Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Turner has been licensed as a chiropractor in the State of Florida, holding license CH 1454. He has maintained offices as a chiropractic physician at 7650 South U.S. Highway One, Fort Pierce, Florida 34952 since May 19, 1985. Prior Discipline The Board of Chiropractic Examiners has maintained other prosecutions against Dr. Turner. On August 28, 1972 a Final Order was entered revoking Dr. Turner's license for solicitation for prostitution and giving oral medication and injections to a person, but his licensure was reinstated by Order dated September 11, 1974. Thereafter, on July 14, 1977, his licensure was revoked for a second time. Although the Administrative Complaint which had been filed in the second prosecution had alleged sexual misconduct towards patients and staff, those charges were not sustained. The revocation was imposed for obtaining prescriptions for narcotics, stimulants or habit-forming drugs under false pretenses from medical doctors and dentists in an amount so large as to show either drug abuse by Dr. Turner or the offering and administration of drugs to patients, employees, or other persons without lawful authority to do so. Ultimately, Dr. Turner was relicensed, and reestablished his practice in 1985. Alteration of Records The applicable paragraph of the Administrative Complaint alleges that On or about October 25, 1989 a former employee of the Respondent issued a sworn statement, to the State Attorney's Office. In her statement the former employee stated that the Respondent had her change her therapist's notes on a patient to reflect that certain treatments were not being used. The former employee also stated in this interview that the Respondent frequently had her and "other employees" change patient notes in order to mislead future "attorneys" reviewing said notes. Turner hired Debbie Corderre as a therapist and staff member in 1987, and she remained in his employ into 1989. One of the patients to whom she provided therapy was patient E.M. The physical therapists in Dr. Turner's office are not persons who are graduates of a physical therapy school approved for the educational preparation of physical therapists by an accrediting agency recognized by the Council on Post-Secondary Accreditation or who have passed an examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation to determine fitness to practice as a physical therapist. See Section 486.031 Florida Statutes (1989). Rather, they are persons who have received brief on-the-job training of two weeks or so to provide such therapy as might be ordered by Dr. Turner as part of his office practice. Ms. Corderre testified that Dr. Turner had ordered her to alter the medical records of E.M. to remove diathermy as a therapy given. Diathermy is the heating of body tissues due to their resistance to the passage of high- frequency electromagnetic radiation, electric currents, or ultrasonic waves. (Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 26th Edition 1985). The office therapies included massage, traction, electric muscle stimulation, the use of hot packs and ultrasound treatment. Electric muscle stimulation and ultrasound treatment involved the use of a machine with pads; gel was put on the patient and the pads were attached. Ultrasound was performed using the same machine; lotion was placed on the patient and an instrument attached to the machine was rubbed over the body part being treated. How these treatments differ from diathermy, or what constituted diathermy at Dr. Turner's office, was never adequately explained at the hearing. The office notes maintained for Dr. Turner's patients were broken into four sections, each of which were identical, and permitted notes to be made for four separate visits on one sheet. The notes for each individual visit was made up of five parts. The first included a space for the date and abbreviations for the different therapies next to which a check mark could be placed. These spaces were checked off by therapists for billing purposes. None of these spaces ever were checked in any of the extant records for patient E.M. Below the abbreviations was a larger space for therapists notes, in which the therapist would write the therapy provided to the patient during that visit. Below the therapist's note area was a space of equal size containing the acronym SOAP, in which Dr. Turner would make his notes when he saw the patient, after his therapist had already completed the therapy. The fourth portion of the record of a visit is a line to note any material dispensed to the patient during the visit, and the fifth portion is a line to note any X-rays that may have been taken. In none of the records for patient E.M. have any of the abbreviations for any of the different types of therapy been checked off, even though Dr. Turner maintains that these notes are the source of billing information (Tr. 240-41). It is incomprehensible that from the period October 27, 1987 through April 12, 1988, over a total of 59 visits, that a therapist never correctly filled out the portion of the patient record which another employee would need in order to render a bill for the service provided that day. By way of contrast, however, the records for another patient entered into evidence, B.S., do for the most part, have check marks in that portion of the record for a visit which would be useful for billing. The inference which is drawn from the absence of any billing entries in the records for patient E.M. over so long a period of time is that the records which purport to be the contemporaneous records for E.M. are in fact records generated after the fact by the therapist, Debbie Corderre at the instruction of Dr. Turner. Dr. Turner's contention that Ms. Corderre failed to keep appropriate records is rejected. Ms. Corderre testified that Dr. Turner had instructed her to remove reference to diathermy given to patient E.M. Dr. Turner counters by noting that the insurance claim forms submitted by his office on behalf of patient E.M. to the Workers Compensation insurance carrier for E. M.'s employer never showed that diathermy was administered. Dr. Turner argues that Ms. Corderre's testimony must be wrong, for the insurance billings would have shown a charge for diathermy, if the testimony of Ms. Corderre were correct. Dr. Turner's point is well taken, but it does not negate the core of Ms. Corderre's testimony. Ms. Corderre had told the State Attorney's office before the hearing that she thought Dr. Turner had instructed her to change the records to remove any reference to having provided patient E.M. with ultrasound therapy. Based upon all the evidence I find that the records for patient E.M. were changed by Ms. Corderre in some significant way at the direction of Dr. Turner. Because the original records were necessarily lost, and all that remains are revised records, it is not possible to determine with certainty in what way the records were altered. On this aspect of her testimony the recollection of Ms. Corderre is faulty. Her testimony that she changed