The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice chiropractic should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 460, F.S., as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated May 11, 1984. This case arises as a result of charges filed by Petitioner in an Amended Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondent violated various provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, in performing procedures intended to terminate the pregnancy of a female patient in 1984, which resulted in a criminal conviction. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Alfred Clum, a Department investigator, Charles E. Robinson, Chief Investigator, Bay County Sheriff's Office, Dr. March A. Wolf, obstetrician and gynecologist, Patty Smith, Deputy Clerk, Bay County Circuit Court, David W. Morrison and Barbara Morrison. Respondent testified in his own behalf. Petitioner submitted 6 exhibits in evidence and Respondent submitted a late-filed exhibit. Although the parties were provided time to file an agreed transcription of tape recordings as a late- filed exhibit, such exhibit has not been filed as of this date. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner amended paragraphs 11 and 17 of the Amended Administrative Complaint to correct scrivener's errors, thus changing the alleged violations of Section 460.413(1)(g) to 460.413(1)(q). Similarly, paragraph 15 was corrected from Section 460.1413(1)(u) to 460.413(1)(u). Although the parties were accorded a specified period in which to file post-hearing proposed findings of fact, they failed to do so.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Thomas F. Yancey was licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida in 1966 and was so licensed at all times material to the administrative complaint herein. On May 15, 1984, an Order of Emergency Suspension was issued against Respondent's license by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation which is still in effect. Respondent has never been licensed by the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners or Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4, Testimony of Respondent) In August 1983, Barbara D. Morrison visited Respondent's office in Panama City, Florida, for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. She paid him $150.00, but obtained a refund because, according to her, "it didn't work." Respondent testified that Morrison had come to him at that time for an abortion, but that he had told her "I don't do that," but that he could arrange it for her if she needed it. He admitted that he gave her an examination and told her that he suspected she was pregnant. He further testified that since Morrison had given his receptionist some money, he wrote her a check for $150.00. (Testimony of B. Morrison, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 1) During the latter part of March 1984, Morrison again went to Respondent's office and told him she wanted an abortion. He told her it would cost $150.00. She then went into a room in the office where she put on a gown, laid on a table and placed her feet in stirrups. Respondent "mashed" on her stomach to see if she was pregnant and then "gave me some kind of shot in my uterus." Respondent told her that he had used a saline solution. Morrison's ex-husband, David W. Morrison, went to Respondent's office while Barbara Morrison was there to loan her $60.00 for the abortion. He gave the money to Respondent's receptionist. He observed Barbara in a back room of Respondent's office, but no one else was there at the time. He later took her home. (Testimony of B. Morrison, D. Morrison) The injection that Barbara Morrison received from Respondent in March 1984 did not produce any results so she returned to his office about a week later on April 2, 1984. At that time, Respondent followed the same procedures as on the previous occasion and injected a solution into her again. According to Barbara Morrison, "it felt like it went to my heart. It hurt real bad. I asked him what he did and he said nothing. He said to lay down and I would be all right, but my body was swelling up." She was thereafter taken by a companion to the Bay County Medical Center where she received emergency treatment. On the same day, she was transferred to the Gulf Coast Hospital and treated by Dr. Mark A. Wolf, an obstetrician/gynecologist who had treated her for a "spontaneous" abortion in 1983. Upon examination, Dr. Wolf found that Morrison was experiencing lower abdominal pain and was also having some reaction to medication. There was no evidence of infection at the time. Ultrasound studies showed a viable pregnancy in the uterus with some fluid or swelling around the gestational sack. Morrison told him at the time that she had had an abortion attempted to be performed on her and that she believed that is what caused some of her problems. Dr. Wolf believed there was a significant risk of infection and admitted her to the hospital. She thereafter started to develop signs of infection and to spontaneously abort her pregnancy. He therefore completed the abortion by a dilation and evacuation of the uterus. (Testimony of B. Morrison, Wolf) On April 10, 1984, pursuant to an investigation conducted by the Bay County Sheriff's Office, Barbara Morrison returned to Respondent's office with an electronic transmitter concealed on her person that could be monitored by the law enforcement personnel in a nearby vehicle. She told Respondent that she needed another "shot" because the other one hadn't worked. They made an arrangement for her to return on the next day, April 11, for another abortion attempt. Morrison asked Respondent for a receipt for the money that she had paid and he wrote her one. On the following day, she returned, again equipped with a listening device, and went to Respondent's back room, put on a gown, and got on the table. She asked Respondent if he was going to give her a shot like the one he gave her the last time and he said yes. At this point, law enforcement personnel entered the room, observed Morrison sitting on the table with a gown on, and Respondent standing near the foot of the examination table with an instrument tray in his hand. The office was searched pursuant to a search warrant, but no medical records concerning Morrison were found. Respondent was placed under arrest at the time. On April 23, 1984, a departmental investigator, Dwayne Clum, talked to Respondent outside his office and provided him with a release of medical records which had been signed by Barbara Morrison. Respondent informed Clum that he had no medical records on Morrison. Investigator Clum accompanied the Sheriff's personnel when they entered Respondent's office on April 11, and took photographs of the examination table and tray containing various items including a metallic syringe, a vaginal speculum, and a metal cannula. However, there was no fluid in the syringe and the cannula, which can be used as an attachment to a syringe, did not fit the syringe on the tray. (Testimony of B. Morrison, Clum, Robinson, Wolf, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) On October 29, 1984, Respondent was found guilty of criminal abortion, performing an abortion in an unlawful place, and two counts of practicing medicine without a medical license. Imposition of sentence was withheld and he was placed on probation for a period of five years. The conviction was based on Respondent's activities in connection with Barbara Morrison on April 2 and 11, 1984. He was found not guilty of practicing medicine without a license in connection with his alleged performing of an internal examination of and injecting a solution into the reproductive organs of Morrison on or about March 15, 1984. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7) Respondent denied at the hearing that he had seen Morrison in March of 1984. He claimed that she had left numerous calls at his house during the latter part of March, but that he had been at a seminar. He admitted that he saw her either on April 1 or 2, 1984, and performed a pelvic examination. He claimed that he had to wash her vagina prior to the examination and that there was pus oozing therefrom with a strong odor, and that he therefore took a large ear syringe and washed out the area with a saline solution. He told her at this time that he was not sure that she was pregnant. He further testified that she came back about a week later demanding to see him and that he told her that he could see her the next day. However, prior to any action on his part on that day, the police entered his office. He denied ever agreeing with her to perform an abortion or injecting anything into her uterus. He explained that the reason he had no medical records on Morrison was because the exams were strictly of an emergency nature. Respondent denied receiving any money from Morrison on April 2, 1984, but said that she "threw a five dollar bill" on his desk on April 11. Respondent's testimony in the above respects is not deemed credible and is accordingly rejected. (Testimony of Respondent) Although the term "obstetrics" normally deals with the outcome of a live birth, the aborting of a fetus or termination of pregnancy can also be included in the definition. Such an invasive procedure involving the injection of a substance into the uterus also might be encompassed within the term "surgery." Termination of a pregnancy constitutes the practice of medicine that only may be performed by a licensed physician or osteopath. (Testimony of Wolf)
Recommendation That the Board of Chiropractic issue a final order which suspends the license of Thomas F. Yancey to practice chiropractic for a period of two years, as a result of established violations of subsections 460.413(1)(n), (q) and (u), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 14th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roger D. Patterson, Esquire 17208 W. Hutchinson Road Panama City Beach, Florida 32407
