The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of paragraphs (i), (m), (n), (r), and of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes, as set forth in a five-count Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed chiropractic physician, having been issued license number CH 0002560. He has been so licensed at all times material to this proceeding. On or about March 4, 1994, patient L. M. was involved in a motor vehicle accident. On November 7, 1994, patient L. M. presented to the Respondent with the following ten major complaints: frequent headaches, neck pain, black stool, upper- back pain, mid-back pain, lower-back pain, painful feet, bilateral thigh pain, bilateral knee pain, and bilateral calf pain. The Respondent presented his fee schedule to patient L. M. and the patient signed a copy of the fee schedule. The fee schedule stated, among other things, that missed appointments would be charged to the patient. The patient was a nursing assistant who had been treating herself at home with hot water and Tylenol. On November 7, 1994, the Respondent took a surgical and medical history, a history of the March 4, 1994, accident, a history of the onset of symptoms, and a history of the home care the patient had been attempting. The Respondent reviewed the nature of the patient's pain and how each area of her body was affected by her activities. The Respondent decided to perform physical, orthopedic, and neurological examinations of the patient. He also decided to obtain x-rays of her pelvis, of the lumbar, dorsal, and cervical areas of her spine, and of both of her knees. On November 8, 1994, the Respondent saw the patient again, at which time he began an examination of the patient by noting her height and weight, making a structural visual evaluation, checking her motor coordination, performing a cardiovascular examination, measuring her extremities, performing a sensory examination, and checking her reflexes. On November 8, 1994, the Respondent also took x-rays of the patient and read the x-rays that same day. The x-rays revealed subluxations. Based on the information he had obtained up to that point, the Respondent elected to commence treatment to the patient's lumbar spine. On November 8, 1994, he adjusted the patient's lumbar spine and also applied ultra sound and low voltage to the patient's lumbar spine. Where there are many complaints involving several areas of the patient's body, it is not unusual for a chiropractic physician to begin treatment prior to the completion of the full examination. It is not a deviation from the appropriate standard of care for a chiropractic physician to begin treatment prior to the completion of the full examination under such circumstances. Under the circumstances presented by the patient in this case, it was reasonable for the Respondent to commence treatment to her lower back on November 8, 1994, and to complete the examination the following day. On November 9, 1994, the Respondent did range of motion measurements and performed various orthopedic tests. He also performed a series of muscle tests. Based on the information he received on November 7, 8, and 9, 1994, the Respondent developed a treatment plan and treatment goals. His treatment plan called for adjustment to subluxated vertebrae and knees, ultrasound for tissue repair, low voltage muscle stipulation for spasm, traction to decrease intersegmental joint irritation, and acupressure for stimulation of the acupuncture points. He also proposed to brace the knees and the lumbar spine. The Respondent noted in his records that his treatment goals were to stabilize the patient's condition, increase range of motion, promote tissue repair, decrease spasm, and reduce subluxation. The Respondent also recorded a treatment frequency plan which provided for daily treatment for the first one or two weeks, followed by three weeks of treatment at a frequency of three times per week. The frequency plan was to be reevaluated at the end of one month. The Respondent's records provide a reasonable rationale for the services provided to the patient on November 7, 8, and 9, 1994. The course of treatment of the subject patient consisted of chiropractic adjustments and physiotherapeutic modalities such as low voltage, ultrasound, and traction. Chiropractic adjustment is performed to promote the reduction of subluxations, to increase the healing processes within the body, to increase the normal transmission of nerve impulses, and to reduce spasm. Ultrasound is administered to affect tissue where two dissimilar tissues come together. Low voltage stimulation is designed to relax tissue. All of the treatments administered by the Respondent were designed to meet the treatment goals he had previously established. Such treatments were consistent with a therapeutic outcome. The Respondent's course of treatment was appropriate for the various complaints and symptoms presented by the subject patient. The x-rays taken by the Respondent were appropriate under the circumstances presented by the subject patient. Justification for those x-rays is contained in the patient records. On December 16, 1994, the patient was involved in a second motor vehicle accident. The Respondent's records contain a history regarding the second accident. The Respondent obtained a copy of the accident report regarding the second accident. He also obtained x-ray reports from the hospital to which the patient was taken after the second accident. The Respondent noted in the patient records that he was going to continue with the same course of treatment following the second accident. That was a reasonable course of action under the circumstances of this case. Following the second motor vehicle accident, the Respondent concluded there was reason to suspect that the patient had a herniated disc. This conclusion was based on the chronicity of the patient and the acuteness of her problems. Accordingly, the Respondent ordered an MRI. The Respondent's patient records document a reasonable basis for the tests he ordered for the patient. The testing was reasonably calculated to assist