all records for patient E.M. is persuasive, and the absence of any entry in the portion of the records used for billing reinforces this conclusion. Why Dr. Turner wanted to have the records changed and the manner in which he told Ms. Corderre to change them are not particularly significant. Dr. Turner regarded the change as sufficiently important to have Ms. Corderre spend almost a full day of filling out the newly created records. He then manufactured what are supposed to be contemporaneous entries of his own in the portion of the records which are his notes (the SOAP notes). Improper Sexual Touching of a Patient Dr. Turner employed Brenda Stanley, who later became Brenda Sika by marriage, during the period August 1988 to 1989. She was trained as a physical therapist at the office. About a month after she was employed, in September 1988, Brenda Sika was injured in an automobile accident, and had gone to the hospital emergency room. She discussed her condition and her need for treatment with Dr. Turner, who agreed to examine her and treat her. Dr. Turner first saw Brenda Sika as a patient on September 13, 1988. Ms. Sika's principle complaints included back pain over the whole back, but which was worse in the lower back; neck pain, and ankle pain, all of which had resulted from the automobile accident. She also had bruising and tenderness of her chest due to the action of her seat belt in the accident. Ms. Sika contends that while she was lying on her stomach in a treatment room on several occasions Dr. Turner had placed his hand on her ankle, and slid it up until his hand was on her buttocks, and that on one occasion he had placed his hands between her legs while she was lying face down, with the inside of his hands on the inside of her legs and his thumb on the outside. She also alleged that on the Sunday following the initial visit on September 13, she sought additional treatment from Dr. Turner, and in the course of that treatment he requested her to remove her bra, remained in the room while she undressed, and afterwards asked her to stretch out her arms, after which he felt her breasts, including placing his hand around the fleshy part of her breasts. Finally, Ms. Sika alleges that while in the X-ray room, Dr. Turner asked to check if her groin muscle had been pulled, and in the process used his thumb and index finger to squeeze or grip her in the groin. It is difficult to accept the contention that Dr. Turner had engaged in inappropriate and unwarranted sexual touching of Ms. Sika's breasts, buttocks or groin area, in view of the continuing employment relationship. Ms. Sika had only recently been hired when she was injured. It seems unlikely that she would have remained in the employ of someone who had engaged in lecherous touching while she was supposedly being treated. She remained an employee of Dr. Stanley for a substantial amount of time, and only left that employment when she went to Michigan for her wedding. What is more significant, however, is that after she returned to Florida following her wedding, she decided to return to employment with Dr. Turner (Tr. 75). Ms. Sika did not tell other employees such as Deborah Coderre or Tammy Prescott that Dr. Turner had engaged in unwarranted sexual advances or made sexual innunendoes to her at the office. With respect to the accusation of fondling of a breast, after the accident Dr. Turner had conducted an examination which included palpation in the area of the rib cage underneath the breast, where there was a bruise caused by the seatbelt in Ms. Sika's car. That sort of touching in an area of complaint is appropriate. The charge with respect to running Dr. Turner's hands from the ankle to the buttocks is unconvincing. Attempting to determine whether there was involvement of a groin muscle would be appropriate, but the description of the examination given by Ms. Sika would have constituted inappropriate conduct, had the examination occurred as described. As stated above, given her continued employment, and reemployment after she had left work with Dr. Tuner at the time of her wedding, the evidence of sexual misconduct is not convincing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order revoking the licensure of Dr. Turner, without right of reinstatement or relicensure. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of November, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5707 Rulings on the proposed findings by the Department: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 9. Recounted in Finding 6, but the testimony that the alteration was to remove diathermy is not accepted. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within in the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected because the testimony was not sufficiently specific to establish that other medical records were altered. The testimony with respect to patient E.M. is sufficiently specific. Rejected because the testimony was not sufficiently specific with respect to alteration of records other than those of E.M. Moreover, the charge made in paragraph 3 is not one with respect to purposeful mis-billing. See, Finding 3. See, ruling on Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 14. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony recounted in Findings 19-27 is rejected for the reasons stated in Finding 16. Included in Finding 14. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Adopted in Finding 2. Rulings on findings proposed by Dr. Turner: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. 9 and 10. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally accepted for the reasons given in Finding 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, adopted in Finding 17. Generally adopted in Finding 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent persuasive, these arguments are covered in Findings 16 and 17. Accepted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 4. Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony, and because the argument that Dr. Turner had not required Ms. Corderre to change records of diathermy is accepted, but the argument that Dr. Turner did not instruct Ms. Corderre to make some significant changes in E. M.'s record is rejected. The testimony is recounted in Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. What is significant is that Ms. Corderre changed records at the direction of the doctor, the exact nature of the change is not essential. See, Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary; any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Rejected as unnecessary, any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Rejected as unnecessary, any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Accepted in that the only findings made with respect to Dr. Turner's conducts are made with respect to the records of E.M. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected. I have accepted most of the testimony of Ms. Corderre. Rejected as unnecessary. No "Taylor" case is at issue here. Rejected. See, especially Finding 9. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 Miami, FL 33156-7115 Donald C. Dowling, Esquire 501 East Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated sections 460.413(1)(m), 460.413(1)(ff), 460.413(1)(n), and 460.413(1)(r), Florida Statutes (2006),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B2-17.0065, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic medicine in Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. Dr. Christian was at all times material to the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint a licensed chiropractic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 5756 on or about February 4, 1998. At all times material to the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Christian, Dr. Davidson, and Dr. Kalin were employees of Comprehensive Physician Services, Incorporated (CPS). Dr. Christian was the sole stockholder of CPS. On April 17, 2006, M.M. was involved in an automobile accident when the car, in which she was a front-seat passenger, hit a tree on the passenger side. The window next to M.M. shattered and M.M. received lacerations to the right temple area of her head. M.M. was transferred by ambulance to the emergency room at Northside Hospital. While in the emergency room, a CT scan was performed on M.M.'s head. The CT evaluation was normal. The lacerations were sutured, and M.M. was discharged from the emergency room. On or about April 26, 2006, M.M. presented to CPS for treatment of injuries due to the automobile accident on April 17, 2006. M.M., who was a minor at the time, was accompanied by her mother to CPS. M.M.'s complaints were headaches; neck pain and stiffness; mid-back pain and stiffness; lower back pain and stiffness; difficulty sleeping due to pain; and difficulty with concentration. She indicated that, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most, the stiffness in her neck and middle back was a five. On examination, Dr. Christian found that M.M. had cervical and thoracic tenderness. In his initial report, Dr. Christian noted the hyperabduction tests were positive, and there was "left side reduced pulse/paresthesia due thoracic outlet compression consistent with compression from seat belt trauma." However, the test results contained in the medical records show that there are negative findings on the hyperabduction tests. When questioned about the discrepancy, Dr. Christian testified that the positive findings were a result of the grip/pinch test that he performed. He indicated that he made a mistake in his initial report and that the report should have stated right side reduced pulse. He could not explain how the grip/pinch test would lead him to conclude that there was a reduced pulse because M.M.'s pulse would not be measured during a grip/pinch test nor could he explain how he could learn from a grip/pinch test that there was paresthesia. Later, he testified that the difference in the results was not due to the grip/pinch test, but was a result of a second hyperabduction test that he performed prior to the grip/pinch test. Dr. Christian's testimony is not credited. Dr. Christian's practice is to have an assistant come into the examination room during the testing. As he performs the test, he tells the assistant the results of the test, and the assistant will record the test results. The medical records do not show a second hyperabduction test being recorded by an assistant. Therefore, the examination results are contrary to the results stated in the initial report for April 26, 2006. In his examination records of April 26, 2006, Dr. Christian noted that there was "R [circled] Visual Acuity Diff." M.M.'s mother was present during the examination and observed Dr. Christian testing M.M.'s vision on April 26, 2006. Dr. Christian testified that he first tested M.M.'s vision on May 24, 2011. His testimony is not credited. Dr. Christian's practice is to put findings of the previous chiropractic examination on the report of the examination that he is currently conducting so that a comparison could be made. The examination report of April 26, 2006, and May 24, 2006, are the same with the exception of notations on the May 24, 2006, report of 5/23 near the present complaints section and the section where areas of muscle spasms on the spine are noted. In his follow-up report dated May 24, 2006, Dr. Christian wrote: "Certainly today I see evidence of her continuing to have some alterations of visual acuity . . .". Dr. Christian testified that he had incorrectly included the term "continuing" in this statement. Dr. Christian's testimony is not credited. His statement that the alterations of visual acuity were continuing comports with M.M.'s mother's testimony that the first visual testing was done on April 26, 2006, and the examination report of April 26, 2006. Based on the examination reports for April 26, 2006, and May 24, 2006, there is no indication of what tests Dr. Christian used to test M.M.'s vision nor is there any indication of the exact nature of the problem with the right eye. Dr. Christian's initial report does not mention the visual acuity difference. His follow-up report of May 24, 2006, does not indicate the difference that M.M. is experiencing with her right eye. In his examination records of June 14, 2006, and July 25, 2006, Dr. Christian notes: " R [circled] side vision distance diff." In his final report of July 25, 2006, Dr. Christian noted as a current symptom, "[r]ight sided visual alteration with peripheral." He listed as a diagnostic impression: "Concussion with residual affecting peripheral visual field on the right, persistent." However, contrary to his final report, Dr. Christian testified at final hearing that M.M.'s problem with her peripheral vision had improved. On April 26, 2006, Dr. Christian's treatment plan included the following treatment for M.M. three times a week for four weeks: intersegmental traction, hot pack, and neuromuscular release for the full spine; inferential, alternating cervical to dorsal and dorsal to lumbar; full spine massage; and full spine aqua treatment. The therapist assistant was to determine which treatment modalities and areas to treat at each treatment session. Dr. Christian signed each of the daily treatment notes. On April 26, 2006, Dr. Christian referred M.M. to Dr. Kalin. According to Dr. Christian, Dr. Kalin had experience in emergency rooms treating patients who had sustained trauma. Dr. Christian wanted Dr. Kalin to look at the two lacerations that M.M. had sustained. However, there were no outward signs of infection of the lacerations, and the lacerations had healed. Dr. Christian also wanted to determine if there was any post concussion symptoms. Dr. Kalin evaluated M.M. on May 1, 2006. His initial diagnosis was that she had a "cervical musculoskeletal ligamentous strain" and a "[s]ubacute lumbosacral musculoskeletal ligamentous strain." His examination did not reveal any abnormality with M.M.'s vision. He did find that the lacerations may leave permanent scarring. In his interim report dated May 24, 2006, Dr. Christian stated: "Dr. Kalin