The Issue Whether, as alleged in the administrative complaints, disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a physician, based on separate violations of the following statutes for each patient as indicated below: DOAH Case No. 97-0337 Patient Statute T. D. 458.331(1)(g), 458.331(1)(t) F. R.-1 458.331(1)(g), 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(t) S. M. 458.331(1)(g), 458.331(1)(t) F. R.-2 458.331(1)(g), 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(t) T. M. 458.331(1)(g), 458.331(1)(t), 766.411 L. F. 458.329, 458.331(1)(j), 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(t), 458.331)1)(x) C. G. 458.331(1)(k), 458.331(12)(m), 458.331(1)(n), 458.331(1)(t) DOAH Case No. 97-0338 J. S. 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(q), 458.331(1)(t).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented in this proceeding, the following facts were found: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 0056554 by the State of Florida. The Respondent was licensed in Florida in 1989. Prior to his licensure in Florida, he underwent residency training in OB/GYN at the State University of New York in New York City and St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Following his residency the Respondent performed a two-year fellowship in perinatology at the State University of New York in Syracuse. Patient J. S. On December 10, 1992, Patient J. S., a 19 year-old female, presented to Respondent for evaluation and medical care concerning her pregnancy. The patient was transferred from Orlando Birthing Center where she had her entire prenatal care. Upon presentation, Patient J. S. was at 42 weeks gestation. After examination in Respondent's office, Respondent subsequently made arrangement for admittance to Princeton Hospital for induction and delivery the following day. On December 11, 1992, at approximately 6:45 a.m., Patient J. S. was admitted to Princeton Hospital. At approximately 11:30 a.m., Pitocin, a legend drug, was administered by the staff as directed by Respondent. Pitocin, a derivative of the pituitary gland, is a commonly used substance to stimulate the uterus to contract. However, it is not risk free and must be used carefully. If the muscle is over-stimulated causing too much contraction, there can be interference with the blood supply to the placenta or it can cause the uterus to rupture. The use of Pitocin must be carefully monitored. Variability and reactivity of the fetal tracing was within normal limits at that time. At approximately 5:30 p.m., on December 11, 1992, Patient J. S.'s membranes were artificially ruptured and an internal fetal scalp monitor was placed. At approximately 7:30 p.m., the nursing assessment revealed that J. S. was 2 centimeters (cm) dilated, 70 percent effaced, and at minus 2 station. At approximately 10:10 p.m., Patient J. S. experienced a deceleration in the heart rate. At approximately 10:35 p.m., the patient experienced two more decelerations indicative of fetal distress. This resulted in the nurse on duty turning off the Pitocin. A vaginal examination revealed that Patient J. S. was still 2cm dilated, 70 percent effaced with the baby at a minus 2 station though the Pitocin had been running continuously for approximately 11 hours. During this period the Respondent was not on the premises. At approximately 11:50 p.m., Pitocin was re-initiated, and variable and late decelerations were again noted. Respondent was notified at approximately 1:10 a.m. and no new orders were given. Patient J. S.'s Pitocin was subsequently increased. Following the increase of Pitocin, Patient J. S. suffered an episode of variable decelerations which lasted approximately three minutes. The fetal heart rate was noted to be 64 beats per minute. Respondent was notified and Patient J. S.'s Pitocin was subsequently discontinued. However, Patient J. S. continued to suffer episodes of severe variable and late decelerations. In the early morning hours of December 12, 1992, Patient J. S.'s uterine contractions increased followed by late decelerations. Pursuant to Respondent's orders, Pitocin was restarted at 9:30 a.m. At approximately 10:00 a.m., Respondent arrived at the hospital. By approximately 1:45 p.m., poor variability was noted. At approximately 2:00 p.m., Patient J. S.'s fetal heart rate became unstable and decelerations became more profound. Evaluation revealed that the fetal heart tracing showed a distress pattern with repeated episodes of bradycardia and moderate to severe variable deceleration while the station of the baby never proceeded beyond minus 1 station. Respondent subsequently increased Pitocin. Despite poor fetal tracing, Respondent indicated that he intended a vaginal delivery. Patient J. S. was given an epidural with a bolus at approximately 8:00 p.m. At approximately 9:13 p.m., following four hours of full dilation, Patient J. S. was transferred to Labor and Delivery for a trial forceps set-up. Respondent applied Tucker/McLean forceps to the fetal head. At this time, fetal heart rate tracing was noted to be 80-90 beats per minute. Respondent subsequently determined that the infant could not be delivered and a Cesarean section was performed approximately 40 minutes later. The delay in delivery was the result of the need to wait for the surgical assistant to arrive, who was on-call, and for the anesthesia to take effect before he could operate. The infant was delivered with visible forcep marks including a skin lesion. The infant appeared to be emaciated and also displayed behavior indicative of a seizure shortly after delivery. A subsequent CT Scan revealed a subdural hemorrhage. The infant was later diagnosed as suffering from right facial nerve paralysis. Respondent failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care in that Respondent failed to appropriately monitor Patient J. S.'s progress during labor. Respondent failed to pursue the appropriate plan of treatment for Patient J. S. Patient J. S.'s poor response to Respondent's initial attempts to initiate labor indicated that Respondent should have pursued an alternative plan of treatment. Respondent failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care by failing to proceed to the hospital to evaluate Patient J. S.'s condition following the episode of bradycardia on the evening of on or about December 11, 1992. Respondent failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care by allowing Patient J. S. to continue in labor prior to the delivery of the infant given that the infant continued to suffer from unstable and variable heart rates. Respondent failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care by delaying delivery approximately four hours following full dilation. Respondent failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care by failing to appropriately apply forceps in attempts to deliver the infant. Respondent failed to maintain medical records which justified his course of treatment for Patient J. S. Respondent failed to appropriately utilize Pitocin. The continued usage of Pitocin following initial attempts to induce labor was inappropriate given Patient J. S.'s failure to progress during labor. Patient T. D. On or about August 24, 1992, Patient T. D., an 18 year- old female, presented to Respondent complaining of vaginal and abdominal pain during the previous two days. Respondent conducted a pelvic examination. Respondent did not observe vaginal bleeding. Respondent ordered the performance of an obstetrics ultrasound which revealed a viable 15-week intrauterine pregnancy. Respondent did not perform further tests to determine if Patient T. D. was experiencing premature labor. Patient T. D. was sent home and directed to go to the hospital if bleeding began. Later that evening, Patient T. D. presented to Princeton Hospital at which time she aborted. On August 26, 1992, Patient T. D. returned to Respondent for evaluation. Respondent performed an ultrasound and prescribed Methergine for bleeding. Patient T. D. presented with indications of premature labor on August 24, 1992. Respondent did not appropriately evaluate Patient T. D. for premature labor. Respondent failed to appropriately diagnose Patient T. D.'s condition or failed to pursue the appropriate plan of treatment. Patient F. R.-1 On September 20, 1992, Patient F. R.-1, a 38 year-old female, was hospitalized for abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding following a positive pregnancy test conducted at the hospital emergency room. During the hospitalization, Patient F. R.-1's, levels of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) declined, and she underwent a pelvic ultrasound. The test indicated that the patient had a non-viable pregnancy. Following her release from the hospital, on or about September 23, 1992, Patient F. R.-1, presented to Respondent with abdominal pain and bleeding and a history of a tubal ligation and non-viable pregnancy. Respondent performed a pelvic examination and asked her to return if the symptoms persisted. On or about October 8, 1992, Patient F. R.-1 presented to Respondent with the same symptoms, at which time Respondent initiated Patient F. R.-1 on Provera and Estrace. On or about October 15, 1992, Patient F. R.-1 presented to Respondent with irregular bleeding and abdominal discomfort. Patient F. R.-1 was advised to return in two weeks for evaluation. On or about October 29, 1992, Patient F. R.-1 returned to Respondent with continued complaints of abdominal pain. Respondent performed a pelvic ultrasound on Patient F. R.-1 which revealed normal follicular cysts in the ovaries. While treating Patient F. R.-1, Respondent failed to evaluate her HCG levels. Declining levels of HCG indicate that Patient F. R.-1 suffered an early miscarriage. Respondent failed to appropriately assess Patient F. R.-1's condition, failed to diagnose a probable early miscarriage, and failed to accurately observe the contents of the uterine cavity. Respondent failed to attain a conclusive diagnosis of Patient F. R.-1's condition. Respondent inappropriately treated Patient F. R.-1 with Provera and Estrace (hormones). The prescribing of hormones following an abortion is below the standard of care. Respondent failed to maintain medical records which justified his plan of treatment for Patient F. R.-1. Patient S. M. On or about July 13, 1992, Patient S. M., a 31 year-old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of pain and cramps. Patient S. M. presented with a history of two Cesarean sections, a tubal ligation, and an appendectomy. Patient S. M. presented subsequent to the performance of a pelvic sonogram, which suggested a small fibroid in the uterus. The sonogram was performed by another physician. On or about July 13, 1992, Respondent performed a second sonogram, and diagnosed multi-cystic ovaries and heavy menses. Respondent noted that Patient S. M.'s pelvic examination was normal. In the course of the office visit, Respondent scheduled M. for an exploratory laparotomy. On or about August 5, 1992, Patient S. M. presented to Princeton Hospital for the performance of an exploratory laparotomy, a lysis of adhesions, and a bilateral wedge resection of the ovaries with repair of the ovaries by chromic suture. Respondent performed the procedure. Following the operation, pathology report revealed normal ovaries. On or about July 13, 1992, Respondent did not misdiagnose Patient S. M.'s condition or fail to appropriately assess her complaints. Respondent failed to appropriately perform the surgical procedure on or about August 5, 1992. The repair of the ovaries by chromic suture is inappropriate for 1992 surgical techniques and will ensure the formation of adhesions post-operatively. Patient F. R.