The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent for alleged violation of Section 458.1201(1)(m) Florida Statutes, as set forth in Petitioner's complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fahmy M. Rizk is a physician licensed in the State of Florida who engages in the general practice of medicine at Fort Myers Beach, Florida. (Testimony of Respondent) During the fall of 1976, Joyce Weidner, Cape Coral, Florida, who was then twenty years old, was a patient of Respondent. Although she could recall making six office visits, Respondent's records reflect that only four were made during the months of October and November, 1976. On October 14, she first saw Respondent with complaints of pain in her left chest area when swallowing. At that time, she told him that she had epilepsy and was taking Dilantin for that condition. Respondent determined that she was suffering from gastritis and prescribed medication. On her next visit, Respondent prescribed a course of treatment for acne that was present on the patient's face, chest and back. During a subsequent visit on November 2, 1916, presumably to check the progress of the acne treatment, Mrs. Weidner returned to Respondent's office at which time he took her into an examining room and instructed her to disrobe. She did so and covered herself with a sheet until he returned. He proceeded to place her feet in stirrups on the examining table and conduct an internal pelvic examination with no one else in the room. He pressed her abdomen and asked her if she suffered any pain there, and she answered in the affirmative. She asked him if anything was wrong and he said something "vague" about her kidneys. After the examination, he asked her to return in two weeks. On November 16, she returned and again he told her to disrobe when in the examining room. He remained in the room while she did so and gave her nothing to cover herself with at this time. The door was closed and no one was present in the room except the patient and Respondent. Respondent again conducted an internal examination, but did not wear a rubber glove on his hand. After inserting his finger into her vagina, be then proceeded to rub her clitoris and to hold and "roll" the nipple of each breast in turn with the fingers of his other hand. During this time, he asked her if she enjoyed sexual relation with her husband and whether she desired to climax more or less often. During the examination, she had expressed concern to Respondent that her nipples might be abnormally large. While holding the right nipple, Respondent said words to the effect that her nipples would be very nice for a man to suck. At some time during the examination, Respondent may have asked her if she ever had any discharge from the nipples. After the examination was concluded, Mrs. Weidner dressed and left the office. She thereafter reported the incidents to the Lee County Medical Association who advised her to contact Petitioner. She thereafter filed a complaint with Petitioner in December, 1976 Mrs. Weidner made her complaint because she believed that Respondent's conduct toward her was unethical and "very degrading." (Testimony of Weidner, Respondents' Exhibit 5) Respondent's office records concerning Mrs. Weidner do not disclose that Respondent conducted a pelvic examination during the November 2 visit. His notes concerning the November 16 visit reflect that he had observed that her nipples were more prominent than usual and examined them with his fingers to see if there was any discharge. He also recorded that she said her mother has the same form of nipples and asked him in an emotional state if he found any abnormalities but that he assured her they were normal. His records show that he examined her vagina, cervix and ovaries and found them to be normal. (Respondent's Exhibit 3) Respondent denied in his testimony that he had given Mrs. Weidner an internal examination of her female organs during the November 2 visit. However, he testified that during the course of his treatment for her acne, he had observed that she had abnormal nipples, and he was concerned about the possibility of cancerous tumors in the breast because acne is sometimes a symptom of such a condition. He therefore examined her breasts during the November 16 visit in order to determine if there was any discharge from the nipples. Since she was concerned about the shape of her nipples and those of her mother, and due to her history of epilepsy, he did not wish to upset her regarding the possibility of tumors. To reassure her, he told her that her nipples would be very nice for her children to suck and also that her husband would be happy to suck them. He claimed that he wore a rubber glove on his right hand when examining her vagina, but no glove on the other hand which was on the abdomen. He denied touching her clitoris during the examination. Although he concede that he had asked if she had a normal sex life to determine if she ever had bleeding or pain, he denied that he had asked her if she enjoyed having sex with her husband. He admitted that there was no third person in the room during the November 16 examination of Mrs. Weidner. Respondent further acknowledged that he had been sent a letter by Petitioner after the Weidner complaint concerning examinations of female patients, and that he had written to the executive director of Petitioner stating that he would not perform any further such examinations without the presence of a third person. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent's Exhibit 3) There are some endocrine hormonal causes for acne and one of these could be ovarian tumors which are hormonally active. (Testimony of Howington) It is found that although there was sufficient medical justification for Respondent to examine Mrs. Weidner's breasts and perform a pelvic examination on November 16, 1976, there was no such justification for his improper and suggestive remarks as related by the patient and admitted in part by Respondent. Neither was there any valid medical reason for rubbing her clitoris with his hand. Mrs. Weidner's recitation of the events that transpired while under Respondent's care are accepted as fact and Respondent's denials are not deemed credible. Although Mrs. Weidner's testimony concerning the number of office visits was imprecise, there is no dispute that she visited Respondent on November 2 and 16, 1976, when the improper acts occurred. On July 14, 1977, Mrs Maureen Abel, than twenty-five years old, of Fort Myers, Florida, became a patient of Respondent for treatment of a chronic skin rash. The rash was present on her chest, arms, back and stomach. During that visit, Respondent took her into his examining room with no one else present, had her pull down the top of her garment and examined the rash with a magnifying glass. He asked her if she had a problem with nervousness and she replied in the negative. During the course of further questioning, she informed him that she normally ha irregular menstrual periods. She also told him that she had a prescription for medicine from another doctor which she took when several months elapsed without a menstrual period. Respondent told her that she should be on birth control pills to regulate her period and that that would control the rash. He told her to return in ten days when he would get her started on birth control pills. He further prescribed medication for the rash. She returned on July 23 and informed Respondent that she thought she might be pregnant because he had not had a regular period and was feeling nauseous. He took her into the examining room, told her to take her clothes off and lie on the table. She did so, but there was no robe or other covering for her body. Respondent, with no third party present, examined her breasts stomach, and proceeded to perform a pelvic examination. He said that everything was normal and she did not appear to be pregnant, but had indigestion which was causing the nausea. He prescribed medication for the indigestion, gave her a four month supply of birth control pills, and told her to return in a month. On August 26, Mrs. Abel returned and told Respondent that her rash had not gone away and that she was still feeling somewhat sick. She also told him that she had taken the birth control pills but did not have a period, and was having a vaginal discharge which caused itching and concerned her. She informed him that she was gaining weight, and he said that she should go on a strict diet. He then escorted her to the examining room and closed the door. No one else was present in the room. He told her to take her clothes off and, as she did so, he took each piece of clothing and hung it on the back of a door. He told her to lie down on the examining table and, after she did so, he examined her breasts and stomach. He then "fluffed up" her pubic hair with his fingers and told her he was going to give her an internal examination. He placed her feet in the stirrup which were too far apart and caused some pain to her left leg. He did not adjust the stirrups, but massaged her left leg and the pain disappeared. He then put on rubber gloves and did an internal examination. During the course of the examination, he told her that he felt something there and wanted to take a culture. She agreed and he proceeded to insert an instrument into her vagina for this purpose. After taking the specimen and discarding the instrument, he began examining her vulva area with his fingers telling her that she was very inflamed and infected. He began rubbing the vulva area and, while doing so, told her that she was very dirty there and that she should use a mixture of peroxide and water every night to clean the area. She was insulted at this comment. He continued rubbing this area and she asked him if he knew what he was doing. He replied that he was checking for inflammation. Respondent then started rubbing her clitoris and asked her what kind of orgasms she had and if they were rapid or slow. She informed him that she was able to control herself and then told him that he was hurting her in order to get him to cease his actions. He then took her legs out of the stirrups, rubbing his hand on her left leg, up her left side to the stomach, over her breasts and to her left cheek which he patted several times. She saw his face coming towards her and jumped up and got off the table. He then grabbed her by her left arm and pulled her over by the scales, telling her that he wanted to weigh her, and directed her to stand on the scales. She did so and then dressed and left the office after paying Respondent's wife, his receptionist, the charge of $43.00. A few days later she cancelled payment on the check, but nevertheless made a claim to her insurance carrier for this amount. She thereafter sought the advice of another physician on September 22, 1977, who told her she was 16 weeks pregnant. She delivered the baby on March 10, 1978. Mrs. Abel was upset and angry that Respondent had "played" with her "private area." (Testimony of Abel, Respondent's Exhibits 5, 7-9) Respondent testified that at no time did Mrs. Abel complain of nausea or raise the possibility that she was pregnant, nor did he perform an internal examination of her on July 23. His office records for that date merely reflect that she had gas and indigestion and that he prescribed contraceptive pills. He further testified that on the August 26th visit, she complained of heavy discharge and itching of her genitals and that his internal examination on that date revealed the existence of a malodorous discharge with inflamed internal vaginal walls, and that he took a sample for culture and