was not able to mention the fact that she [M.M.] struck her head or had laceration and dizziness with nausea and vomiting following the impact." This statement is contrary to what Dr. Kalin stated in his report. Dr. Christian further noted in his report that he would follow- up with Dr. Kalin to see if Dr. Kalin had an addendum as to whether there is additional follow-up for post-concussion symptomology. In his report of May 1, 2006, Dr. Kalin did not make any findings of a concussion or post-concussion syndrome. On May 25, 2006, a staff member of CPS sent the following request to Dr. Kalin: Dr. Kalin, Dr. Christian asked if you could please make an addendum [sic] to your report on [M.M.] for her concussion-post concussion syndrome. Thanks! Kimberly Dr. Kalin replied: "pt had no symptoms of headache or memory/concentration when I saw her." No mention was made in Dr. Christian's interim report dated May 25, 2006, that Dr. Kalin did not find any evidence of post-concussion syndrome. On May 1, 2006, Dr. Christian wrote a prescription for hydrotherapy for M.M. for three times a week for four weeks. M.M. received treatment at CPS on May 1, 2006. M.M. indicated to the therapist that on a scale of one to ten that she rated her low back pain and low back stiffness as a four and her neck stiffness as a five. The therapist noted that there was cervical and lumbar tenderness. M.M.'s treatment on May 1, 2006, consisted of hot therapy and hydrotherapy to the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas, and intersegmental traction to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar areas. X-rays of M.M.'s cervical and lumbar spine were ordered. The radiologist who read the X-rays had the impression that M.M. had a cervical muscle spasm and a lumbar muscle spasm. On May 4, 2006, M.M. received treatment at CPS. She rated her neck stiffness and low back stiffness as a three. There was no notation of any tenderness by the therapist. M.M. received the following treatment in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas: hot therapy, intersegmental traction, and hydrotherapy. On May 4, 2006, ultrasound studies were performed on M.M. by Charles W. Hirt, M.D. (Dr. Hirt). Dr. Hirt's impression was that there were findings that showed evidence of a left- sided thoracic outlet syndrome. On May 9, 2006, M.M. returned to CPS for treatment. She rated her neck stiffness and lower back stiffness as a two. The therapist noted that there was tenderness in the cervical and lumbar areas. M.M. was given hot therapy, intersegmental traction, and trigger point therapy in her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar areas. She received myofascial release, massage, and hydrotherapy in her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. On May 16, 2006, M.M. was treated at CPS. She rated her neck stiffness as a one and her low back stiffness as a two. The therapist noted tenderness in the lumbar area. The treatment to M.M.'s cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas included intersegmental traction, trigger point therapy, myofascial release, and massage. She was given interferential treatment to her lumbar and sacral areas and hot therapy to her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar areas. On May 18, 2006, M.M. presented for treatment at CPS. She rated her neck and low back stiffness as a one. The therapist did not note any tenderness. M.M. received the following treatment in her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas: hot therapy, intersegmental traction, trigger point therapy, myofascial release, and massage. On May 23, 2006, M.M. went to CPS for treatment. She rated her lower back stiffness as zero. The therapist noted tenderness in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar areas. M.M. was given a massage and myofascial release in her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. She received inferential treatment and trigger point therapy in her lumbar and sacral areas and hot therapy and intersegmental traction in her thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. On May 24, 2006, Dr. Christian did a follow-up examination of M.M. M.M. rated the neck and lower back stiffness as zero. Dr. Christian noted in his follow-up report that all the symptoms that he had noted in his initial report of April 26, 2006, had improved. His follow-up report stated: "Cerebellar function tests, as far as assessed are abnormal with a positive Rhomberg test for possible concussion." His follow- up report also stated: "Certainly today, I see evidence of her continuing to have some alterations of visual acuity and a positive Rhomberg, which would be consistent with post concussion syndrome." On May 25, 2006, M.M. returned to CPS for further treatment. She rated her neck and low back stiffness as zero. The therapist noted tenderness in M.M.'s cervical and lumbar areas. M.M. was treated with myofascial release and massage in her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. She received trigger point therapy in her lumbar and sacral areas and inferential treatment in her thoracic area. She also received intersegmental traction in her thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. M.M. received treatment at CPS on May 30, 2006. Again, she rated her neck and low back stiffness as zero. The therapist did not note any tenderness. Hydrotherapy, hot therapy, and intersegmental traction were provided to M.M. in her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. She received inferential treatment in her lumbar and sacral areas. On June 13, 2006, M.M. again returned to CPS for treatment. She rated her neck and low back stiffness as zero. The therapist noted tenderness in M.M.'s cervical, thoracic, and lumbar areas. M.M. received intersegmental traction, myofascial release, and massage in her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. M.M. was given hot therapy in her thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. She received trigger point therapy in her cervical and thoracic areas. On June 14, 2006, M.M. presented at CPS for a follow- up visit with Dr. Christian. She rated her neck and low back stiffness as zero. He reduced her treatment to one per week for the next four to five weeks. In his examination record of June 14, 2006, Dr. Christian noted: " R [circled] side vision distance diff." On June 20, 2006, M.M. returned to CPS for treatment. Again, she rated her neck and low back stiffness as zero. The therapist did not note any tenderness. M.M. was given hot therapy and intersegmental traction for her thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. She was given hydrotherapy for her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas. On June 22, 2006, ultrasound studies were done on M.M. by Dr. Hirt. His impression was that she likely had thoracic outlet syndrome on the left side. On May 24, 2006, Dr. Christian referred M.M. to Dr. Davidson for a second opinion for post concussion. Dr. Davidson examined M.M. on June 27, 2006. In his report dated June 27, 2006, Dr. Davidson