in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment plan for the patient. The Respondent's patient records are legible in all material details. The few instances of illegible words do not materially affect an understanding of what is written in the records. The Respondent's patient records are sufficient to meet the record-keeping requirements of the rules that were in effect at the time the records were created. On or about November 7, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for a detailed one-hour consultation. On or about November 8, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for a half-hour consultation, a spinal adjustment, and two therapeutic modalities. On or about November 8, 1994, the Respondent also billed the patient's insurance company for skull, neck, thoracic, lumbar, left and right knee, and pelvic x-rays. On or about November 9, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for completion of the detailed physical, orthopedic, and neurological examination. Each time the patient visited the Respondent's office, the Respondent billed for an office visit. On numerous occasions, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for an office visit and for manipulations on the same day. On or about December 6, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for an office visit and for a re-examination. On or about January 3, 1995, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for an intermediate office visit and a consultation. On or about January 18, 1995, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for multiple vertebral segment manipulations. The Respondent has his own unique billing system in place. He does not use the current procedural terminology codes that are generally used by other chiropractic physicians in their billing.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule Subsections 64B2-15.001(2)(e), (i), and (l) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that they exceed Respondent's rulemaking authority or enlarge, modify, or contravene the law the Rule implements.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Michael John Badanek, D.C., is a duly licensed chiropractic physician in the State of Florida. Dr. Badanek actively practices in Ocala, Florida. Dr. Badanek has engaged in and is engaging in, the advertising of professional services to the public. Dr. Badanek is subject to the provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated by Respondent. Dr. Badanek's failure to adhere to the provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, including the Challenged Rule Subsections, may result in the discipline of his professional license. Dr. Badanek has standing to challenge the Challenged Rule Subsections. The affected state agency is the Board of Chiropractic Medicine (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), located at 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Board is charged by Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, with the duty of regulating the chiropractic profession in Florida. In carrying out that duty, the Board has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 64B2. At issue in this matter is the Challenged Rule Subsections of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B2-15.001. The Challenged Rule Subsections provide the following: 64B2-15.001 Deceptive and MisleadingAdvertising Prohibited; Policy; Definition. . . . . (2) No chiropractor shall disseminate or cause the dissemination of any advertisement or advertising which is in any way fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading. Any advertisement or advertising shall be deemed by the Board to be fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading, if it: . . . . (e) Coveys the impression that the chiropractor or chiropractors, disseminating the advertising or referred to therein, posses qualifications, skills, or other attributes which are superior to other chiropractors, other than a simple listing of earned professional post-doctoral or other professional achievements. However, a chiropractor is not prohibited from advertising that he has attained Diplomate status in a chiropractic specialty area recognized by the Board of Chiropractic. Chiropractic Specialties recognized by the Board are those recognized by the various Councils of the American Chiropractic Association or the International Chiropractic Association. Each specialty requires a minimum of 300 hours of post-graduate credit hours and passage of a written and oral examination approved by the American Chiropractic Association or International Chiropractic Association. Titles used for the respective specialty status are governed by the definitions articulated by the respective councils. A Diplomate of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners is not recognized by the Board as a chiropractic specialty status for the purpose of this rule. A chiropractor who advertises that he or she has attained recognition as a specialist in any chiropractic or adjunctive procedure by virtue of a certification received from an entity not recognized under this rule may use a reference to such specialty recognition only if the board, agency, or other body which issued the additional certification is identified, and only if the letterhead or advertising also contains in the same print size or volume the statement that "The specialty recognition identified herein has been received from a private organization not affiliated with or recognized by the Florida Board of Chiropractic Medicine." A chiropractor may use on letterhead or in advertising a reference to any honorary title or degree only if the letterhead or advertising also contains in the same print size or volume the statement "Honorary" or (Hon.) next to the title. . . . . (i) Contains any representation regarding a preferred area of practice or an area of practice in which the practitioner in fact specializes, which represents or implies that such specialized or preferred area of practice requires, or that the practitioner has received any license or