sensitivity. His office notes support testimony in this respect. Respondent maintained that his wife was present in the examining room to assist him in taking the specimen for laboratory analysis. She corroborated his testimony in this regard. He denied weighing the patient, advising her to use peroxide for the discharge, or rubbing her leg while in the stirrup. He further denied hanging up her clothes prior to the examination, or touching her abdomen, breast and cheek at the end of the examination. He conceded that he told her she was and showed her the speculum covered with discharge and told her to smell it because it had a bad smell and was a very bad infection. He further denied rubbing her clitoris and testified that this would have been impossible to do because she was so inflamed. He did, however, examine the vulva area for she presence of infection. He testified that it was necessary to open the vulva with one hand while inserting the speculum with the other in order to avoid taking hair with the speculum which would hurt the patient, but that he did not make the movement with his hand on her pubic hair as recounted by Mrs. Abel. Laboratory examination of the vaginal discharge sample revealed the presence of escherichia coli. (Testimony of Respondent, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 6, Testimony of M. Rizk) It is found that although there was sufficient medical justification for Respondent to perform pelvic examinations of Mrs. Abel on July 23 and August 26, 1977, there was no justification for his improper and suggestive remarks as related by the patient nor was there any valid medical reason for rubbing her clitoris. Mrs. Abel's recitation of the events that transpired while under Respondent's care are accepted as fact. Respondent's denials and the testimony of his wife supporting such denials in part are not deemed credible. Neither are Respondent's office records considered reliable or worthy of supporting Respondent's denials of improper conduct as described by Mrs. Abel. In response to hypothetical questions posed to Petitioner's medical experts, it was their opinion that the actions of Respondent with respect to both Mrs. Weidner and Mrs. Abel constituted immoral and unprofessional conduct and failed to conform to the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice in the community. The hypothetical questions were based on the words and actions of Respondent as described in the testimony of Mrs. Weidner and Mrs. Abel. It was the opinion of one expert, however, that Respondent's failure to diagnose Mrs. Abel's pregnant condition did not constitute unprofessional conduct under the circumstances. Respondent's motion to strike the testimony of these exerts based on the fact that they had reviewed summaries of Petitioner's prehearing investigation of the patients' complaints was denied because both experts testified in response to facts contained solely in the hypothetical questions and did not independently rely upon additional facts contained in the investigative reports. (Testimony of Howington, Purvis) Respondent practiced medicine Egypt for approximately twenty-five years. He came to the United States in 1971 and served as medical director of a state hospital in Kansas for approximately three and one-half years. He came to Florida some two years ago, and after being licensed in the state, started to practice in the Fort Myers area in June of 1976. A number of his former patients have written to him expressing gratitude for his professional services. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent Exhibit 10)
Recommendation That Petitioner suspend the license of Respondent to practice medicine for a period of two years pursuant to subsection 458.1201(3)(a)4, Florida Statutes, for violation of subsection 458.1201(1)(m), Florida Statute. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard C. McFarlain A. Russell Bobo 610 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James A. Franklin, Jr. Post Office Box 280 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 George S. Palmer, M.D. Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Oakland Building, Suite 220 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint December 19, 2005, 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 responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See § 455.225, Fla. Stat. (2009). The Board is the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. See § 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Achong was a physician licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME38304, and his medical office was located at 690 East 49th Street, Hialeah, Florida. Dr. Achong specialized in obstetrics and gynecology, although he was not board-certified in these areas of practice. Dr. Achong has not previously been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine, and he is not currently practicing medicine, having retired with a disability in 2006. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Achong had hospital privileges at Hialeah Hospital and at North Shore Medical Center ("Medical Center"). Both facilities had his home telephone number and his beeper number. It was his practice to keep his beeper close to him at all times. When he was in the delivery room, it was his practice to give his beeper to the circulating nurse, who would be responsible for alerting him whenever someone tried to reach him on his beeper. The beeper he used in 2004 gave only the telephone number of the person trying to reach him, but he was able to recognize the number of Hialeah Hospital and the Medical Center. On February 12, 2004, Patient L.H. went to her gynecologist, Ramon Hechavarria, M.D., for a routine examination. Patient L.H. was, at the time, a 27-year-old who was 32 weeks' pregnant, and she had previously had one live birth. Dr. Hechavarria's examination revealed that Patient L.H.'s blood pressure was elevated, and Dr. Hechavarria admitted her to Medical Center for 24 hours for observation. On February 12, 2004, Dr. Hechavarria ordered blood and laboratory tests done in the Medical Center. The blood tests included a Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy ("DIC") profile and a Fibrinogen Degradation Profile ("FDP"); the results of these blood tests were normal. Patient L.H.'s hemoglobin and her platelet count were normal, and, although there was a slight trace of protein in her urine, that is considered normal. On February 13, 2004, Dr. Hechavarria discharged Patient L.H. with a diagnosis of chronic hypertension and a prescription for 250 milligram tablets of Aldomet, to be taken three times per day. Aldomet is a medication that treats hypertension by lowering the blood pressure. Patient L.H. was in good, stable condition when she was discharged on February 13, 2004. Readings from a fetal heart monitor taken during the time Patient L.H. was in the Medical Center indicated that the fetus was alive. Dr. Hechavarria considered Patient L.H.'s to be a high risk pregnancy in part because of her hypertension but also because she came in late for prenatal care, missed two appointments, and was overweight. Dr. Hechavarria left town for a vacation on February 13, 2004, and Dr. Achong was to cover his patients during his absence under an arrangement whereby Dr. Hechavarria and Dr. Achong provided coverage for each other when one or the other was out of town or otherwise unavailable to see patients. Under the arrangement, Dr. Achong was expected to go to the hospital if one of Dr. Hechavarria's patients were in labor or if a patient were to go to the emergency room complaining of vaginal bleeding or any other obstetrical or gynecological condition. Whenever coverage of patients was passing from one physician to the other, Dr. Hechavarria and Dr. Achong advised each other of any patient that was in the hospital for gynecological, obstetrical, or any other medical reason. They did not advise each other of patients that had recently been discharged from the hospital, and, therefore, Dr. Hechavarria did not discuss Patient L.H. with Dr. Achong because she had been discharged from the Medical Center before Dr. Achong began covering Dr. Hechavarria's patients. Patient L.H. presented at the Medical Center at approximately 2:00 a.m. on February 15, 2004, complaining of abdominal pains. She was seen by labor and delivery nurse Jennifer Williams, a registered nurse with 20 years' nursing experience, with 13 years' experience in the Medical Center's labor room, and with training as a mid-wife. Nurse Williams had worked with Dr. Achong at the Medical Center since 1991. Subsequent to Patient L.H.'s arrival at the Medical Center, Nurse Williams interviewed her, took her medical history, examined her, and entered the pertinent information on the Medical Center's Admission Assessment. The Admission Assessment form was dated February 15, 2004, and the time was noted as 2:45 a.m. The time written by Nurse Williams' signature on the Admission Assessment form was 3:00 a.m., and it appears that the information was obtained and entered on the form between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Pertinent to this matter, Nurse Williams maintained several other documents recording Patient L.H.'s condition and observations and actions taken by Nurse Williams relating to Patient L.H. Nurse Williams began maintaining a Labor Flow Record at 2:07 a.m. and she made periodic entries on the Labor Flow Record related to, among other things, Patient L.H.'s vital signs, the results of vaginal examinations and fetal monitoring, uterine activity, and pain intensity at different times during the night and morning. In addition, Nurse Williams entered on the Labor Flow Record the time and content of her communications with Dr. Achong; the first recorded contact between Dr. Achong and Nurse Williams was recorded on the Labor Flow Record as 2:30 a.m. Nurse Williams also maintained Progress Notes in which she recorded her observations of Patient L.H. and her conversations with Patient L.H. The first entry in the Progress Notes was at 2:35 a.m.2 Nurse Williams' Progress Notes reflect that, at 2:35 a.m., Patient L.H. advised Nurse Williams that she had contractions and believed she had been in labor since 6:00 p.m. the previous evening but had waited to come to the Medical Center until she was certain she was in labor. Patient L.H. also reported abdominal pain in her upper abdomen that did "not go away," and Nurse Williams observed that Patient L.H. was distressed by the pain in her abdomen. Patient L.H. also told Nurse Williams that she had no ruptured membranes or vaginal bleeding. Nurse Williams noted that she examined Patient L.H. and felt contractions but was unable to detect a fetal heart tone. Nurse Williams reported in the Admission Assessment form that Patient L.H. was having uterine contractions of moderate intensity and 60 seconds' duration, that her cervix was dilated 1-to-2 centimeters, that she had vaginal bleeding that was bright red, that her blood pressure was 159/118, which she described as "elevated," and that Patient L.H.'s abdominal pain was the "worse" pain on a pain scale ranging from 1 to 10; there is, however, no indication on the Admission Assessment form that the pain was constant. Nurse Williams also noted on the Admission Assessment form that she heard no fetal heart rate. Although the time noted on the Admission Assessment form was 2:45 a.m., it is apparent from a review of the relevant records that the information included on the Admission Assessment form was obtained by Nurse Williams over a period of time extending from the time