concluded that she had had a mild concussion, a cervical strain, and a lumbosacral strain. He recommended that her soft tissue therapy be discontinued. Dr. Davidson did not find any abnormalities in M.M.'s vision. On July 25, 2006, M.M. was examined by Dr. Christian. M.M. rated her neck and low back stiffness as zero. Dr. Christian noted the following in his final report dated July 25, 2006. If the patient's symptoms of altered visual field persist and evaluation by an ophthalmologist or a neuro-ophthalmologist may be appropriate. If she begins to have any difficulty with sleep, mood swings, feelings of dizziness or persistent headaches a neuro-psychiatric evaluation for continued post concussion deficits may be appropriate. Dr. Christian discharged M.M. on July 25, 2006, and M.M. was to return for treatment on an as needed basis. Dr. Christian's initial report dated April 26, 2006; interim report dated May 24, 2006; follow-up report dated June 14, 2006; and final report dated July 25, 2006, were dictated by Dr. Christian. The reports were being mailed to someone or some entity based on the note at the end of each report, which stated: "DICTATED BUT NOT PROOFREAD TO AVOID DELAY IN MAILING." At the closing of each report, Dr. Christian stated: "If I can be of further assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me." It is not clear to whom the reports were directed, but it is clear that the reports were meant to convey the examination, evaluation, and treatment of M.M. to the reader of the report. These reports did not accurately report the examination results of M.M. in at least two instances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Christian violated sections 460.413(1)(m) and 460.413(1)(ff) and rule 64B2-17.0065; finding that Dr. Christian did not violate sections 460.413(1)(n) and 460.413(1)(r); imposing an administrative fine of $2,500; placing Dr. Christian on probation for one year; and requiring Dr. Christian to attend a continuing education course on record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 13-16, 1992, petitioner, James S. Moore, a chiropractic physician, was a candidate on the chiropractic licensure examination. Doctor Moore is a recent graduate of Life Chiropractic College and was taking the examination for the first time. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Chiropractic (Board). On July 2, 1992, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that while he had received passing grades on the X-ray interpretation and technique portions of the examination, he had received a score of 70.5 on the physical diagnosis portion of the test. A grade of 75.0 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated September 23, 1992, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Dr. Moore generally contended that he had been denied licensure without any reason or explanation, and that during the review process his contentions were not given meaningful consideration. As further clarified at hearing, petitioner contended that he should have received higher scores on procedures 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination, and thus he should have received a passing grade. That portion of the test is a practical examination requiring the candidate to give verbal and demonstrative responses to a series of questions designed to test the candidate's diagnostic skills. Among other things, the candidate is required to perform certain tests and procedures on a volunteer patient. To memorialize a candidate's performance, the examination is videotaped, and a copy of petitioner's performance is found in joint exhibit 1 received in evidence. Petitioner generally contends that he should have received a higher grade on the above questions. To support his position, petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his uncle-employer, a chiropractic physician in Jacksonville, Florida, who has seven years experience in the field. Respondent offered the testimony of a Miami chiropractic physician who has been a grader on the examination for the last twelve years and was accepted as an expert in the field of chiropractic. It is noted that both physicians reviewed petitioner's examination prior to giving testimony. However, respondent's expert did not regrade the examination but rather evaluated the questions, petitioner's responses and the grades of the two examiners who graded petitioner to determine if the scores were within acceptable guidelines. As might be expected, the two physicians offered conflicting opinions regarding petitioner's examination scores. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and this testimony is embodied in the findings below. There are two independent chiropractors who grade each candidate on the physical diagnosis part of the examination. Each examiner is given one hour of standardization training prior to the examination, there is no discussion by the examiners during the examination itself, and they grade independently of one another. There is no evidence to support a finding that the two examiners who graded petitioner conferred with each other prior to assigning a grade or otherwise acted improperly in the performance of their duties. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the examination, the questions or information given to a candidate will not be repeated verbatim here but rather only a general description will be given. As to question 1, petitioner was penalized one point (or given a grade of three out of four points) because he stated that the normal range for a particular joint was at 100 degrees. He derived this answer from the American Medical Association Guidelines for Impairment, which is the standard used for disability evaluation. Because impairment standards are not synonymous with a normal range of motion, petitioner's response was incorrect and his score of three should not be changed. In procedure 2, the candidate was given a hypothetical case history of a female patient and was required to choose four appropriate orthopedic tests that related to her condition and to then perform each test. The question noted that if an incorrect test was selected, no credit would be given even if the test was performed correctly. Petitioner selected only two correct tests and accordingly received a grade of two out of four possible points. Respondent's expert confirmed that only two correct answers were selected, and thus petitioner's grade should not be changed. Among other things, procedure 7 required the candidate to use and interpret the Wexler scale, a reflex scale used by chiropractic and orthopedic physicians. Petitioner contended that the Wexler scale is considered zero to five, and he used this range to fashion his answer. Although at hearing respondent asserted that the scale is actually zero to four, it now concedes that petitioner's response was correct and that his grade on this question should be adjusted upward by 1.5 points. Procedure 10 related to diagnostic imaging and generally required the candidate to select the appropriate x-rays to be taken for a given set of facts. Because petitioner failed to take a necessary spot hip x-ray, he did not receive full credit on the question. At hearing, petitioner contended that the omitted x-ray would over-radiate the patient and that the large views taken of the patient would give sufficient detail of the primary complaint area. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Therefore, the request to change the grade on this procedure should be denied. In procedure 15, petitioner was given certain information concerning a patient and was required to make a specific diagnosis to be written in the patient's records. The question also provided that if an incorrect diagnosis was selected, the candidate would receive no credit. In this case, petitioner failed to select the proper diagnosis. His response that the patient suffered from a "sprain/strain" of a particular muscle was incorrect since there is no such thing as a sprain of a muscle. Indeed, only joints and ligaments can be sprained. Although respondent's expert conceded that the correct answer was not "easy" to ascertain, all candidates faced the same level of difficulty on the question and thus no change in petitioner's grade is warranted. Petitioner next contends that he was given an incorrect grade on procedure 17, which required him to identify which physical examination procedures (more than one) he would use based upon a hypothetical patient history. The question provided that unless all procedures were identified, no credit would be given. Because petitioner did not state that he would take the patient's vital signs, a necessary procedure for a new patient, he properly received a zero score. Finally, procedure 18 used the same hypothetical patient history given in procedure 17 and required the candidate to demonstrate on a volunteer patient the necessary examination procedures. Of particular significance was the requirement that the candidate not only correctly perform the procedures, but also demonstrate those procedures in the usual and customary order. Unfortunately, petitioner performed the first of four procedures last, which would affect the reliability of the findings, and thus he received no credit. Therefore, petitioner's grade on this question should not be changed. In summary, with the exception of procedure 7, the scores given to petitioner on each of the challenged procedures are supported by logic and reason, and there is no justification in changing the overall score to a passing grade. In addition, the test was fairly administered in every respect to all candidates, including the provision in some questions that unless the entire question was correctly answered, no partial credit would be given. Thus, petitioner's contention that he should have received partial credit instead of no credit on several questions is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order raising petitioner's grade on the physical diagnosis part of the May 1992 chiropractic licensure examination from 70.5 to 72.0 but denying his petition in all other respects. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of January, 1993. Respondent: APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6162 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 3-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dr. James S. Moore P. O. Box 229 Doctor's Inlet, FL 32030 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed chiropractic physician, holding Florida license number CH 5839. In addition to his chiropractic training, the Respondent has completed a course of study in biomechanics and has received a "Masters of Professional Studies" degree from Lynn University in Human Biomechanical Trauma. He advertised services related to "Human Biomechanical Trauma" to other chiropractic physicians practicing in the same geographic area. On November 29, 2001, a twenty-nine-year-old female (referred to hereinafter as the patient) presented herself to the Respondent's office complaining of back pain of approximately two weeks duration. The patient was a former gymnast with many years of training. Her regular exercise routine included weight lifting, and the onset of her back pain occurred while she was lifting weights. Initially the pain was in the area of her mid-back and during the subsequent weeks had progressed to her lower back, and to her upper back and neck. The patient also had a history of migraine-type headaches unrelated to the weightlifting and for which she had sought previous treatment with limited success from another physician. On November 29, 2001, the Respondent completed a medical history and performed an evaluation of the patient's condition. The Respondent provided treatment and adjustment. During the time the patient received treatment, she removed all clothing but for her underpants, at the Respondent's direction. A robe was provided inside the treatment room for her to wear after undressing and before the treatment was provided. After providing the treatment on November 29, the Respondent referred the patient to another facility for a series of x-rays. On November 30, 2001, the patient returned for additional treatment at which time the Respondent performed an adjustment to the patient's neck and back. After the treatment was completed and the Respondent exited the room, the patient began to dress, at which point the Respondent entered the room holding a digital camera. The patient testified that the Respondent removed her robe, leaving her clad only in her underpants, that the Respondent told her that the photography was a routine office practice, and that he could not continue the treatment unless the photographs were taken. The patient testified that the Respondent was aggressive while the photographs were taken, speaking with a "raised voice" and moving quickly, instructing her on how to pose, and moving her arms and legs into position. The patient testified that during the incident she was scared and in a "dazed state," and that she didn't know how many photos were taken or how much time elapsed during the photo session. She made no attempt to leave the examination room until after the photos were taken. The Respondent denied that he told the patient that the photographic evaluation was a routine office procedure. The Respondent testified that he discussed the photographic evaluation with the patient and that she permitted the photos to be taken. He testified that he both verbally directed and demonstrated by example, the positions in which he sought to photograph the patient. He further testified that some of the positions came from the patient when describing her "activities of daily living." He testified that she participated in the photography willingly and without protest. Other than the Respondent and the patient, no one else was in the room during the time the photographs were taken. The Respondent's offices consisted of a small suite of rooms located in a strip shopping center. Based on the physical structure of the offices described at the hearing, it is unlikely that voices could be raised to the point of "yelling" without others in the office being aware of the situation. There is no evidence that the patient was physically prevented from leaving the office. Although the patient signed a generic release for treatment when she began seeing the Respondent, the patient testified that the release was essentially blank at the time she signed. In addition to the generic consent for treatment form, the Respondent's office had prepared a separate "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation" which provided as follows: Dear Patient: Holistic Healthcare Centers offers Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation for the purpose of specific biomechanic assessment of the patient. The procedure will include some or all of the following: Digital photos of the patient in various positions, movements and activities. These photographs will be taken with the patient partially or completely unclothed, as determined by the physician(s). Processing and analysis of these photographs on computers either on the premises or at another location, to be determined by the physician(s). Reportage to the patient as to the results of the analyses. Restrictions on the use of these photographs include: Photographic data will be kept in password protected locations and will be accessible only by Dr. Scott Baker and Dr. Scott Drizin. Appropriate hard copies of photographs will be kept in the patient's confidential case file, if needed. The photographic data will not be published either in print or electronically without the patient's express written consent. Utilizations of photographs, data and analyses results can be used educationally while protecting the privacy of the patient. I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND CONSENT TO THE ABOVE. Under the conditions indicated, I hereby place myself under your care for those procedures as described above as indicated in your professional judgment. The "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation" provided a space for the signature of the person from whom consent is being sought and for the signature of a witness. The patient did not sign the photographic consent form. At no time did the patient sign any written release specifically allowing the Respondent to take photographs. According to his note handwritten on the "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation," the Respondent became aware at some point that the patient had not signed the photo consent form. A few days after the photos were taken, the patient returned to the Respondent's office and inquired about the photographs. By that time, the digital photo files had been transferred from the camera used to take the photos to a computer located in the Respondent's office. After the patient requested to view the photos, the Respondent went to a computer where the digital photo files were stored. The Respondent and the patient reviewed the photographs for about 45 minutes. During the photo review, the Respondent made comments that could be construed as relating to the patient's posture. According to the patient's testimony, such comments included "you're standing a little to the left on this one and you should be standing more upright on this one" and "see, you're standing crooked, you should be standing straight." During the photo review, the Respondent told the patient that he and his partner, Dr. Scott Baker, were interested in writing a book and pursuing additional medical training. The patient testified that the Respondent may have used the word "biomechanics" during the photo review, but was not certain. After the photos were reviewed, the patient asked for a copy of the digital image files. Initially the Respondent declined to produce the files, but by the end of the appointment, after receiving additional therapeutic treatment and adjustments, the Respondent provided to the patient a disc containing the photo files. According to the patient, the Respondent advised the patient not to show the photographs to anyone. After the patient received a copy of the photo files, she did not again see the Respondent in a therapeutic setting. She cancelled her remaining appointments with the Respondent, obtained her X-rays from the Respondent's practice, and sought treatment elsewhere. After the patient cancelled the appointments, she received at least one call from the Respondent's secretary inquiring as to the reason for the cancellation. During the call, the Respondent spoke to the patient and inquired as to whether there were problems, at which point the patient advised that she would not return to the Respondent for treatment. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Dr. Michael Major, a Florida-licensed chiropractic physician. Although Dr. Major appears to be knowledgeable about biomechanics, he has not undertaken any advanced education in biomechanics. Dr. Major testified one of the reasons to use photography in a chiropractic setting would be to observe structural changes that could occur related to treatment. Dr. Major testified that such photos are generally taken from front, side, or rear perspectives, and utilize spinal or anatomical "landmarks" for purposes of comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment conditions. Dr. Major further testified that he has used digital photography in his practice, generally placing subjects in front of a grid-pattern marked on a wall. Dr. Major's grid system also includes a bilateral scale to identify weight-bearing issues. By using the photo of the subject in front of the grid and on the scale, a chiropractic physician is able to show to a photographic subject various spinal or postural conditions. Dr. Major has used this system in marketing services to prospective clients. Dr. Major termed photos taken from positions other than in front of, to the side of, or from behind a patient as "oblique" angle photos. Dr. Majors testified that such photos had very little analytical value because of the difficulty in accurately reproducing at a subsequent date, the angles from which the original photographs were taken, thus making comparison between the sets of photographs difficult. Dr. Major testified that, when taking a later set of photos, where the angle of camera placement relative to the body is different from the original camera placement by only a few degrees, the later photograph would offer little comparative value because the landmarks would not be located appropriately. A review of the photographs in evidence indicates that the patient was photographed in a routine examination room, posed in various positions, and unclothed but for her underpants. At the hearing, Dr. Major reviewed the photos offered into evidence and opined that although some of the photos taken by the Respondent of the patient provided appropriate diagnostic information, others did not. Dr. Major testified where the photos did not contain appropriate diagnostic information, the Respondent violated the applicable standard of care by not utilizing the best techniques in order to isolate planes of motion sufficiently to