The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are whether Respondent committed the violations charged in four Administrative Complaints and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Department has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed chiropractic physicians pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a chiropractic physician after a probable cause panel (PCP) of the Board determines there is probable cause to suspect a licensee has committed a disciplinable offense, and provides direction to the Department on the filing of an administrative complaint. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Dr. Aderholdt has been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 7814. He was first licensed on January 6, 2000. He practices in an office in Bradenton, Florida. Vax-D Therapy Three of the four Administrative Complaints involve patients of Dr. Aderholdt who received Vax-D therapy. The complaints are not directed to the provision of Vax-D therapy itself, or to any other treatments provided by Dr. Aderholdt. In all four cases, the patients generally spoke well of the chiropractic care they received from Dr. Aderholdt and the manner in which they were treated by him and his office staff. Vax-D therapy is a modality using the Vax-D model for decompression of the spinal discs and spinal structure. It is used to treat a range of issues associated with low back pain, including herniated, degenerated, and bulging discs. The Vax-D model is the originator of this technology; it was the first spinal decompression device. It is a large computerized moving table. It can be programmed to provide specific axial or distractive loading. The table moves in and out, pumping nutrients at the discs. Some research shows that it can actually pull discs away from where they are causing irritation on nerves and the spinal cord. The Vax-D model is FDA-cleared for use, and the literature supports its efficacy. The Vax-D model is an expensive piece of equipment. The price range for the initial purchase is between $100,000 and $150,000, with ongoing expense thereafter for maintenance and updates. Vax-D therapy is one of the most expensive forms of therapy, if not the most expensive, in the chiropractic profession. Other models coming out after Vax-D, as well as other tools, arguably can be used for similar purposes. However, as Petitioner’s expert readily acknowledged, Vax-D is the “Rolls Royce. It’s a really nice tool.” Vax-D spinal decompression is not covered by Medicare. In fact, when it comes to chiropractic care, Medicare has never covered anything besides spinal adjustments. Coverage for Vax-D treatment by private insurance companies is rare. In 2012, Dr. Salvatore LaRusso presented a study on spinal decompression to the profession, before the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards, to inform state regulators of issues associated with Vax-D therapy. The one regulatory concern he reported was that some physicians were improperly billing Vax-D as a surgical decompression procedure, when it is plainly not surgery; it is an alternative to surgery, properly billed as a non-surgical decompressive tool or traction device. Dr. LaRusso’s study also made findings on the common methods of packaging and selling the service, and the range of charges observed. He found that most practitioners providing Vax-D therapy were selling the service as a cash item in their practice, with payment up front often required. The common model was to sell a package with a certain number of visits, with or without additional services included. Dr. LaRusso found that the per-visit charges ranged from $150 to $450, depending on the ancillary services added to the decompression. Dr. Shreeve does not have any issue with the use of or charges for Vax-D therapy. Dr. Aderholdt offers Vax-D therapy pursuant to a Vax-D Therapy Payment Plan agreement (Vax-D Agreement), which is comparable to the multi-visit packages that Dr. LaRusso’s study found to be common. After initial consultation, with intake forms, patient history, x-rays, evaluation, and examination, if a patient is determined to be appropriate for Vax-D therapy, Dr. Aderholdt will give his treatment recommendations and then turn the patient over to his office staff to address the financial aspects. If the patient wants to proceed with Vax-D therapy, the Vax-D Agreement will be reviewed and signed. Patients A.M., R.O., and P.D. each received Vax-D therapy, pursuant to signed Vax-D Agreements. The terms of the Vax-D Agreements for the three patients were the same. Patient B.O. wanted Vax-D therapy, but she was determined to not be an appropriate candidate for it. The Vax-D Agreements in evidence for Patients A.M., R.O., and P.D. provided that the named patient committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions, for $250.00 per session. The total amount that the named patient agreed to pay Dr. Aderholdt for 25 to 28 sessions was $5,500.00, which computes to an actual per-session cost of between $196.43 (for 28 sessions) and $220.00 (for 25 sessions). For the agreed price for 25 to 28 sessions, the Vax-D Agreement provided the following treatment package: at each session, the patient would receive 30 minutes of Vax-D therapy, 30 minutes of full range interferential electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), 15 minutes of hydro-massage therapy, and manipulation (adjustments) by the doctor if needed. The first set of x-rays was also included. Dr. Aderholdt requires an up-front payment for the Vax-D therapy package. For patients who want Vax-D therapy but need help coming up with the funds, Respondent’s office staff has put the patients in touch with Care Credit, which is a medical credit program. If a patient applies and is accepted, Care Credit will finance the cost without charging interest to the patient if the loan is repaid within one year. Care Credit apparently charges a fee to Respondent when credit is extended, similar to the fees charged to merchants by credit card companies for credit card purchases. No evidence was presented regarding Care Credit’s approval criteria or how widely this method is used. All that is known about Care Credit from the record evidence is that two patients who received Vax-D therapy applied for Care Credit and were approved. The other Vax-D patient charged half of the agreed price on a Visa credit card the first day of treatment, and charged the other half after 15 treatment sessions. Patient A.M. From the end of July 2013 to early February 2014, Dr. Aderholdt treated Patient A.M., then a 66-year-old female, for lower back pain and hip pain. Patient A.M. had tried other treatments and had seen chiropractors before, but reported that her pain kept getting worse. As shown by A.M.’s medical records, A.M. was first seen by Respondent on July 29, 2013. That day, A.M.’s intake form, patient history, and x-rays were taken and evaluated, and A.M. was examined by Respondent. Respondent then formulated A.M.’s initial treatment plan. Respondent recommended Vax-D therapy, along with chiropractic adjustments, EMS, and hydrotherapy. The initial treatment plan specified a two- session per day protocol for the first two to three weeks. On July 30, 2013, A.M.’s husband, J.M., signed the Vax-D Agreement (in the space for Patient Signature). J.M. did not remember signing the Vax-D Agreement, but both he and A.M. identified his signature on the Vax-D Agreement. A.M. was named in the agreement as the patient who committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions and agreed to pay $5,500.00 for those sessions. Respondent did not require full payment of the agreed price prior to treatment. Instead, he accepted payment of one- half ($2,750.00) of the Vax-D therapy package price, which was charged on A.M.’s or J.M.’s Visa credit card on July 30, 2013. In accordance with the initial treatment plan, Patient A.M. received two treatment sessions per day beginning July 30, 2013, in the morning and afternoon, for nearly three weeks. After 15 treatment sessions--more than half of the 25 to 28 sessions covered for $5,500.00--the balance of $2,750.00 was charged on A.M.’s or J.M’s Visa credit card. Between July 30, 2013, and February 3, 2014, Patient A.M. had more than 60 Vax-D therapy sessions--approximately 64 total sessions. A.M. initially testified with a fair degree of confidence that she thought she had about 30 treatment sessions, until she reviewed her prior statement made to Petitioner. A.M. testified that at every session, she received Vax-D decompression therapy, hydrotherapy, adjustments “up and down” her spine, and ice packs. She left every session feeling better, with relief from her pain. The relief was temporary, however; she said the pain would come back after a few hours. After 29 sessions, having received all of the treatment sessions covered by the Vax-D Agreement, A.M. started paying additional amounts for more Vax-D therapy and the other ancillary services that she continued to receive. For approximately 35 additional treatment sessions beyond those covered by the Vax-D Agreement, A.M. made seven additional payments in the total amount of $2,226.00. In all, A.M. paid $7,726.00 for approximately 64 Vax-D therapy sessions. Rounding down to an even 60 sessions, she paid an average of $128.77 per session. A.M. was covered by Medicare at the time of her treatment. She did not have any private “Medicare supplement” health insurance. At some point, the subject of Medicare coverage came up. The details of what was said, when, and to whom were not clearly established. The only fact clearly established was that Dr. Aderholdt did not bring up the subject. Patient A.M. testified that Dr. Aderholdt did not talk to her about payment when she first visited, but that she and J.M. asked him, “Does Medicare cover this,” and he said, “Yes.” J.M. said that Dr. Aderholdt did talk to them about payment, saying “we need to do so many treatments and we should pay so much money.” J.M. said that they asked, “Will Medicare take care of it?” Dr. Aderholdt answered, “Yes, we will bill Medicare.” J.M could not say whether he asked about billing Medicare before or after he signed the Vax-D Agreement, since J.M. did not remember signing the Vax-D Agreement. When Dr. Aderholdt was asked if he told A.M. her treatments would be covered by Medicare, he answered, “No, I don’t believe I did, no.” As an interesting contrast, Patient R.O. testified that Dr. Aderholdt told him Medicare would not cover treatment under the same Vax-D Agreement; Dr. Aderholdt does not believe he made that statement, either. In the middle of the spectrum, Patient P.D. testified that Respondent never said anything to her about insurance coverage or financial arrangements. He would only talk about treatment, turning P.D. over to the office manager or billing person to address the financial issues. This version is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that he does not address “the money thing” with patients. Instead, he said he assesses x-rays, takes patient histories, performs the evaluation and examination, and ultimately formulates the recommended treatment plans, whether Vax-D or something else. Then he turns the treatment plans over to his staff to address the financial issues with the patients. A.M. and J.M. did not demonstrate a clear and certain recollection of what they asked Dr. Aderholdt or exactly what he answered. Indeed, both J.M. and A.M. could not remember most every other detail about A.M.’s treatments, often confidently stating details that were shown to be wrong by more than a little, including how many treatment sessions, and how much was paid. For example, Patient A.M. initially reported that she had paid $13,179.00 to Dr. Aderholdt, when the total was $7,726.00. The undersigned cannot find--without hesitancy--that Dr. Aderholdt made any representation to J.M. and A.M. regarding Medicare coverage before J.M. signed the Vax-D Agreement by which A.M. committed to the Vax-D therapy package. Dr. Shreeve made the point well that it is difficult to resolve this kind of he said-she said conflict, although he made the point while confusing Patient A.M. (who claimed Respondent said there would be Medicare coverage) with Patient R.O. (who claimed Respondent said there would not be Medicare coverage), in the following exchange: Q: With Patient RO, what’s your understanding of what Dr. Aderholdt told him regarding Medicare reimbursements? A: Counselor, I’m going to tell you that the investigative record shows that the patient stated that Aderholdt told him that they would be paid, is what my recollection is. And, yet, that’s not something that weighs heavily on my mind because I wasn’t there. This becomes a “he said, she said.” He said he didn’t; he said he did. I can’t get into that fight. That’s not an issue for me. (Jt. Ex. 12 at 35). (emphasis added). Respondent (or his staff) may have told A.M. and J.M., when they asked about Medicare, that the office would complete and submit the Medicare claim forms. Respondent (or his staff) may have told A.M. and J.M., when they asked, that Medicare proceeds paid on the Vax-D therapy package would be refunded. But it would be unreasonable, on this record, to find that Respondent misrepresented that Medicare would provide full coverage, or that Respondent schemed to induce A.M. and J.M. to sign up for Vax-D by guaranteeing that Medicare would pay back everything, when Respondent did not even bring up the subject.8/ The Administrative Complaint alleges that on one or more occasions, Respondent did not submit Medicare claims for Patient A.M.’s treatment. Petitioner has apparently abandoned this allegation; its PRO has no proposed finding identifying any dates of service for which claims were not submitted. The Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M. were compiled by Petitioner’s counsel for use in taking Respondent’s deposition, and are attached as deposition exhibit 2. The evidence is difficult to cull through, as there are 84 separate pages of claims and they are not in chronological order; they start out in chronological order, but then jump forward two months, then continue jumping around on dates, back and forth and back again. As best can be determined, all service dates shown in Patient A.M.’s medical records appear to be accounted for by corresponding claim forms. It appears that one claim form may have a clerical mistake, identifying the date of service as August 3, 2013, when there was no treatment session that day; the actual service date may instead be September 4, 2013, which is the date the claim form was submitted. The Medicare claim forms in evidence demonstrate that claim forms for A.M.’s treatments were regularly submitted, either on or very shortly after the dates of service. The evidence is insufficient to prove that Respondent did not submit Medicare claims for Patient A.M.’s treatment.9/ The Administrative Complaint contains no allegations regarding the disposition of the Medicare claims, although it does allege that Patient A.M. received no reimbursement from Respondent for Medicare payments. Petitioner’s expert seemed to be under the impression that Respondent received Medicare payments, because he criticized Respondent for not providing reimbursement to Patient A.M. Respondent testified that he has received no payments from Medicare for A.M.’s treatments, and Petitioner acknowledges in its PRO that Medicare has not made payments to Respondent. Acknowledging that the Administrative Complaint allegation has not been established, Petitioner instead proposed a finding (not alleged in the Administrative Complaint) that all of A.M.’s Medicare claims submitted by Respondent were rejected and payment was denied. No evidence was offered to prove the actual disposition of the 84 pages of Medicare claims submitted for A.M.’s treatments. Instead, the only record evidence of Medicare adjudications on any claims for A.M. is a group of explanation of benefits forms (EOBs) attached to a March 6, 2014, letter from Patient A.M. to Petitioner’s investigator, which is a deposition exhibit. Patient A.M. identified the small handful of EOBs attached to the March 6, 2014, letter as EOBs she had at that time, reporting on the disposition of Medicare claims submitted by other providers during the same time period as her treatments with Respondent. The EOBs reported, as to each claim, whether the claim was covered in whole or in part; and, if covered, what amount was paid, or, if not, why not. There were no EOBs for claims submitted by Respondent’s office. Patient A.M. was not asked for, and did not offer, any additional EOBs at her deposition. If, in fact, all of the Medicare claims submitted by Respondent were rejected and payment denied, then there would be a stack of EOBs explaining why each claim was denied. On this record, the evidence is insufficient to make any finding as to the outcome of the Medicare claims submitted for Patient A.M.’s treatment. There is no evidence proving whether the claims were denied, approved, or simply never acted on by Medicare. A separate allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that Patient A.M. requested copies of the Medicare claim forms submitted by Respondent’s office for her treatment. Patient A.M. said that she made verbal requests to Respondent’s office staff for the Medicare claims on more than one occasion, and the parties stipulated that Patient A.M. made these requests. Respondent’s office should have responded by giving Patient A.M. copies of the Medicare claims. Dr. Aderholdt said that he was not aware that Patient A.M. had requested copies of her Medicare claim. But it is his responsibility to ensure that his staff promptly responds to requests by patients for insurance claim forms. In the course of Petitioner’s investigation, the Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M. were provided to Petitioner (according to the investigator’s report, on May 16, 2014). It is unknown whether a set of the claim forms was provided to A.M. at that time. She is entitled to a copy of the claim forms if she has not already been given a set. Respondent should have verified that Patient A.M. has received the claim forms she requested, or, if not, provided them to her. Finally, the Administrative Complaint alleges that on the Medicare claim forms for A.M.’s treatments on August 6, 2013, and December 11, 2013, Respondent utilized Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 98941, which is the code for adjustments to three or four regions of the spine. However, Respondent’s Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan notes (referred to as SOAP notes) for those dates identify spinal adjustments to L3, L4, and L5, which are in a single region--the lumbar region. Beyond the SOAP notes, however, Dr. Aderholdt’s notes for Patient A.M.’s morning session on August 6, 2013 (there were two sessions that day), show multiple adjustments, not only to the lumbar region, but also, to the sacrum and ilium. Dr. Aderholdt’s notes for December 11, 2013, show multiple adjustments to the thoracic, lumbar, and sacrum regions. At hearing, Dr. Shreeve identified the five spinal regions as follows: “a region would be considered cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacrum, ilium.” (Tr. 106, lines 21-22). Based on his testimony, and considering all of Patient A.M.’s medical records, there were multiple adjustments to three spinal regions on both days identified in the Administrative Complaint.10/ The Administrative Complaint has no other factual allegations regarding CPT code issues in connection with Patient A.M.’s treatment. The complaint pointedly identified one specific CPT code that was used on two specific dates, but was allegedly