-2 On or about July 3, 1992, Patient F. R.-2, a 37 year- old female, presented to Respondent for the performance of a gynecologic examination. Respondent performed a normal pelvic examination. Respondent's examination revealed heavy menses, and he diagnosed yeast vaginitis and pelvic pain. Patient F. R.-2 presented with a history of several operations on her kidneys and gallbladder, an appendectomy, and a tubal ligation. Approximately six weeks later, Patient F. R.-2 returned to Respondent for the performance of a pelvic sonogram which revealed a single cyst on one ovary, and several cysts on the other ovary. Respondent subsequently scheduled Patient F. R.-2 for the performance of a wedge resection of the ovaries. On or about September 23, 1992, Patient F. R.-2 presented to Princeton Hospital for the performance of a bilateral wedge resection of the ovaries with repair of the ovaries by chromic suture, and lysis of minimal pelvic adhesions. The post-operative pathology report revealed sections of normal ovaries. Respondent did not appropriately diagnose, assess, and treat Patient F. R.-2's condition. Respondent failed to appropriately perform the surgical procedure on or about September 23, 1992. The repair of ovaries by chromic suture is inappropriate for 1992 surgical techniques, and will ensure the formation of adhesions post-operatively. Respondent failed to maintain medical records which justify his course of treatment for Patient F. R.-2. Patient T. M. On or about July 20, 1992, Patient T. M. presented Respondent with a complaint of irregular bleeding and pain. Respondent performed a pelvic examination of the patient and noted that Patient T. M. was taking birth control pills. On or about July 28, 1992, Patient T. M. returned to Respondent with continued abdominal and pelvic pain. In addition to his examination, Respondent performed an office ultrasound. Respondent made a diagnosis of polycystic ovarian disease. He also treated Patient T. M. for a urinary tract infection. On or about July 29, 1992, Respondent performed a second sonogram and noted no change in the pelvic cysts. Following the performance of the second sonogram, Respondent scheduled Patient T. M. for a wedge resection of the ovaries. On or about July 31, 1992, Respondent admitted Patient M. to Princeton Hospital for the performance of a wedge resection of the ovaries. The post-operative pathology report indicated that the removed portion of the ovaries were normal. Respondent failed to appropriately diagnose, assess, and treat patient T. M.'s condition. Respondent failed to attain a conclusive diagnosis of Patient T. M.'s condition. On or about July 31, 1992, Respondent inappropriately performed a surgical procedure on Patient T. M., which was not indicated, given that her ovaries were normal and some other reason was the likely cause of her bleeding. Respondent failed to appropriately perform the surgical procedure on or about July 31, 1992. The surgical techniques utilized by Respondent were inappropriate in that Respondent should have used a non-reactive suture. Respondent failed to maintain medical records which justify his course of treatment for Patient T. M. Patient L. F. On or about Friday, May 7, 1993, Patient L. F. was hired to work for Respondent as an insurance clerk. On or about Monday, May 10, 1993, Patient L. F. Reported for work at Respondent's office. Patient L. F. was agitated and nervous and complained of stomach pain. Patient L. F. left the office for the day around noon. On or about May 11, 1993, Patient L. F.'s second day of employment, L. F. reported to work, but went home at the beginning of the day complaining of stomach problems. She later reported back to work at approximately 12:15 p.m. Patient L. F.'s testimony that after she returned to work, Respondent inquired into how Patient L. F. was feeling; that Respondent invited Patient L. F. into an examination room for the purpose of performing an examination; that during the examination, Respondent touched Patient L. F.'s vaginal area with an ungloved finger; that Respondent placed his finger or fingers on L. F.'s genitalia area and started rubbing that area; that Respondent placed his palm on L. F.'s breast, then rubbed the side of her face with his knuckles, and told her how pretty she was; and that there was no other female present during the examination is not credible. On May 11, 1993, Respondent was in his office seeing patients until approximately 12:30 p.m. Shortly thereafter, he left the office and traveled to Princeton Hospital to do rounds. Respondent arrived in a Patient Lightfritz's room at approximately 1:00 p.m., and then examined at least two other patients. He then returned to the office, arriving shortly after 2:00 p.m.; Respondent began seeing patients for the remainder of the afternoon. Patient L. F. remained on the job for the remainder of the afternoon and left for the day at approximately 5:30 p.m. She did not return to work the next day, or thereafter. Respondent did not perform a physical exam of L. F. and she was, therefore, not a patient of Respondent. Patient C. G. On or about May 12, 1993, Patient C. G., a 29 year-old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of a backache and vaginal discharge. Respondent conducted an examination of Patient C. G., including a pelvic sonogram. Following the examination, Respondent administered an injection of Depo-Provera to the patient. Respondent contemporaneously prepared medical records on Patient C. G. justifying the course of treatment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that in regard to DOAH Case No. 97-0337, Respondent be found guilty on Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, and, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found not guilty on Counts Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, and Twenty-one; and, it is RECOMMENDED that, in regard to DOAH Case No. 97-0338, Respondent be found guilty on Counts One, Two, and Three; and, it is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent shall have his license to practice as a physician suspended for a period of one year; pay a civil penalty of $10,000, plus the costs of this prosecution; and the suspension be followed by a two-year period of probation, under such reasonable terms and conditions as the Board may require, including continuing medical education and evaluation. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 1st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabriel Mazzeo, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Richard A. Simon, Esquire Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A. 201 East Pine Street 15th Floor Orlando, Florida 32801 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Department of Health Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2013), by committing sexual misconduct, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. In the event that a violation is established, then the appropriate penalty to be imposed also must be established.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following factual findings are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of chiropractic medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Steven Read, D.C., is a licensed chiropractic physician in the State of Florida, and holds license CH 5979. Respondent is the owner of Ortega Chiropractic Clinic (Ortega) in Jacksonville, Florida, and his address of record is 5367 Ortega Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. Respondent has been practicing chiropractic medicine in the Jacksonville area for 27 years. He has been running his own office since 1996. Respondent has no prior discipline against his license. Ortega is located in a two-story building. The downstairs includes a waiting room and check-in area, the office manager’s office, and three patient examination rooms. Upstairs, there is a large rehabilitation room. Adjacent to the rehabilitation room is a small reception area and Respondent’s office. The rehabilitation room includes three examination tables, as well as several pieces of exercise equipment used to assist patients with stretching and strength-building exercises. Patients routinely receive treatment in the rehabilitation area as their condition warrants. Ortega has what was described as an open-door policy when it comes to examination rooms. In other words, with the exception of when a patient is in an examination room changing clothes, the examination room doors remain open during treatment. This policy was in place at the time of the events giving rise to this case. At the time of her initial visit to Ortega, patient K.W. was a 52-year-old female. She was in a car accident on or about April 4, 2014, and presented to Ortega on April 7, 2014, with pain in the neck, right shoulder, lower back, right hip, and right buttocks, along with persistent stiffness and pain in her lower right back and right posterior thigh. She described the constant pain as sharp and shooting, and stiffness with aching, at a level of 6 out of 10. K.W. had nine treatments at Ortega related to her post-accident pain. Typically, she would receive electric muscle stimulation, moist heat, and massage therapy from a massage therapist. Respondent would provide chiropractic adjustments. Those adjustments were spinal adjustments, including her cervical spine, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine, as well as the sacroiliac joint, and were done with K.W. lying on her back, stomach, and side. During each visit, Dr. Read examined K.W., including performance of palpation and range of motion assessments, and performed an adjustment. K.W.’s condition improved over the course of her treatment with Dr. Read. By all accounts, the first eight appointments consisted of the treatments described above and were unremarkable. K.W.’s ninth appointment was April 23, 2014. Her appointment was at 8:30 in the morning. K.W. was wearing sweatpants and a tee shirt. Consistent with her normal practice, she was not wearing underwear. Dr. Read was late coming to the office because of an issue related to his daughter’s health. Dr. Read’s massage therapist, Clarissa (then