, and the description of his condition by emergency room staff when arrived at Plantation. Patient W.C. had no recollection of going to the hospital or anything that transpired there until he awoke at about 2:00 p.m. the afternoon of October 6, 2006. Emergency room staff noted that Patient W.C. was able to talk when he arrived. These facts, convincingly proved, are more consistent with what constitutes Level II surgery: “the patient is placed in a state which allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining . . . the ability to respond purposefully to verbal command and/or tactile stimulation.” This finding is further supported by Dr. Brikedal opinion that Patient W.C.’s condition was consistent with having undergone Level II sedatopm. Dr. Brikedal, whose testimony was convincing and uncontroverted, was asked the following question and gave the following answer at Page 22, Lines 7-14, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing: Q Assuming W.C. is going to testify that as soon as the complication occurred that he was put to sleep and didn’t wake up until he was in the hospital, are you able to reach any conclusions about the level of sedation that occurred? A He would have to have been given a sedative I.V. or I.M. to be that sleepy. This opinion, as to Patient W.C.’s condition on October 6, 2006, supports a finding that Patient W.C. was under Level II anesthesia while surgery was being performed in Dr. Armand’s office. Having found that Patient W.C. was under the level of sedation described in the definition of “Level II” office surgery, leads inescapably to the finding that Dr. Armand administered Level II sedation to Patient W.C. The foregoing finding is further supported by the portion of the Office Surgery Rule quoted, supra, in finding of fact 24. Dr. Brikedal explained during the hearing why it is “appropriate and necessary to do an inguinal hernia repair” as Level II surgery: “Sedation to the point that the patient’s comfortable so they’re able to or they’re not pushing against you, inhibiting you from performing this very safely.” Page 24, Lines 20-22, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing. As a board- certified general surgeon who has previously registered and had his office accredited as an office at which Level II surgery could be performed, Dr. Armand must have been aware of why it is prudent to perform hernia repairs as Level II surgery. While Dr. Armand may have begun the surgery as Level I, when Patient W.C.’s intestines eviscerated, Dr. Armand must have realized that taking Patient W.C. to Level II sedation would give him a better opportunity to correct the problem. Unfortunately for Dr. Armand, it was too late. Office Surgery Rule Procedures. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2) prescribes requirements for conducting “office surgery,” taking into account of the level of sedation utilized during a procedure. The hernia repair performed by Dr. Armand on Patient W.C. constituted “surgery” as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(1). Performance of the surgery in Dr. Armand’s office constituted “office surgery” as those terms are defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(1)(d). The “office surgery” performed by Dr. Armand on Patient W.C. failed to comply, as required, with all the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2), applicable to conducting Level II office surgery and, in some instances, Level I office surgery: Dr. Armand failed to “maintain complete records” of the surgical procedure as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.003, or a written informed consent from the patient as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 9.009(2)(a)(applicable in part to Level I and Level II surgery); No log of Level II surgery was kept as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2)(c); No adverse incident report was filed as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2)(k). This portion of the rule requires that “[t]he surgeon shall report to the Department of Health any adverse incidents that occur within the office surgical setting. . . .” (Emphasis added). This requirement is separate from any requirement that a hospital report adverse incidents and the burden of reporting is put directly on the surgeon; and Dr. Armand did not have an established risk management program as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 9.009(2)(j). The Standard of Care. Dr. Birkedal provided an opinion to the Department and testified at the final hearing as to whether Dr. Armand’s treatment of Patient W.C. met the “level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers ” (Hereinafter referred to as the “Standard of Care”). In his original opinion dated December 22, 2007, Dr. Birkedal indicated that he did not believe that Dr. Armand’s care of Patient W.C. violated the Standard of Care. There were caveats or assumptions, however, which Dr. Birkedal recognized in his written opinion could change his opinion if not correct. In particular, at the time of his original opinion, Dr. Birkedalk had incorrectly assumed that the procedure performed on Patient W.C. was a Level I procedure. Dr. Birkedal recognized in his original opinion that, if his assumption were incorrect, that his opinion would change: “[i]f he did give an IV sedative, then he may have violated the standard of care if his office is not licensed to give IV sedatives.” At hearing, Dr. Birkedal was of the opinion that Dr. Armand had not simply performed Level I surgery and, therefore, opined that he had violated the Standard of Care because his office was not a properly licensed office surgery suite. Dr. Birkedal also offered other opinions at hearing concerning what he perceived were violations of the Standard of Care, but those “violations” were not alleged by the Department in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Lucien Armand M.D., has violated Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2006), by violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009 and Section 458.351, Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2006); and Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, to the extent found in this Recommended Order; and indefinitely suspending his license to practice medicine in Florida, but allowing him to continue