not supported by SOAP notes for either date. At hearing, Dr. Shreeve attempted to expand the factual allegations regarding CPT coding issues by questioning other CPT codes shown on A.M.’s patient ledger. Dr. Shreeve’s criticism was improper, not only because he strayed beyond the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, but also, because the criticism was based on his misunderstanding of what Dr. Aderholdt’s patient ledgers portray. In particular, Dr. Shreeve was critical of CPT code 99212 entries (for focused patient examinations) on A.M.’s patient ledger, without use of modifier code -25. He said that these repeated entries of CPT code 99212 were inappropriate without use of modifier code –25, to indicate they should not be considered for payment, because they are redundant with other CPT treatment codes that include examination. Dr. Shreeve should have reviewed the actual Medicare claim forms to look for the modifier codes, because the CPT code 99212 entries do, in fact, add a modifier of -25. The modifier code conveys information to the third-party payor, as Dr. Shreeve acknowledged, regarding whether or how payment should be made. The modifier codes need to be used, when appropriate, on the Medicare claim forms, and they were used just as Dr. Shreeve said was appropriate. The modifier codes do not appear on Dr. Aderholdt’s patient ledgers because they are not claim forms sent to third- party payors, nor are they bills sent to patients. Instead, a patient ledger, as used in Respondent’s practice, is an internal practice management tool to account for and track everything associated with treating patients: how many examinations, how many adjustments, how many Vax-D treatments, how many ice packs, and so on. Dr. LaRusso explained that this is a perfectly reasonable use of patient ledgers, and is a common practice among physicians. The usage statistics are analyzed for practice management, for such purposes as making changes in the services or treatments and stocking supplies. Dr. Shreeve admitted that he assumed Respondent’s patient ledgers reflected the exact CPT coding used on insurance claims and bills sent to patients. The evidence refuted that assumption. Modifier codes were used on the Medicare claims. And Dr. Shreeve admitted he saw no evidence that Respondent’s patient ledger for A.M. was ever sent to her as a bill, or that any patient ledgers were ever sent to any patients as bills. Dr. Shreeve also admitted that there is no standard for patient ledgers, much less a regulation mandating the contents and use of patient ledgers. As he put it, he could go to 1,000 chiropractic offices and find 1,000 different variations in what is called a patient ledger. Dr. Shreeve would like to see a standard adopted for “patient ledgers,” but his aspiration simply underscores that there is no standard now; Respondent’s practices cannot be judged against or held to conform to a non-standard, non-regulation.11/ In somewhat stream-of-consciousness fashion, untethered from the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Shreeve interjected a number of other comments about Dr. Aderholdt’s practices related to Patient A.M., such as the adequacy and legibility of his medical records and the quality of x-rays. He raised questions about Dr. Aderholdt’s compliance with trust accounting requirements in connection with payments for A.M.’s Vax-D therapy, and Dr. Aderholdt’s compliance with obligations in connection with Petitioner’s investigation. None of these factual matters were alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and none of the corresponding statutory or rule provisions implicated by Dr. Shreeve’s open-ended commentary were charged in the Administrative Complaint. No findings can be made on matters not alleged, and violations not charged, in the Administrative Complaint. Moreover, there is no competent evidence fleshing out any of these matters, because they were not alleged, charged, or identified in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation as issues of fact or law to be litigated. Patient B.O. Between April and June 2013, Respondent treated B.O., then a 78-year-old female, for back and neck pain. B.O. is married to R.O. They both went to Respondent’s office on the same day for their initial consultation. B.O. completed intake forms, had x-rays and patient history taken, and was examined by Respondent, similar to R.O. Whereas R.O. was determined to be a candidate for Vax-D therapy, B.O. was not. Unlike for the Vax-D therapy plan, there was no protocol calling for a certain range of sessions needed and no set payment correlated to a planned number of sessions for B.O.’s recommended treatment plan that called for adjustments, hydrotherapy, and ice packs. At the time of her treatment, B.O. had Medicare coverage and a “Medicare supplement” insurance policy through Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey (Horizon). As was his practice, Respondent had B.O. address the financial aspects of the treatment he recommended with his office staff. Upon review of B.O.’s insurance coverage, B.O. was informed by Respondent’s staff that Horizon would probably cover the cost of her treatment that exceeded her copay. The staff determined that, although it was possible Horizon would apply its lower in-network copay of $15.00 per visit, there was no guarantee that Horizon would not consider Respondent out-of- network, with a copay of $25.00 per visit. Therefore, B.O. was charged $25.00 per visit. She paid that amount per visit, although sometimes she did not pay at all on one or more visits, and would catch up at a subsequent visit. B.O. received treatments on 23 occasions. B.O. experienced some relief from her pain as a result of those treatments.12/ For those 23 visits, B.O. paid a total of $575.00 in copays. After B.O. had stopped going to Dr. Aderholdt for treatment, Horizon determined that its lower in-network copay of $15.00 per visit applied. The total copay amount should have been $345.00 for 23 visits. The difference is $230.00. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “overcharged” B.O., misrepresenting that her copay was the out- of-network charge, to exploit her for financial gain. This allegation was not proven. Respondent made no representation. The representations of his staff, as described by B.O., were not shown to be the product of anything other than a good faith attempt to determine the undeterminable details of insurance coverage. There is no evidence to support the allegation that B.O. was intentionally charged more than she should have been charged, based on the information available at the time. On this point, the expert testimony was in lockstep: figuring out insurance coverage details is a “nightmare.” It is virtually impossible, according to both experts, to obtain sufficient information to make a correct determination for a new patient on such issues as in-network versus out-of-network, because, as they agreed, the insurance coverage details keep changing. “Now, you can be in network today and they can decide you’re out of network tomorrow. And then you can be out of network and then they decide you’re in network, and they don’t tell you.” That’s--that makes no sense.” (Dr. Shreeve, Tr. 131). In fact, when asked how he determines if a patient is out-of-network, Dr. Shreeve responded: “Counselor, I don’t. I leave that to the patient. I run a cash practice. I give them a bill. We’ll help them fill out a health insurance claim form, if they need it. But they pay us when they receive the service.” (Tr. 130). The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent billed Horizon for medical visits by Patient B.O. that did not occur. There is no credible evidence of this allegation; the evidence is to the contrary. Petitioner contends in its PRO that Respondent billed B.O. for treatments received on June 3, 7, 11, and 14, 2013, when B.O.’s appointments were cancelled on those days. The record citations offered by Petitioner fail to support this proposed finding. Instead, B.O.’s bank records directly refute the proposed finding, and corroborate Dr. Aderholdt’s treatment notes and the SOAP notes that detail B.O.’s treatment on those four days.13/ In addition to B.O.’s bank records, B.O.’s patient records include the “merchant copy” receipt for a debit card payment on June 14, 2013. The receipt shows that a $50.00 payment was made at Dr. Aderholdt’s office on June 14, 2013, and it bears the clear signature of B.O. B.O.’s accusation that she did not go to Respondent’s office for treatment on these four days is belied by the documentation that she personally went there and paid the copay charges for her treatments on those four days ($50.00 check on June 7 for two copays; $50.00 debit card payment on June 14 for two copays). Petitioner’s own expert, Dr. Shreeve, conceded that this evidence refutes B.O.’s accusation that her insurer was billed for treatment on four days when she did not go to Respondent’s office for treatment. A separate problem proving this allegation (besides B.O.’s false accusation) is that there is no evidence to prove what was billed to Horizon for B.O.’s treatments. There is no evidence in the record of claims submitted by Respondent’s office to bill Horizon for B.O.’s treatment. In pre-hearing discovery proceedings, shortly before hearing, Petitioner sought to compel production of Medicare claim forms or Horizon claim forms submitted by Respondent’s office. However, Petitioner declined an Order compelling production that was offered along with additional time to pursue this evidence. Instead, Petitioner chose to go forward with the hearing on the basis that there were no such records (as Respondent represented). Another allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that B.O. was not given a copy of her medical records upon request. B.O. testified that she made several verbal requests to two staff persons at Respondent’s office, Lisa14/ and Amanda, for her medical records. She said she was given a copy of her patient ledger, but nothing more. B.O. and R.O. then mailed a letter addressed to Respondent that they jointly wrote on December 31, 2013, requesting their medical records and updated patient ledgers. Respondent said that he was never informed of any verbal requests for records, nor did he believe he ever saw the letter that was mailed to him. Indeed, B.O. handwrote on her file copy of the letter, provided to Petitioner’s investigator: “Letter to Dr. who probably didn’t see – no response to date.” The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent has failed in his obligation to promptly respond to B.O.’s requests for medical records. However, there is no evidence that Respondent was aware of the requests before the investigation and intentionally refused to comply, or that he ever instructed his office staff to ignore such requests. But even though the evidence only establishes that Dr. Aderholdt’s staff failed to promptly respond to requests for medical records, the obligation to ensure these patient requests are promptly addressed remains Dr. Aderholt’s responsibility. It is clear that his office procedures require serious overhauling, as both Dr. Aderholdt and his expert acknowledged. It is unknown if B.O.’s medical records were provided to her when they were produced by Respondent’s counsel during the investigation.15/ In her deposition, when B.O. was asked if she had gotten the records from Respondent’s office yet, she said “not from them.” Among other remedial steps in the aftermath of this proceeding, if B.O. and R.O. do not already have copies of their medical records and updated patient ledgers as they requested long ago, Respondent must provide them. It is concerning that he did not come to this hearing with proof that he had provided B.O. and R.O. with the records they had requested or confirmed that they already had a copy. Lastly, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received payment from Horizon for B.O.’s treatment, but has not provided a refund. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether B.O. is entitled to a refund. The only information regarding the extent to which Horizon covered B.O.’s treatment is the information in the EOBs issued by Horizon after B.O.’s treatment ended, identifying amounts that would be covered and reporting payments to Respondent. For B.O.’s treatments, Horizon paid $1,770.00 to Respondent. What is unknown is whether B.O. owed more for her treatments than what Horizon paid. Dr. LaRusso reasonably opined that the receipt of an insurance payment would not generate an obligation for a patient refund if the payment is applied to a balance due by the patient. No evidence, methodology, or calculation was offered to prove that after Horizon’s payment was applied, a refund was owed to B.O. As noted previously, Respondent’s “patient ledger” is an internal practice management tool that does not function as an accounting of what a patient or insurance company owes. However, the patient ledger for B.O. reflects a total amount of $5,575.00 in services provided to B.O. Application of the Horizon payments of $1,770.00 and B.O.’s payments of $575.00 would reduce the patient ledger amount by less than half. Again, this is not to say that Patient B.O. owes the remaining patient ledger amount, but it is at least a point of reference suggesting the possibility that the Horizon payment did not cover all of B.O.’s treatment costs. Viewed another way, all B.O. paid for 23 treatment sessions was $25.00 per visit. B.O. was informed at the outset that she would not be charged for the full treatments she would be getting, because Horizon would “probably” cover her treatment except for the copay. Although she paid $230.00 more than the amount Horizon ultimately applied as copays, if B.O. owed $230.00 or more for treatment provided that was not covered by Horizon’s payment, then no refund would be due. Patient R.O. As noted previously, Patient R.O. is Patient B.O.’s husband. Like B.O., R.O. was treated by Respondent from April through June 2013. R.O., then a 64-year-old male, sought treatment for severe back pain. R.O. completed the intake form, had x-rays and patient history taken, provided detailed records of recent treatments and surgeries (including back surgery), and was evaluated and examined by Dr. Aderholdt. Dr. Aderholdt determined that R.O. was a candidate for Vax-D therapy. Respondent’s then-office manager, Lisa, took over to address the financial aspects of the recommended treatment. R.O. informed Respondent’s staff that he could not afford to pay $5,500.00 up front. R.O. was given contact information for Care Credit. He called Care Credit, then submitted an application. R.O.’s application was approved, and Care Credit agreed to finance the cost of Vax-D therapy without charging interest if the amount was paid off within one year. R.O. accepted the loan, and the result was that Care Credit paid Respondent $5,500.00 minus a fee absorbed by Respondent, similar to fees by credit card companies charged to merchants for sales using their credit cards. R.O. testified that he has paid off the Care Credit loan. R.O. signed the Vax-D Agreement, by which he committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions at $250.00 per session, for a total payment amount of $5,500.00. His Vax-D Agreement included the treatment package detailed in paragraph 13 above. R.O. testified that during the time of his treatment by Respondent, he had health insurance coverage with Medicare and Horizon (the private Medicare supplement insurance coverage that B.O. also had). He also had Tricare for Life, but said that that coverage would not have been applicable. R.O. recalled that Respondent told him that none of his insurance plans would cover the Vax-D therapy. As previously noted, Respondent does not believe he discussed insurance coverage with R.O., as that is not his standard practice. Regardless, R.O. had no expectation of insurance coverage. R.O. found the Vax-D therapy helpful in relieving his pain. He felt better after every treatment and wanted to continue. Rather than stopping after the 25 to 28 sessions included in the Vax-D Agreement, R.O. had a total of 40 treatment sessions. However, at some point, Respondent’s office manager informed R.O. that he needed to pay for additional sessions. R.O. said he could not afford to pay more, and discontinued treatment. After R.O. discontinued his treatments, he received an EOB from Horizon, stating that Horizon had paid a total of $5,465.84 in claims for both R.O. and B.O. According to the EOB summary, as noted above, $1,770.00 was paid to Respondent for treatments to B.O. The rest--$3,335.84--was paid to two providers for services to R.O. (A minor discrepancy is noted, in that Petitioner’s PRO stated that $3,335.00 was paid to Respondent for treatments to R.O.; however, the EOB reports that $10.84 was paid to a different provider (“Ga Emergency Phys”) for services provided to R.O. Thus, the actual total payment to Respondent for R.O.’s treatment was $3,325.00). The total amount paid to Dr. Aderholdt for R.O.’s 40 Vax-D therapy sessions, including Horizon’s payments, was $8,825.00, an average of $220.63 per session. R.O. believes the insurance payment should be paid to him as reimbursement for part of the $5,500.00 he paid. But that payment was for 25 to 28 sessions. The insurance payment was reasonably applied to the additional amounts due for R.O.’s sessions that were not covered by the $5,500.00 payment. No reason was offered as to why Dr. Aderholdt should not have applied the insurance payment to charges owed for the 12 sessions that were not covered by the Vax-D Agreement. Chiropractic physicians are not required to provide free care. Dr. Shreeve admitted that he does not provide chiropractic care to patients for free. As found above with respect to Patient B.O., R.O. joined B.O. in submitting a written request to Respondent for their medical records and updated patient ledgers by letter dated December 31, 2013, although Respondent said that he did not see the letter that was mailed to him. The findings above with respect to B.O., as one party to the joint written request, apply with equal force to R.O. as the other party to the joint written request. The Administrative Complaint also included an allegation that Respondent failed to practice chiropractic medicine at an acceptable level of skill, care, and treatment, charged as a violation under section 460.413(1)(r). This was the only charge in any of the Administrative Complaints that was based on the care provided by Dr. Aderholdt. The allegation was that adjustments indicated as having been performed on R.O. were physically impossible. However, at hearing, Petitioner’s expert retreated from the allegation, agreeing that the procedure in question was plausible. As a result of his concession, Petitioner’s PRO abandoned the charge, stating, “Petitioner is no longer pursuing discipline for the alleged violation of section 460.413(1)(r).” Pet. PRO at 4. Patient P.D. In March and April 2013, Respondent treated Patient P.D., then a 62-year-old female, for back pain. After completing intake forms and patient history, Patient P.D. was x-rayed, then examined and evaluated by Dr. Aderholdt, who determined that P.D. was a candidate for Vax-D therapy. Dr. Aderholdt turned P.D. over to his then-office manager, Lisa, to address the financial aspects of his recommended treatment plan. P.D. confirmed that Dr. Aderholdt never discussed financial issues or insurance with her. P.D. signed the Vax-D Agreement on March 8, 2013, the same day that she completed a Care Credit application that was approved for $5,500.00. P.D. paid off the Care Credit loan in 11 months, at $500.00 per month, so the loan was interest-free. At