Ragsdale) Brown, began K.W.’s treatment that day with electric muscle stimulation, moist heat, and massage therapy. Dr. Read then came in, apologized for his tardiness, and began palpating K.W.’s glute muscle in her right buttocks. He worked on the glute muscle into the thigh both over and under her sweatpants. Patient K.W. had pulled down her sweatpants on the right-hand side to show Dr. Read the location of the pain in her buttocks. While he was working on her glute muscle, K.W. believed that Respondent “swiped across my vagina lips a couple of times.” K.W. could not say whether what she felt was actually Dr. Read’s hands or whether it was contact between her body and her sweat pants. Either way, she considered the contact to be accidental. K.W. did not say anything to Dr. Read about this perceived contact. At this visit, K.W.’s pain level had improved. As a result of this improvement, Dr. Read asked K.W. if she would like to begin active strengthening of her lower back on the flexion- extension machine in the rehabilitation center. She indicated her willingness to do so, and the two of them left the examination room and walked upstairs to the rehabilitation room. As they walked up the stairs, Respondent noticed that K.W. was moving slowly going up the stairs. He asked her what was wrong, and K.W. told him that she had a pulling feeling in the back of her right leg. The pulling that K.W. described was a new symptom to Dr. Read, and concerned him. He told her he needed to assess this symptom before they went further. Dr. Read testified that he had K.W. lie face down on one of the examination tables to assess the pulling in her leg. In his assessment, Respondent wanted to differentiate between a sciatic nerve problem from the low back and a hip pathology. He also wanted to rule out a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which can be quite dangerous. As part of his assessment, Dr. Read performed a Homan’s test to check for DVT. To perform a Homan’s test, K.W. lay prone on the table and Dr. Read rolled up her right pant leg and applied pressure to the calf. He also forcibly flexed the leg and dorsiflexed the ankle. The test involves stretching the calf and squeezing it: if the patient had a DVT, heat would most likely be detected, as well as excruciating pain. Dr. Read also performed a FABRE Patrick test, which is for sacroiliac joint pathology. For this test, K.W. was lying on her back and Respondent flexed the right leg then abducted the right hip joint, while externally rotating the right hip. Dr. Read described it as being like sitting Indian-style, except that the patient is lying on their back. He would then flex one leg up toward the chest and then rotate the leg out, while at the same time applying downward pressure to the knee. If the patient has a hip-joint pathology, he or she would experience sharp pain in the hip as a result of this move. Both the existence of the pulling sensation in K.W.’s leg and the performance of the Homan and FABRE Patrick tests are noted in Dr. Read’s medical records for April 23, 2014. Both tests were negative, although tenderness was noted for K.W.’s right posterior and lateral thigh. Dr. Read had no knowledge that K.W. believed he had touched her inappropriately at the time he dictated and signed his patient records for this visit. During these tests, K.W. thought that, once again, Dr. Read had touched her vaginal area. However, she could not state whether it was her sweatpants or Dr. Read’s hand that actually made contact. She testified that at one point, her sweatpants became uncomfortable and twisted, and were getting pulled and tugged in conjunction with the assessment that Dr. Read was performing. K.W. believed that in all, there were five to six contacts of short duration. K.W. testified that when she and Dr. Read entered the rehabilitation area, she lay on one of the examination tables face down, and Dr. Read began working on her glute muscle again, separated her butt cheeks with his fingers and thumb, and touched her vaginal area a couple of times. She felt a light brushing sensation, but, as noted above, could not say that it was actually his hand that she felt. She still considered the perceived contact as unintentional. K.W. also testified that Dr. Read asked her to turn over, and started working on the lower abdomen down into the groin area and the inner thigh. She testified that he again ran his hand across her vagina, and massaged her upper thigh and leg. She claimed that because her sweatpants had become twisted, when Dr. Read pulled her leg up, her leg came out of her sweatpants. At this point, she interpreted the contact with her vaginal area as intentional. K.W. did not tell Dr. Read that she thought he had touched her inappropriately. She testified that he came around to the front of her and bent over like he was going to kiss her. At that point, she said “no, don’t go there.” According to K.W., she asked him if he was finished, and he said yes, so she sat up, put her leg back into her pants, and engaged in “small talk.” She testified that Dr. Read asked her if she would like to see his office, and she said sure. While she was in the reception area outside his office, she testified that he apologized for coming on to her, and she again told him “not to go there.” After this exchange, she walked out and down the stairs to sign out. Dr. Read, on the other hand, testified that as he was finishing the FABRE Patrick test, K.W. looked startled and got up off the table, saying “don’t go there.” He also was startled by her reaction, and apologized if she felt uncomfortable. He did not recall her leg becoming separated from her sweatpants, but stated that the orthopedic tests that he performed could be uncomfortable, and thinks that the FABRE Patrick maneuver was what she was referencing by her comment. He also did not recall her vagina ever being exposed, but thought if it happened, it would be when she lowered her sweatpants to show him the location of her pain. Dr. Read explained that he apologized to her because he would apologize to any patient who was uncomfortable at any time during an examination. Palpation as part of the assessment of K.W.’s pain would have involved pretty much the entire buttock area, but would not have gotten close to the vagina without a clothing barrier. He denied ever engaging in or attempting to engage in any type of inappropriate conduct or sexual contact, and specifically denied attempting to kiss K.W. Dr. Read further testified that after performing the Homan and FABRE Patrick tests, he told K.W. that in light of her right leg pain, she would not use the flexion-tension machine as planned, but would return to passive treatment. K.W. assented. As they left the rehabilitation room, he went toward his office to unlock it. K.W. asked whether that was his office too, and he replied that it was, and that Ortega rented the whole building. After unlocking the door, he stepped to the side, and K.W. entered the reception area. As he entered his office, he repeated that they were done for the day and he would see her the following day. He stayed upstairs and K.W. went downstairs to check out. K.W. stated that while she was checking out, Ms. Brown made the comment that she did not realize that K.W. was there. Ms. Brown, on the other hand, said that K.W.’s checkout was routine and that K.W. did not say anything to her. Ms. Brown also testified that she saw Dr. Read go to the rehabilitation area with K.W. and that it is not unusual for Dr. Read to take patients to the rehabilitation area. K.W. returned to Ortega for her next scheduled appointment on April 25, 2014. At that time, she told Dr. Read that she did not feel comfortable with him and would not be seeing him any longer. Dr. Read told her that under those circumstances, it was best that she saw someone else, and that Ortega would facilitate sending her records to another chiropractor. Although she told him she was not comfortable, at no time did K.W. ever express to Dr. Read that she thought he had touched her inappropriately. She did not say anything to Dr. Read, his office manager Pam Mobarak, or Clarissa Brown that indicated anything inappropriate occurred at the April 23, 2014, office visit. Approximately one month after the April 23, 2014, appointment, K.W. filed a complaint with the Department. Four months after the appointment, she filed a complaint with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. In conjunction with the Sheriff’s Office’s investigation, K.W. participated in a controlled call in September 2015. During this telephone call, there was an officer on the line giving K.W. questions to ask Dr. Read. The call was answered by Dr. Read’s office manager, Ms. Mobarak, who eventually transferred the call to Dr. Read. During the call, K.W. attempted to get Dr. Read to see her outside of the office. Dr. Read declined to do so. When she asked to see him, he inquired whether she was asking to see him professionally. The transcript of the controlled call does not indicate that Dr. Read ever admitted doing anything inappropriate with respect to K.W. At most, he tells her that it would not be advisable to see her given her pending complaint with the Department. The Sheriff’s Office did not file charges against Dr. Read. This case represents the classic “he said/she said” scenario where the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses is key. No testimony was presented by the Department to establish the scope of chiropractic practice or the proper scope of a generally accepted chiropractic examination. Dr. Read testified that while a woman’s private areas are in close proximity to those areas being examined and adjusted, there would be no reason to touch a woman’s vagina. After hearing the testimony of all of the witnesses presented and comparing the testimony with the written documents admitted into evidence, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Read touched K.W. inappropriately, whether incidentally or on purpose. K.W. acknowledged that she could not really tell what was touching her. It was just as likely that what she felt was the slide of cloth as her sweatpants moved against her skin. Moreover, her testimony conflicts with not only Dr. Read’s testimony but also Ms. Brown’s. Dr. Read, Ms. Mobarak, and Ms. Brown all testified regarding Ortega’s open-door policy. K.W., on the other hand, could not remember whether the examination room was open or closed. Similarly, the rehabilitation room, while upstairs, was clearly equipped so that multiple patients could be seen at one time. While there was no other person upstairs during