to practice medicine outside the United States through his relationship with the United States Department of State after full disclosure of the Board’s final order to the United States Department of State. Should a medical license not be a condition of employment by the United States Department of State, his license should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Kiesling Assistant General Counsel Robert A. Milne Assistant General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Sean Ellsworth, Esquire Ellsworth Law Firm, P.A. 1501 Collins Avenue, Suite 208 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues under consideration in this case concern an administrative complaint placed by the Petitioner against Respondent accusing him of practicing medicine with an inactive license for the period of January 1, 1988 until on or about October 27, 1988. For this alleged activity Respondent is said to have violated Sections 458.327(1) (a) and 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent attended the University of Rochester from 1977 to 1990 and received a B.A. in biology and a B.S. in neuro- science. He then received his medical education at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, New York, from 1984 until 1985 and graduated as an M.D. He served surgical internship at Geisinger Medical Center, a general surgery internship, in the year 1985. From 1985 until the point of hearing, he had been receiving training as a resident at the University of Florida Department of Orthopedic Surgery. As such, he is employed by the University of Florida. The residency program in the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Florida is approved by the Council on Graduate Medical Education. His duties as a resident physician include assisting the attending physician and making diagnosis and carrying out treatment, as well as prescribing medication. These duties are performed in Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville, Florida, and at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in that same community. In the period January and February, 1988, he was at Shands Teaching Hospital in pediatric orthopedic service. He then served four months at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in the general orthopedic rotation. He then returned to Shands Teaching Hospital as part of the adult reconstructive service. At no time while participating in those programs did he undertake other medical employment. On March 4, 1985, Respondent executed a form provided by the Board of Medical Examiners entitled "Registration Application for Unlicensed Physicians." It may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 3B-1 admitted into evidence. The purpose of this form was to identify his participation as a resident at Shands Teaching Hospital. In response to the questionnaire, Respondent indicated that he did not intend to become licensed in Florida. This form was submitted to the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Florida and was subsequently forwarded to the Department of Professional Regulation. Notwithstanding the lack of intention on the part of the Respondent to practice medicine in Florida as expressed in his application as executed on March 4, 1985, Respondent applied for and was given an active license to practice medicine issued on November 22, 1985. The medical license is no. ME0047478. He took this step at the instigation of his employer the University of Florida who remitted the necessary fees to obtain that license. On January 16, 1986, Shands Teaching Hospital submitted a list of unlicensed physicians participating in programs within the University of Florida College Medicine as of January 14, 1986 and employed by the University of Florida. This list was sent to Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director of Board of Medical Examiners (Board of Medicine). The attached list included the Respondent's name as being among those persons who were unlicensed physicians working at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Shands Teaching Hospital a that time. A copy of the correspondence of January 16, 1986, is found as Petitioner's exhibit 3-C admitted into evidence and the list itself is Petitioner's exhibit 3-D admitted into evidence. A copy of a list dating from July 1, 1986 describing unlicensed physicians at the University of Florida reflects Respondent's name. However, a line is drawn through his name and other identifying data concerning the Respondent. It is unclear from this record who had drawn that line through the name as reported. A copy of that report may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 3- E admitted into evidence. The list of licensed physicians at the University of Florida as of July 1, 1987, submitted to the Board of Medicine did not reflect the Respondent's name. This can be seen in an examination of Petitioner's exhibit no. 3-G admitted into evidence. Likewise, on January 15, 1988, correspondence was directed to Ms. Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director of the Board of Medicine, a copy of which is Petitioner's 3-H, admitted into evidence. A list of unlicensed physicians at the University of Florida was attached. That attachment is Petitioner's exhibit no. 3-I, admitted into evidence and it does not show the Respondent's name. That list reflects the circumstance of unlicensed physicians as of January 15, 1988. The Respondent's initial registration as a resident physician on March 4, 1985, was in an effort to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 458.345, Florida Statutes. The submission of the list of the resident physicians and other physicians by the University of Florida, College of Medicine, in the periods as reported above was in an effort to comply with that institution's obligations under Section 458.345, Florida Statutes. In late October or early November, 1987, Respondent received a notice from the Petitioner concerning the renewal of the medical license which had been issued on November 22, 1985. Following the receipt of that notice, he executed the necessary paperwork and submitted it to the accountant at the University of Florida who was responsible for paying Respondent's fees for the medical license as an employee of the University of Florida, School of