recognition by the State of Florida or its authorized agents, which is superior to the license and recognition granted to any chiropractor who successfully meets the licensing requirements of Chapter 460, F.S. However, a chiropractor is not prohibited from advertising that he has attained Diplomate status in a specialty area recognized by the Board, or . . . . (l) Contains a reference to any other degree or uses the initials "M.D." or "D.O." or any other initials unless the chiropractic physician has actually received such a degree and is a licensed holder of such degree in the State of Florida. If the chiropractic physician licensee is not licensed to practice in any other health care profession in Florida, the chiropractic physician must disclose this fact, and the letterhead, business card, or other advertisement shall also include next to the reference or initials a statement such as "Not licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida" or "Licensed to practice chiropractic medicine only" in the same print size or volume. . . . . The authority cited by the Board as its "grant of rulemaking authority" for the Challenged Rule Subsections is Section 460.405, Florida Statutes, which provides: Authority to make rules.--The Board of Chiropractic Medicine has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter conferring duties upon it. The Board has cited Sections 456.062 and 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as the "law implemented" by the Challenged Rule Subsections. Section 456.062, Florida Statutes, provides: Advertisement by a health care practitioner of free or discounted services; required statement.--In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care practitioner licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, chapter 462, chapter 463, chapter 464, chapter 465, chapter 466, chapter 467, chapter 478, chapter 483, chapter 484, chapter 486, chapter 490, or chapter 491, the following statement shall appear in capital letters clearly distinguishable from the rest of the text: THE PATIENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PAY, CANCEL PAYMENT, OR BE REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT THAT IS PERFORMED AS A RESULT OF AND WITHIN 72 HOURS OF RESPONDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FREE, DISCOUNTED FEE, OR REDUCED FEE SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT. However, the required statement shall not be necessary as an accompaniment to an advertisement of a licensed health care practitioner defined by this section if the advertisement appears in a classified directory the primary purpose of which is to provide products and services at free, reduced, or discounted prices to consumers and in which the statement prominently appears in at least one place. Section 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, provides the following ground for disciplinary action: "False, deceptive, or misleading advertising." While neither this provision nor any other specific provision of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, imposes a specific duty upon the Board to define what constitutes "false, deceptive, or misleading advertising," the Board is necessarily charged with the duty to apply such a definition in order to carry out its responsibility to discipline licensed chiropractors for employing "false, deceptive, or misleading advertising."
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a final order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the physical diagnosis portion. In May 2001, Petitioner sat only for the physical diagnosis portion, having passed all other portions in a prior examination. The physical diagnosis section is a practical examination that tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical case history. The examination generally presents a case history, including the patient's complaint and vital signs, then asks a series of questions designed to lead to a diagnosis. The examination also asks some separate, stand-alone questions designed to elicit knowledge of specific techniques, such as how to obtain particular diagnostic imaging views. The physical diagnosis section of the May 2001 examination consisted of 26 tasks, for which varying numbers of points were awarded for correct answers. Two examiners evaluated the candidate's performance and independently awarded scores for each task. Petitioner's overall score was the average of the two examiners' scores. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section met the criteria for selection as examiners. An examiner must have been licensed in Florida as a chiropractor for at least five years, must not have had a chiropractic or other health care license suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against, and must not be currently under investigation by the Department or any other state or federal agency. Rule 64B2-11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department requires each examiner to attend a training session prior to administration of the examination. The training is designed to ensure that scoring standards are uniform and objective among the various examiners. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section had successfully completed the training session. The first series of questions on the physical diagnosis section dealt with a female patient in her early thirties whose main complaint was constant, severe pain in her left calf. The patient's temperature was slightly elevated at 99.8ºF, and she had swelling in her left ankle. Ultimately, the candidate was expected to arrive at a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis, inflammation of a vein in the left calf. Tasks 1 and 2, for which Petitioner received full credit, required the candidate to obtain a case history from the patient and to discuss the physical examination the candidate would perform on the patient. Task 3 asked the candidate to identify what laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, should be used to assist in arriving at a diagnosis. Task 4 asked the candidate