K.W.’s treatment in the rehabilitation area, there was nothing to prohibit staff or others from entering or leaving the area. It is inconceivable that Dr. Read would initiate the type of inappropriate touching K.W. described in a rehabilitation room having easy access or an examination room with an open door. While K.W. testified that Ms. Brown commented at check-out that she did not realize K.W. was there, Ms. Brown testified that she observed K.W. going upstairs with Dr. Read, and that it was routine practice for patients to go upstairs for rehabilitation exercise. K.W.’s testimony was not convincing. She considered at least some of the perceived touching as unintentional, and at best could not confirm that it was in fact Dr. Read touching her. While she may have believed something or someone was touching her, her demeanor while testifying about this very intimate type of contact seemed almost casual, as opposed to exhibiting any type of distress or concern with the subject matter. She did not appear to have any real concern about much of the incident. Similarly, her testimony that she engaged in “small talk” with Dr. Read after his examination of her in the rehabilitation room is not consistent with what would be expected from a patient who believes that her physician has just touched her inappropriately or made a pass at her. Dr. Read’s testimony, on the other hand, was direct, consistent, and consistent with his medical records, which were dictated and signed at a time when he had no idea that K.W. perceived that he had touched her inappropriately. His description of the events is simply more plausible than K.W.’s and more believable. It is found that Dr. Read did not, accidentally or otherwise, touch K.W.’s vagina during his examination of her on April 23, 2014. It is found that Dr. Read did not engage or attempt to engage K.W. in sexual activity.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2016, 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 29th day of September, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Kevin Mercer, Esquire Wicker Smith Suite 2700 50 North Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Candace Rochester, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Anthony B. Spivey, DBA, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), in DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL; Subsections 456.072(1)(l), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL; and Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), in DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relating to the three Administrative Complaints at issue, Dr. Kachinas was a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 65595. He is board-certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. DOAH CASE NO. 09-4678PL In 2002, Dr. Kachinas was working at several clinics that were owned by the same individual. He received payment from Sarasota Women’s Health Center and Tampa Women’s Health Center. His primary office was located in Sarasota, but he rotated through the offices located in Clearwater and Tampa. He was advised that he would be attending a patient in the Tampa office. One of the medications that he used in his method of sedating patients, Propofol, was not available in the Tampa office. He took a vial of the Propofol and took it to the Tampa office, holding the vial in his hand. While at the Tampa office, Dr. Kachinas drew the Propofol into a syringe. He did not have to use the Propofol for the patient. He placed the syringe filled with Propofol inside the sock that he was wearing. Dr. Kachinas transported the syringe back to the Tampa office. He used this method of transport so that the office manager in the Tampa office would not know that he was transporting the drug. When he got back to the Tampa office, he placed the filled syringe in a secure place. Propofol must be used within 24 hours after being drawn into a syringe. The next day it was decided that the drug would not be used on another patient, and Dr. Kachinas wasted the syringe filled with Propofol. At the clinics where Dr. Kachinas worked, there were no logs to keep track of the drugs, except for the drug Fentanyl. Dr. Kachinas acknowledged in a letter dated January 30, 2007, to the Department of Health that his method of transporting Propofol was “unorthodox.” In the same letter, Dr. Kachinas acknowledged that “a reasonable and prudent doctor would not generally transport medication in that manner, but foolishness seemed reasonable in that aberrant environment.” DOAH CASE NO. 09-4679PL On March 26, 2004, B.S. presented to Premier Institute for Women’s Health (Premier) for an elective termination of pregnancy. Dr. Kachinas was the physician who handled the procedure. Dr. Kachinas maintained records relating to B.S. at Premier. In 2004, Petitioner subpoenaed B.S.’s records from Dr. Kachinas’ office. Petitioner received a packet of documents, which purported to be B.S.’s medical records. In July 2006, Lori Jacobs, an employee of Premier, sent Petitioner another copy of the documents sent in 2004. Neither the records provided in 2004 nor the records provided in 2006 contain progress notes for B.S.’s treatment on March 26, 2004, and March 27, 2004. For the first time on November 5, 2009, Dr. Kachinas produced a three-page document, which he claimed was part of B.S.’s medical records that had been misplaced in B.S.’s insurance file. Two of the pages purported to be progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004. The third page, which is also labeled as a progress note, is dated June 29, 2004, and appears to relate to insurance claims. The two pages relating to March 26 and 27 are on paper which is a different color from the progress note relating to insurance claims and the progress notes which were previously furnished in 2004 and 2006.1 Additionally, the progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004, contain a break in each of the ruled lines on the sheets on both the right and left sides of the sheets. The insurance progress note and the progress notes furnished in 2004 and 2006 do not have such breaks in the ruled lines. Dr. Kachinas completed a Laminaria Insertion report documenting procedures done on March 26, 2004, and March 27, 2004. The March 26, 2004, report documents the insertion of Laminaria and administration of medications. The comment section of the report documents the removal of the Laminaria and administration of medications on March 27, 2004. The comment section continues to document the administration of medications and the taking of vital signs after the removal of the Laminaria and also the transfer of the patient to Doctors Hospital. The detail on the comment sections suggests that Dr. Kachinas was making his progress notes in the Laminaria Insertion report. The failure to produce the purported progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004, until November 5, 2009; the difference in the color of the paper of the March 26 and 27, 2004, purported progress notes and the other progress notes in Dr. Kachinas’ records; the presence of breaks in the ruled lines on the March 26 and 27, 2004, purported progress reports, which do not appear on the other progress notes; and the detail of the comments on the Laminaria Insertion report support the conclusion that the progress notes submitted as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 were not done contemporaneously with the treatment given to B.S. on March 26 and 27, 2004, but were prepared for this proceeding. Thus, the progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004, are not credited. Dr. Kachinas determined B.S.’s pregnancy to be at approximately 23½-to-24 weeks’ gestation, the last week of the second trimester. He confirmed by sonogram that the gestation period was 24 weeks. On March 26, 2004, Dr. Kachinas began the induction of labor ordering the insertion of ten Laminaria, which are osomotic cervical dilators which cause the cervix to open and allow easier emptying of the uterus. Dr. Kachinas’ records do not show that B.S.’s medical history was taken prior to the insertion of the Laminaria. However, Dr. Kachinas did take a medical history of B.S. at the time of her admission to Doctors Hospital, and the history is recorded in the medical records. Prior to the insertion of the Laminaria, Dr. Kachinas’ records do show that a limited physical examination of B.S. was done. The Laminaria Insertion report shows that B.S.’s baseline blood pressure, temperature, and pulse were taken and recorded. There was no expert testimony of what other physical examination should have been done. Dr. Kachinas injected the fetus with Digoxin, which is injected directly into the fetus to stop the fetal heartbeat, causing an Intrauterine Fetal Demise (IUFD). The injection of the Digoxin was not documented in B.S.’s medical records. B.S. was then released from Premier. On March 27, 2004, B.S. returned to Premier. Prior to removing the Laminaria, Dr. Kachinas did an ultrasound and determined that there was still fetal heart activity and fetal movements. Dr. Kachinas continued the labor induction procedure by removing the Laminaria and administering Cytotec and high dosages of Pitocin. When the Laminaria were removed, there was a rupture of membranes with a loss of essentially all the amniotic fluid. Sometime during the afternoon of March 27, 2004, Dr. Kachinas did another ultrasound and determined that there was no fetal heart activity. Based on the length of time from the Digoxin injection to the ultrasound showing no fetal heart activity, the loss of amniotic fluid, and the administering of medication to cause contractions, Dr. Kachinas determined that the Digoxin injection was not the cause of death. On March 27, 2004, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Dr. Kachinas transferred B.S. to Doctors Hospital and had her admitted to the hospital for failure to progress with the induction of labor procedure. While at the hospital, B.S. continued to experience pain. On March 28, 2004, Dr. Kachinas performed the following procedures on B.S.: mini-laparotomy, hysterotomy, removal of products of conception, and a modified Pomeroy bilateral tubal ligation. In his description of the procedures, he stated that the fetal demise was at least of 48 hours duration. However, Dr. Kachinas’ records do not reflect the time of the fetal demise. Jorge Gomez, M.D., Petitioner’s expert witness, credibly testified that a physician is required to document the time of the fetal demise. In the hospital records following B.S.’s surgery, Dr. Kachinas listed the post-operative diagnosis