Medicine, within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery. Respondent took no further action to assure that his license was renewed until late March or early April, 1988. It was at that point that the Respondent was made aware that the replica of his medical license that he kept in his wallet reflected an expiration of that license. He made this discovery when attempting to use that replica as a form of identification. At that juncture he reported to Ms. Jeri Dobbs, an employee of the University of Florida, who indicated that paperwork associated with this license may have been destroyed in a fire at Johnson Hall where certain records of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery were kept. Ms. Dobbs' responsibility in the relevant time period under question, encompassed money matters within the Department of Orthopedics. This included the payment of license fees for residents in the University of Florida Department of Orthopedics. The technique was to request a check from the University of Florida and send that check along with the requisite forms to the Department of Professional Regulation. Sometime in November or early December, 1987, a fire occurred in Johnson Hall at the University of Florida. Within that building were found invoices to be paid or checks requested and they were lost in the fire. In November, 1987, Ms. Dobbs had originally requested a check from the finance and accounting office at Johnson Hall to pay for the re-licensure of certain physicians. The names of those physicians are set forth in Respondent's exhibit no. 3, admitted into evidence. The package of paperwork on license renewal related to the named physicians was lost in the Johnson Hall fire. Respondent's name is not found in that list. Nonetheless, the circumstance that occurred with the physicians listed there may have well have occurred to the Respondent and in his conversation in late March or early April, 1988 with Ms. Dobbs he was impressed with the idea that his paperwork on license renewal may have been destroyed as was the situation with those other physicians. The physicians whose names are listed on Respondent's exhibit no. 3 would have had their medical licenses expire on December 31, 1987, as was the case with Respondent's license. In March, 1988, through efforts of Ms. Dobbs, the licenses of those physicians set forth in Respondent's exhibit no. 3 were renewed upon the payment of a $50 reinstatement or penalty fee as required by Petitioner. There is no indication that those persons as listed in Respondent's exhibit no. 3, were ever subject to disciplinary action for practicing medicine with an inactive license as has been the fate of Respondent in the present case, even though it can be fairly inferred that they had been participating as physicians at the University of Florida in the period January 1, 1988 through latter March, 1988 while their medical license had not been renewed before expiration on December 31, 1987. In conversations between Ms. Dobbs and someone associated with the Petitioner, she expressed her concern at having to pay an additional $50 late fee in the face of the circumstance in which records had been lost in the Johnson Hall fire. In this conversation she was not lead to believe that there would be any problem with the practice of those physicians who were on that list found in Respondent's exhibit no. 3. In her testimony, although Ms. Dobbs acknowledges that Respondent's name is not on the list of physicians whose licenses were reapplied for, she also indicates that she could not say for an absolute fact that these names were the only ones whose information on license renewal was lost. Being of the belief based upon his conversation with Ms. Dobbs that the necessary paperwork for renewal had been destroyed in the Johnson Hall fire, Respondent took the initiative to ascertain the appropriate method to rectify the situation of his license renewal. To this end, at approximately the same time period as the discussion with Ms. Dobbs, he spoke with Ms. Faircloth. He explained the circumstances to Ms. Faircloth of his renewal and specifically the idea in which he was persuaded that his renewal papers had been burned up in the fire at the University of Florida. Her instructions to him were that the paperwork would be forthcoming, to fill it out as quickly as possible and that he should not worry that this sort of thing happened all the time. He was not told by Ms. Faircloth that he should not continue in his duties as a resident physician, given the status of his license renewal. Having not heard from Ms. Faircloth within the week of his initial contact with her, he called her a second time. At that point she said that he should have received the materials. A month after the second contact, another call was made from the Respondent to Ms. Faircloth because he had not received the materials. She indicated that by that time the materials should have been received and therefore she was going to send another set of those forms for him to fill out. A further call was made to Ms. Faircloth and she indicated to the Respondent that the forms had been sent out, and sometime in late June or early July, 1988, information concerning the obtaining of his renewed license began to be received by Respondent. Documents pertaining to the activity of gaining a new license may be found within Petitioner's composite exhibit no. 2 admitted into evidence, in particular those portions 2D through 2J. Throughout this process Respondent cooperated and made timely responses to what was asked of him to effectuate these purposes. Finally, effective October 24, 1988, Respondent obtained his renewed license. Throughout this endeavor neither Ms. Faircloth in conversations with Respondent nor anyone else associated with Petitioner indicated that the Respondent should cease his practice pending the issuance of the renewed license. None of the materials that were forwarded to the Respondent for purposes of license renewal had any admonition against his carrying forward his duties as a resident of the University of Florida pending the resolution of this license problem. After returning the necessary materials to obtain his license, Respondent had not heard from the Department of Professional Regulation, so he checked with Jeri Dobbs and was told that the necessary cash had been remitted for renewal. He