Patient L.H. presented to her until 3:00 a.m., the time on the Admission Assessment form beside Nurse Williams' signature. Nurse Williams reported in the "Physician /CNM in/Called Report" section of the Labor Flow Record that she contacted Dr. Achong at 2:30 a.m. and conveyed to him the following information: "[P]atient arrived in ER c/o contractions since 6 pm last night & observation that no FHT [fetal heart tone] and contractions palpated." Nurse Williams telephoned Dr. Achong using his home telephone, even though his beeper number was also on file at the Medical Center. There is nothing in the report Nurse Williams gave to Dr. Achong at 2:30 a.m. that would require that he proceed to the Medical Center and examine Patient L.H., and he did not violate the standard of care by failing to do so. Because Dr. Achong did not know Patient L.H., Nurse Williams' normal procedure would have been to advise Dr. Achong of Patient L.H.'s history, including the medications she was taking, and her vital signs, including her blood pressure. No notation appears in the Labor Flow Record to confirm that she gave Dr. Achong this information during her conversation with him at 2:30 a.m., nor is there a notation in the 2:30 a.m. entry in the Labor Flow Record that Nurse Williams told Dr. Achong about the results of her examination of Patient L.H.'s cervix, Patient L.H.'s complaint of abdominal pain, or the presence of vaginal bleeding of bright red blood.3 Nurse Williams indicated in her entry in the "Physician/CNM in/Called Report" section of the Labor Flow Record that Dr. Achong ordered a "stat," or expedited, obstetrical sonogram during the 2:30 a.m. contact with Nurse Williams. The purpose of the obstetrical sonogram was to determine if the fetus was alive. Although not noted in the Labor Flow Record, the Labor and Delivery Orders form completed by Nurse Williams indicates that, at 2:30 a.m., Dr. Achong ordered a complete blood count, which is routine with a patient in labor; a DIC profile; and a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel ("CMP"). The Labor and Delivery Orders form contains standard orders for a woman in labor, but the DIC profile and the CMP tests were not included on the form but were ordered specifically by Dr. Achong. A DIC profile is used to determine if a patient has a problem with blood clotting. The DIC includes an assessment of prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, both of which indicate different levels at which a patient's blood is able to clot. It is important to know whether a woman in labor and delivery has a clotting problem, or coagulopathy, because of the danger of bleeding, and the classic situation in which DIC profiles are ordered is when there is fetal demise. Because Patient L.H. had the high risk factors of overweight and hypertension and because Nurse Williams could detect no fetal heart tone, Dr. Achong's order for the DIC profile was appropriate and met the standard of care. It is also appropriate to order a DIC profile when there is a concern about placental abruption, which is the separation of the placenta from the walls of the vagina. A placental abruption causes a great deal of bleeding, and can cause death when not treated, because the fetus is still in the womb and the uterus is not able to contract and constrict the large blood vessels that attach to the placenta. Although hypertension is one risk factor for placental abruption, the symptoms of placental abruption also include fetal demise, bleeding, constant pain, a decrease in hematocrit, and a number of other conditions. There is no indication in Patient L.H.'s medical records that Dr. Achong had sufficient information at 2:30 a.m. that would indicate that Patient L.H. had a possible placental abruption, and he ordered the DIC profile because of the lack of fetal heart tones.4 The CMP includes tests for kidney and liver function and for uric acid. It is used to determine if a woman has pre-eclampsia, or pregnancy-induced hypertension. Given Patient L.H.'s history of hypertension and the level of her blood pressure as reflected in the Admission Assessment form, Dr. Achong's order for the CMP was appropriate and met the standard of care in ordering the CMP. All orders for blood tests for women in labor and delivery are treated as "stat" orders and are processed ahead of all other test orders except those from the emergency room. When the situation warrants, a physician may order that the tests be performed more quickly than the usual "stat" order would require, and it would be possible to obtain blood-test results within 45 minutes. There is, however, no indication in Patient L.H.'s medical records that Dr. Achong had any information at 2:30 a.m. that might indicate that he should further expedite Patient L.H.'s blood tests. Nurse Williams reported in her Progress Notes that, at 2:40 a.m., Patient L.H. reported a "gush of something down there," and Nurse Williams noted that she observed a large amount of blood; there is, however, no notation in the Progress Notes regarding the color of the blood. Nurse Williams also included a notation in the Progress Notes that Patient L.H.'s cervix was "3cm dilated, 50% effaced, -3 station" to describe the progress of Patient L.H.'s labor. Nurse Williams reported in the Labor Flow Record that she contacted Dr. Achong at 2:45 a.m. and conveyed to him the following information: "Dr. Achong notified of gush of vaginal bleeding. VE [vaginal examination] 2-3, 50% effaced, -3 station and that we are awaiting sonogram." The results of Nurse Williams' vaginal examination of Patient L.H. showed that Patient L.H. was in active labor. The information that Patient L.H. experienced a "gush of vaginal bleeding" did not indicate to Dr. Achong that there was anything more than one episode of bleeding, which he attributed to an especially heavy "bloody show," which is the bleeding that occurs when the cervix is dilating. The notation indicates that Dr. Achong told Nurse Williams to call him if Patient L.H. went to delivery. The information conveyed to Dr. Achong at 2:45 a.m., as reflected in the notation in the Labor Flow Record, was not sufficient to indicate that Patient L.H. was not proceeding through labor normally to a vaginal delivery of the dead fetus, which is preferred over delivery by a Cesarean Section. Nurse Williams did not include in her records a notation that she advised Dr. Achong that the "gush of vaginal bleeding" consisted of a large amount of bright red blood, which would have been an indication of a possible placental abruption. Some bleeding is normal during labor, but it is usually a dark color from having been in the uterus and in a small amount or tickle, although there could be a "gush of blood" during normal labor. When Dr. Achong was advised by Nurse Williams that Patient L.H. had a "gush of blood," however, it was his responsibility to inquire into the amount of blood, the color of the blood, and the persistency of the bleeding to determine if Patient L.H. was proceeding with normal labor or if she was experiencing a hemorrhage or other abnormal condition. Nurse Williams made no entries in the Progress Notes for Patient L.H. between 2:40 a.m. and 3:40 a.m., when she reported that the ultrasound had been completed. She further noted in her Progress Notes: "Report of no fetal heart tones to Dr. Achong. Orders given." Nurse Williams additionally made a notation in the Labor Flow Record that, at 3:40 a.m., she contacted Dr. Achong and reported to him the following: "Ultrasound report No FHT's given to Dr. Achong. Orders received." Nurse Williams did not, however, indicate in her notations what orders were given. Nurse Williams contacted Dr. Achong through his home telephone number, which was normal procedure during the nighttime hours. When the sonographer, that is, the person performing the sonogram, entered Patient L.H.'s room to perform the sonogram, he noted that Patient L.H. was sitting upright in bed, was combative, and was in a lot of pain. He also noted that there was a fair amount of blood on the bed sheets. The sonographer was able to get Patient L.H. to lie on the bed, and he performed "a very short ultrasound,"5 and pulled the machine out of the room and into the hall. He powered the machine back up and read the numbers off the worksheet on the machine. He confirmed that the fetus was dead and that the placenta appeared to be balled up rather than lying smoothly against the uterine wall, as is normal. While he was writing down the information from the worksheet on the machine, Nurse Williams approached him and told him that she had Dr. Achong on the telephone. He told her that he had "a placental abruption and fetal demise."6 He then wrote up his report, left a copy for Nurse Williams, and went downstairs to process the sonogram images.7 The results of the sonogram were reported on a form headed "Obstetrical Preliminary Report," which was completed by the sonographer. A radiologist is usually present at the Medical Center during daytime hours to read sonograms, but on the off-hours, it is the practice of the sonographer to present a sonographer's impression of what was seen during the sonogram. The sonographer who performed the sonogram on Patient L.H. noted on the report that her history included obesity, hypertension, heavy vaginal bleeding, and contractions. He included the following comments in the report: "Ant/Rt [unintelligible] placenta appears to be 'balled up[.]' Suggestion of placental abruption," and, on a separate line, "NO FETAL HEART MOTION SEEN PT IS COMBATIVE." Finally, at the bottom of the report, the sonographer noted that a copy of the report was given to Nurse Williams. There was no notation as to the time the sonographer gave the report to Nurse Williams, but, even if she had the report, she did not read it to Dr. Achong; rather, she put the copy of the report in Patient L.H.'s chart for Dr. Achong to review when he came to the hospital and gave him only a verbal report. Nurse Williams did not tell Dr. Achong during the 3:40 a.m. telephone conversation that the sonographer had reported a possible placental abruption.8 Dr. Achong was familiar with and had treated placental abruptions prior to February 15, 2004, and he always treated patients with placental abruptions on an emergency basis because both the mother and the baby could die if treatment was not received as soon as possible. Had Nurse Williams advised Dr. Achong that the sonographer had told her that he found a placental abruption or that the sonogram report included a reference to a possible placental abruption, he would have gone to the Medical Center immediately. At 3:45 a.m., Nurse Williams noted in her Progress Notes that she gave Patient L.H. Nubain and Phenergan for her painful contractions. There is no mention of continued vaginal bleeding in this entry in the Progress Notes. At 4:15 a.m., Nurse Williams noted in her progress notes that Patient L.H. was sleeping quietly and was relaxed and that Pitocin had been administered in accordance with Dr. Achong's orders. Pitocin is used to induce labor, augment labor, or to stop bleeding. In this case, Dr. Achong ordered the Pitocin to regulate Patient L.H.'s contractions. There is no mention in the 4:15 a.m. entry in the Progress Notes of continued vaginal bleeding. The next entry in Nurse Williams' Progress Notes was made at 5:15 a.m., when Nurse Williams reported that she had observed vaginal bleeding, that a vaginal examination showed dilation of four centimeters, and that Patient L.H. was very restless and moving around the bed. Nurse Williams received the laboratory report showing the results