to state his reasoning for choosing these tests. The correct answer to Task 3 was that the candidate should order either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test or a C-reactive protein (CRP) test. The correct answer to Task 4 was that the ESR and CRP assess the inflammatory processes that the candidate should suspect in the patient's left calf. On Task 3, Petitioner responded that he would order a complete blood count (CBC) and a urinalysis. On Task 4, Petitioner responded that he chose these tests because the patient's increased temperature indicated that there might be an infection present, and that a CBC and urinalysis are useful tests for infection. Task 3 was worth a maximum of four points. Task 4 was worth a maximum of three points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 3 and for Task 4. The results of the physical examination, particularly "Homan's sign," or pain in the calf with dorsiflexion of the foot, caused Petitioner to suspect thrombophlebitis. Petitioner knew of no laboratory test that returns a specific positive result for thrombophlebitis. He introduced textbook references to establish that the ESR and CRP tests are not specific to diagnosing thrombophlebitis. Petitioner did not believe that Tasks 3 and 4 gave him the option of ordering no laboratory tests at all, so he chose the most common tests that would at least confirm that no infection was present. Dr. Densmore, Respondent's expert, agreed with Petitioner that a positive Homan's sign is specific for diagnosing thrombophlebitis. However, he disagreed with Petitioner's choice of ordering a CBC and urinalysis. Dr. Densmore admitted that many doctors order these tests as a general standard for all patients, but stated that in this case they would do nothing to narrow the diagnosis. The CBC and urinalysis are useful for identifying infections; thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory disease, not an infectious disease. Dr. Densmore conceded that ESR and CRP are not specific to thrombophlebitis. However, Dr. Densmore believed that Petitioner should have chosen ESR or CRP because inflammation is present in 90 percent of thrombophlebitis cases and therefore those tests would assist the practitioner in arriving at a diagnosis. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for his answer to Tasks 3 and 4 because his answers were not the best answers to those questions. The correct answers set forth by the Department were supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Task 5 dealt with the same patient discussed above, and asked the candidate to indicate which, if any, diagnostic imaging procedures should be performed. The correct answer, worth four points, was "none" or "A-P & lateral leg." "A-P" stands for anteroposterior, or from the front to the back. On the videotape of the examination, Petitioner appeared confused by the question. He said that he would x-ray the "lower leg." One of the examiners asked him to be more specific as to which views he would take. Petitioner stated that he would x-ray the ankle because of the swelling there. Petitioner then mentioned the swelling in the calf, and stated that he would x-ray the "femur." The femur is the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee. An x-ray of the femur obviously would reveal nothing about the condition of the patient's calf. The examiner, likely sensing Petitioner's confusion, advised Petitioner to read the question again. Petitioner read the question aloud, then reiterated that he would take x-rays of the patient's ankle and femur. Task 5 was worth a maximum of four points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 5. Petitioner contended that he should have received partial credit for his initial response that he would x-ray the lower leg. However, Task 5 required the candidate to identify the specific views of the x-rays he would take. When the examiner asked him to name the specific views, Petitioner identified the femur. The context of the discussion makes it evident that Petitioner must have been thinking of the fibula or the tibia, i.e., the bones of the lower leg, when he repeatedly named the femur in connection with the patient's calf pain. However, the examiners had no choice but to grade Petitioner on the answer he actually gave. Petitioner should not be awarded any points for his answer to Task 5. Task 18 was a stand-alone question dealing with x- rays. The challenged portion of Task 18, worth two points, asked the candidate what he would do to obtain a quality lumbar spine x-ray of a severely obese patient if his office was equipped with a 300/125 x-ray machine. One of the examiners specified that this patient weighs around 500 pounds. The correct answer was that the candidate would use a higher capacity x-ray machine or refer the patient to a facility that has one. Petitioner's answer was that he would collimate close to the area of injury, decrease milliampere seconds (mAs), increase kilovolt peak (kVp) to increase penetration, and use a rare earth screen. Again, Petitioner appeared to be confused by the question. At the hearing, he testified that Task 18 did not ask what specific view he would take of the obese patient, whether of the arm, the chest, or the skull. Petitioner misread the question. Task 18 clearly states that the required view is of the patient's lumbar spine. Petitioner's misreading of the question led him to treat Task 18 as an x-ray physics question, hence his response, intended to demonstrate how he would maximize the clarity of an x-ray using the equipment at hand. Dr. Densmore stated that an x-ray of a patient this size taken on this equipment would simply be a white picture because of the amount of fatty tissue involved. With a patient of this size, the kVp would have to be increased so much that the practitioner would over-radiate the patient. The practitioner would have no choice but to send the patient out for an x-ray on a higher capacity machine. The examiners independently awarded Petitioner zero points for his response to this portion of Task 18. Their scoring was