the time of the treatments, P.D. was not yet eligible for Medicare. She had insurance coverage through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Blue Cross). P.D. said that Lisa, the office manager, told her that she would file claims with Blue Cross. Thereafter, P.D. had 33 Vax-D therapy sessions. P.D. was pleased with the Vax-D therapy. She found it effective in relieving her pain. P.D. learned at some point from Blue Cross that several months after her treatment ended, Blue Cross paid Respondent for a portion of P.D.’s treatment. No evidence was offered to prove the details of the Blue Cross coverage, such as EOBs explaining what was covered and what was not. P.D. said that she contacted Respondent’s office and spoke with staff multiple times before Respondent provided her reimbursement in the full amount of the Blue Cross payment. Respondent refunded $946.45 on April 8, 2015, and $1,046.45 on April 10, 2015, for a total of $1,992.90. P.D. acknowledged that she has been fully reimbursed and is owed nothing further. The Administrative Complaint includes an allegation that Respondent improperly utilized CPT “billing codes” 99204 and 99212 for P.D.’s first session on March 6, 2013. Dr. Aderholdt admitted that for March 6, 2013, P.D.’s patient ledger incorrectly lists both CPT code 99204 (for a comprehensive examination for a new patient), and CPT code 99212 (for a focused examination for an established patient). The first CPT code should have been the only one entered on this day. The second code was entered by mistake. Although Dr. Aderholdt admitted the error made in the patient ledger, there is no evidence that the erroneous CPT code was “utilized” for billing purposes. No evidence was presented that both CPT codes were submitted by Respondent in a claim for payment to Blue Cross (and Petitioner did not charge Respondent with having submitted a claim to P.D.’s insurer for a service or treatment not provided). No evidence was presented of the actual claims submitted to Blue Cross. No evidence was presented to show that P.D. was ever sent a bill utilizing the referenced CPT codes. The error recording an extra CPT code on P.D.’s patient ledger might throw off Respondent’s internal practice management statistics, but there is no evidence that the admitted CPT coding mistake on the patient ledger was repeated in any claim or bill submitted to anyone. Expert Opinions Considering All Four Cases Both Dr. Shreeve and Dr. LaRusso offered their overall opinions, taking the four cases as a whole. Dr. Shreeve’s Oinions Dr. Shreeve testified that, while he might be more understanding of issues he saw in each individual case, “I’ve got four cases that I reviewed together. I received them all at once. So my view on each individual case might be seen as a little more tolerant of something I saw. But when it becomes repeated, it becomes less understanding [sic].” (Tr. 109). In forming his opinions, Dr. Shreeve relied on allegations that have not been proven, his own extension of the Administrative Complaint allegations to add other concerns about use of CPT codes (which were also shown not to be valid concerns), and his observations about a litany of matters nowhere mentioned or charged in the Administrative Complaints. Dr. Shreeve made clear that he elevated his opinion from concerns about sloppy office practices to fraud, misrepresentation, and patient exploitation, because of matters that were either unproven, not alleged or charged, or both. For example, he injected the concern, shown to be based solely on patient ledgers, that CPT code 99212 appeared many times without the -25 modifier when used in conjunction with an adjustment CPT code. Starting with A.M.’s case, he complained of the repeated use of CPT code 99212 without a -25 modifier, when CPT code 98941 (adjustments) was used for the same office visit. He said, “If we were going to bill 99212, an E/M code with that, we would use a modifier of -25.” (Tr. 110). As previously found, however, Dr. Aderholdt did use the -25 modifier with every entry of CPT code 99212 in the Medicare claim forms. In explaining how his opinion was affected by his misimpression from the patient ledgers that CPT code 99212 was not used with the -25 modifier, he said: This is repeated over and over during the record. If it were one off, it occurred in one place in the ledger or on a form, you know, everybody is human. They can make a mistake. If it is the trend, that becomes not a mistake. That becomes, I’m doing the wrong thing. And if I’m doing it over and over again, and I’m then billing for one service two times, two different ways, and I’m – I hope to get paid for it. Then that’s where I start to see the trend of exploiting the patient for financial gain. (Tr. 111). Dr. Shreeve further elevated the significance of not seeing modifiers with the evaluation codes in the patient ledgers, when he spoke about R.O.’s case: If [Dr. Aderholdt] did both codes [for evaluation and adjustments] every visit, if he did, which is not normal, we would have to have a modifier, the -25, to tell us it’s a reduced service because it’s duplicative. A modifier was never present in any record I saw on this patient or any other patient of the records of Dr. Aderholdt. So misusing the codes. This is not standard of care that we expect, and this appears to me exercising influence on the patient to exploit them for financial gain. That’s what it looks like to me. By the time we’re through with the third case that’s what I see. (Tr. 148). Not only was this CPT coding issue not alleged in any of the four Administrative Complaints, but it is a false accusation. If Dr. Shreeve did not see a single use of CPT code 99212 with the -25 modifier in any record he saw, then he did not look at the records very carefully. As found above, the only evidence of actual claims submitted to any third-party payor--the Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M.--shows that CPT code 99212 was never used without the -25 modifier. But Dr. Shreeve only looked at the patient ledgers for modifiers. As also found above, the only two CPT coding issues that were alleged (improper use on two specified dates of CPT code 98941 for adjusting three or four spinal regions for Patient A.M.; and improper use on Patient P.D.’s first day of service of two patient examination CPT codes for billing purposes) were not proven. Dr. Shreeve also relied on the allegation that Patient B.O.’s insurance carrier was billed for treatment that was not provided. He pointed to “notes” written (by B.O.) on the patient ledger stating that the patient cancelled, but CPT codes were entered for treatments that day. He concluded: That’s blatant. I don’t have a way to explain that away. To me that absolutely says, I billed for something that I didn’t do. That’s fraud. Because that’s with intent. That’s not an accident. (Tr. 137). When Dr. Shreeve was shown the $50.00 debit card receipt signed by Patient B.O. on June 14, 2014, he quickly retreated: “That would indicate that they were there, even though they said they were not. So my apologies for that. It’s good to clear that up.” (Tr. 183). Later, he added that the June 14, 2013, payment of $50.00 was for that visit and the prior visit on June 11, 2013. He explained that this was consistent with Respondent’s daily notes, which identified treatments for each visit and also logged the copay charges by visit and B.O.’s periodic payments. Dr. Shreeve did not explain how he would alter his overall opinion after conceding that what he characterized as blatant fraud by Dr. Aderholdt was actually a false accusation by the patient. In formulating his overall opinion that what otherwise might be viewed as mistakes or sloppy office practice were elevated in his mind to fraud and exploitation, Dr. Shreeve also relied heavily on matters that were neither alleged nor charged in the Administrative Complaints, and, as a result, were not fleshed out with competent evidence in the record. Dr. Shreeve repeatedly alluded to issues regarding trust accounting requirements in statute and rule. The four Administrative Complaints that were issued as directed by the PCP on June 19, 2018 (as noted on the Administrative Complaints), contain no allegations related to trust accounting practices. The PCP-authorized Administrative Complaints do not charge Dr. Aderholdt under the trust accounting statute, section 460.413(1)(y), or the trust accounting rule, Board rule 64B2- 14.001. To the extent Dr. Shreeve’s perception of trust accounting issues contributed to his opinion that these four cases rise to the level of fraud and patient exploitation, that was error, and his opinion must be discounted accordingly. Likewise, Dr. Shreeve gratuitously offered critiques of Dr. Aderholdt’s medical records, including complaints about the handwriting, complaints about x-ray quality, questions about the adequacy of justifications for the course of treatment, and suggestions regarding how he would rewrite SOAP notes. Again, the Administrative Complaints are devoid of allegations directed to the quality or adequacy of Respondent’s medical records, and they are devoid of charges under the medical records provision in section 460.413(1)(m) and the corresponding medical records rule, Board rule 64B2-17.0065. To the extent these critiques contributed to Dr. Shreeve’s opinion that these four cases rise to the level of fraud and patient exploitation, that, too, was error, and his opinion must be discounted accordingly. Dr. Shreeve also relied on what he characterized as Respondent’s failure to respond, or failure to respond quickly enough, to investigative subpoenas. He made it clear that his opinion was greatly influenced by his perception that Respondent intentionally failed to meet his obligations in responding to the investigations: I think this is absolute fraud. The doctor is not wanting to do the right thing, has flagrant disregard for the law, and the statutes and the rules for the profession, for the Department of Health by not responding. (Tr. 153). Despite Dr. Shreeve’s view that he thinks it is “very clear” that Dr. Aderholdt did not respond timely during the investigation, the timeline and details of the investigation were not established by competent evidence; there is only hearsay evidence addressing bits and pieces of that history, with huge gaps and many questions about the reasons for those gaps (if the reasons why investigations were so protracted was relevant). But the details of the investigations are not laid out in the evidentiary record because the Administrative Complaints do not contain factual allegations related to Dr. Aderholdt’s actions or inactions during the investigation process, nor are there any charges predicated on what was or was not done during the investigation process. Either these matters were not presented to the PCP in June 2018 for inclusion in the Administrative Complaints, or they were presented and not included. Either way, Dr. Shreeve’s perception regarding whether Dr. Aderholdt met his legal obligations in responding to the investigations cannot be injected now. It was improper for Dr. Shreeve to consider, and give great weight to, circumstances that were neither alleged nor charged in the PCP-authorized Administrative Complaints. As found above, the proven allegations are that Respondent failed to provide Patient A.M. copies of the claims submitted to Medicare for her treatment (although she may have them now); and Respondent failed to provide copies of the medical records of Patients R.O. and B.O. upon their joint written request (although they may have them now). Only by considering allegations that were not proven and by injecting matters not alleged or charged was Dr. Shreeve able to characterize these four cases as involving the same problems again and again. In terms of the proven allegations, however, the only duplicative finding is with respect to the husband and wife team, in that Respondent did not meet his obligation to promptly respond to their joint request for medical records and updated patient ledgers. The matters considered by Dr. Shreeve beyond the allegations and charges in the Administrative Complaints were also improperly used by Dr. Shreeve to buttress his view that two disciplinary actions against Dr. Aderholdt based on facts arising in 2005 and 2006, raised “the same or similar” issues. Dr. Shreeve’s attempt to draw parallels between the prior actions and these four cases was unpersuasive. Dr. LaRusso disagreed with the characterization of the two prior actions as similar to the issues presented here. Dr. LaRusso’s opinion is credited. A comparison of the allegations, ultimately resolved by stipulated agreement in two 2008 Final Orders, confirms Dr. LaRusso’s view in this regard. The first disciplinary action was based on Respondent’s treatment of one patient in February 2005. An administrative complaint alleged that Respondent failed to complete intake forms, take the patient’s history, and conduct a sufficient examination to support the diagnosis. Respondent was charged with violating section 460.413(1)(m) by not having adequate medical records. The same facts gave rise to a second count of violating section 460.413(1)(ff) (violating any provision of chapters 456 or 460, or any rules adopted pursuant to those chapters), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0065, which elaborates on the requirements for adequate medical records. There is no repetition of these statutory and rule violations charged in any of the four Administrative Complaints at issue here. The prior administrative complaint also alleged that Respondent billed the patient he saw in 2005 for neuromuscular reeducation and therapeutic exercises, when neither Respondent’s notes nor the SOAP notes reflected those services. In these cases, the only allegation regarding discrepancies between billing records and physician/SOAP notes is the allegation as to Patient A.M. that on two dates, Respondent used the CPT code for adjustments to three or four spinal regions, whereas the SOAP notes reflected adjustments to only one region. The prior disciplinary action supports the findings above that Respondent’s notes must also be considered, in addition to the SOAP notes, to determine what services A.M. received on those two days. A different kind of billing discrepancy allegation in Case No. 18-4485 is the claim that Respondent billed B.O.’s insurer for treatment on days on which services were allegedly never provided. This allegation was not proven, as found above. B.O.’s accusation that Respondent falsely charged for treatment on several days when no treatment was provided was itself proven to be a false charge. Perhaps Dr. Shreeve was thinking of this allegation, based on B.O.’s false charge, when he characterized the 2005 incident as involving the same or similar problems that he saw here. The allegation in the prior complaint was that the patient was actually billed for services not provided, and a refunded was ordered. At first, Dr. Shreeve believed the same was true in B.O.’s case. However, he later retreated and acknowledged that B.O. had not been truthful in her accusation. The only other allegation of a billing discrepancy in any of the four cases at issue was not a billing discrepancy at all, but rather, a CPT coding error on P.D.’s patient ledger that was not billed to anyone. As Dr. Shreeve noted, in the prior disciplinary action, Respondent agreed to be put on probation with a requirement that he practice with a monitor. Dr. Shreeve explained that the monitor would have worked with Respondent “to help this doctor not do the same behaviors that got them into trouble.” In his view, these four cases show that Dr. Aderholdt did not learn his lesson from the monitor “not to do the same problems again.” As he put it, “That really flips me rather quickly to think there’s a question of fraud.” (Tr. 152-153). To the contrary, whereas Respondent was faulted for not having intake records, patient histories, and appropriate examinations to support his diagnosis and recommended treatment plan in February 2005, no such issues were raised in these Administrative Complaints. Dr. Aderholdt did learn his lesson. The medical records for the four patients at issue include patient intake forms, patient histories, evaluations, and examinations that were not alleged to be inadequate. Nor was there any repetition of the problem with billing a patient for treatment or services that were not documented in the medical records taken as a whole, including Dr. Aderholt’s notes. The other disciplinary action resolved by settlement in a 2008 Final Order involved an advertising issue. The Department alleged that Respondent improperly advertised as a specialist in Vax-D disc therapy when the Board does not recognize any such specialty. The Department also found fault in the failure of the advertising to disclose the usual fee. The Department also critiqued an advertisement for identifying a different practice location than Respondent’s practice address of record. The charges were under section 460.413(1)(d), (cc), and (ff); rule 64B2-15.001(2)(e) and (i); and rule 64B2-10.0055. Quite plainly, this prior action bears no similarity to the four Administrative Complaints at issue here. No such allegations or charges were raised here. Dr. Shreeve did not contend that this prior action bears any similarity to the four cases here. Dr. Shreeve was never asked for his opinion as to the type or level of discipline he believes is warranted in these cases. However, his “flip” to “fraud,” due to the perceived repetitive nature of the issues in the four cases (whether charged or not)--which he characterized as the “same problems” in 2005 that resulted in discipline--was the basis for Petitioner proposing the most severe penalty available: license revocation, plus substantial fines and assessments of fees and costs. Dr. LaRusso’s Opinions Dr. LaRusso served as a Board member for multiple terms, and is a past-chair. After leaving the Board, he continued to serve on probable cause panels as recently as 2017. Having reviewed and been involved in thousands of disciplinary matters, he was of the strong opinion that nothing in the four Administrative Complaints warrant discipline at the level being sought here. Imposing a severe penalty in these four cases would be out of line with the Board’s prior practice in disciplinary matters. Dr. LaRusso’s studied review of all of the depositions and records in this case led him to opine that there is no evidence that Dr. Aderholdt deceived his patients, committed fraud, or engaged in double-billing or overbilling. Instead, Dr. LaRusso saw evidence of sloppy office practices, which he attributed to Dr. Aderholdt’s poor management skills. He has seen many doctors like Dr. Aderholdt over the years who just want to deal with taking care of patients. They do not want to have anything to do with administrative and clerical responsibilities. Instead, they leave everything besides patient care to their office manager and staff. In Dr. LaRusso’s view, Dr. Aderholdt’s office protocols and procedures require serious fine-tuning. He believes that Dr. Aderholdt would benefit from re-education in billing and collection practices, as well as laws and rules. He needs to ensure that procedures are in place, and followed, for prompt responses to patient requests for medical records or for claims sent to third-party payors. At the same time, however, Dr. LaRusso reasonably characterized the four cases as involving billing, clerical, communication, and correspondence issues. It bears emphasis that Dr. Aderholdt’s patient care is not in question. There are no issues of endangering the public, where a doctor is doing things that will hurt people, doing something dangerous