as a failure to induce labor, an intrauterine fetal demise, a thin umbilical cord, and asymmetric intrauterine growth retardation, a condition in which the fetus is smaller than expected for the number of weeks of pregnancy. An autopsy was performed on the fetus. A surgical pathology report was also issued. The pathology report showed mild infarcts on the maternal side. On the fetal death certificate, Dr. Kachinas listed the immediate causes for the IUFD as a possible cord incident and multiple placental infarctions. Dr. Kachinas did not document the elective termination or the Digoxin injection on the fetal death certificate. Dr. Gomez disagrees with the reasons for IUFD given on the death certificate. His credible reading of the pathology report does not indicate that the infarcts were severe enough to have contributed to the fetal demise. His credible reading of the pathology report does not indicate that there was any evidence of a cord incident. Dr. Gomez is of the opinion that the cause of death should have been listed as elective termination. Dr. Gomez’ opinion is credited. However, Dr. Gomez did not give an opinion on whether the fetal demise was caused by the injection of Digoxin. DOAH CASE NO. 09-4680PL On December 13, 2005, K.M. was seen by Walter J. Morales, M.D., at Florida Perinatal Associates, which specializes in internal fetal medicine. Dr. Morales performed an ultrasound on K.M., who was pregnant with twins as a result of in vitro fertilization. The ultrasound revealed that the twins were fraternal, meaning that each twin had a separate placenta and a separate sac. One of the twins, Twin A, had an anomaly called a cystic hygroma, which results from an obstruction, causing the lymphatic fluid, which normally drains into the juglar vein, to accumulate in the neck area. Approximately 50 percent of the fetuses which have this anomaly in the first trimester also have a chromosomal anomaly, such as Down syndrome. The decision was made to have K.M. return to Florida Perinatal Associates in three weeks for further evaluation. On January 3, 2006, Edgard Ramos-Santos, M.D., a partner of Dr. Morales, performed another ultrasound on K.M. Dr. Ramos-Santos found that Twin A, a male, had a cystic hydroma, a thickening of the nuchal fold2, and shortened femur and humerus. These findings are soft markers for abnormal chromosomes. The ultrasound also revealed a possible heart defect. At the time of the ultrasound, Twin A was cephalic bottom, meaning that Twin A was positioned lowest in the uterus. Dr. Ramos-Santos also performed an amniocentesis on Twin A on the same date as the ultrasound. The amniocentesis showed that Twin A had an abnormal chromosome pattern compatible with trisomy 21 or Down syndrome. Both ultrasounds showed that Twin B, a female, appeared to be normal. At the request of K.M., no amniocentesis was performed on Twin B on January 3, 2006. At the time of the ultrasound performed on January 3, 2006, the presentation of Twin B was cephalic right. The findings of the January 3, 2006, ultrasound were discussed with K.M. and her husband. On January 9, 2006, Dr. Ramos-Santos discussed the results of the amniocentesis with K.M.’s husband. It was decided that a selective feticide would be performed on Twin A. Selective feticide is a procedure in which a solution of potassium hydroxide is injected into the fetus’ heart to make the heart stop beating. K.M. was referred to Dr. Kachinas at Premier for the selective feticide. On January 10, 2006, Roberta Bruce, a nurse at Florida Perinatal Associates, sent to Premier by facsimile transmission the January 3, 2006, ultrasound report for K.M. and K.M.’s insurance information. The cover page for the facsimile transmission included a note from Ms. Bruce, which stated: “* FYI Fetus have different gender. The male is the affected one.” The standard of care as specified in Section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2005), requires a physician performing a selective feticide to correctly identify the affected fetus. Dr. Kachinas did not correctly identify Twin A prior to performing the selective feticide and performed the procedure on Twin B, the normal fetus. Dr. Kachinas performed an ultrasound on K.M., but failed to identify the correct position of Twin A in relation to K.M. The ultrasound done on January 3, 2006, by Dr. Ramos-Santos showed that Twin A was located at the bottom and Twin B was located to the right of K.M. In his progress notes, Dr. Kachinas placed Twin A on the right and Twin B on the left. Although it is possible for twins to shift positions, it is not probable that the twins shifted from left to right. Dr. Kachinas performed an ultrasound, but failed to identify that Twin A was the fetus with multiple anomalies. Although the standard of care required Dr. Kachinas to do a Level 2 ultrasound evaluation, a Level 1 ultrasound evaluation would have identified the cystic hygroma, the shortened long bones, and the sex of Twin A. Dr. Kachinas failed to perform an adequate ultrasound evaluation by failing to identify the anomalies and the gender of Twin A. Dr. Kachinas’ notes do not show whether Twin A or Twin B had anomalies. His notes did not identify the sex of each of the twins. His notes did not document the attempts that Dr. Kachinas made to identify the anomalies such as a recording of the length of the long bones or any examination made to identify the sex of each of the twins. On January 24, 2006, K.M. returned to Florida Perinatal Associates for another consultation. Dr. Morales performed another ultrasound, which revealed that Twin A, who had the anomalies, was still viable. The ultrasound revealed the continued presence of a cystic hygroma, the thickening of the nuchal fold, shortened extremities, and a congenital heart defect. The ultrasound also showed that the viable twin was male. The presentation of Twin A was shown by the ultrasound as cephalic bottom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as to DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; finding that Dr. Kachinas did not violate Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2002); imposing an administrative fine of $2,500; and placing Dr. Kachinas on probation for one year. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as to DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Kachinas did not violate Subsections 456.072(1)(l) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003); finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2003); imposing an administrative fine of $1,000; and placing Dr. Kachinas on probation for one year. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as to DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), by committing gross medical malpractice; finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2005); imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 and placing him on probation for one year for the violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2005); and revoking his license for the violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 26th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing grade for the Florida Optometry Licensure Examination taken on July 23 through 25, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Cook is a licensed optometrist in the State of Michigan. She received her Doctor of Optometry degree in 1985, and became licensed in the same year. Dr. Cook has taken the Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin state licensure examinations and passed all three examinations on her first try. For 17 years, Dr. Cook practiced optometry at the University of Michigan Health Services. This was a comprehensive practice, including eye examinations with dilation, treatment of eye diseases, emergency care, and the monitoring and follow-up care of patients with glaucoma, cataracts, and other diseases. Except for providing care to family members, Dr. Cook has not practiced professionally, on a regular basis, since August 2001, when she moved to Florida. Dr. Cook is a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry. She was accepted at the final hearing as an expert in optometry. Dr. Cook desires to become licensed in Florida to practice optometry. As part of the process to apply for licensure in Florida, Dr. Cook is required to retake parts one and two of the national board examinations and to pass the Florida examination for licensure. She retook the national board examinations and passed on the first try. In August 2003, she took the clinical portion of the Florida examination and failed. In July 2004, Dr. Cook retook the clinical portion of the Florida examination. A passing score on the clinical portion is 80. She scored 75.75 on the July 2004 examination, and, thus, failed the clinical portion. For the clinical examination, Dr. Cook was required to bring her own "patient" upon whom some of the examination's required procedures were required to be performed. Some of the procedures are performed on "patients" brought by other candidates taking the examination. The grading on each procedure in the clinical examination is done by two examiners who are licensed, practicing optometrists. A candidate will be graded by a different set of examiners for the morning and afternoon sessions. The examiners are chosen by the Board of Optometry and trained by the Department's Testing Services Unit and outside practitioner consultants prior to the administration of each examination. The examiners are provided with a set of Grading Standards for their use during the grading of the examination. The purpose of the training and standards is to make the grading process objective and to provide grading uniformity and consistency. The examiners are required to grade and mark their scores independently. They are not to compare or discuss their scoring with other examiners at any time. If both examiners' grades agree, the candidate is given either no credit or full credit, depending on whether the examiners considered the procedures were properly performed. If the examiners disagree on the grading, the candidate is given the average of the two grades actually awarded, which is the sum of the two grades divided by two. If an examiner considers that a procedure is properly performed, the examiner marks the grade sheet with a "Y," indicating a yes. Examiners are taught to give the candidates the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases. If an examiner feels that the performance was borderline, the examiner must indicate "borderline" in the comment section on the grade sheet and specify the reason. If an examiner determines