of the blood tests ordered by Dr. Achong at or around 5:00 a.m. According to the laboratory report, the blood for these tests was drawn at or about 3:20 a.m.; the report did not show any critical values in the blood sample. Nurse Williams attempted to contact Dr. Achong to convey these results to him. She noted on the Labor Flow Record that, at 5:15 a.m. "Dr. Achong beeped re lab results. Phone message left on home phone to call LR [Labor Room]." Nurse Williams made another entry on the Labor Flow Record that, at 6:55 a.m., she left a "message to Dr. Achong answering machine at home re labor progress update and labs." Dr. Achong was not, however, at home to receive the telephone calls or the messages. At or about 5:00 a.m. on February 15, 2004, Dr. Achong received a telephone call on his home telephone from Hialeah Hospital advising him that one of his patients or one of Dr. Hechavarria's patients was in active labor and about to deliver. Shortly after receiving the telephone call, Dr. Achong left his home to travel to Hialeah Hospital. He carried his beeper with him, but he did not receive any calls on the beeper. When he arrived at Hialeah Hospital and prepared to go into the delivery room, he gave it to the circulating nurse in case he should receive a beeper call while he was in the delivery room. Nurse Hayes, who had replaced Nurse Williams when Nurse Williams' shift had ended at 7:00 a.m., made a notation on the Labor Flow Record that, at 7:15 a.m., she called Dr. Achong and left a message. At 7:25 a.m., while he was in the delivery room, Nurse Hayes called his beeper. The circulating nurse had his beeper, and she notified him that he had received a call and told him the number. He recognized the number of the Medical Center, and he told the nurse to call the Medical Center and let them know that he was in the delivery room at Hialeah Hospital. Nurse Hayes asked that he call back as soon as possible. Blood for additional blood tests was drawn at or about 7:30 a.m., and the results, which were available within 15 minutes, showed several critical values that indicated that Patient L.H. was entering coagulopathy. At 7:38 a.m., as soon as he finished the delivery, he called the Medical Center and spoke with Nurse Hayes, who gave him a report on the status of Patient L.H. She told him that Patient L.H. had heavy bleeding and that the vaginal examination showed no change in the cervix. Dr. Achong ordered the Pitocin turned off. When Dr. Achong arrived at the Medical Center at 7:56 a.m., he found Patient L.H. very combative, bleeding, and with very bad vital signs. He ordered a "stat" Cesarean Section and ordered a blood transfusion. Patient L.H. died at 8:38 a.m., before any of the measures ordered by Dr. Achong could be implemented. The cause of death was recorded as placental abruption. Summary In summary, the evidence presented by the Department is not of sufficient weight to establish that Nurse Williams conveyed to Dr. Achong the information necessary for him to conclude that he should personally conduct a clinical evaluation of Patient L.H.; that he should consider the possibility that Patient L.H. had placental abruption; or that he should have provided medical assistance to Patient L.H. prior to his contact with Nurse Hayes at 7:38 a.m. Nurse Williams' Progress Notes report only two remarkable items: There were no fetal heart tones detected by physical examination or by sonogram; and, at 2:40 a.m., Patient L.H. reported a "gush of something" and Nurse Williams observed a large amount of blood. Neither Nurse Williams' entries in the Labor Flow Record regarding her contacts with Dr. Achong nor her testimony, to the extent that it has been found persuasive, is sufficient to establish that she advised Dr. Achong that she had observed a large amount of red blood at 2:40 a.m. or that the sonographer detected a possible placental abruption in the sonogram. Finally, Nurse Williams did not follow the protocol that required her to contact Dr. Achong through his beeper when she did not get an answer on his home telephone; she tried his beeper only once, at 5:15 a.m., and when she failed to reach him, left three messages on his home telephone. The Department presented no evidence to establish that Nurse Williams attempted to reach Dr. Achong by beeper between 5:15 a.m. and 7:55 a.m., the time of her last call to Dr. Achong's home telephone. Furthermore, the Department did not present evidence of sufficient weight to establish that Dr. Achong failed to initiate the appropriate procedures after he arrived at the Medical Center and examined Patient L.H. at or around 8:00 a.m. The evidence presented by the Department is, however, of sufficient weight to establish that Dr. Achong should have questioned Nurse Williams further when she advised him at 2:45 a.m. that she had observed a "gush" of vaginal bleeding. Even though vaginal bleeding may not be not unusual during labor, a report of a "gush" of blood should have alerted Dr. Achong to a potential problem. Although a physician practicing obstetrics is meeting the standard of care when relying on labor room nurses to advise him or her of the clinical status of labor and delivery patients and of any unusual symptoms exhibited by the patients, it is also incumbent on the physician to inquire further if a patient is presenting unusual symptoms. The persuasive evidence establishes that Dr. Achong violated the standard of care when he failed to ask Nurse Williams for additional information on Patient L.H.'s status during their 2:45 a.m. telephone conversation. Had he inquired further, Dr. Achong would have been alerted to the possibility that Patient L.H. had a placental abruption and would have gone to the hospital to provide appropriate care for Patient L.H.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine, enter a final order finding that Dr. Achong violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to elicit further information from Nurse Williams regarding the gush of blood she observed in Patient L.H and imposing the following penalties: Issuance of a letter of reprimand; Imposition of administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; and Six months' probation under such conditions as the Board of Medicine determines appropriate, should Dr. Achong ever resume the practice of medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 4th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Stanley Mark Dratler, M.D., was licensed by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. He completed a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology before opening an office in Dade City, Florida, in 1981. He has taken the written portion of the examination for Board certification but, at the time of the hearing, was not aware of the result of that examination. Patient A visited Respondent July 22, 1982, for a Pap smear which was subsequently followed by a biopsy and hysterectomy on August 18, 1982. Following her release from the hospital, A reported to Respondent's office on August 30, 1982, for her first office checkup following surgery. At this visit Respondent performed a complete physical examination including a pelvic examination, asked A questions regarding her sex life at home, and told her he could show her things that would help her sex life. While examining her and discussing her sex life, Respondent applied a Q-tip to various areas outside the vagina and asked A to describe the sensations created thereby. Some two weeks later A developed back pains, called Respondent's office, and was told to come in the next day. Again, Respondent did a complete examination, including pelvic, used a Q-tip swab to stimulate areas outside the vagina, and told A she needed to know how to masturbate herself and not rely solely upon her husband. During this examination, conducted in an examining room containing only A and Respondent, Respondent masturbated A and had her masturbate herself. When A asked about her back, Respondent told her there was nothing wrong with her back. A denied she ever told Respondent she felt numb between her legs. In Respondent's testimony he confirmed the August 30 visit to his office by A but claimed she complained of feeling numb between the legs. When he put her in the stirrups for an examination, he found nothing wrong externally and performed a psycho-sexual examination which involved the stimulating of sensitive areas around the vagina with a cotton swab. He denies he ever masturbated A; that at her final visit on October 8, 1982, she again complained of numbness between her legs; his examination, which included the touching of sensitive areas, revealed nothing wrong; and when they returned to his office after the examination she made advances toward him. When he told A he treated her like all other patients, she got mad and stormed out of his office. In Exhibit 3, the patient records of A, the October 8 entry indicated only that A came in complaining of some swelling of the lower extremities, and no problem with that was foreseen. That entry states A would not need to return for another visit before six months unless some other problem developed. In view of the significant differences between the medical record and Respondent's testimony, the testimony of A is the more credible. Patient E visited Respondent's office September 29, 1982, complaining of bleeding. During this visit a Pap smear was taken, as was a sexual history of the patient. During the pelvic examination Respondent talked to E of areas to stimulate for sexual arousal. With his finger in her vagina, he started to masturbate her and told her she needed to have more orgasms. E acknowledges telling Respondent she had intercourse five or six time per week and was anxious to get pregnant. She does not recall telling Respondent she reached climax only once per week, that her last climax was one week before the visit, or that she experienced pain on deep thrusting. Following this examination, E was given an appointment to return in two weeks, which she cancelled and did not again return to Respondent's office. Respondent acknowledges that E visited his office as alleged and that he gave her a complete examination including a pelvic exam. He contends the questions regarding her sex history were necessary to ascertain any problems inhibiting E getting pregnant. He denies masturbating E or telling her that masturbation, stimulation, or sexually-oriented conversations were a necessary part of gynecological treatment. Patient B first visited Respondent November 4, 1982, complaining of a rash in the vaginal area. Respondent obtained a sexual history of B, who at the time of this visit was 16 years old. This revealed B's first sexual encounter occurred at age 12, that she had never experienced orgasm although she had been sexually active. During the pelvic examination Respondent applied a cotton swab to various areas around B's vagina and asked her if it felt good here or there. B was given a prescription for the rash and told to return a week later. When she returned on November 8, B again was undressed for an examination. Respondent performed what he described as a psycho- sexual examination on B during which he massaged her breasts, stimulated areas outside the vagina with a cotton swab, and inserted fingers in B's vagina. While this stimulation was going on, B had an orgasm. B had experienced some side effects with the first rash medication and on the second visit Respondent prescribed a different medicine. B returned for a third visit on November 22, 1982, which she testified was for blood tests only. However, there is some disparity in the testimony