or sexually inappropriate. Those are the cases where it is appropriate to go after someone’s livelihood, when the person does not belong in the profession. Dr. LaRusso observed that, rather than endangering the public, Dr. Aderholdt was helping his patients by relieving their pain, according to their own testimony. Dr. LaRusso agreed to become involved in this case because he found it so incongruous that the Department would be pursuing this action apparently to try to take Dr. Aderholdt’s license. Dr. LaRusso noted that the four investigations against Dr. Aderholdt were originally being spearheaded by a prior prosecutor for the Department (to whom Respondent’s counsel mailed CDs of patient records in 2014), and that the cases were assigned to Dr. Willis, who was a favored expert witness for the Department. Dr. LaRusso alluded to “inappropriate issues” with the prosecutor and expert that led to the Board having to pay a large award of attorneys’ fees and costs for pursuing discipline against Dr. Christian. According to Dr. LaRusso, those issues ultimately led to the prosecutor and expert being discharged from these cases. There is no evidence as to when or why Dr. Willis was replaced with Dr. Shreeve. Dr. Willis apparently was involved long enough to prepare an expert report. But then, according to Dr. LaRusso, the cases went dormant for a long period of time. The bits and pieces of hearsay evidence in the file comport with this understanding: there were four investigations that began upon complaints in 2014 by the four patients about billing and records issues; documents were collected from Respondent and from the patients; and Investigative Reports were issued, all before 2014 was over. It is unknown when Dr. Willis was involved, when he prepared his expert report, or when he was discharged from the cases. It is unknown when Dr. Shreeve was retained, but there was plainly some duplication of work, in that Dr. Shreeve prepared his own expert report. Neither expert report is in evidence. There is no evidence of any additional investigation or follow-up documentation from the patients or otherwise. There is no evidence of what was presented to the PCP--just that the panel met on June 19, 2018, and authorized the four Administrative Complaints issued on June 20, 2018. While this background is a bit of a curiosity, without impermissible speculation, the most that can be said about this history is that the protracted period of time from investigation to the PCP submission that resulted in issuance of the Administrative Complaints is apparently due, at least in large part, to the turnover in the prosecution-expert witness team assignments. Dr. LaRusso did not persuasively demonstrate grounds to cast nefarious aspersions on the Department for continuing forward with its investigation. One might reasonably question whether the Department dropped the ball, so to speak, in not updating its investigation, given the extended period of dormancy. For example, the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 18-4487 incorrectly alleged that P.D. was not reimbursed, when any cursory check with P.D. would have revealed the “news” that she had been repaid in April 2015, more than three years before the Administrative Complaint was authorized by the PCP. Dr. LaRusso may reasonably debate, as he did, whether the charges lodged against Respondent are inappropriate. And Dr. LaRusso may certainly question, as he did in convincing fashion, whether the discipline apparently being sought is unduly harsh, uncalled for, and way out of line with Board practice. But there is no basis in this record for attributing bad motives to the Department for prosecuting the Administrative Complaints. Dr. LaRusso’s opinions regarding the nature of the violations proven and the appropriate discipline in scale with those violations were more persuasive that Dr. Shreeve’s opinions. Dr. LaRusso’s opinions are credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine: In Case No. 18-4484PL: Dismissing Counts I, II, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(aa), as charged in Count III; In Case No. 18-4485PL: Dismissing Counts I, III, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0055(1), as charged in Count II; In Case No. 18-4486PL: Dismissing Counts II, III, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0055(1), as charged in Count II; In Case No. 18-4487PL, dismissing Counts I and II; Placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years, with conditions deemed appropriate by the Board; Imposing a fine of $3,000.00; Requiring continuing education deemed appropriate by the Board; and Requiring payment of the costs of investigation and prosecution of the charges on which violations were found. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 February, 2018.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety by reason of illness, or physical or mental condition, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes (2008, 2009)1/, and if so, what penalty or restriction should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has been a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 33042. She is board certified in internal medicine and has never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding against her Florida license. Dr. Sharpe's mailing address of record during the time relevant to these proceedings was 6603 San Juan Avenue, #1, Jacksonville, Florida 32210, and she practiced medicine at this address. On November 8, 2008, Detective Elaina Gonzales of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Narcotics Division was investigating a complaint that a patient, E.R., might be "doctor shopping." As part of that investigation, Detective Gonzales contacted Dr. Sharpe to see if E.R. was a patient of hers. When Dr. Sharpe confirmed that E.R. had been a patient for a couple of months, Detective Gonzales asked her to locate the chart so that they could verify what medications E.R. had received and the dates they had been prescribed. Dr. Sharpe related that she could not locate the chart at that time, because she was at the office alone, was in a wheelchair, and was very ill with "African fever." Detective Gonzales asked her whether she required her patients to sign pain contracts, and Dr. Sharpe indicated that she did not believe in them. The conversation, which was by telephone, left Detective Gonzales "uneasy," and she found Dr. Sharpe's responses to be strange, in that she appeared to be confused and would answer questions in a tangential manner that was hard to follow. On January 19, 2009, two and a half months later, Detective Gonzales arrested two suspects who attempted to fill fraudulent prescriptions at Panama Pharmacy. During the arrest, there was a search of the suspects' vehicle, and a blank prescription pad bearing Dr. Sharpe's name was seized, along with a prescription for 60 pills of Oxycontin 80 mg dated January 20, 2009, taken from suspect G.L.'s wallet. Four other prescriptions G.L. attempted to fill were recovered from pharmacies. All four were on printed prescription forms bearing Dr. Sharpe's name. The handwriting on the four prescriptions recovered from various pharmacies, while on Dr. Sharpe's prescription pad, is not consistent with the handwriting from prescriptions that Dr. Sharpe identified as ones she wrote. Detective Gonzales attempted to contact Dr. Sharpe to verify whether she wrote the prescriptions on January 19, 2009, but was unable to contact her. The next day, she called Dr. Sharpe and asked whether G.L. was a patient, which Dr. Sharpe confirmed. Detective Gonzales asked Respondent if she post-dated prescriptions, which she denied. Gonzales asked Dr. Sharpe to locate the chart so that she could verify when prescriptions were written for G.L. Dr. Sharpe indicated that she could not find the file, that she did not have an office staff and that she was ill and by herself. Detective Gonzales tried to impress on Dr. Sharpe the importance of verifying the prescriptions, because she had two suspects sitting in jail, and indicated that she would be coming to the office to have Dr. Sharpe look at the prescriptions. Dr. Sharp became upset and at first stated she would not open the door because she was sick. Eventually, she relented and gave instructions for the detective to let the phone ring three times in order for her to gain entrance to the office. Upon Detective Gonzales' arrival at the office at approximately 2:00 p.m. on January 20, 2009, she found Respondent in a wheelchair, wearing a nightgown and socks with no shoes. Dr. Sharpe asked Detective Gonzales to wear gloves so she would not get sick. At the time Detective Gonzales arrived, there was a woman in the reception area who Dr. Sharpe described as helping her. Detective Gonzales observed a patient waiting area and reception area that was cluttered and disorganized. The area appeared to include both household and office furniture, and the reception area contained what appeared to be piles of medical charts. Detective Gonzales showed Dr. Sharpe the prescriptions retrieved from G.L. and from the pharmacies. Dr. Sharpe denied writing the prescriptions presented to the pharmacies and described in paragraph 7. She identified the prescription to G.L. dated January 20, 2009, taken from G.L.'s wallet, as being a prescription she wrote. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 3). When Detective Gonzales asked Dr. Sharpe why she post- dated the prescription, Dr. Sharpe became upset with her, and started telling a story that did not answer the question. Gonzales asked to see the patient's file, and Dr. Sharpe could not find it. Detective called DEA Drug Diversion Investigator Lutz while she was at the office, because she wanted to have someone else observe what she had observed. While she waited for Investigator Lutz to arrive, she sat with Dr. Sharpe and talked, and the woman helping Dr. Sharpe continued to look for G.L.'s file. The file was never located during this visit. During this time, a couple arrived with soup for Dr. Sharpe. Once Investigator Lutz arrived, Detective Gonzales left the reception area to search for a restroom. While in the back part of the building, she observed a room with a bed and a TV on, along with a dresser and clothes. It appeared to Detective Gonzales that Dr. Sharpe was living out of her office. Detective Gonzales asked Dr. Sharpe if she was living in her office, and Respondent said she would stay at the office for a couple of days, because she could not get up and down the stairs at her home. Investigator Lutz has since married, and is now known as Investigator Walters. She and another DEA agent arrived at the office while Detective Gonzales was still present. She also confirmed that Dr. Sharpe was in a wheelchair, wearing a nightgown and robe, and that she did not appear to be feeling well. She also confirmed that the office was disorganized. Dr. Sharpe also asked her and her partner to wear gloves because she was concerned she might be contagious. Investigator Walters was concerned that Dr. Sharpe was not in any condition to be seeing patients. She asked Dr. Sharpe if she was in fact seeing patients, and Dr. Sharpe indicated she was not feeling well, and had been sick for a while, but was seeing patients when she was able. Given her age and the comments regarding her health, Investigator Walters asked Dr. Sharpe if she had thought about retiring. Dr. Sharpe was upset by the question and said she had not thought about doing so. Investigator Walters also indicated that Dr. Sharpe rarely answered a question directly. She would start to, then go off on a tangent about something in her past, and indicated that she thought she had some type of African Fever. Investigator Walters felt the interview was not productive, and Dr. Sharpe kept stressing how poorly she felt, so Investigator Walters asked Dr. Sharpe to contact her in the next couple of weeks. Dr. Sharpe left Investigator Walters one voice message. When Investigator Walters tried to return the call, sometime in February, she reached the answering service and was informed that Dr. Sharpe was still sick. Detective Gonzales also attempted to contact Dr. Sharpe after the January 20 visit. Each time, Dr. Sharpe's answering service indicated that she was ill. A prescription bearing Dr. Sharpe's signature was written for patient D.T. on March 3, 2009. The prescription was for 480 pills of Oxycontin 15mg. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Two other prescriptions written for D.T. on Dr. Sharpe's prescription pad were subsequently recovered from Walgreen's pharmacy and are included in the record as Petitioner's Exhibit One, dated March 5, 2009, was for 360 pills of Oxycontin 40mg. The second, dated April 2, 2009, was also for 360 pills of Oxycontin 40mg. While no testimony was presented indicating that Dr. Sharpe ever confirmed that she had written the two prescriptions described above and contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the handwriting appears to be the same as that on the prescription in Petitioner's Exhibit 6, which Dr. Sharpe confirmed was her handwriting. On March 25, 2009, Investigator Wendy Foy of DOH notified Dr. Sharpe by letter that she was under investigation. Dr. Sharpe was advised that she had 45 days to submit a written response and to contact the office to schedule an interview, if she chose. The letter also requested that she provide a copy of her curriculum vitae. The 45-day period for filing a response would have required that any response be filed by May 9, 2009. Dr. Sharpe called in response to the letter. She appeared to be aggravated that the Department was investigating her, and referred to Detective Gonzales as "a loud mouth detective" who barged in her office, demanding to see information. She told Ms. Foy that she would be providing a written response to the complaint, but said she had been sick for weeks. Ms. Foy called Respondent again because she had not received a response, although the timing of the phone call is not clear. Dr. Sharpe stated that she had been sick and was in the process of writing her response and sending it to her typist. Dr. Sharpe's response was received by the Department on April 28, 2009. The response are as follows:2/ The delay in response is not dismissive. I needed to gather facts and explain myself while considering the facts you need. One thing I find interesting is "confidential" at the top of your letter. The detective -- whose name I don't recall -- I referred to her as "the mouth" acted as a bully here and told me by phone that I pass out medication "like candy" (news to my patients) before I ever met her. She has told pharmacists around the Westside that I am under investigation. They've told my patients. My patients have told me. I have explained to the patients that it is appropriate, if there is a question, to have an investigation. That is the right and the job of the State to protect them. However, she was unprofessional and demonstrated inability or unwillingness; definitely unworthiness to keep a confidence. There is another narcotics detective in the JSO that I work with very well. I have, on occasion, had a questionable prescription. When this happened I reported to her and fired the patient. . . . If indeed the patient IS a patient. You may be interested in the fact that I fly in the dark as I've talked to some of my colleagues. We don't get notified of people that are using narcotics or selling things or anything. If I were a gun salesman or a pawn broker I would have a hot list. I'm supposed to know to spot criminals when what I see are patients that are sick. This whole system is remarkable. It's "gotcha", but that's for another letter. On the day that the questionable detective demanded entry, I had already placed myself in isolation. That is the only thing a good citizen would do with a severe virus to keep it from spreading. Two volunteer friends were sorting out the mail and "shuffling papers". They were friends NOT regular employees or "trained medical assistants." She had them terrified standing over them. She claimed to be waiting for a partner. She was waiting for the DEA. They insisted on entry as well. Before the detective came I had told my helpers I was exhausted and needed a nap. I never got dressed that day. I wore a nightgown and a thermal blanket which is better than a housecoat as I am in a wheelchair. . . . yet they pressed on. Why she lied leaves me mystified, where was I going? I met them all at the door with a box of rubber gloves because, again, I tried to protect anyone else from this terrible virus which kept me out of work for weeks. The DEA asked questions like "what do you give to a new patient?" Well teaching for four years in the United States Peace Corps and before that in Watts before the riots, I believed that there was no such thing as a dumb question but that sure is one. In my diminished state I waited for the rest of the question. An example would be, maybe, presentation of a case. When that did not come I told them all to leave. They were "kicking me when I was down". You've asked about the chart they demanded. My terrified helpers were separated from me and looked everywhere. I didn't know what the problem was as they were in the business office and I was in the waiting room. I NEVER SAW THE PATIENT SHE REQUESTED AS THERE WAS NO CHART. He was due several days later. (Please see the page from my calendar) There were two charts requested, G.L. was going to be seen on February 3, 2009 as a new patient. I never saw him. The other chart they requested was R.G. That chart was taken. I want it back. I have no receipt. I don't know what this woman thinks she knows but she is destructive and inefficient in her gang buster method. We're not used to this. The JSO is better than she is. I recently had the pleasure to write some lovely letters to Sheriff Rutherford regarding some of his staff when I suffered a felony. I never planned to write about this individual or her demeanor. "If you can't say something nice . . .". She is, however, a disgrace and I guess I need to defend myself and let you know the details so that you can come to your own conclusion. The detective demanded two charts. R.G., she took the chart and did not give it back. I've not seen him again, anyway. G.L. They came in on January 15th or 16th -- I'm unsure as I said and he was due to come in for a new patient evaluation (2 hours) on February 3, 2009 at 2:00 pm. If this signifies giving out medicine like candy then I guess it is. As a double check I asked my transcriptionist for a history and physical from her computer memory and there was no such patient as G.L. I've never seen him. I hope this explains your legitimate concerns and her attempt to build a case from thin air. I don't know what she thinks she knows. I do request all of the reports if I can get them as you said is my right. Further, I have such an extensive Curriculum Vitae. I cleaned it up as I don't put everything in it. I don't even know if I have one right now. I have to reconstruct it as nobody asks for them. I will ask my transcriptionist if she has one in memory. As a blind copy I'm going to send you the letters that I've sent the Sheriff because it has a couple of things from my background anyway and my awe of the police force and the JSO here. I don't have an attitude toward them, just her. She is an outlier certainly. Thank you for opportunity to respond to your concerns. Sincerely yours, (signed) Isabella K. Sharpe, M.D. Isabella K. Sharpe, M.S.M.D.,F.A.C.P. Dr. Sharpe's written response differs from Detective Gonzales' and Investigator Walters' accounts of the events in several respects. For example, she identifies the date of their visit to be January 15 or 16, as