correct, supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Petitioner alleged that the Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) provided him by the Department did not adequately prepare him for format changes that occurred since his first sitting for the examination. Petitioner compared the CIB for the May 2001 examination to that for the November 2001 examination. He found that the detailed sample questions in the November 2001 CIB more closely reflected the examination he took in May 2001, and contended that the May 2001 CIB was outdated at the time it was distributed. All candidates for the May 2001 examination received the same Candidate Information Booklet that Petitioner received. Respondent's psychometrician, Dr. Linda Dean, testified that the passing rate for the May 2001 examination was in the range of 70 percent, consistent with other administrations of the examination. Petitioner's allegation concerning the adequacy of the CIB is not supported by the evidence. Petitioner also alleged that he was placed at a disadvantage by the fact that the examiners appeared to know that he was not taking the examination for the first time. Both Dr. Dean, the psychometrician assigned to the chiropractic licensure examination, and Dr. Densmore, who has served as an examiner many times, testified that examiners are not told the names or the status of the candidates. Dr. Dean testified that nothing is done to segregate first-time candidates from those who are retaking the examination, though an examiner may suspect that a candidate who is sitting for only one section of the examination is retaking that section. Even if Petitioner's allegation were credited, it would not change the result. Petitioner's responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 were incorrect. The examiners properly awarded him zero points for those tasks. Their knowledge that he was retaking the physical diagnosis section had no bearing on Petitioner's incorrect responses to the challenged tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for his responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in May 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Allan Niebrugge 4785 Barkley Circle No. 22 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes, for failing to keep written chiropractic records justifying the course of treatment of one patient.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a chiropractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida pursuant to license number CH 0003164. D. B. first visited Respondent on July 10, 1987. She was 36 years old and complained of depression, headaches, numbness, allergies, dizziness, low back pain, neck pain or stiffness, pain between the shoulders, pain or numbness in the shoulders and hands, pain over the heart, itching, frequent urination, earache. The inception of the back and neck pain and headaches, as well as nausea, dated back to an accident almost two years earlier, which followed another accident about a year earlier. Driving, exercise, and stress aggravated these conditions, which interfered with work, sleep, and daily routines. D. B., who was taking pain, muscle-relaxant, and anti-depressant medication, reported that she had not felt really good for almost two years. During the first visit, Respondent performed a neurological examination. He recorded his findings on D. B.'s chart. He also took x-rays and maintained the exposures among the patient's records. Respondent's diagnosis was that D. B. suffered from subluxation complexes. Respondent practices subluxation-based chiropractic, which is a well- recognized school within the profession. The primary purpose of the practice is to use chiropractic adjustment techniques to reduce the subluxation complex, which may consist of two or more misaligned vertebrae in the spine. The theory of subluxation practitioners is that the misalignment produces pressure on the spinal cord, which results in symptoms elsewhere in the body. As the treatment proceeds, the subluxation practitioner monitors the reduction of the complex and any attendant symptoms. However, his primary concern is achieving a biomechanical change in the spinal structure and not symptomatic complaints of the patient. For example, D. B. showed the symptom of a pelvic deficiency. A pelvic deficiency may manifest itself in a leg that, during clinical examination, is shortened or spongy. Using the Activator, Pierce, and Pierce-Stillwagon techniques, Respondent treated D. B. nine times during July, after the initial visit, then about four times per month through November, 1987, and about eight times thereafter with the final treatment taking place in October, 1988. Using abbreviations well-recognized among other subluxation practitioners, Respondent recorded the salient details of each office visit during the entire course of treatment. He noted the numeric value for the pelvic deficiency, as measured during each office visit. He recorded the nature and location of the adjustments that he performed upon D. B. during each visit. The chiropractic records justified the treatment that Respondent administered to D. B., whose symptoms alleviated under his care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE and ORDERED 14th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 14th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1502 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-2: adopted. 3: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 4-5: rejected as subordinate. 6-7: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 8: adopted in substance. and 11-16: rejected as subordinate. and 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 19-21: rejected as recitation of testimony. Treatent Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1 and 4-7: rejected as not finding of fact. 2-3: adopted. 8-9: rejected as subordinate. 10-15: adopted. 16-18: rejected as subordinate. 19-21: adopted in substance. 22-37: rejected as not finding of fact, recitation or testimony, and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Cynthia Gelmine, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack R. Elliott Arfken & Elliott 100 Rialto Place, Suite 801 Melbourne, Florida 32901 =================================================================