and it is more likely that the stimulation and orgasm occurred during the visit on November 22 rather than on November 8. On her final visit, December 6, 1982, B was again examined and testified Respondent fondled her breasts while masturbating her. At this time she had commenced her menstrual cycle but Respondent told her that was all right as he could still examine her. At this final visit Respondent prescribed birth control pills for B. Respondent acknowledges that B had visited his office four times as she testified and that he gave her the psycho- sexual examination because she had engaged in sex for four years without enjoying it. His questions regarding her sex life was to find out if the rash was related to a sexually transmitted disease. Respondent denies that he fondled B's breasts or masturbated her. Exhibit 4, the medical history of B, confirms the four visits but contains no reference to the psycho-sexual examination Respondent performed. A return visit scheduled for December 22, 1982, was never kept by B. The testimony of B is more credible than that of Respondent respecting his actions with B while she was being examined. Patricia Cherry worked in Respondent's office as a medical assistant and secretary from July 1982 until January 1983 when she quit to work at Humana Hospital in Dade City. Respondent asked Cherry if she would teach some of his patients how to masturbate themselves. She refused by stating she was not interested. Cherry was told by Respondent that he was conducting a survey on human sexuality and each patient would be a part of that survey. On one occasion Respondent asked Cherry to come in one weekend and he would give her Sodium Pentothal. She declined this also. On one occasion she witnessed Respondent administer intravenously a drug to a patient which Respondent said was Sodium Pentothal. Respondent told Cherry that a patient was coming in to be given Sodium Pentothal and had requested Cherry be present while the drug was administered. The patient came in as scheduled and was administered something intravenously while undressed from the waist down. After the IV started, the patient became unconscious on two occasions. During one period while the patient was awake Respondent asked the patient what she thought about oral sex. During one period the patient was unconscious Respondent asked Cherry if she would sexually stimulate the patient. Cherry said no. Once while a drug salesman was in the office Cherry asked Respondent if he would give her some of the new medicine the salesman was offering for pimples. Respondent told her she should have a pelvic examination to find out if she was through puberty because use of the drug by one not through puberty could cause undesirable side effects. Cherry was 22 to 23 years old at the time, had experienced her menstrual cycle for several years and she declined to be examined. By definition, girls are through puberty when they commence their menstrual cycles. Petitioner's two expert witnesses opined that hands-on masturbation of a patient constitutes treatment below generally prevailing standards; constitutes use of fraud, intimidation, or undue influence on a patient; constitutes exercising influence within a patient-physician relationship for purposes of engaging the patient in sexual activity; and constitutes deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine, or employing a trick or scheme which fails to conform to the minimum acceptable standards of the profession. Also, the use of a swab around the genitalia of a female patient to sexually arouse the patient does not conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community. Nor does the use of Sodium Pentothal on a patient in an out-patient setting comply with the prevailing standards. Sodium Pentothal is a drug not normally administered in an out-patient setting where emergency backup procedures are unavailable. Very few gynecologists are sufficiently trained in the use of this drug to safely administer such a drug to a patient and particularly so in an out-patient setting. Research is normally done in an approved academic environment and not by individual practitioners. Respondent denied that he was engaged in the research he told Ms. Cherry he was conducting. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses, Dr. J. Kell Williams, a Board-certified gynecologist and faculty member at the University of South Florida, opined that Respondent's treatment of the three patients who testified was below acceptable medical standards, constituted use of physician- patient relationships for improper purposes, constituted fraud and deception in the practice of medicine and the employment of a trick or scheme, which fails to comply with the minimum acceptable standards of the medical profession. Patricia Cherry was never a patient of Respondent. As an employee she was requested to instruct female patients in masturbation, which she declined to do. Respondent also suggested to Cherry that she submit to Sodium Pentothal, which she also declined. Likewise, she declined to allow Respondent to do a complete examination which Respondent insisted was necessary before prescribing medication for her acne. Although Cherry was not a patient, the representations regarding a pelvic examination prior to prescribing medication for acne constitutes deceptive, untrue and fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine and fraudulent solicitation of a patient. Absent a medical reason to conduct a pelvic examination, Respondent's insisting on doing so prior to treatment of acne constitutes an attempt to engage the patient in sexual activity.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. Respondent holds an active license to practice medicine, license number ME 0030238 (Physician). Respondent's practice is limited to what he has described as "cosmetic" surgery, but which is considered plastic or reconstructive surgery. Typically, Respondent performs elective surgery for cosmetic purposes to breasts, abdomen, buttocks, face (eyes, lips, cheeks), or hips. In August, 1990, the patient, V.A., presented to the Respondent for a pre-operative consultation and examination. At the time, V.A. was interested in having liposuction, breast enlargement, and an abdominoplasty. Due to her medical history, V.A. was an extremely poor candidate for an abdominoplasty. The pre-operative history and physical examination performed by Respondent as reflected in the records maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., were inadequate. No records supporting a complete physical examination and history have been provided. The pre-operative medical records maintained for the patient, V.A., do not support the course of treatment proposed for the procedures to be performed. Respondent did not order a pre-operative lab work-up for the patient, V.A. Such lab order would normally consist of a complete blood count, a urinalysis, electrolytes, blood sugar, blood nitrogen test, and a mammogram or breast examination since the breasts were to be augmented. Respondent relied on lab test results for V.A. which were approximately three months old. Respondent believes that the reliance on tests up to six months old would be acceptable since he only performs surgery on healthy patients. Respondent performed no independent examination of V.A. to verify she was "healthy," prior to surgery. Failing to obtain current lab tests of the types described above before performing elective surgery of the nature sought by V.A. constitutes the practice of medicine below the standard of care, skill, and treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would find acceptable under similar circumstances and conditions. On or about August 30, 1990, Respondent performed the following procedures on V.A.: liposuction; breast enlargement; and an abdominoplasty. In order to perform the procedures noted, Respondent used general anesthesia so that V.A. was under anesthesia for six hours. During that time, Respondent opened V.A.'s abdomen, removed tissue, removed adipose tissue from various parts of the patient's body, injected fat tissue into the patient's breasts, cheeks and hands, and closed the abdominal wound with stitches. The surgical or operative notes maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., are inadequate to fully describe the procedures performed. The Respondent was released to go home approximately two hours after the surgery. The postoperative notes maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., are inadequate to fully describe how the patient was able to be discharged in so short a time after surgery. V.A. returned to Respondent's office numerous times following the surgery. V.A. sustained an infection and complications from the wound to her abdomen that took months to heal. Respondent treated the infection by scraping the wound and attempting to re-stitch it on at least two occasions. V.A. sustained necrosis which is the death of tissue and which complicated the healing of the abdomen wound. The loss of skin from necrosis is much more likely to occur when the patient has scarring. Given V.A.'s medical history (scarring throughout the areas), the necrosis was almost inevitable. Two procedures are available under the circumstances applicable to V.A.: allowing the wound to heal without stitches or to use a skin graft. The procedure used by Respondent (stitching the infected area) fell below the standard of care, skill, and treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would find acceptable under similar circumstances and conditions. Injecting fat tissue for breast augmentation is inappropriate. Since it is common for the fat tissue to die after injection, the injected tissue then appears on a mammograph as a mass of suspicious origin. That is, it is difficult to differentiate from a breast mass that is a medical problem from that of the dead fat tissue. As a result, biopsies may be required to verify the mass content. In fact, V.A. has already had to have such a procedure following the augmentation performed by Respondent. Respondent also conducted a pre-operative interview with a patient, P.T. P.T. was a radio talk show host at the time and suggested that the station, she and Respondent could all benefit from a campaign wherein she would have liposuction, the Respondent would receive her endorsement through advertising, and the station would have advertising paid for by the Respondent's clinic. In an attempt to negotiate the terms of the advertising campaign, P.T., an advertising executive with the radio station, Respondent's office manager, and Respondent met together to discuss the project. Respondent wanted a multifaceted campaign requiring P.T. to undergo more than just the liposuction she sought. Respondent's scope for the campaign included many of the surgeries his clinic offered. While discussions continued for the advertising campaign terms, P.T. underwent pre-operative testing which included a blood test, medical history forms, and photographs. During an office consultation in anticipation of surgery, Respondent requested that P.T. allow him to examine her. Unlike a previous examination which had occurred without incident with someone in the room, Respondent closed and locked his office door and requested that P.T., who was alone with Respondent, stand near his desk. When she complied, he leaned forward and raised her dress over her breasts. Next he unhooked her bra and pulled it over her breasts. Respondent proceeded to poke and prod P.T. across her breasts and abdomen during which time P.T. presumed it was for medical purposes. P.T. became uncomfortable when the prodding which continued became more like a caress. She attempted to presume Respondent was merely checking the texture of her skin but became increasingly uncomfortable with his touch. P.T.'s discomfort accelerated when she realized Respondent had placed his face in her vaginal area and was licking her. She immediately attempted to pull away. Respondent grabbed her on the breast and, as P.T. put it, "in the crotch." P.T. struggled with Respondent who made several sexually inappropriate comments to her. As P.T. attempted to regain her composure and close her clothes, the Respondent's office manager knocked on the door. On hearing the office manager, Respondent released P.T. and went to unlock the door. At the time of the foregoing incident, P.T. was the Respondent's patient. Respondent did not maintain appropriate medical records for the course of treatment proposed for the patient, P.T. Respondent's course of conduct with the patient, P.T., fell below the standard of care a reasonably prudent physician would pursue for treatment of this patient. Respondent attempted to engage a patient in a sexual activity. P.T. did not consent to the activity described above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(j), (m), and (t), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties in accordance with the guidelines set forth by rule: revocation of the license together with an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 16th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3609 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are accepted as accurate as to the facts but not necessarily the form for findings of fact. Typically, findings of fact should not recite testimony. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Kenneth J. Metzger Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration/Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Doyan, M.D. 2817 E. Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0867041. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by American Nursing Service, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was assigned to work at Broward General Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On July 30-31, 1989, Respondent worked both the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shifts at Broward General Medical Center. She was responsible for 20 patients on that double shift. An hour or two before her double shift ended, she checked the I.V. of a patient near the end of the hall. The I.V. was not running, and Respondent attempted to get it running again by re-positioning the I.V. several times. She then went to the medication room and obtained a syringe to use to flush the I.V. to get it operating again. When she returned to the patient's room, the I.V. was running and Respondent tucked the syringe inside her bra. The syringe was still packaged and unopened. She then continued with her nursing duties. At 7:00 a.m. on July 31, while Respondent was "giving report" to the oncoming nursing shift and making her entries on the charts of the patients for whom she had cared during the double shift she was just concluding, one of the other nurses noticed the syringe underneath Respondent's clothing. That other nurse immediately reported the syringe to her own head nurse who immediately reported the syringe to the staffing coordinator. The head nurse and the staffing coordinator went to where Respondent was still completing the nurse's notes on the charts of the patients and took her into an office where they confronted her regarding the syringe. They implied that she had a drug problem and offered their assistance. Respondent denied having a drug problem and offered to be tested. They refused her offer to test her for the presence of drugs. Instead, they sent her off the hospital premises although she had not yet completed making her entries on the patient's charts. Hospital personnel then went through Respondent's patients' charts and found some "errors." A month later an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation requested that Respondent submit to a drug test on one day's notice. She complied with that request. She asked the investigator to go with her to Broward General Medical Center so that she could complete the charts on the patients that she had not been permitted to complete before being sent away from the hospital. Her request was denied. At some subsequent time, the Department of Professional Regulation requested that Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation. She did so at her own expense and provided the Department with the results of that evaluation. Respondent has had no prior or subsequent administrative complaints filed against her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1775 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of CProfessional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Roberta Fenner, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christopher Knox, Esquire 4801 S. University Drive, #302 W. Box 291207 Davie, Florida 33329-1207
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which a medical doctor is charged by administrative complaint with five counts of violations of paragraphs (h), (k), (m), and (t) of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact Findings based on parties' stipulations The Respondent, Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D., (hereinafter "Respondent" or "Dr. Rosenthal") is, and at all material times was, a medical doctor, license number ME 0045574, who practiced at 1320 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, Florida. Dr. Rosenthal at all material times owned the business operating as Today's Women Medical Center located at 1320 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1070, Coral Gables, Florida. On or about November 3, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal performed an elective abortion on patient B.F. under general anesthesia. On or about November 3, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal ordered a pathology report of the products of the procedure performed on patient B.F. The pathology report regarding patient B.F. bears the date November 8, 1988. The pathology report revealed no chorionic villi and recommended a "close follow-up" of the patient. Missed abortion and continued pregnancy is a recognized risk of early (first trimester) abortions. Patient B.F. suffered no harm as a result of the November 3, 1988, procedure. On or about December 7, 1988, patient B.F. presented to Dr. Rosenthal. On or about December 7, 1988, patient B.F.'s uterus was examined and found to be enlarged. Subsequently, a repeat pregnancy test was performed on patient B.F., which revealed she was still pregnant. On or about December 10, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal performed a second abortion on patient B.F. with positive results. Patient B.F. suffered no harm as a result of the December 10, 1988, procedure. Findings based on evidence at hearing The Respondent specializes in the area of gynecology, but does not practice obstetrics. In the course of his medical practice he regularly performs first trimester abortions. The Respondent is very experienced in the performance of first trimester abortions. In recent years he has averaged five thousand (5,000) such procedures per year. Patient B.F. normally goes to Dr. Nahid Mansoori for routine treatment of gynecological matters. Patient B.F. was seen by Dr. Mansoori on October 28, 1988, with a history of a missed menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori examined the patient and observed that the patient had an enlarged uterus and appeared to be 5 or 6 weeks pregnant. The patient expressed an interest in having an abortion. Because Dr. Mansoori does not perform abortions, she referred patient B.F. to the Respondent. Dr. Mansoori also referred patient B.F. to Dr. Martin S. Goldstein for an ultrasound examination. Dr. Mansoori referred patients to the Respondent on a regular basis. She did so for several reasons, including the facts that (a) patients she referred to the Respondent uniformly reported back to her that they were pleased or satisfied with the services they received from the Respondent, (b) none of her patients had complained about their treatment by the Respondent, and (c) none of the patients she had referred to the Respondent had experienced any infection or problems. On October 31, 1988, Dr. Martin S. Goldstein performed an ultrasound examination of patient B.F. On the basis of that ultrasound examination, Dr. Goldstein concluded and reported that the "gestational age" of patient B.F.'s pregnancy was 6 weeks, 0 days. Dr. Goldstein also concluded and reported that patient B.F. had an intrauterine pregnancy, thus ruling out an ectopic pregnancy. On November 3, 1988, patient B.F. went to the Respondent's clinic at 1320 South Dixie Highway for the purpose of having an abortion. The Respondent remembers this particular patient because she was a medical professional and her husband was an attorney. Because of their respective professions, the Respondent was extra careful to explain everything involved in the process to both B.F. and her husband. He especially explained to both of them the importance of a post-abortion follow up examination at either the Respondent's clinic or at the office of the patient's regular gynecologist. Patient B.F. said that she would return to Dr. Mansoori, her regular gynecologist, for the follow up examination. When patient B.F. went to the Respondent's clinic on November 3, 1988, she told the Respondent that she had had an ultrasound examination. The Respondent called Dr. Mansoori and Dr. Mansoori told him that the results of the ultrasound examination indicated a "gestational age" 1/ of six weeks and that the ultrasound examination confirmed an intrauterine pregnancy. Dr. Mansoori also mentioned that her clinical examination of patient B.F. indicated a "gestational age" of five or six weeks. Upon manual examination of the patient, the Respondent concluded, and noted in the patient's medical record, that patient B.F.'s uterus was enlarged to a size consistent with a "gestational age" of five weeks. Later that same day, the Respondent performed an abortion procedure on patient B.F. Following the abortion procedure, patient B.F. took antibiotic medication for several days, which medication had been prescribed and/or dispensed by the Respondent. The Respondent ordered a pathology report of the products of the abortion procedure performed on patient B.F. on November 3, 1988. The Respondent does not order pathology reports on all of his patients, but he did so in this case because it was an early pregnancy, and also because he wanted to take extra care in view of the professions of B.F. and her husband. The pathology laboratory is supposed to call Dr. Rosenthal on all "abnormal" reports. Sometimes the laboratory fails to call and sometimes the laboratory fails to send a written report. The Respondent has established office procedures for handling laboratory reports to try to prevent any reports from going astray and to identify those that do go astray so that follow up activity may be taken. Pursuant to the Respondent's established office procedures, all laboratory reports received at the clinic must be seen and signed by the Respondent before being placed in a patient chart. When a patient returns for her follow up visit, the laboratory report is reviewed during the course of that visit. If a laboratory examination has been ordered, but there is no laboratory report in the chart at the time of the follow up