opposed to January 20. She claims that Detective Gonzales retrieved a chart for a patient R.G. when there has been no testimony about such a patient. She claims that she never saw patient G.L. when Detective Gonzales testified that Respondent confirmed G.L. was her patient and identified the signature on his January 20, 2009, prescription as her signature. She claimed to be "separated" from her volunteers and unable to know what they were looking for, when all testimony indicates that the rooms involved are adjacent, with an opening between them. Detective Gonzalez' and Investigator Walters' testimony is credited. On June 23, 2009, DOH Investigator Foy as well as Investigative Manager Charles Coates went to Respondent's office to serve a subpoena for patient records. The Investigators had arranged previously for an appointment with Respondent for 12 o'clock sharp. When they arrived for the appointment, there were approximately seven or eight people in the waiting area, but appeared to be no one working in the reception area. Within 15 minutes of the investigators' arrival, all but two or three of the people in the waiting room left the office without seeing Respondent. Despite having a noon appointment with Respondent, the investigators waited for approximately an hour to see her. During that entire time, no one appeared to be attending the reception area. It was not only unattended, but it appeared to the investigators that the area was in disarray. There were files stacked that appeared to be medical records in different areas on the counters, in no apparent order. The files were readily accessible to anyone seeking to look at them. Respondent finally appeared after the investigators had waited an hour. Once again, she appeared in a wheelchair with socks and no shoes. She attempted to conduct her interview with the DOH investigators in the patient waiting area in front of the remaining people waiting there. Mr. Coates advised her that the interview should be conducted in private, so the investigators and Respondent moved to the back of the building. During the interview, Dr. Sharpe confirmed that E.R., T.D. and S.D.T. (also referred to as D.T.) were her patients. Mr. Coates presented her with a prescription dated March 3, 2009, for 480 pills of Oxycontin 15mg, referenced in finding of fact Dr. Sharpe confirmed that D.T. was her patient, and that the prescription bore her signature, but that she "must have been out of it" when she wrote the prescription. She volunteered that she had been sick for weeks at a time. Subsequent to the June 23, 2009, interview, Investigator Foy contacted Dr. Sharpe about the records that were the subject of the subpoena. Dr. Sharpe indicated that she did not have time to get them and she wanted to get a volunteer to get the copies to DOH. She also told the investigator that one of her prescription pads was missing prescriptions from the middle of the pad. Dr. Sharpe apparently believed the prescriptions were taken by a volunteer, whom she "fired" by not treating the volunteer any longer. No evidence was presented to indicate that any of the subpoenaed records were ever supplied to the Department. On September 18, 2009, Dr. Sharpe was evaluated by George M. Joseph, M.D., a board certified psychiatrist. Dr. Joseph has been licensed in Florida since 1970, and has performed evaluations for the Professionals Resource Network (PRN) since the mid '80's. In addition to interviewing Dr. Sharpe for 90 minutes, Dr. Joseph administered the MMPI and reviewed investigative materials supplied by the Department and chronicled in the collateral history section of Dr. Joseph's report to the Department (See Petitioner's Exhibit 10). Dr. Sharpe related to Dr. Joseph that her general health was affected when 17 years ago she received vancomycin, a very powerful antibiotic, for an infection. The medicine caused renal failure and neurotoxicity, which in turn caused severe vertigo from which she still suffers. As a result, she is confined to a wheelchair. Dr. Sharpe also indicated to Dr. Joseph that she self-prescribes medicine for a pituitary tumor, and for hypothyroidism. During his interview with Dr. Sharpe, they talked about several topics, including her reaction to Detective Gonzales and the DOH investigation; her prescribing practices; and her office management style. With respect to her prescribing practices, Dr. Sharpe acknowledged treating a number of patients who suffer from severe pain, and indicated that "I have to believe my patient," regarding their reporting of pain. She also stated her belief that other physicians were not giving patients the medication they needed, and that she did, enabling patients to have a better quality of life. She acknowledged that she is not a pain management specialist. Dr. Joseph also noted that in the interview, Dr. Sharpe's thought process was circumstantial and digressive, with reference to previous life experiences as opposed to analyzing a question and discussing it directly. Dr. Joseph opined that Dr. Sharpe has an Axis II, personality disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), with marked characteristics of hyperthymia. A personality disorder, NOS, is recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) under diagnostic number 301.9. Hyperthymia is a personality temperament that would be characterized by a prominently upbeat mood, and a person who admits to very few, if any problems. A person who is hyperthymic is overly enthusiastic and upbeat, exuberant, grandiose and talkative. Such a person minimizes the effect of any negative situations and always try to portray herself in a positive light, believing she can "trump" the applicable rules with rules they fashion themselves. A personality temperament becomes indicative of a personality disorder where, as here, it has some affect on a person's functioning occupationally or socially, or both. Dr. Joseph opined that Dr Sharpe is unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety. He reached this ultimate opinion because, in his view, her personality disorder creates a tendency on her part to form judgments about prescribing to pain patients that can be idiosyncratic and excessive, and impairs her clinical judgment. The impairment of her clinical judgment impairs her ability to discern legitimate patients from patients who are manipulating physicians for medications. This represents a danger to patients by the prescription of excessive amounts of medication with possible misuse by those receiving them. Dr. Joseph also opined that Dr. Sharpe's personality disorder impairs her ability to maintain adequate medical records for her patients, and to maintain an orderly practice. He based this opinion on her failure to maintain boundaries with her patients, as illustrated by her using patients as "volunteers" in her office, and her inability to retrieve records when requested. These failures present, in his view, a danger to patients because of the failure to maintain adequate records for providing a history of medications prescribed, any side effects to those medications, and the patient's ongoing treatment. With pain management patients, the need for accurate and available medical records is especially important. In other words, Respondent displayed a cavalier attitude with respect to both prescribing pain medication and recordkeeping, in areas that the medical profession generally regards as very serious, controlled and organized. The Respondent did not present any expert testimony to rebut Dr. Joseph's view. Dr. Joseph's opinion that Respondent cannot practice with reasonable skill and safety at this time is accepted.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a final order finding that Respondent is unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety by virtue of a mental condition, as proscribed in Section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent's license to practice medicine be suspended, until such time as she demonstrates that she can practice with reasonable skill and safety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 1st day of December, 2009.
The Issue Should Respondent's license to practice podiatric medicine be disciplined for failure to keep required written medical records, for prescribing or dispensing legend drugs other than in the course of his professional podiatric practice, for failing to practice as a reasonably prudent podiatric physician, and for practicing beyond the scope of his license?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of podiatric medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 461, Florida Statutes. Dr. McNally has been licensed without interruption to practice podiatry in the State of Florida since October 22, 1996. He has not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Podiatry. Dr. McNally was licensed as a podiatrist in the State of Florida by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) in October 1996. He was born on June 19, 1969. Ms. Sara Helen Lowe, a pharmacist, is an inspector for AHCA. She conducted a survey of pharmacies in the vicinity of Destin and Ft. Walton area and discovered that Respondent had written multiple prescriptions for legend drugs which were in the name of Patient B.R. She also determined from her survey that Respondent had prescribed the legend drug Phentermine for six of his patients. A legend drug is a drug for which a prescription is required and includes Schedule II controlled substances under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. A Schedule II controlled substance is a pharmaceutical which has medical uses and also has a potential for being abused. Mrs. B.R. is the wife of Patient B.R. She was aware that her husband received numerous prescriptions from Dr. McNally for multiple drugs including oxycodone and methadone in 1998 and 1999. Mrs. B.R. was aware that her husband had an open wound on his foot for several years. She was also aware that he suffered chronic and severe pain from this condition. Mrs. B.R. was concerned about the amount of drugs being consumed by Patient B.R. and discussed this matter with Dr. McNally. During this conversation, Dr. McNally told her that, "B.R. was in chronic pain, and that the amount of medication that B.R. took was basically B.R.'s problem." Mrs. B.R. was angry with regard to the amount and type of drugs which were prescribed by Dr. McNally. However, she thought that during this time his foot wound was improving. Mrs. B.R. was aware that Dr. McNally brought drugs to patient B.R.'s hospital room when patient B.R. was hospitalized in November of 1998. Mrs. B.R. was aware that her husband was hospitalized on an emergency basis for an overdose of Tegrital, a drug designed to combat seizures. This drug was not prescribed by Dr. McNally. It was prescribed by another doctor. The pain that patient B.R. suffered caused a hardship in Mrs. B.R.'s home but she preferred that he take the pain medication rather than see him suffer. Patient B.R. lives in Destin with his wife. He is receiving disability payments due to a hip replacement, a knee replacement, and an ulcer on his right foot. In an effort to relieve the pain in B.R.'s foot Respondent prescribed Oxycodone, Endodan, Endocet, Methadone, Roxicet, Roxiprin, Percocet, Oxycontin, Morphine Sulfate Er, MS Contin, Oramorph SR, and Roxicodone. All of these are forms of oxycodone, methadone, or morphine, alone, or in combinations with acetaminophen. Dr. McNally prescribed approximately 8,705 units of oxycodone, 250 units of methadone, and 510 units of morphine for patient B.R. during the eighteen-month period he treated him. These drugs were prescribed to him subsequent to his first visit to Dr. McNally in 1997. All of the foregoing drugs are Schedule II controlled substances pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Patient B.R. obtained prescriptions during office visits and by telephoning Dr. McNally. When B.R. called Dr. McNally the doctor would ask him what drugs he wished to have and B.R. would tell him. Dr. McNally would then provide the prescription to a pharmacy telephonically. On at least one occasion the prescription was left inside the screen door of Dr. McNally's dwelling for Patient B.R. to pick up. Office visits were on some occasions made at the offices of Dr. Haire from which Dr. McNally occasionally practiced. During office visits Dr. McNally would sometimes take B.R.'s temperature. He checked B.R.'s vital signs approximately every six months. Patient B.R. got prescriptions from Dr. McNally when Dr. McNally was on an extended trip to Europe in early 1998 or 1999. While Patient B.R. was a patient in the local hospital, Dr. McNally brought him drugs because the pain medication provided by the hospital was inadequate. Dr. McNally brought the drugs to his hospital room four or five times. He bought these drugs with patient B.R.'s credit cards. Patient B.R. was in the hospital November 9 through 17, 1998. Dr. McNally submitted insurance claims for patient B.R. for a portion of the time he was treating patient B.R. but eventually stopped. Patient B.R. stopped seeing Dr. McNally. Subsequently, a therapist, Sherry Levitis, recommended that patient B.R. attend a pain management center in New Orleans. As a result of his attendence there he experienced a decrease in needle-like pains. The pain management succeeded in getting B.R. to gradually reduce the amount of pain-killing drugs that he was ingesting. Patient B.R. never received any drug rehabilitation. The pain management clinic taught him that he could get by without the aid of drugs. Patient B.R. went to different pharmacies to have his prescriptions filled because he thought they would question the amount if he received too many drugs from the same business. He was advised by Dr. McNally to avoid making frequent visits to the same pharmacy. Patient B.R. never shared the drugs he obtained with others. The use of these drugs changed patient B.R.'s personality and caused domestic difficulties. He became dependent on the drugs. Buying the drugs was a financial strain. At the time of the hearing patient B.R. still was suffering from the ulcer on his right foot. Though he has had surgery on the ulcer three times, it has not healed. Patient B.R. believes his emergency trip to the hospital was the result of his taking Tegrital which is an anti- seizure medicine. He believes he should have coordinated the taking of this medicine with Dr. McNally and that his failure to do so was the cause of the medical event which resulted in emergency hospitalization. The medical doctor who prescribed the Tegrital never asked him if he was taking other medications. Numerous efforts were made by Dr. McNally to address patient B.R.'s foot condition and the resultant pain, including surgery, orthotics, and pain management efforts. The drugs prescribed by Dr. McNally enabled patient B.R. to get off of his couch and live a more normal life. Patient B.R. had better results in addressing his pain and treating his ulcer with Dr. McNally than with any other doctor. At the insistence of Petitioner, Dr. McNally supplied to Petitioner what he claimed to be patient records in the case of B.R. Petitioner believed these records to be phony. Dr. McNally prescribed Phentermine to patients and asserted that he believed it would enhance circulation in the lower extremities. Dr. McNally has been out of the country often and has prescribed drugs for patients in the United States while he was physically located in Italy. Dr. McNally prescribed drugs for patient B.R. while in Europe. He provided patient B.R. with numerous prescriptions for limited amounts because he did not want him to have too many drugs in his possession at once. Dr. McNally, at the time of the hearing, was not accepting new patients but was continuing to treat some old ones. He no longer carries malpractice insurance. Dr. McNally claimed that the medical records in the case of patient B.R., records which he supplied to ACHA at ACHA's request, were prepared by him either at the time of patient B.R.'s visits, a few days after a visit, or several days after a visit. Dr. McNally used the word "analgesic" when preparing records on patient B.R. He did not enter the actual names of the drugs. "Analgesic" could encompass all drugs which relieve pain. Dr. McNally turned to pharmaceuticals in B.R.'s case because he had tried all available alternative treatments without success. Dr. McNally prescribed drugs for the benefit of patient B.R. in the belief that he was doing what was best for his patient. Barry C. Blass, D.P.M., testified. He is an expert in the field of podiatry. Dr. Blass reviewed the evidence with regard to Dr. McNally and his treatment of patient B.R. and with regard to Dr. McNally's prescriptions of Phentermine for six patients. The pain-relieving drugs prescribed by Dr. McNally for B.R. were far in excess of an amount which would be appropriate. The amounts of legend drugs prescribed were about double that permitted by the instructions contained on the container. Dr. Blass reviewed 229 pages of office notes addressing the treatment of patient B.R. which purported to encompass the period January 2, 1998 through September 29, 1999. Almost all of the notes were identical with the exception of the dates. For the notes to be legitimate, patient B.R. would have had to visit Dr. McNally every day during October 1998 and almost everyday on several other months. It is a deficiency for a physician to fail to note on office notes that a patient has been prescribed legend drugs. The standard of care requires a physician to sign office notes. Respondent did not sign his notes. Additionally, the office notes were inconsistent with the hospital records of B.R., in that they indicated treatment in Dr. McNally's office when in fact B.R. was on those dates resident in a hospital. The office notes provided by the Respondent were manufactured, are not authentic, were not prepared at or near a time of an actual office visit, if there was an office visit, and are not, therefore, actual medical records addressing the treatment of patient B.R. It is inappropriate for a physician to bring drugs into a hospital for the use of a hospitalized patient. Phentermine is a diet drug which has no podiatric uses and therefore should not be prescribed by a podiatrist. Phentermine is usually prescribed as a remedy for exogenous obesity. Thomas L. Hicks, M.D., is an expert in the field of medicine. His testimony was provided by deposition. Dr. Hicks reviewed the medical records supplied by Dr. McNally, and provided expert opinions based on that review. It is inappropriate for a podiatrist to prescribe Phentermine. Respondent's prescriptions for Phentermine were unsafe and in excess of the customary dosages recommended by the manufacturer. By writing these prescriptions, Dr. McNally practiced outside of the scope of his license. The amount of Schedule II drugs prescribed for patient B.R. was inappropriate, dangerous, and not justified by the medical records. Dr. McNally wrote the prescriptions for patient B.R. at very frequent intervals which, while peculiar, did not violate the Practice Act. Usually when writing prescriptions for chronic pain a physician prescribes for a longer period of time. Richard D.Roth, D.P.M., testified. He is an expert in the field of podiatric medicine. Dr. Roth reviewed the medical records supplied by Dr. McNally. The prescribing of Phentermine by Dr. McNally was outside of the scope of his license and was potentially dangerous. Dr. McNally's treatment notes were inadequate in that, for example, they do not describe the exact location, size, or depth of an ulcer, among other things. Neither do they describe the types of analgesics prescribed even though massive doses of narcotic analgesics were prescribed. Dr. McNally's records in the case of patient B.R. are grotesquely incomplete. Most of the notes provided by Dr. McNally were canned notes generated by a computer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Podiatric Medicine enter a final order finding that the Respondent, George C. P. McNally, failed to keep required medical records during the period January 2, 1998 through September 29, 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(l), Florida Statutes; that the Respondent prescribed legend drugs other than in the course of his professional podiatric practice during the period January 1988 through August 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(o), Florida Statutes; that Respondent failed to practice as a reasonably prudent podiatric physician during the period January 2, 1998 through September 29, 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(s), Florida Statutes; and that Respondent practiced beyond the scope of his license during the period January 1988 through August 1999, in violation of Section 461.013(1)(u), Florida Statutes. It is recommended that Respondent's license to practice podiatric medicine be suspended for a period of six months, that he pay a $2,000 fine, and that he pay for the cost of the investigation and prosecution. The cost of investigation and prosecution shall be assessed at the time the matter is presented to the Board of Podiatric medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Wings S. Benton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 George C. P. McNally Post Office Box 5585 Destin, Florida 32540 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Podiatric Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The ultimate issues for determination are whether Respondent, Dr. Lieberman, committed the violations as alleged, and if so, what license discipline is appropriate. More specifically, did the following violations of Chapters 893 and 458, Florida Statutes, regulating the practice of medicine occur as alleged: As to Patient, M. A. Sections 893.05, Florida Statutes, and Section 458.1201(1)(k), Florida Statutes, (1977) reenacted as Section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes, (1987) -- by inappropriately prescribing certain drugs classified as controlled substances. Section 458.1201(1)(m), Florida Statutes, (1977) reenacted as Section 458.331(1)(j) and (t), Florida Statutes, (1987) -- by utilizing examinations for his own sexual gratification, by making inappropriate remarks during examinations and by engaging in sexual activity with the patient within the patient-physician relationship. As to Patient, L. I. Sections 458.329, Florida Statutes, and Subsections 458.331(1)(j), [formerly (k)], (t) and (x), Florida Statutes, -- by forcibly engaging in sexual intercourse with a patient and by inappropriately using the examination for his own sexual gratification. As to Patient, D. B. Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, and Subsections 458.331(1)(j), [formerly (k)], (t) and (x), Florida Statutes, by engaging in sexual conduct with a patient and using the examination for purposes of obtaining sexual gratification. As to Patient, B. J. (Case NO. 88-3334) Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain appropriate tests on a patient who was later diagnosed as having cervical cancer.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Robert A. Lieberman was a physician licensed to practice medicine pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and holding license number ME 0023165. After two years in the U.S. Navy, serving as a physician with the rank of Lt. Commander, Dr. Lieberman opened a private practice in Orlando, Florida in 1976. At all times relevant to the allegations of the complaints, Dr. Lieberman has been Board Certified in obstetrics and gynecology and maintained his practice at 615 East Princeton Street, in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Lieberman's practice includes approximately 6500 patient visits per year and the delivery of approximately 180 infants per year. M. A. Patient M. A., also known as M. Q., was treated by Dr. Lieberman from February 1, 1977 until May 31, 1979. She also visited the office on October 24, 1979 for a pregnancy test, but was not seen by Dr. Lieberman on that date. During the course of her visits she was treated for a variety of complaints including difficulty in adjusting to birth control pills, gynecological infections, post-coital bleeding and a spontaneous abortion. She underwent an induced abortion on February 7, 1977, and later became an obstetric patient of Dr. Lieberman. She delivered a live birth on June 29, 1978. During the course of her treatment M. A. was an extremely stressed and disturbed young woman. In January 1978, She reported having been beaten by her boyfriend. She also reported heavy usage of cocaine and "sopors" (methaqualone) In January 1979, she reported she was raped. At one point, during a divorce, she wrote an anguished letter to Dr. Lieberman asking that he be her "shrink" (her term, which in the context of the letter meant counselor). (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) During the course of his treatment of M. A., Dr. Lieberman's office notes and copies of prescriptions reflect the following controlled substances that he prescribed for her: Date 2/7/77 Type Percodan Dosage (not indicated) Number 12 2/22/77 Valium 10 mgs 30 3/1/77 Percodan (not indicated) 30 3/1/77 Quaaludes (not indicated) 10 3/10/77 Valium 10 mgs 30 3/18/77 Valium 10 mgs (not indicated) 5/6/77 Valium 10 mgs 60, plus one refill 5/20/77 Quaaludes 300 mgs 15, plus one refill 5/27/77 Valium 10 mgs 60, plus one refill 8/11/77 Tranxene 7.5 60 1/4/78 Phenobarbitol 1 gr 60, plus one refill 1/4/78 Darvocet N100 60 5/17/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 7/13/78 Fiornal No. 3 20 7/17/78 Seconal 100 mgs 10 7/20/78 Fiornal No. 3 20 8/4/78 Quaaludes (not indicated) 30 8/7/78 Fiornal No. 3 15 8/24/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 9/18/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 9/19/78 Quaaludes (not indicated) 30 9/25/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs (not indicated) 10/10/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 11/1/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 11/6/78 Valium 10 mgs 30, plus two refills 11/6/78 Valium (not indicated) 30, plus two refills 12/15/78 Percodan (not indicated) 20 12/26/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 1/2/79 Quaaludes 300 mgs (not indicated) 1/15/79 Placidyl 500 mgs 30 2/1/79 Valium 10 mgs 30 5/31/79 Placidyl 750 mgs 30 The medical records also reveal that M. A. was given a single injection of Demerol at the time of her abortion procedure on February 7, 1977. No evidence supports the allegation that this use of the drug was inappropriate. Quaaludes are a depressant and were prescribed for sleep, primarily. They have an effect comparable to barbiturates. They are highly addictive and, while legal at the time that Dr. Lieberman was prescribing them for M. A., they were removed from the market around 1982 because of their abuse. Placidyl is also a sleeping pill, although in a different class of drugs than Quaalude. Tranxene is similar to Valium and both are used as tranquilizers. Dr. Lieberman's office notes did not reflect the basis for the wide array and sometimes frequent prescriptions. In several instances he prescribed Quaaludes without any notation in his office records. This occurred on August 24, 1978, September 18, 1978 and October 10, 1978. Nevertheless, the testimony of the agency's physician witnesses lacked specificity with regard to the propriety of Dr. Lieberman's prescriptions to this patient. Dr. Curry felt that the prescriptions for Quaaludes were "excessive" and that it was "unwise" for a physician to prescribe this quantity of a popular street drug to a known drug abuser. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, pp. 6 and 10.) He offered no opinion on the other controlled substances. Dr. Rudolph had a close family member who had a problem with Quaaludes and he would never prescribe this drug. He was concerned generally with regard to the variety of drugs, but could conclude that only the Quaaludes were absolutely, totally, unnecessary. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, P. 71.) Neither physician was qualified as an expert in pharmacology and neither was particularly familiar with M. A.'s records, as they had difficulty reading the office notes. M. A.`s testimony with regard to her experiences as Dr. Lieberman's patient was vague and confused. Ten years ago she was, as she described, a different person, under substantial stress and thoroughly habituated to drugs. She claims that Dr. Lieberman knew that she was a substance abuser and willingly provided her with the prescriptions she sought. She also claimed that he made embarrassing "joking and filthy" comments about the appearance of her genitalia during her pelvic examinations. She also claims that on one occasion, when she had gone to his office seeking drugs, he required that she perform oral sex on him. The dates and specifics of these charges were not provided. M. A. admitted that during the period in question, she was on tranquilizing drugs all of the time and that she was not aware of all that Dr. Lieberman had done to her until 1982 or 1983. Prior to her testimony in this proceeding she had given sworn statements in deposition or otherwise with regard to her relationship with Dr. Lieberman. In one such statement given on November 9, 1984, she testified that she was a patient of Dr. Lieberman in the early 70's and that he prescribed drugs for her for a period of about eight years. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) The patient records and prescriptions substantiate that M. A. was a patient for approximately two years (1977-1979). Dr. Lieberman was not in private practice until 1976, and M. A. concedes that she first met him when she visited his office at East Princeton Street. In addition to discrepancies in dates, M. A. at various times claimed that Dr. Lieberman made advances or fondled her prior to the oral sex incident and, in contradiction, claimed that she was surprised by the incident as sex had never come up at all other than verbal teasing. (Transcript, pp. 52 and 68, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, P. 10.) In summary, M. A. was an earnest and emphatic witness. However, the lavish and unspecific charges she has made cannot alone form the basis of proof of the violations related to this patient in the Administrative Complaint. In spite of the ten years time that has elapsed since these violations allegedly occurred, the agency failed to produce written records, prescriptions, and corroborating testimony from the other patients through whom M. A. claimed Dr. Lieberman was supplementing her drugs, to substantiate her charges. L. I. L. I. was Dr. Lieberman's patient from July 1978 until November 1982. She was initially treated for conditions requiring a total abdominal hysterectomy. She had follow-up visits and was seen intermittently for other non-related complaints through April 1980. Two years later she again visited Dr. Lieberman on June 8, 1982, when she presented complaints of pain in her left side. On June 17, 1982, she was hospitalized and Dr. Lieberman performed an exploratory laparotomy with lysis of adhesions. That is, abdominal surgery was performed and adhesions or scar tissue attached to the ovary were broken apart, without complications. She was discharged after some further tests related to digestive and vision problems, on June 25, 1982. On July 2, 1982, L. I. returned to Dr. Lieberman's office for a post- operative examination and for removal of her bandages. At the time of the examination, as instructed, L. I. kept her clothing on, except for her underpants, which she removed. She was given a paper sheet which she used as she lay an the examining table. Dr. Lieberman conducted the examination without a chaperone, pulling the sheet up and pressing around the abdomen area. After the examination, he said she could get up and reached out to help her when she had difficulty. Instead of moving away, he stood and stared at L. I. as she sat on the table with her legs outstretched. This made her uncomfortable. He told her to scoot forward and when she did not, he pulled her forward and unzipped his pants. L. I. protested verbally with, "Don't do this, and "this is not right." He then leaned forward and quickly had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards L. I. sat and cried. He turned to the sink and handed her tissues and asked if he had hurt her. He said that he did not want her to be upset, that it was important that she not say anything and that he would see her again in two weeks. (Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 79-86.) L. I. did not report the rape. She was profoundly embarrassed and felt that she was at fault for not struggling. In order to return to work after her surgery, L. I. had to have a release from her attending physician. She returned to Dr. Lieberman's office on July 20, 1982, as he was the only person who could provide the release insisted on by her employer. The nurse instructed her to get undressed for a pelvic examination. She questioned why a pelvic examination was necessary, but did undress. The nurse left and Dr. Lieberman entered the examining room. As he walked toward her, L. I. put her hand up and said, "No, not until the nurse comes'. He turned, and L. I. thought he had pushed a call button for the nurse. She stretched back on the table positioned for the examination, with her feet in the stirrups. Dr. Lieberman stood next to her at the side of the table, rather than at the end of the table between the stirrups, where a pelvic examination is usually conducted. He touched her between the legs with his bare hand and L. I. heard him undoing his pants. She said, "Oh, not this again," and the phone rang in the examining room. As he turned to answer the phone, she sat up and wrapped herself with the sheet. After the call, he walked out. As L. I. was getting dressed, he walked back in. She said, Just give me my release and I'll go". He told her to sit down and calm herself; she sat on the stool where her clothes had been and asked again for the release. He told her it was important not to say anything about what happened, that it had never happened before; he wrote her release on a prescription pad and left. (Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 90-94.) L. I. returned to Dr. Lieberman's office for one final visit in November 1982. She had received a card in the mail reminding her that it was time for a Pap test. By then she had thought about what had happened and felt that, given another opportunity, she could struggle or scream and someone would believe her. Otherwise, she was concerned it was just her word against the doctor. On this occasion, she undressed fully for the exam. A nurse was in the room almost the entire time and no improper advances or comments were made. The examination and discourse afterward were uneventful. Although, she told him that she was still upset about what happened. He didn't respond. L. I. never returned to Dr. Lieberman or to any other gynecologist. In March 1983, L. I. began seeing a mental health counselor through her employee assistance program when she was having trouble with one of her children. At some point in the counseling process, L. I. began discussing her experience with Dr. Lieberman. As a result of the counseling she gained some insight into her own reactions to the incident. She is intimidated easily and is compliant. She tries to let things go and handle matters in her own way. In his testimony at hearing, Dr. Lieberman agreed that L. I. was reticent and a subdued and submissive type of individual. (Transcript, Vol. IV, P. 138.) She obtained legal counsel civil brought a civil suit against Dr. Lieberman, which suit has since been settled. D. B. D. B. was a patient of Dr. Lieberman from June 1978 until September 1981. She first became his patient when he was the OB/GYN physician on call at Florida Hospital where she had been referred by a family practitioner. He performed emergency surgery, and she continued to see him on a regular basis for routine check-ups and a variety of gynecological services, including two abortions, treatment for infections, and birth control. On September 1, 1981, D. B. visited Dr. Lieberman's office for the purpose of being fitted for a diaphragm, a birth control device. At the instructions of the nurse, D. B. completely disrobed, and draped the paper vest and sheet. She was sitting on the examining table when Dr. Lieberman entered the examining room. They exchanged brief pleasantries with regard to his having been up all night delivering babies. He then approached her, attempted to push her down on the table, and french kissed her while fondling her left breast. She resisted physically by pushing forward, and the incident lasted only ten to fifteen seconds. As he wiped lipstick from his mouth, he told her that she wasn't cheating on her husband. She dressed, left the office and returned to her own office. (Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 52-58.) At the office she talked to a friend who suggested that she do something. The friend called the police and arrangements were made for her to meet them at her apartment. After she made her report to the police, D. B. was contacted by a female police detective, Sgt. Alana Hunter. D. B. decided not to press charges because she had two abortions prior to her marriage and had never told her husband. She was told that the abortions might be disclosed during the prosecution. She later retained the services of an attorney and a civil action is pending. B. J. B. J. was an OB/GYN patient of Dr. Lieberman from September 1979 until May 1984. Her medical care and treatment by Dr. Lieberman included obstetrical deliveries in June 1980 and November 1982, with intervening gynecological care. Part of that care included a test called a Pap smear. This procedure involves the taking of a sample of cells from the patient's cervix which sample is sent to a laboratory for a cytological/pathological examination to determine the presence of abnormal, precancerous or cancerous cells. It is a routine gynecological procedure with the primary purpose of early detection of cancer. The findings of examination of a Pap smear are reported in levels, ranging from I, which is considered normal; to II, considered abnormal or denoting inflamed or damaged cells; to III, inferring cancerous consideration; to IV and V, where carcinoma is more clear and definite. B. J. had Pap smears taken by Dr. Lieberman on September 26, 1979; June 23, 1980; December 18, 1980; July 28, 1981; and May 7, 1982 -- all Class I, although the laboratory reports for the latter three tests noted mild and moderate inflammation. On December 21, 1982, her Pap result was Class II. She was treated with a vaginal suppository and was appropriately directed to return for a follow-up test in one month. The repeat test on January 25, 1983, was still Class II. On February 8, 1983, Dr. Lieberman performed a cryocauterization of B. J.'s cervix. This is an office procedure involving the use of a probe-like instrument which is inserted flush up against the cervix. Nitrous oxide is released to the probe, freezing the atypical cells. This results in a discharge over the next six to eight weeks, during which time the entire surface of the cervix is sloughed away. Dr. Lieberman next saw B. J. on September 14, 1983, when another Pap smear was taken. This returned from the laboratory as a Class I. At that point he