The Issue The basic issue in this case concerns the validity of the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination. The Petitioners contend that the examination was invalid for several reasons, and that because of such invalidity, they should be licensed as podiatrists even though they both failed the exam. The Respondent contends that the examination was valid, and that even if invalid, the Petitioners are not entitled to licensure unless and until they receive a passing grade on a licensure examination. Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Hearing Officer on July 12, 1985. Pursuant to agreement of counsel, the parties were allowed three weeks from the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which time period was later extended at the request of counsel for the Petitioners. On August 9, 1985, the Petitioners filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the Respondent filed proposed findings of fact and a memorandum of law. The posthearing submissions filed by the parties have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact in the posthearing submissions are set forth in the appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. At all times relevant to these proceedings the licensure examination administered by the Board of Podiatry has tested the following nine subject matter areas: anatomy, biochemistry, orthopedic podiatry, surgery; clinical podiatry and differential diagnosis, physiology, materia medica and pharmacology, pathology, and dermatology. At all relevant times the licensure examination has consisted of a total of 360 questions: forty questions on each of the nine subject matter areas covered by the examination. At all relevant times an overall average of seventy-five per cent (75 percent) has been required to achieve a passing score for the examination. An additional proviso at all relevant times is that a passing grade will not be given to any person who fails to achieve a minimum grade of fifty per cent (50 percent) in any one of the nine subject areas. The Petitioners Dr. Pascual Estevez and Dr. Victor Verjano, took the Board of Podiatry licensure examination in each of the following years: 1982, 1983, 1984. Both Petitioners failed all three exams. 1/ Dr. Estevez' scores on the 1982 and 1983 examinations were as follows: SUBJECT 1982 SCORE 1983 SCORE anatomy 30.0 percent 42.5 percent biochemistry 50.0 percent 60.0 percent orthopedic podiatry 45.0 percent 27.5 percent surgery 47.5 percent 50.0 percent clinical podiatry and differential diagnosis 32.5 percent 35.0 percent physiology 37.5 percent 40.0 percent materia medica and pharmacology 25.0 percent 45.0 percent pathology 40.0 percent 52.5 percent dermatology 45.0 percent 60.0 percent OVERALL AVERAGE 39.17 percent 45.8 percent Dr. Verjano's scores on the 1982 and 1983 examinations were as follows: SUBJECT 1982 SCORE 1983 SCORE anatomy 17.5 percent 37.5 percent biochemistry 40.0 percent 57.5 percent orthopedic podiatry 30.0 percent 30.0 percent surgery 27.5 percent 47.5 percent clinical podiatry and differential diagnosis 35.0 percent 27.5 percent physiology 22.5 percent 37.5 percent materia medica and pharmacology 20.0 percent 35.0 percent pathology 30.0 percent 55.0 percent dermatology 37.5 percent 57.5 percent OVERALL AVERAGE 28.89 percent 42.7 percent The 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination was the first podiatry examination that used questions solicited from professors of podiatry at several colleges of podiatry outside the state of Florida. The Board could not obtain questions from professors of podiatry within the state of Florida because there are no colleges of podiatry in this state. The Board preferred to avoid soliciting questions from podiatrists practicing in this state so that there would not be any local knowledge of the examination content readily available within the state. The decision to obtain a new pool of questions from professors of podiatry was a result of the opinion of the Board of Podiatry that the level of difficulty of previous examinations probably tested less than minimum competency. The Board felt that questions should be of a higher difficulty level than had been used on previous examinations because they were concerned that incompetent people were managing to "sneak through." When the Office of Examination Services wrote to the college professors to request that they prepare questions to be used on the examination, the letters to the professors included the following information with respect to the level of difficulty the Board preferred: For our purposes, the content tested by an item should be clearly pertinent to the mainstream practice of podiatry and ideally of a difficulty level such that you would expect most of the upper third of a graduating class to answer correctly while the majority of the lower third would find the item to be quite difficult. As regards to the difficulty level, the Board would prefer that in departing from the ideal you tend to favor higher difficulty levels. The college professors who prepared questions for the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination did not all follow the guidelines quoted immediately above. Some of them wrote questions which in the opinion of the Board were too easy. The questions for the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination were derived from three sources: those submitted under contract by selected professional faculty members at colleges of podiatry in California, Iowa, and Pennsylvania (approximately 50 percent of the questions), those prepared by the five professional members of the Podiatry Board (about 25 percent), and items selected by the developer from the item bank (about 25 percent). The latter were specifically selected for high discrimination between passing and failing candidates on a previous exam. This group of 89 test