visit, the laboratory is called by telephone. The Respondent usually makes these calls himself. Pursuant to the Respondent's established office procedures, missing laboratory reports for patients who do not return for follow up visits or who return to their regular physicians for follow up visits are picked up when monthly reports to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are compiled and submitted. In order to complete these monthly reports, a log is kept of every patient who has an abortion procedure performed at the Respondent's clinic. The information kept in the log and reported to DHRS includes: the date of surgery, the estimated "gestational age" of the patient, whether a pathology report was ordered, the results of the pathology report, and the date the pathology report was received by the clinic. Such forms were in use at the time B.F. was a patient at the Respondent's clinic. If any pathology reports "fell through the cracks," they were picked up each month when the reports were prepared. The reports are usually prepared on the ninth or tenth of each month. The implementation of these office procedures for the purpose of following up on laboratory reports is sufficient to comply with applicable standards of medical care. The pathology laboratory prepared a report regarding the material removed from patient B.F. during the November 3, 1988, abortion procedure. The written laboratory report was dated November 8, 1988. The most significant finding noted on the laboratory report was "no chorionic villi." Because of this finding, the laboratory report also stated: "close follow up of patient is recommended." The significance of the notation of "no chorionic villi" is that it indicates that the pathology laboratory examination did not reveal evidence of any fetal tissue or other "products of conception." The need for close follow up in this instance is because the absence of chorionic villi can be due to a number of different things. 2/ On November 18, 1988, patient B.F. went to Dr. Mansoori's office for a post-abortion follow up visit. At that time the patient was complaining of a vaginal "yeast" infection, a not uncommon occurrence following a course of antibiotic medication. Dr. Mansoori treated the patient's "yeast" infection with a prescription for Monistat Vaginal Cream. Dr. Mansoori's medical records for that day also include the following notations regarding the patient B.F.: "Had abortion by Today's Woman. Post AB check up O.K." 3/ Dr. Mansoori told patient B.F. to get back in touch with her if the patient missed her next menstrual period. On December 6, 1988, patient B.F. called Dr. Mansoori to report that she had missed her menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori advised her to return to the Respondent and patient B.F. agreed to do so. Dr. Mansoori called the Respondent to advise him that patient B.F. would be returning because she had missed her menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori also arranged for another ultrasound examination to be performed on patient B.F. by Dr. Goldstein. On December 7, 1988, patient B.F. returned to the Respondent's clinic where she was seen and examined by the Respondent. Examination revealed that the patient's uterus was mildly enlarged. A pregnancy test administered that day indicated that the patient was still pregnant. On December 7, 1988, the Respondent realized that he did not have a report from the pathology laboratory, so he called the laboratory and was advised that the most significant finding of the pathology report was "no chorionic villi." The substance of the telephone conversation with the pathology laboratory was noted in the patient's medical record. When he made the telephone call to the pathology laboratory on December 7, 1988, the Respondent had not received the laboratory's written report dated November 8, 1988, 4/ nor had he been otherwise advised of the results of the pathology study of the materials removed during the November 3, 1988, abortion procedure. On December 8, 1988, Dr. Martin S. Goldstein performed a second ultrasound examination of patient B.F. On the basis of the second ultrasound examination, Dr. Goldstein concluded and reported that the "gestational age" of patient B.F.'s pregnancy was 11 weeks, 6 days. This second gestational age was three days older than one would have predicted based on the October 31, 1988, ultrasound examination. In both of the ultrasound examinations of patient B.F., Dr. Goldstein relied upon the "crown rump" measurement as the basis for his estimate of "gestational age." On December 10, 1988, when patient B.F. returned to the Respondent's office for the second abortion procedure, the Respondent conducted a clinical examination of the patient before commencing the procedure. On the basis of his own clinical examination of the patient, the Respondent was of the opinion that patient B.F.'s "gestational age" was 8 or 9 weeks. He reported this on the "Physical Exam" portion of the patient's chart by writing "8-9" beside the entry for uterus. After the patient was anesthetized and the Respondent could examine her while she was more relaxed, the Respondent further examined the patient's uterus and was of the opinion that its size corresponded to a "gestational age" of 8 weeks. He noted this opinion in the "Operative Notes" portion of the patient's chart. It was, and continues to be, the Respondent's opinion that his December 10, 1988, estimates of the patient's "gestational age" were correct. Although he was aware of Dr. Goldstein's ultrasound examination which reported a somewhat older "gestational age," the Respondent had confidence in his own clinical findings and relied on his own clinical findings, which he duly recorded in the patient's medical chart. Relying on his own estimate of "gestational age," the Respondent performed the abortion procedure on December 10, 1988, on patient B.F. with a number eight suction tip. The abortion procedure was accomplished successfully and without any difficulty or complication. A report from a pathology laboratory confirmed that the December 10, 1988, abortion procedure was successful. 5/ The prevailing standards of acceptable care do not require a physician to order a pathology examination of the material removed during the course of a routine first trimester abortion procedure. In an abortion procedure involving a very early pregnancy, a physician may wish to order such a pathology examination in order to be more certain as to the results of the procedure, but it is a matter of physician preference, rather than a requirement. A physician who orders a pathology examination of the material removed during a first trimester abortion procedure has an affirmative duty to follow up on the examination and find out the results of the examination within a reasonable period of time. 6/ The Respondent's follow up on December 7, 1988, on the results of the pathology examination of the material removed from patient B.F. during the November 3, 1988, procedure was reasonable under the circumstances. 7/ The Respondent's delay until December 7, 1988, before following up on that pathology examination was not a departure from applicable standards of medical care. 8/ The Respondent's medical records for patient B.F. justify the course of treatment of the patient. The use of ultrasound examination as a method of estimating "gestational age" is not an exact science and cannot be relied upon to determine an exact "gestational age." As a general rule, "gestational age" estimates derived by means of ultrasound examination are accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus two weeks. 9/ Clinical or manual examination of a patient as a method of estimating "gestational age" is also not an exact science and cannot be relied upon to determine an exact "gestational age." As a general rule, "gestational age" estimates derived by means of clinical or manual examination of a patient are accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus two weeks, if done by an experienced physician. It is not a departure from applicable standards of medical care for an estimate of "gestational age" to vary from the actual "gestational age" by as much as plus or minus two weeks when the estimate is based on the physician's clinical or manual examination of the patient. A reasonably prudent physician who is experienced in clinical or manual examination of patients for the purpose of estimating "gestational age" should rely on his own findings, even if those findings appear to conflict with findings based on ultrasound examination. Such a physician should also note his own findings on the patient's medical records, regardless of what is reported by the ultrasound. There is no great discrepancy between the estimate of "gestational age" reported in Dr. Goldstein's ultrasound report of December 8, 1988, and the Respondent's estimate of "gestational age" on December 10, 1988. The Respondent's notations in patient B.F.'s medical records on December 10, 1988, to the effect that her pregnancy was of a "gestational age" of eight weeks was an honest notation of the Respondent's clinical judgment and was not a statement the Respondent knew to be false. 10/ Similarly, those notations were not deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations. On or about August 3, 1989, the Respondent's clinic, known as Today's Woman Medical Center, located at Suite 1070, 1320 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, Florida, was inspected by an employee of the Office of Licensure and Certification of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 11/ At the time of that inspection the Respondent was not present at the clinic, there were no procedures being performed at the clinic, and there were no patients at the clinic.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case DISMISSING all charges against the Respondent, Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 2nd day of October, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as certain stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent Ali Azima was born in Iran and graduated from the Medical College at Tehran University, where he received his M.D. degree in 1961. He is Board-certified as an obstetrician-gynecologist. His experience includes the delivery of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 babies, the performance of approximately 3,500 termination of pregnancy procedures and the provision of about 1,000 intrauterine contraceptive devices to patients. At all times relevant to the charges in these proceedings, respondent was licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners in the State of Florida. Prior to the instant charges, respondent has had no Administrative Complaints filed against him. On February 18, 1981, Christine Sellers (now Kuchar) was admitted to the emergency room of Ft. Myers Community Hospital with severe abdominal pain. On that occasion, she learned that she was pregnant. On February 19, 1981, she went to the Southwest Florida Women's Clinic in Ft. Myers, operated by the respondent, for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy. Upon her arrival at the Clinic, she was asked to pay the requested fee and to complete two forms, a form entitled "Consent for Abortion, Anesthesia and Other Medical Services" and a form entitled "Patient Registration Record." The only medical information requested on these forms, in addition to height, weight and eye and hair color, regarded allergies to foods or medication, medication currently being taken and past operations or serious illnesses. For the latter