was satisfied that the cryocauterization had been successful. Sometime between September 1983 and February 1984, B. J. began experiencing bleeding during and after intercourse. She returned to Dr. Lieberman with that complaint on February 23, 1984. He found the cervix bled when touched and he took another Pap smear. This test returned as a Class II. Since he felt that the procedure had worked in the past, Dr. Lieberman performed another cryocautery procedure on B. J. on March 8, 1984. On May 8, 1984, she came back to his office still complaining of bleeding. Her cervix appeared beefy red and Dr. Lieberman saw very small points of bleeding. He applied a coagulent to attempt to stop the bleeding. She returned two days later and more coagulent was applied to her cervix. On May 30, 1984, Dr. Lieberman applied hot cauterization to her cervix. B. J. never returned for further treatment from Dr. Lieberman. Instead, B. J. changed her Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) family practitioner and was referred to another OB/GYN physician, Dr. Grace Sarvotham. During her pelvic examination B. J. bled profusely and was referred to Dr. Robert DeMaio, a Board-certified OB/GYN, practicing in Winter Park, Florida. Dr. DeMaio examined B. J. on September 5, 1984. Utilizing a colposcope, which is a microscope-type instrument, to magnify the cervix, he found areas of abnormal blood vessels and abnormal white epithelium. Because of these abnormalities, he took a biopsy. The report on the biopsy was returned on September 6, 1984, with the finding exophytic squamous cell carcinoma -- in lay terms, cancer of the cervix that had shown evidence of spread. B. J. was referred to Dr. Thomas Castaldo, a gynecological oncologist, who admitted her for surgery on September 17, 1984, and performed a radical abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic node dissection. That means her uterus and cervix were removed, along with the supporting tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. She is still being followed by Dr. Castaldo and has received radiation therapy from Dr. John Looper, a Board-certified radiation oncologist in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Lieberman claims that by May 1984, he was beginning to feel that a biopsy should be done on B. J.'s cervix. This procedure involves the surgical removal of a small amount of tissue and its examination under a microscope. He was familiar with this procedure and was trained in it, as well as in the cotoposcopy procedure utilized by Dr. DeMaio. Except with a Class V Pap smear, which undeniably indicates cancer, a diagnosis cannot be made from a Pap smear. The abnormalities or inflammations noted with a Class II Pap smear are symptoms of some condition which must be diagnosed before they are treated. Dr. Lieberman's use of the cautery procedures prior to diagnosis served to temporarily mask the symptoms. His failure to diagnose B. J.'s condition prior to treatment, or to rule out cancer or precancerous condition was a departure from the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS One of the most sensitive but essential functions of a fact finder is the resolution of conflicting testimony by weighing the credibility of witnesses. Disposition of the issues in this case involves almost exclusively that function. M. A.'s rambling and confused account of her life as a drug abuser in the 1970's, indiscriminately consuming vast quantities of controlled substances, was either zealous hyperbole or a candid revelation of her tortured former existence and mental state. Neither construction recommends the credibility of her allegations of Dr. Lieberman's wrongdoing. The agency failed to prove the specifics of those allegations. There were a few prescriptions, some of which were never recorded in Dr. Lieberman's office notes for this patient, contrary to his avowed practice. But those prescriptions in no way fully corroborated M. A.'s testimony. Likewise, the expert opinions based on review of office notes, medical records and the prescription forms were too equivocal to outweigh contrary opinions offered by Dr. Lieberman's experts. L. I. and D. B., in contrast, were convincing and competent witnesses. L. I. credibly explained how she could return twice to the scene of her rape. Her unwillingness to immediately report the incidents was also explained. D. B. stated at hearing that she did not receive any treatment in Dr. Lieberman's office on September 1, 1981. In an earlier, out-of-hearing statement, she established that she had been fitted with a diaphragm during the visit and prior to Dr. Lieberman's untoward conduct. The earlier statement is consistent with the office notes in records maintained by Dr. Lieberman. The inconsistent statements do not, however, impeach her allegation that Dr. Lieberman kissed and fondled her on that occasion. Dr. Lieberman claims that he has no independent recollection of the visits by these patients on the dates in question. He denies that he is a violent person who could have assaulted these women. Although sexual assaults are generally considered acts of violence, in these instances little force was required. He had established a relationship of trust and took advantage of that trust. His testimony that coitus is anatomically impossible with the woman in a seated position, likewise begs the question. L. I. described her position as seated on the examining table with her legs dropped, when the extension of the table was dropped by Dr. Lieberman. He positioned her, as she described, with his arm around her buttocks, moving her forward. A simple rotation of the anatomical chart, received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 12, demonstrates how entry could have been accomplished under those circumstances. Uncontroverted expert testimony established that the sexual activities by Dr. Lieberman with L. I. and D. B. were outside the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of a patient. With regard to Patient B. J., the solid weight of expert evidence established that the failure to obtain appropriate tests was an unacceptable deviation from the standards of reasonable medical care. The wrongdoing was not, as argued by counsel for Respondent, the failure to diagnose B. J.'s cancer. The violation was the persistent treatment of symptoms whose etiology had not been established. The testimony of Dr. William Russell, one of Respondent's experts, regarding the use of Pap smears in the detection of cancer, was informative, but his opinion that a colposcopy or biopsy of B. J.'s cervix during Dr. Lieberman's treatment was unnecessary is not persuasive in the face of the overwhelming competent evidence presented by the agency's witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding Robert A. Lieberman, M.D., guilty of sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine and failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and revoking his license to practice medicine. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX Subsection 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, requires that if a party submits proposed findings of fact, the order must include a ruling on each. Counsel for Petitioner submitted a 101-page "proposed recommended order", with 599 separately numbered paragraphs styled "proposed findings of fact". The vast majority of these paragraphs are not proposed findings of fact, but rather are a summary statement of testimony of the witnesses, taken from the transcript of hearing and the two depositions of Petitioner's experts. The statements are not organized by issue or subject matter but faithfully follow the order in which the testimony was given at hearing. Although these statements have been read, no rulings need be made. Any rulings would be mere commentary on the testimony as summarized by Petitioner. Specific Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Case NO. 88-3333) Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraphs 4, 14 and 23, with the exception of the last sentence which is not addressed in the record. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 5, except that the number of months is 15, not 12. 7.-9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 10. 10.-12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13.-17. Adopted in summary in paragraph 6. 18.-45. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 5, 7 and 10. 46.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. 55.-60. Rejected as unnecessary. 61.-62. Adopted in paragraph 23. 63. Adopted in paragraph 24. 64.-65. Rejected as unnecessary 66. Adopted in paragraph 24. 67.-69. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 15. 74.-75. Rejected as unnecessary. 76. Adopted in paragraphs 18 and 19, except that the record does not establish that a pelvic examina- tion was conducted on July 20, 1982. (Case NO. 88-3334) 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraphs 37 and 39. Adopted in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in paragraph 31, except that the record established that the condition is not unusual after a vaginal delivery. B. J.'s delivery was a Caesarean section. 11.-12. Adopted by implication in paragraphs 30 and 31. Adopted in paragraph 31. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. Rejected as unnecessary, but still implied in the finding in paragraph 34. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 35. 25.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 38. 29.-30. Rejected as unnecessary, except the fact that she underwent radiation therapy, addressed in paragraph 38. COPIES FURNISHED: PETER FLEITMAN, ESQUIRE ONE DATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1409 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 THOMAS M. BURKE, ESQUIRE RICHARD A. SOLOMON, ESQUIRE 11 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1873 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 DOROTHY FAIRCLOTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF MEDICINE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 KENNETH D. EASLEY, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner has the requisite standing to challenge the subject Proposed Rule. Whether Proposed Rule 33-401.701, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 6, 2009, and subsequently amended on May 29, 2009, and June 19, 2009, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to the provisions of Sections 120.56(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (2009).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties Ms. Christie is a citizen of Florida who resides at 8464 Southeast Pettway Street, Hobe Sound, Florida. Ms. Christie is the biological mother of Carvetta Thompson, a former inmate who died while in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Ms. Christie has attempted to obtain medical records of her deceased daughter that were generated while her daughter was incarcerated. Those inmate medical records are in the custody of the Department.2 Ms. Christie has obtained some, but not all, of the requested inmate medical records. Ms. Christie testified, credibly, that she will continue to seek to obtain her deceased daughter’s inmate medical records from the Department. Ms. Christie is not familiar with the steps that must be followed in opening an estate for her deceased daughter so that a personal representative can be appointed for the estate. Ms. Christie testified, credibly, that she cannot afford the cost of retaining an attorney to open an estate for her deceased daughter. Ms. Christie’s substantial interests will be affected should the Proposed Rule become effective because she will be subject to its requirements in seeking her deceased daughter’s inmate medical records. Ms. Christie has standing to bring this rule challenge. In addition to establishing the procedure for obtaining inmate medical records for a deceased inmate, the Proposed Rule also seeks to establish procedures for a living inmate or living former inmate to obtain his or her inmate medical records in paragraphs (3)(a), (3)(h), and (10)(j). Petitioner does not have standing to challenge the portions of the Proposed Rule that relate to a living person obtaining his or her inmate medical records. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department has the requisite rulemaking authority to enact the Proposed Rule. Sections 944.09 and 945.10, Florida Statutes, specifically direct the Department to adopt rules relating to the subjects encompassed by the Proposed Rule. Section 944.09(1) confers rulemaking authority on the Department. Section 944.09(1)(a) requires the Department to adopt rules relating to the rights of inmates. Section 944.09(1)(e) requires the Department to adopt rules relating to the “. . . operation and management of the correctional institution or facility and its personnel and functions.” Section 945.10 requires the Department to adopt rules to “. . . prevent disclosure of confidential records or information to unauthorized persons.” The Rule Making Process On November 14, 2008, in Volume 34, Number 46, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, the Department published Notice of the Development of the Proposed Rule, entitled Medical and Substance Abuse Clinical Files, which notice provided an opportunity to request a rule development workshop. On November 20, 2009, FJI requested a rule development workshop. By letter dated December 3, 2008, Walter A. McNeil in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department, the Department denied FJI’s request and provided an explanation as to why a rule development workshop was considered to be unnecessary. Secretary McNeil noted that the Proposed Rule had been reviewed by numerous individuals who have considerable expertise and that the Proposed Rule merely transfers language from an existing rule. Secretary McNeil’s response was as follows: I have determined that a rule development workshop is not necessary at this time. The proposed rule has been reviewed by numerous individuals who have considerable expertise in the issues that are included in this proposal. Furthermore, the proposed rule merely transfers language from an existing rule while adding language that incorporates mandates of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule of 1996 (HIPAA) and Federal regulations regarding the privacy and security of personal health information. Written comments received will be considered prior to drafting the final version of the rules for inclusion in the notice of proposed rulemaking. Affected persons will again be given the opportunity to offer comments and to request a public hearing if necessary subsequent to publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All comments received will be considered as we further analyze the rules of the Department. On December 16, 2009, the Department received a letter from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (“JAPC”) that indicated that the Notice of Rule Development for the Proposed Rule had not been adequately posted at Sumter Correctional Institute (“Sumter C.I.”). On January 16, 2009, the Department responded to JAPC, stating that, although the Notice of Rule Development had not been initially posted at Sumter C.I. on November 14, 2008, it had been subsequently posted, giving the inmates there time to submit comments and/or workshop requests. The failure to initially post the notice at Sumter C.I. did not constitute a material departure from the applicable rule making process. On March 6, 2009, in Vol. 35, No. 9 of the Florida Administrative Weekly, the Department published a Notice of the Proposed Rule. On March 18, 2009, FJI again timely requested a public hearing on the Proposed Rule. On April 21, 2009, the Department granted FJI’s request and held a public hearing on the Proposed Rule at its Tallahassee headquarters. The Department’s initial denial of the request for a workshop did not constitute a material departure from the applicable rule making process. The Proposed Rule The Department is a “covered entity” for purposes of HIPAA. As such, the Department is required to comply with the applicable provisions of HIPAA, including those provisions governing a covered entity’s determination of who is eligible to obtain inmate medical records when the inmate is deceased. The Department presently has an existing rule, 33- 601.901, “Confidential Records,” that governs, in part, the subjects identified in the Proposed Rule. Subsection (9)(a) of that rule provides, in relevant part, as follows: Any information, whether recorded or not, concerning the identity, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment of any inmate or offender which is maintained in connection with the performance of any alcohol or drug prevention or treatment function shall be confidential and disclosed only as follows: With the prior written consent of the inmate or offender. The written consent shall include the following information: * * * 6. The signature of the inmate or offender; or, when required for an inmate offender who is incompetent or deceased, the signature of a person authorized to sign in lieu of the inmate or offender. The Department also has in place a Health Services Technical Instruction No. 15.12.03, “Health Records” (the Technical Instruction), but it has not been formally adopted as a rule. Appendix A of the Technical Instruction provides at page 15 of 23 under Section G.2.c. as to signing of the authorization form for the release of protected inmate medical records of a deceased inmate: c. In case of a deceased inmate, authorization must be signed by next of kin (e.g. spouse, parent or children, or personal representative.) A certified copy of a letter of administration is required to be on file in the health record. The Proposed Rule seeks to establish standards for the use and disclosure of inmate medical records in accordance with HIPAA and Florida law. Petitioner challenges Subsection (1) of the Proposed Rule, because it distinguishes medical records and hospital records. Subsection (1) provides as follows: (1) The Department of Corrections Office of Health Services shall maintain a comprehensive medical file (including medical, dental and mental health components) on every person committed to the custody and care of the Department. Information included in the inmate’s medical file is protected in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule of 1996, (HIPAA) and Florida law. The Department of Corrections shall also maintain a comprehensive substance abuse file on every inmate who receives substance abuse program services. Information included in the inmate’s substance abuse file is confidential in accordance with [HIPAA] and Florida law. The Department of Corrections Reception and Medical Center Hospital shall maintain an inpatient hospital medical file on every inmate admitted for care and treatment at Reception Medical Center Hospital. Petitioner challenges the following definitions set forth in subparagraphs (2)(f), (h), and (i) of Subsection of the Proposed Rule: (2)(f) Hospital file – as used in this rule refers to an inmate’s inpatient hospital patient records created and maintained by Reception Medical Center Hospital. * * * (2)(h) Personal Representative – as used in this rule, means, with respect to a deceased inmate, an executor, administrator, or other person with authority under Florida law to act on behalf of the deceased inmate or the inmate’s estate. (2)(i) Privacy Officer – as used in this rule, refers to a designated employee in the Office of Health Services who is responsible for the development and implementation of the policies and procedures related to the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The privacy officer