items was used to estimate the relative capability of the 1983 candidates. The remaining test items were selected by the professional members of the Board from the 337 items submitted by consultants and those contributed by the Board members themselves. Each question that was used on the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination was submitted to the Board for review before being included on the examination. The Board reviewed and considered every question submitted and selected only those they felt were adequate to test the candidates' competency. They rejected questions which were too hard as well as those which were too easy. Following the administration of the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination, each answer sheet was scored and a complete item analysis was generated for review by the examination development team. All items which were passed by 50 per cent or fewer of the candidates were scrutinized. Additional scrutiny was also given to items which displayed negative discrimination indices, i.e., those items passed by a greater proportion of low scoring examinees than high scoring examinees. A total of 109 items were identified for review by the Board. At its meeting on August 6, 1983, the Board determined that three items had been mis-keyed and that 39 items merited credit for all responses because of various defects. There remained a large number of questions which were of questionable validity because of the low percentage of upper half candidates who answered them correctly. A second review was conducted following submission of objections filed by candidates. Five additional examination items were credited for all responses and two were double keyed. Following the foregoing actions, a final psychometric review was conducted by the Office of Examination Services and 15 additional items were credited for all responses on statistical grounds. As originally administered and scored, the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination was of a difficulty level that tested for greater than minimum competency and was substantially more difficult than the examination that had been given in 1982. However, with the adjustments described above in paragraph 11 of these findings of fact, the difficulty level of the 1983 examination was substantially the same as the difficulty level of the 1982 examination. As adjusted, the difficulty level of the 1983 examination was such that it tested for minimum competency or perhaps less than minimum competency. As adjusted, the difficulty level of the 1983 Board of Podiatry examination was such that it did not test for greater than minimum competency. The effect of the adjustments described above was to delete from the examination the initial bias of the examination toward the more difficult items. As adjusted, the percentage of candidates who passed the 1983 examination was 50.4 percent, which compares favorably with the 51.1 percent pass rate for 1982. Following the final Board review which credited all of the items described above in paragraph 11 of these findings of fact, several members of the Board of Podiatry, including its chairman, Dr. Owen P. Macken felt that although the examination was a valid measurement of minimal competency as initially given, once it was "watered down" by the removal of so many items it became an invalid measurement because the Department had given credit for too many questions. A total of 117 candidates took the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination. As finally scored, fifty-nine of those candidates passed the examination. Expressed as a percentage, 50.4 percent of those who took the 1983 examination received a passing grade. Out of the total of 117 candidates who took the 1983 examination; the score of Dr. Verjano was; at best, 113th from the top, and perhaps as low as 116th from the top. The 1983 score of Dr. Estevez was, at best 110th from the top, and perhaps as low as 112th from the top. Compared from the other end of the scale, Dr. Verjano had perhaps the second worst grade of all 117 who took the 1983 examination and had no better than the fifth worst grade of all who took the examination. Dr. Estevez had perhaps the sixth worst grade of all 117 who took the 1983 examination and had no better than the eighth worst grade. 2/ As demonstrated by the "anchor questions," the candidates for examination who took the 1983 Board of Podiatry Licensure examination had characteristics very similar to the characteristics of the candidates who took the 1982 examination. In view of this similarity of the two groups of candidates who took the 1983 and the 1982 examinations, the fact that their success rate was very similar indicates that the difficulty level of the two examinations (as finally adjusted) was very similar. Accordingly, a candidate who passed one examination would probably have passed the other examination, and a candidate who made a very poor grade on one examination would probably have made a very poor grade on the other examination. The Board of Podiatry is composed of two lay members and five professional members. Each of the professional members is a licensed Florida podiatrist currently engaged in the active practice of podiatry in the state of Florida. The function of the Board differs from that of the Department of Professional Regulation. The Board is charged with determining the content of the examination questions so as to ensure that every podiatrist practicing in the state meets minimum requirements of safe practice and that podiatrists who fall below such minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public health would be prohibited from practicing in the state. The Board also determines the general areas to be tested and the score that shall be necessary evidence of passing the examination. The Department's function through its examination development specialists is to ensure that the test items or questions are functioning as they were intended and to advise the Board as to the worth of the individual items. Although a national podiatry examination is available, the Board of Podiatry has chosen not to use it. This appears to be due in part to the differences from state to state in the lawful scope of the practice of podiatry, some states limiting the practice to the foot while in Florida the scope of practice extends up to the knee.