called someone within the Petitioner's organization and that person confirmed that the check in furtherance of his license renewal fee had been cashed and that it was probably still in the computer that the license had been printed, but probably had not been sent in the mail. According to Barbara Kemp an employee of Petitioner, who has responsibility for processing requests for license renewal, the detailed requirements set forth in Petitioner's composite exhibit 2 are utilized in the instance wherein the license was not renewed in the ordinary period for renewal. Respondent's situation was perceived in that way. Ms. Kemp refers to this as the reactivation of a license and describes this exhibit as being an indication of the materials necessary to reactivate. As Ms. Kemp explained in her remarks, typically the renewal packet is dispatched 60 days prior to the expiration of the license. That would correspond in this instance to 60 days before December 31, 1987. That circumstance, unlike the situation reflected in Petitioner exhibit no. 2 admitted into evidence, does not contemplate the need to document compliance with certain requirements related to license renewal. In the reactivation mode, that documentation as evidenced by items set forth in Petitioner's exhibit no. 2 would be necessary. According to Ms. Kemp, in the instance where there is a belief that the practitioner has been practicing medicine without the benefit of an active license, a memorandum is sent to those persons within the Petitioner's organization who are responsible for considering administrative complaints. This does not usually occur within the first couple of months beyond the period of license expiration. In this instance, that would correspond to the first couple of months beyond December 31, 1987. The reason for not reporting tardiness in license renewal is due to the fact that Petitioner is busy trying to renew a high number of licenses and the computer takes time to catch up and conclude that activity. This describes the time necessary for data to be entered in the computer system. In this instance, Ms. Kemp complained to the investigatory arm of her organization about the Respondent's possible practice without the benefit of a license and that complaint was made on September 16, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact made and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses this administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-8 and all of paragraph 9 save the last phrase are subordinate to facts found. The idea of a supposition by the Board of Medicine that Respondent had withdrawn from the residency program and had become licensed is not crucial to the disposition of this case. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 13-17 are subordinate to facts found. Respondents's Facts Paragraphs 1-9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 with the exception of the last sentence is subordinate to facts found. The exact whereabouts of the paperwork necessary for renewal was not established with certainty. Paragraphs 11-20 are subordinate to facts found. Copies furnished: Wellington H. Meffert II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Barbara C. Wingo Associate General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Florida license to practice medicine should be revoked for malpractice under section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed to practice medicine in Florida, holding license number ME 66823. He is a radiologist and is certified by the American Board of Orthopedic Radiology and Diagnostic Radiology. On June 17, 2004, the Board of Medicine (Board) disciplined Respondent's medical license by issuing a letter of concern, imposing a $15,000 fine, assessing $4,010.59 in costs, requiring eight hours of continuing medical education, and prohibiting him from treating or prescribing medication to members of his family. On or about October 4, 2006, while working at Drew Medical, Inc., Respondent performed a diagnostic procedure called an intravenous pyelogram (IVP) without tomograms for Patient G.P., who had complained of right-side pain and had a history of kidney stones. An IVP without tomograms is a series of time- lapse x-rays using a dye material to provide radiographically contrasting images to detect a stone in a kidney or ureter. The resulting x-ray images revealed a partial obstructing stone in the right-side kidney/ureter area, which Respondent detected and reported. One of the resulting x-ray images contained an anomaly having the classical appearance of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, including conspicuous tissue displacement and rim calcification. It had an elongated, water balloon-type appearance with calcifications on one of the walls. It was alarming or life- threatening in size, such that it could cause death by bleeding. Respondent did not mention the aneurysm in his report or recommend any further evaluation of the anomaly. Although he was tasked to look for kidney stones, Respondent's failure to report the aneurysm or recommend any further evaluation of the anomaly fell below the level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by reasonably prudent, similar physicians as being acceptable. Patient G.P. was admitted to Orlando Regional Hospital with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on October 6, 2006. Attempts were made to repair the rupture, but they were not successful. The patient died on October 12, 2006. By his conduct in disappearing without a trace, despite the diligent efforts of DOH to find him, and not participating in any manner in the hearing he requested to dispute the Administrative Complaint, Respondent effectively abandoned his license to practice medicine in Florida.
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 Respondent guilty of medical malpractice, revoking his medical license, and imposing a $10,000 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of July, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Robert Dean Marshall, M.D. Apartment 310 400 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32803 Robert Dean Marshall, M.D. 5987 Southwest Moore Street Palm City, Florida 34990 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Joy Tootle, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