provide useful information. Dr. Major also testified that the failure to obtain the patient's consent prior to taking photographs was a violation of the applicable standard of care. Dr. Major opined without elaboration that taking the photographs without the patient's consent also constituted sexual misconduct. According to Dr. Major, the failure to have another female present in the room during an exam was not a violation of the applicable standard of care. The Respondent offered evidence related to his use of photography and the development of a "protocol" that he and his partner were creating to document biomechanical evaluations of certain patients. In addition to the Respondent's testimony, the Respondent presented the testimony of Scott M. Baker, D.C., who was in practice with the Respondent at the time of the events at issue. At some point in the mid-1990's, Dr. Baker and the Respondent became interested in continuing their education in biomechanics, and both completed the additional biomechanics training referenced herein. Part of their interests included conducting research to develop a "protocol" for biomechanical evaluation. Part of the protocol included photographic evaluations of patients. The model apparently being followed referenced radiological studies where multiple X-rays from different angles were taken of a patient during diagnostic testing. However, although the Respondent asserted that the photographs were part of the treatment offered to the patient, Dr. Baker testified that the photos were not actually taken for diagnostic purposes. The alleged purpose of the photos was to educate a patient on existing conditions with the ability to demonstrate at a later date, visible progress though the use of comparative photography. Dr. Baker testified that after the Respondent took the photos of the patient, he and the Respondent reviewed the photos and indexed them by reference to anatomical characteristics. Dr. Baker acknowledged that some of the photos "weren't useful," but that it was preferable to err towards taking too many photos rather than too few, and that the intent was to discard those photos that were not useful. The consent form specific to the photographic study also indicates that the photos may be used for educational purposes with appropriate protection of a patient's privacy. Dr. Baker acknowledged that the protocol was in preliminary stages of development and that greater specificity would be required as development continued. Prior to the patient in this case, only one other chiropractic client had been photographed based on the protocol. When the photographs of the patient were taken, the position from which each photo was taken was not recorded. Dr. Baker testified that when subsequent photos were taken for comparative purposes, the photo subject would have to be repositioned based on the earlier photograph, using an anatomical point of reference. No visible grid pattern was present in the room where the patient's photos were taken and no grid is present in the photos taken of the patient by the Respondent. In order to view the photos, the Respondent planned to use a graphics software program called "Paint Shop Pro" which could allow a grid to be superimposed on a photograph. Whether the computer imposition of a grid pattern on a photo taken subsequently would provide specific anatomical references sufficient to compare the photos is unknown. The asserted reason why the patient wore only underpants in the photos was that wearing a bra would alter the center of gravity being measured. The Respondent further testified that wearing a bra could cause a "cutaneous sensory response" that could lead to a "reflex muscle spasm which would alter the center of gravity." The evidence fails to establish why the same reasoning was not applicable to the underpants that the Respondent directed the patient to leave on.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, enter a final order finding that Scott Drizin, D.C., is guilty of a failure to practice chiropractic medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and imposing a fine of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers, Coleman & Barack, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard Powers, was at all times material hereto a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH0003372. Respondent has routinely advertised his chiropractic practice in the Palm Beach Post. On July 8, 1984, July 15, 1984, and September 2, 1984, Respondent ran an advertisement in the Palm Beach Post which offered a free examination and which stated that the "usual value of this exam is $80. This includes X-rays if needed." The advertisement did not include the disclaimer mandated by Section 455.24, Florida Statutes. That statute, effective June 12, 1984, required that: In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care provider ... (such as Respondent) ... the following statement shall appear in capital letters clearly distinguishable from the rest of the text: THE PATIENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PAY, CANCEL PAYMENT, OR BE REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT WHICH IS PERFORMED AS A RESULT OF AND WITHIN 72 HOURS OF RESPONDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FREE, DISCOUNTED FEE, OR REDUCED FEE SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT. By memorandum dated September 30, 1984, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic (Board), advised all licensees of the aforesaid amendment to section 455.24. Respondent asserts he had no knowledge of the amendment until his receipt of the Board's memorandum in October, 1984, and that he complied, or attempted to comply, with the amendment at all times thereafter. The evidence supports Respondent's assertions. The advertisements of July 8, 1984, and July 15, 1984, were captioned in bold type "ADVANCED APPLIED CHIROPRACTIC," listed Respondent as a diplomate of the National Board of Chiropractic, and concluded in bold type "A STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE." The advertisement of September 2, 1984, touted Respondent's clinic as "Advanced Applied Chiropractic and Comprehensive Pain Center." The generally accepted definition within the medical community of diplomate is an individual who has completed an extensive post graduate program and successfully passed the board's examination. This establishes superior qualifications in the individual's field of practice. Although the National Board of Chiropractic issues diplomate certification to those individuals who pass its examination, its examination is a basic licensing examination which establishes minimal competency, not excellence. Respondent's use of the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" to describe his clinic implies that he possesses skills superior to the average chiropractor. Respondent has registered the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" as a fictitious name. Respondent was, on one prior occasion, disciplined by the Board for an advertising violation.