is the Department’s contact person for HIPAA. Other than the language contained in Subsection (2)(h), the Proposed Rule offers no guidance as to whom can qualify to be an “other person with authority under Florida law to act on behalf of the deceased inmate or the inmate’s estate” for purposes of qualifying as a “personal representative” pursuant to the Proposed Rule. Instead, it is the responsibility of the individual requesting the medical records to determine the statutory or other legal basis that confers upon the person his or her legal authority to access the inmate medical records, and it is the responsibility of the person seeking the medical records to state that authority to the Department. Petitioner challenges the following provisions set forth in subparagraphs (b), (h), (i), and (j) of Subsection 10 of the Proposed Rule: (10)(b) Requests for access to a former inmate’s medical file shall be submitted to: Inactive Medical Records, Reception and Medical Center, P.O. Box 628, Lake Butler, Florida 32054. Requests for access to an inmate’s hospital file shall be submitted to: Reception and Medical Center Hospital, Attention: Hospital Administrator, P.O. Box 628, Lake Butler, Florida 32054. * * * (10)(h) In accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.502, a personal representative of a deceased inmate shall have access to or authorize the disclosure of the deceased inmate’s protected health information that is relevant to the personal representative’s legal authority to act on behalf of the deceased inmate or the deceased inmate’s estate. A certified copy of a letter of administration, court order, or other document demonstrating the legal authority of the personal representative shall be filed in the inmate’s medical file and Form DC4-711B, Consent and Authorization for Use and Disclosure Inspection and Release of Confidential Information must be signed by a personal representative. . . . (10)(i) In accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.502, a personal representative of a living inmate shall have access to or authorize the disclosure of the inmate’s protected health information that is relevant to the personal representative’s legal authority to make health care decisions on behalf of the inmate. Form DC4-711B, Consent and Authorization for Use and Disclosure Inspection and Release of Confidential Information must be signed by a personal representative in accordance with Florida law. A copy of a health care surrogate form, durable power of attorney, or other document demonstrating the personal representative’s authority shall be filed in the inmate’s medical file. (10)(j) In addition to the access described above, in accordance with Section 395.3025, Florida Statutes, an inmate’s guardian, curator, personal representative, or in the absence of one of those persons, next of kin of a decedent or the parent of a minor, shall have access to the protected health information contained in an inmate’s hospital file created and maintained by the Reception Medical Center Hospital after the discharge of the inmate. Other than specifying that before being accepted as a personal representative, the requesting party must submit a “. . . certified copy of a letter of administration, court order, or other document demonstrating the legal authority of the personal representative,” the Proposed Rule offers no guidance as to what document will be required. Except in cases where an estate has been issued and there exists a letter of administration or other document issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, any asserted authority will depend on factual assertions. The Proposed Rule offers no guidance as to how those factual assertions should be made. Florida Law 20. Sections 395.3025, 381.028, 408.051, 766.104, Florida Statutes, list categories of individuals who are eligible to request medical records and take action on behalf of a decedent without opening an estate or obtaining a written designation as a “personal representative.” Section 395.3025, Florida Statutes, entitled Patient and personnel records; copies; examination, requires that any licensed facility furnish, without delays for legal review, a complete copy of all patient records to the next of kin of a deceased patient upon written request. Section 395.3025 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Any licensed facility shall, upon written request, and only after discharge of the patient, furnish, in a timely manner, without delays for legal review, to any person admitted therein for care and treatment or treated thereat, or to any such person’s guardian, curator, or personal representative, or in the absence of one of those persons, to the next of kin of a decedent or the parent of a minor, or to anyone designated by such person in writing, a true and correct copy of all patient records . . . . Section 381.028, Florida Statutes, entitled Patients’ Right-to-Know About Adverse Medical Incidents Act, grants patients and their next of kin access to records of adverse medical incidents made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider. Section 381.028 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (3)(a) “Have access to any records” means . . . making the records available for inspection and copying upon formal or informal request by the patient or a representative of the patient . . . * * * (3)(k) “Representative of the patient” means a parent of a minor patient. In the case of a deceased patient, the term also means the personal representative of the estate of the deceased patient; the deceased patient’s surviving spouse, surviving parent, or surviving adult child; the parent or guardian of a surviving minor child of the deceased patient; or the attorney for any such person. * * * (4) Patients’ right of access. – Patients have a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or health care provider relating to any adverse medical incident. Section 408.051, Florida Statutes, entitled Florida Electronic Health Records Exchange Act (the “Health Records Act”), was passed in the 2009 Legislative session and signed into law on June 16, 2009. The Health Records Act establishes standards and procedures to maintain the privacy and security of identifiable health records. Section 408.051 expressly recognizes the right of a patient or a “patient representative” to authorize the use or release, in any form or medium, of an identifiable health record. Section 408.051 defines a “patient representative” as follows: (2)(g) “Patient representative” means a parent of a minor patient, a court-appointed guardian for the patient, a health care surrogate, or a person holding a power of attorney. . . . In the case of a deceased patient, the term also means the personal representative of the estate of the deceased patient; the deceased patient’s surviving spouse, surviving parent, or surviving adult child; the parent or guardian of a surviving minor child of the deceased patient; the attorney for the patient’s surviving spouse, parent, or adult child; or the attorney for the parent or guardian of a surviving minor child. Section 408.051 further establishes certain obligations which a health care provider must fulfill upon the receipt of a valid authorization form submitted by a patient or his/her representative, as follows: (4)(c) A health care provider receiving an authorization form containing a request for the release of an identifiable health records shall accept the form as a valid authorization to release an identifiable health record. * * * (4)(e) A health care provider that releases an identifiable health record in reliance on the information provided to the health care provider on a properly completed authorization form does not violate any right of confidentiality and is immune from civil liability for accessing or releasing an identifiable health record under this subsection. Section 766.104, Florida Statutes, entitled Pleading in medical negligence cases; claim for punitive damages; authorization for release of records for investigation, requires a health care provider to provide a complete set of medical records to the next of kin of a deceased patient, prior to the administration of such patient’s estate, for the purposes of a required investigation of an action for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence. Section 766.104 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (3) For purposes of conducting the investigation required by this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, subsequent to the death of a person and prior to the administration of such person’s estate, copies of all medical reports and records, including bills, films, and other records relating to the care and treatment of such person that are in the possession of a health care practitioner as defined in s. 456.001 shall be made available, upon request, to the spouse, parent, child who has reached majority . . . or attorney in fact of the deceased pursuant to chapter 709. HIPAA HIPAA, at 45 C.F.R. Section 164.502(a), provides that a “covered entity” may not use or disclose protected health information except as permitted or required by the specific provisions of HIPAA. The Department, a health care provider and a HIPAA covered entity, is required to implement, comply with, and enforce the mandates of HIPA. The protections provided by HIPAA continue to apply with respect to the protected health information of a deceased individual and survive an individual’s death. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(f). HIPPA requires that a covered entity treat an executor, administrator, or other person as a “personal representative” of a deceased individual only if applicable law (in this case Florida law) provides authority for such person to act on behalf of a deceased individual or the individual’s estate. HIPAA requires that the covered entity treat the person as a “personal representative,” who stands in the shoes of the individual, only “with respect to protected health information relevant to such personal representation.” A covered entity must provide an individual who qualifies as a personal representative under state law with access to the protected health information that is relevant to the personal representative’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased person as authorized under state law. 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(g)(4). HIPAA provides at 45 C.F.R. Section 502(f)- (g), in pertinent part, as follows: (f) Standard: Deceased individuals. A covered entity must comply with the requirements of this subpart with respect to the protected health information of a deceased individual. (g)(1) Standard: Personal representatives. As specified in this paragraph, a covered entity must, except as provided in paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(5) of this section, treat a personal representative as the individual for all purposes of this subchapter. * * * (g)(4) Implementation specification: Deceased individuals. If under applicable law an executor, administrator, or other person has authority to act on behalf of a deceased individual or of the individual’s estate, a covered entity must treat such person as a personal representative under this subchapter, with respect to protected health information relevant to such personal representation. HIPAA establishes a foundation of federally-protected rights which permit individuals to control certain uses and disclosures of their protected health information. HIPAA confers several important rights on individuals regarding their own protected health information, including the right of access to protected medical records held by a covered entity set forth in 45 C.F.R. Section 164.524(a)(1). In defining what protected health information must be made accessible to an individual by a covered entity, HIPAA does not distinguish between medical files and hospital files, or between in-patient medical records and out-patient medical records. If a covered entity that receives a request for records does not possess all of the requested records, HIPAA places an affirmative obligation upon the covered entity to notify the requesting individual of where the remaining records are located. The Proposed Rule is consistent with those requirements of HIPAA. HIPAA further provides specific standards regarding who has authority to act as a personal representative and access the medical records of a deceased individual. Pursuant to HIPAA, if an individual has authority under applicable state law to act on behalf of a deceased individual, he or she is designated as that deceased individual’s personal representative and enjoys full rights of access to that deceased individual’s protected health information. The Proposed Rule is consistent with those requirements. While as to this proceeding, Florida law determines who can qualify as a personal representative, the disclosure of the protected records must, at a minimum, comply with HIPAA disclosure requirements. Pursuant to HIPAA, the Department, as a covered entity, is required to verify the identity and the authority of a person requesting inmate medical records prior to disclosure. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.514(h)(1).
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapter 20, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 2523862. Respondent’s last known address is 4210 POW’s and MIA’s Memorial Drive, St. Cloud, Florida 34772-8142. As a licensed registered nurse, Respondent is governed by Chapter 455 and 464, Florida Statutes, including Section 455.667(5), formerly 455.241(1), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59S, Florida Administrative Code. At a date unknown, Respondent obtained possession of a computer from a secondhand thrift store. It was subsequently determined that the hard drive contained a database storing confidential patient names, addresses, dates of administration, types of addiction, treatments, and psychiatric disorders for individuals treated at Charter Behavioral Health System Orlando (“Charter”). Charter is a sixty (60) bed, full-service, psychiatric treatment hospital where patients are examined, diagnosed and/or treated for drug, alcohol and/or mental health issues. Respondent has prior experience as a psychiatric nurse and was well aware of the possible ramifications of allowing confidential psychiatric patient information to be accessed or viewed by unauthorized persons. At no time did Charter authorize the release of, or place in Respondent’s possession, the computer and/or database which identified confidential patient information. However, Charter failed to ensure that the confidential information contained on the hard drive had been erased prior to its release to the thrift shop. Respondent contacted law enforcement agencies in an attempt to have them investigate Charter for the alleged negligence in the release of the data. When he could not obtain their involvement, he turned to the news media. Respondent contacted multiple news media in the Orlando area and allowed some members of the news media access to the information. Respondent indicated to them that they were to blur the information if a news story was going to be aired. As a result of the Respondent’s allowing news media access to the confidential psychiatric records of the former patients of Charter, two news reports aired in Orlando and its adjacent viewing area on or about January 23, 1997. In at least one of the foregoing news reports, a computer screen was shown to the general viewing public via videotape played over the air. Patient names as well as diagnoses were readily identifiable during the broadcast. At least one former patient was interviewed by the media. He expressed that he was tremendously distraught over the fact that his prior admission to the hospital was not kept confidential and thus exposed to the public at large. The Respondent appeared on both newscasts. After acknowledging that it would be negligent for a health care professional, who has a duty to maintain confidentiality of patient information, to allow unauthorized non-medical persons to view patient records, the Respondent indicated that he did not have a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the former patients of Charter because he was not employed as a nurse at that time. On or about January 24, 1997, representatives for the Agency spoke with Respondent regarding his possession of the confidential records located on the computer’s hard drive. The Agency representatives requested Respondent to return the confidential patient records to Charter or the Agency; Respondent refused. Kim Everett, Vice President of Risk Management for Charter, spoke with Respondent on or about January 24, 1997, regarding Respondent's returning the confidential patient records to Charter. Respondent indicated that he would not return the information to Charter and/or its representatives. Additionally, the Respondent indicated that he thought that he should be compensated for returning the computer and patient records to Chapter. Ms Everett advised Respondent that the information belonged to the patients and that Charter would only reimburse him for the cost of the computer. Respondent indicated that he would consider contacting the patients and selling the information back to them. Ms. Everett again advised the Respondent that the information was not his and that he should not contact the patients. At the conclusion of the conversation information was still in the possession of Respondent. Charter filed for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida. On January 27, 1997, the Honorable John H. Adams, Sr., Circuit Court Judge, issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction wherein the Court made the following Findings of Fact: Patient confidential information subject to restraint from disclosure under Section 349.459(9), Florida Statutes, is in the custody of persons not unauthorized to possess this information. That portions of such information have been disclosed to third parties including the broadcast media. That there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm of further disclosure of such confidential information. Dr. Roger Goetz, M.D., an expert on the handling of psychiatric records by health care professionals has opined that it is below the standard of professional care to allow unauthorized non-medical persons access to confidential patient information. However, this opinion was not supported by other evidence and is not accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty on Count II for violating Sections 464.018(1)(1), Florida Statutes, by knowingly violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e)5, Florida Administrative Code; guilty on Count II, pursuant to Section 464.018(1)(1), Florida Statutes, for knowingly violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e)(12), Florida Administrative Code; not guilty of Count IV; guilty on Count V for violating Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes; not guilty on Count VI; and not guilty on Count VII. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing dismiss Counts IV, VI, and VII of the Administrative Complaint and impose the following discipline on the Respondent’s license: administrative fine of $500; administrative costs of the Department; Eighteen (19) month suspension of license with credit for time of suspension already served; and five (5) year probation upon such terms and conditions as the Board may find just and proper. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Charles B. Tiffany, Esquire 120 Broadway, Suite 203 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary 1317 winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