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing it is recommended that the Board of Podiatry enter a Final Order concluding that the Petitioners have failed the 1983 examination and denying the Petitioners' applications for licensure on the basis of their having failed the 1983 examination. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case as follows: The Respondent, Clifford Fruithandler, D.C. is and has been at all times material hereto [sic] the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 89-7036, (DPR Case Number 0094598) a chiropractor licensed in the State of Florida having been issued license number CH 0004149. The Respondent's address is 5417 West Atlantic Boulevard, Margate, Florida 33063. The Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed chiropractor caused to be published an advertisement in the North West Medical Guide in Broward County. The advertisement was published on September 16, 1987. The advertisement identified the Respondent's chiropractic practice as "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control Center". The Respondent has been subject to discipline by the Board of Chiropractic in DPR Case Number 44292, 40777, and 28914. On or about March, 4, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation wrote a letter to Respondent which stated "Please be advised that the Department has received a complaint based on the enclosed advertisement. The allegations are: (1) Advance Chiropractic implies that you possess skills and or other attributes which are superior to other chiropractors..." Within one week following the receipt of such letter by Respondent, the Respondent changed the name of the clinic and stopped using the name "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control". Prior to the receipt of DPR's letter of March 4, 1988, Respondent had received no complaints from DPR, the Board of Chiropractic, or from any patient regarding the use of such name.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, issuing a reprimand to the Respondent and assessing a fine against Respondent in the amount $750.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 29th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Roger W. Calton, Esquire Qualified Legal Representative 30131 Town Center Drive Suite 177 Laguna Niguel, CA. 92677-2040 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Jens Emilio Valle, is entitled to licensure by virtue of a passing grade on the May 1988 Chiropractic examination, specifically on the technique portion of the examination.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Valle was an unsuccessful candidate for the May 1988 Chiropractic examination. As part of the practical examination, Dr. Valle took the technique portion and received a score of 73.9. A score of 75 is required for certification for licensure. The technique portion is part of an oral practical examination and is subjectively graded by two independent graders. All graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida for at least five years and have received several hours of standardization training prior to serving as graders on the practical examination. The grade range on each section is one to four. A score of three is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency and a score of four is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge. These scores are then added with other factors and scores to produce a total. Dr. Valle claims that he was underscored on the technique portion of the examination. His scores were as follows: Grader 27--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (3.5). Grader 37--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (3), rib (3), and soft tissue (3). Dr. Valle presented the expert testimony of Jim Terrell, D.C., who has been licensed in Florida for less than five years. Dr. Terrell has received no training in grading practical examinations. He has never participated in the administration and grading of a chiropractic examination for licensure. Dr. Terrell based his testimony solely on his observation of the videotape. His opinion was that Dr. Valle's performance in the pelvic technique was "essentially" correct. Dr. Terrell's opinion related solely to the mechanical performance. Steven M. Ordet, D.C., is a chiropractic physician licensed in Florida since 1974. He is the past Chairman of the Peer Review Committee of the Florida Chiropractic Association, a Director of the Florida Chiropractic Association, and has been an examiner for the chiropractic examination for the last seven years. He was not an examiner on the May 1988 examination. Dr. Ordet also reviewed the videotape. In his opinion as a trained grader, he would have awarded the following scores based on Dr. Valle's performance: Cervical (3), thoracic (2.5), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (2.5). Dr. Ordet would have given these scores in part because Dr. Valle failed to describe the technique he was demonstrating. The preliminary instructions given for the examination and shown on the videotape require, in part, that the candidate describe the technique as it is demonstrated. The opinion of Dr. Ordet is persuasive based on his experience as a grader and on his explanation for the grades he would give.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the request for relief filed by Jens Emilio Valle and dismissing the petition for relief. DONE and ENTERED this 17th of August 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 17th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0886 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4 (1-7). COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jens Emilio Valle, D.C. 901 Cedar Canyon Square Marietta, GA 33067 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