question, N. Sellers answered "rheumatic fever." Respondent spoke to her for a few moments prior to the procedure, and performed a quick pelvic examination. He then performed the procedure for termination of the pregnancy, gave her some medication and instructed her to come back the following week for a follow-up examination. Respondent did not send any tissue specimen obtained from the procedure to a pathologist for examination nor did he administer Rhogam to the patient subsequent to the procedure. According to Ms. Sellers, neither respondent nor his staff performed any blood work or determined her vital signs before or after the abortion procedure, nor did anyone inquire of her as to her blood type or Rh factor. She knew that her Rh factor was negative, but did not volunteer this information to respondent because she did not realize that a negative Rh factor was important for purposes of a termination of pregnancy procedure. Respondent's medical records for Ms. Sellers do not indicate that blood was drawn from her or that her Rh factor was determined or known. While the record does indicate that a physical examination was "normal," no further information is provided. Ms. Sellers did not desire to return to respondent for her follow-up appointment. Instead, she made an appointment with Dr. Randall Cowdin for the same day she was supposed to see the respondent, February 26, 1981. On that occasion, Ms. Sellers was given a complete physical examination and her blood type was drawn. Upon learning that she had not been administered Rhogam following her termination procedure by respondent, Dr. Cowdin gave her an injection of Mini-Rhogam on February 26, 1981. Approximately one week later, on March 5, 1981, Ms. Sellers returned to Dr. Cowdin's office with complaints of severe right lower quadrant abdominal pain, with some nausea and vomiting. Dr. Cowdin determined that she was bleeding internally due to a ruptured right ectopic pregnancy, and immediately admitted her to the hospital. Emergency surgery was performed, resulting in the removal of the patient's right Fallopian tube and ovary. Ectopic or tubal pregnancies are difficult to diagnose. However, had a specimen of the tissue extracted from Ms. Sellers as a result of the procedure performed by respondent been carefully examined, it would have revealed that the products of conception had not been obtained from the patient's uterus as a result of that procedure. This finding would have at least raised the suspicion of an ectopic pregnancy. It would be extremely rare for a woman to have both an ectopic and a normal pregnancy at the same time. The chances for such an event are one out of 30,000. When performing abortions, four other physicians in the Ft. Myers area routinely send a tissue specimen to a pathology laboratory for examination. The purposes for this are to detect abnormalities, to determine if the patient was indeed pregnant and to determine the existence of an ectopic pregnancy. It is the respondent's practice to examine the tissue himself, having had some residency training in pathology and feeling competent to perform such an examination. If he has any doubts, he then sends a tissue specimen to a pathologist for further examination. It is extremely important to do a blood screening on a patient undergoing a termination of pregnancy proceeding. A determination of the hemoglobin level is significant in order to assess the risk of a procedure performed in a non-hospital setting and to prepare for the possibility of anemia after the procedure. The Rh factor needs to be determined so that Rhogam may be administered to the Rh negative patient. This injection combats antibodies and prevents sensitization or isoimmunization problems in the event of future pregnancies or future transfusions where the patient could again come into contact with Rh positive blood cells. The performance of a procedure to terminate a pregnancy without a determination of the patient's hemoglobin level and Rh factor constitutes medical treatment which falls below an acceptable standard of care. The patient medical records for Holli Schmidt indicate that she first went to the Southwest Florida Women' a Clinic, Inc. on December 1, 1977, and Dr. Azima performed a termination of pregnancy procedure. Her "Patient Information Sheet" lists her blood type and Rh to be "A+." On her follow-up exam, an IUD was inserted. This device was removed in December of 1980. On February 23, 1981, Holli Schmidt again went to respondent's Clinic. She completed a "Consent for Abortion, Anesthesia and Other Medical Services" form, told respondent that her last menstrual period had been about six weeks ago and that she was experiencing breast tenderness and nausea. A pregnancy test was performed on her, and the results were negative. Respondent performed a physical exam, noting on her record "Normal," and a pelvic exam, noting "Normal, uterus is not enlarged." Respondent then inserted a Copper 7 IUD, and instructed Mrs. Schmidt to return in one week. Ms. Schmidt did return on March 5, 1981, still complaining of breast soreness and slight nausea. Respondent performed another physical exam, noting "Normal," and a pelvic examination, noting "String is not visible, uterus sounded and IUD is in situ." The medical records do not indicate that she was given another pregnancy test on March 5, but respondent testified that she was and that such was written in the "pregnancy test book," a document not offered for admission into evidence. The records dated February 23 and March 5, 1981, do not indicate that blood work was done or that vital signs were taken. Mrs. Schmidt was instructed to return on March 14, 1981, but did not do so. On April 27, 1981, Holli Schmidt went to the offices of Yankopolos, Waterman and Cowdin, each of whom specializes in obstetrics and gynecology. The record dictated by Dr. Yankopolus indicates that Mrs. Schmidt told him that respondent had examined her the week before. She also told Dr. Yankopolus that she was having trouble with her IUD and was not feeling quite right, having symptoms of pregnancy. Dr. Yankopolus examined her, did not see the IUD string and determined that she was approximately 12 weeks pregnant. Fetal heart tones, which can be detected at 9 1/2 to 10 weeks of pregnancy, were heard. Dr. Yankopolus did no tests to determine if the IUD was still present, but did explain to Ms. Schmidt the dangers of possible miscarriage and infection from the presence of the IUD during pregnancy. It was noted that Ms. Schmidt "will consider all of the alternatives." On May 1, 1981, Ms. Schmidt presented herself to Dr. Waterman "for termination of pregnancy with a Copper 7 in place." After an examination, Dr. Waterman estimated that she was then "12-14 weeks size," and Dr. Cowdin concurred. This meant that conception occurred 10-12 weeks prior to the May 1st examination. Dr. Waterman performed the termination of pregnancy procedure. While his medical records for May 1, 1981, do not specifically state that he removed the IUD during the termination procedure, Dr. Waterman recalls that he did. A later notation on her medical records indicates that on March 30, 1982, Ms. Schmidt stated "she specifically remembers my removing it." Prior to the insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device, the most important factor to determine is that the patient is not pregnant. An IUD can be the source of infection, thus endangering the mother and the baby during pregnancy. The safest and most appropriate time to insert an IUD is during the woman's normal menstrual period. While there are exceptions to this method, especially when the physician knows and trusts the patient, it falls below an acceptable level of care for a physician to insert an IUD when the patient has not had a menstrual period for six weeks, has symptoms of pregnancy and has been engaging in unprotected intercourse. Colleen Lundy, a registered nurse, went to respondent's office on March 5, 1981, for the purpose of undergoing a termination of pregnancy procedure. She completed the consent form and "Patient Registration Record" and spoke briefly with the respondent regarding some questions she had as to the procedure. Prior to the beginning of the procedure, no vital signs were taken and no blood work was performed. Respondent's medical record for Ms. Lundy simply indicates that the physical examination was "Normal." After respondent inserted the speculum, he requested his assistant to bring him Betadine, an antiseptic. The assistant informed him they were out of Betadine, and respondent replied, "use alcohol." Thereafter, patient Lundy felt a severe burning and was feeling very uncomfortable with the whole procedure. She informed respondent that she was not going to have the procedure, respondent removed the speculum and left the room, she dressed, received a refund of her fee and left. The burning sensation abated quickly. The following day, patient Lundy received a termination of pregnancy procedure at another clinic. Respondent admits that he told his assistant that alcohol could be used, but denies using any alcohol on patient Lundy. He further states that he did not perform the blood work because he did not perform the abortion. Darlene Baker first underwent a termination of pregnancy procedure performed by respondent in January of 1981. At that time, she completed a "Patient Registration Form," which inquired as to her height, weight, eye and hair color, allergies, prior operations or illnesses and current medications. She returned for another procedure on December 23, 1982, which was performed by the respondent. She received no counseling prior to the performance of this procedure, but did sign a consent form and a form explaining the procedure and risks for abortion. No further written information was obtained from her. While patient Baker does not recall that a physical examination or blood work was performed prior to the performance of the termination procedure, respondent's medical records for this patient indicate that a physical and pelvic examination were performed, that a blood pressure reading was taken and that the patient's "Rh is positive." Respondent did not send a tissue sample of the products of conception to a pathologist for further examination. Other physicians specializing in obstetrics and gynecology in the Ft. Myers area make it a routine practice to counsel abortion patients prior to the performance of the procedure. During the counseling session, the risks of the procedure involved are examined and other options for the management of an unwanted pregnancy are explored. Sufficient time is afforded between the counseling session and the performance of the termination procedure for patient reflection. The physical examination performed by these physicians includes the taking of vital signs, blood pressure, blood tests and a check of the abdomen, heart and lungs. Subsequent to the procedure, the products of conception are sent to a pathology laboratory for examination and the results are made a part of the patient's medical records.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violations of Section 453.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and that his license to practice medicine in Florida be suspended for a period of one (1) year. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Riley Davis, Esquire 225 S. Adams St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen Marc Slepin, Esquire 1114 E. Park Ave. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ellis S.Rubin, Esquire 265 NE 26 Terrace Miami, Florida 33137 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