that the candidate did not properly perform the procedure, the examiner marks the grade sheet with an "N," indicating a no. An examiner is required to specify the reason for a no grade in the comment section on the grading sheet. Some of the procedures are performed once for both examiners. Other procedures are performed in groups, meaning that the procedures are performed twice, once before each of the examiners. In grouped procedures, the first examiner will read the directions for a procedure, and the candidate will perform the procedure after the directions are given. The first examiner will read the directions for the next procedure, and the candidate will perform the procedure after the directions are read. This format continues until the grouped segment is completed. The same procedures will then be performed for the second examiner, following the same format used by the first examiner. No records are kept to indicate which examiner graded first or second during any part of the examination. The examination candidate has control over when each examiner grades the candidate. When the candidate is ready to be graded, the candidate is required to say, "Grade me now." Dr. Cook has challenged the grades that she received for the following procedures: confrontational field test; measurement of pupil size; rating patient's response to light; demonstrating the equator and posterior pole during the binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy examination; the anterior vitreous portion of the biomicroscopy examination of the anterior segment; the choroidal crescent, posterior vitreous detachment, A-V three crossings out find and reflex, and hypertensive changes portion of the biomicroscopy examination of the fundus; and measuring eye pressure using a Goldmann Tonometer. A confrontational field test is a gross neurological field test in which the candidate compares her visual field to the patient's to pick up gross neurological defects. The Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) states that the confrontational field test is to be performed as described in Clinical Opthalmology by J.D. Duane. In order to perform this test, the candidate sits in front of the patient about a meter away. The patient covers one eye and looks at the candidate's eye, nose, or other structure so that the patient's gaze is not moving around. The candidate puts her non-moving fingers in different quadrants to test the patient's ability to see the fingers. It is important to keep the fingers stationary while performing the test because moving fingers could be detected by the patient even in a blind field. In other words, a patient who is not able to see a stationary finger may be able to detect a finger that is moving because the motion contributes to the detection. Dr. Cook performed the confrontational field test for both examiners simultaneously. She received .75 points out of a possible 1.5 points for the confrontation field test. Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the examination. Examiner 239 gave Dr. Cook no credit and noted the following in the comment section: "Moving fingers--Init performed 'wiggling fingers' while moving target fingers." Examiner 239 also noted "Did very brief static CF test but fingers moving not stationary." Dr. Cook admitted that she did wiggle her fingers during part of the performance of the examination, claiming that she was testing the patient's peripheral vision, which was not part of the examination. The examination was to be performed within the central 30 degrees. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Dr. Cook tested the four quadrants with non-moving fingers. Dr. Cook's score of .75 points is correct. As part of the clinical examination, the candidates are required to measure the size of the patient's pupil. In order to measure the pupil, the candidate must not sit in front of the patient. Sitting in front of the patient creates a stimulus for accommodation, which is a phenomenon where the pupil size changes unless the patient can look and focus on a target at a distance. Dr. Cook measured the pupil size of her patient simultaneously for both examiners. Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook full credit for her performance in measuring the pupil size, and Examiner 239 did not give Dr. Cook credit for her performance. Examiner 239 noted in the comment section, "candidate sat in front of pt." Dr. Cook received .5 points out of a possible one point for measuring the pupil size during the pupillary examination. Dr. Cook claims that she sat off to the side of the patient, lined up her right eye with the patient's right eye, and asked the patient to sight at a target at a distance. The examiners were off to the side when Dr. Cook performed the procedure. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Dr. Cook was in the correct position when she measured the patient's pupil size. Dr. Cook's score of .5 is correct. As part of the examination, candidates are required to rate the patient's pupillary response to light on a pupillary scale. The CIB states, "Pupillary examinations, muscle balance, and motility, should be done on both eyes (including dilated eye)." Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook full credit for rating the pupil, but indicated that her performance was borderline. Examiner 202 stated in the comment section: "borderline - she was confused about 0 to 4+, but eventually got it." Examiner 239 gave Dr. Cook no credit for her performance, and stated in the comment section: "4+ but did not indicate eye, not used to using 0 to 4 scale." Dr. Cook received .5 points out of a possible one point for rating the pupil on a pupillary scale. She gave the same answer simultaneously to both examiners. When Dr. Cook was asked to rate the pupils of her patient, Dr. Cook was uncertain which scale to use, the Marcus Gunn scale or a true light reflex scale. She indicated that she gave a response for both scales and that one of the responses was 4+. Dr. Cook stated at the final hearing that the left pupil was fixed and dilated, but she did not indicate that she rated the left eye as "0." The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Dr. Cook advised the examiners of her rating of the left pupil. The score of .5 was correct. The binocular indirect ophthalmoscope (BIO) is an instrument used to examine the fundus, which is the inside back part of the eye. The BIO sits on the candidate's head. There is a small mirror attached, through which another viewer may see the view being seen by the candidate. The candidate holds a condensing lens, which is like a magnifying glass, to evaluate structures in the eye. Examining the fundus with the BIO is a simple procedure, which Dr. Cook performed 14 to 16 times every clinical day for over 17 years. Dr. Cook wore contact lenses during the examination. With the use of contact lenses, Dr. Cook has perfect vision. Dr. Cook adjusted the instrument before the testing procedure started, including adjusting the angle of light and setting the illumination. As part of the examination on the use of the BIO, a candidate is to demonstrate the equator and the posterior pole. In these procedures, the candidate finds the view of the applicable area, one examiner looks through the mirror after the candidate says "Grade me now," and then steps back. The second examiner then looks at the mirror after the candidate again says "Grade me now." Examiner 239 did not give full credit to Dr. Cook in demonstrating the equator. For the portion of the performance which requires the candidate to demonstrate an equator landmark, Examiner 239 gave Dr. Cook a "no" and stated in the comment section: "No clear view through the mirror @ 'Grade me now.'" Examiner 239 also gave Dr. Cook a "no" for an acceptable view of an equator landmark and stated in the comment section: "Dim illumination." Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook credit for these two performance areas. In the portion of the examination in which the candidate is to demonstrate the posterior pole, the candidate is told that the disc and macula should be seen simultaneously. Examiner 239 did not give Dr. Cook credit for the portion of the examination where the disc and macula are to be viewed simultaneously. Examiner 239 stated in the comment section: "very dim view vis'd ONH not macula." Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook credit for this portion of the examination. Between the first and second examiners' viewings for the equator and the posterior pole, the patient did not move, Dr. Cook held the focused view still, there was no change in illumination or intensity, and Dr. Cook did not change her position. Thus, it is more likely than not that Examiner 239 was mistaken. Dr. Cook received 3.5 points out of a possible seven points for examining the views of the equator and posterior pole during the binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy examination. She should be credited with an additional 3.5 points. As part of the examination, the candidates were asked to perform an examination using a biomicroscope, which is a microscope combined with a light source that is used to view different structures on the outside and inside of the eye. It is also called a slit lamp. For purposes of the licensure examination, the biomicroscope has a teaching tube attached through the left ocular, and when the examiner looks through the tube she sees the same view the candidate sees through the left ocular. A portion of the examination using the biomicroscope includes grouped procedures. The last procedure on one of the grouped procedures was focusing on the anterior vitreous of the patient's eye. The vitreous is made up of hyaluronic acid and contains vitreal strands made of collagen. As a person ages, the vitreal strands will increase and become more visible. A young patient may have vitreal strands that would be so difficult to see that on viewing the strands the view would appear to be "optically empty." In other words, the vitreous would appear clear on examination. Dr. Cook's patient was a healthy premed student in his early twenties. The patient did not have visible vitreal strands. Before performing the group of procedures, which included the focus of the anterior vitreous, Dr. Cook adjusted the height and width of the light. She set for a direct focal illumination, meaning the light was focused where she was looking. The patient remained still between the procedures, and Dr. Cook did not change the illumination between each grading. Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook no credit for her focus of the anterior vitreous, stating the illumination was "too dim" and the "vit not seen." Examiner 268 gave Dr. Cook full credit for that part of the examination. Dr. Cook received 1.25 points out of a possible 2.5 points for her performance related to the anterior vitreous portion of the biomicroscopy exam of the anterior segment. Based on the patient's having no visible vitreal strands; the patient not moving between the grading procedures, and Dr. Cook not changing the illumination between grading procedures, it is more likely than not that Examiner 216 was mistaken. Dr. Cook should be awarded 1.25 points for performance of the focus on anterior vitreous. Dr. Cook received 3.5 points out of a possible seven points for her performance related to the choroidal crescent, posterior vitreous detachment, A-V three crossing outs, find and reflex, and hypertensive changes portion of the biomicroscopy exam of the fundus. One of the grouped portions of the examination using the biomicroscope included demonstrating whether a choroidal crescent was present. Determining the presence of a choroidal crescent was the fourth procedure in this grouped segment. A choroidal crescent can be seen when the candidate is looking at the optic nerve and the retina does not come all the way up to the nerve. The choroidal crescent will appear at the edge of the optic nerve. Examiner 268 did not give Dr. Cook any credit for determining whether the choroidal crescent was present, and stated in the comment section, "Did not focus on the edges of the ONH [optic nerve head]." Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the procedure. Dr. Cook did not demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that she should be given additional credit for this procedure. Unlike the evidence presented concerning the anterior vitreous, she did not establish that there was no change in illumination, her position, or the patient's position between the grading of the grouped segments. In order to perform the grouped procedures in which she was tested on the presence of the choroidal crescent, Dr. Cook had to move the focus and illumination to different locations related to the optic nerve. The last procedure in the same grouped segment involving the choroidal crescent was demonstrating posterior vitreous separation. Vitreous gel is attached to the back of the eye in several places. When the attachment points for the vitreous are pulled away or become loose, a ring-like structure can be seen where the vitreous pulled loose. Dr. Cook was asked to demonstrate and indicate whether a vitreous separation was present after she performed the procedure involving the choroidal crescent. The proper procedure for checking for posterior vitreous attachment would be to set the proper illumination, focus on the optic nerve, and pull back slightly on the "joy stick." Examiner 268 did not give Dr. Cook any credit for the procedure involving a demonstration of a posterior vitreous separation, stating in the comment section, "Did not pull back." Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the procedure. Again, Dr. Cook failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she should be given additional credit for this portion of the examination. There was no showing that all conditions remained the same when each examiner graded this grouped segment of procedures. Another grouped segment of the examination called for Dr. Cook to start at the optic disc and follow a temporal arcade for a distance of approximately three disc diameters and demonstrate an AV crossing. Dr. Cook was to then indicate whether there were any characteristic hypertensive changes at the crossing. A vascular arcade is a curved shape with blood vessels coming out and arcing toward one another. Most of the blood vessels in the eye are located in this area. Some diseases such as diabetes and hypertension cause changes where the blood vessels in the arcade cross. In order to perform the AV crossing procedure, a candidate has to coordinate the microscope, going up and down and side by side. Lining up is critical on this procedure. Adjustments have to occur separately, once for each examiner. Examiner 268 did not give credit to Dr. Cook for this portion of the examination, stating in the comment section, "No view in the tube." Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the procedure. Dr. Cook has failed to establish that she is entitled to additional points for this portion of the examination. The AV crossing procedure involves making adjustments for each of the examiners as part of the examination, Dr. Cook has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that all conditions remained the same for each examiner. As part of the examination, candidates are tested on the use of the Goldmann Tonometer, which is a device used to measure eye pressure. The grading on this portion is divided into four categories: illumination at the proper angle, mires alignment, thickness of alignment, and the pressure measurement. Examiner 268 gave Dr. Cook full credit for all categories. Examiner 216 did not give credit to Dr. Cook for having the correct mires alignment, and gave full credit for the remaining categories, indicating that the mires width and the reading of the pressure were borderline. In the comment section, Examiner 216 drew the alignment which he viewed. The mires were not aligned correctly. Dr. Cook received 1.24-1.50 points out of a possible 2.5-3.0 points for the use of the Goldmann Tonometer. Dr. Cook argues that because she was given credit for the pressure reading that it would be impossible for the mires alignment to be incorrect. The reading of the pressure is to test the candidate's ability to read the dial on the tonometer; it is not to determine whether the reading that is on the dial is the actual pressure of the patient. The grading standards require that the examiner put down the reading that he saw during the viewing if it is different from the reading that the candidate gives as a response. Thus, it is possible to be given credit for the pressure reading without having the mires aligned correctly. Dr. Cook has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she should be given additional credit for this portion of the examination. None of the examiners testified at the final hearing. The Department did call Dr. Gary McDonald, who was accepted as an expert in optometry.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding Dr. Cook an additional 4.75 points for the clinical portion of the optometry licensure examination given on July 23 through 25, 2004, resulting in a passing grade of 80.25. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayó, Esquire Gray Robinson 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189 Allen R. Roman, Esquire Department of Health Office of General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine?
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to the inquiry Petitioner was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician within the state of Florida, having been issued license No. ME0045474, effective December 28, 1984. Respondent's last known address is 1401 Centerville Road, Suite 202, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. Respondent is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. The board certification is by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Respondent is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Respondent received his undergraduate degree from Florida State University and his medical degree from Howard University. His training at Howard University included a four- year residency program from 1982 to 1986. Respondent holds staff privileges at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (TMH) in Tallahassee, Florida. Patient A.G. Patient A.G. began treatment with Respondent in 1998 and continues as Respondent's patient. A.G. is an Hispanic female who is not proficient in English. When seen by Respondent in his office she has been accompanied by an interpreter that would allow Respondent to discuss details of her health care in English for translation into Spanish for the patient's benefit. Respondent's understanding of Spanish is limited to education in high school and a year at the university. He has the ability to describe some matters that are pertinent to gynecologic practice or obstetric practice and in particular as it relates to telling patients, for example "how to push and when not to push." The record does not reveal that Respondent has the ability to discuss A.G.'s overall health care in Spanish, her language. A.G.'s husband, T.Q., who accompanied her at relevant times principally spoke Spanish and not English. He is somewhat proficient in English. On June 16, 1999, A.G. had an office appointment with Respondent. At that time A.G. had undergone gallbladder surgery but her pelvic pain persisted. In consultation on that day it was decided that A.G. would undergo diagnostic laparoscopy to explore the reason for her chronic pelvic pain. Through the discussion the patient was told that biopsies of the pelvic anatomy might be performed during the procedure and that any problems that could be addressed through laparoscopy would be addressed as Respondent felt comfortable in carrying out that correction. Otherwise, Respondent said that he would "take pictures" and "get out of the case" with the decision to offer further treatment left for another time. Patient A.G. had been referred to Respondent for her persistent pelvic pain following an examination on April 27, 1999, that had been made by Margaret Cantor, a Nurse/Mid-Wife and Registered Nurse. She conducted a pelvic examination of the patient that date. The examination included the use of speculum to examine the cervix and vagina in the interest of looking for abnormalities, lesions, growths, and discolorations. No cervical lesions were found in this examination. A pap smear taken at the time revealed normal results with some inflammation. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a surgical procedure involving an incision in the abdominal wall through which a scope is inserted to visualize the abdominal cavity. Typically the workup for performing a diagnostic laparoscopy would include use of ultrasound, pelvic examination, and a pap smear. Possible complications in this procedure include vascular injury, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection, and bleeding. Preliminary to the diagnostic laparoscopy it is the custom and practice in the medical community to perform a vaginal examination with the use of a speculum. On July 1, 1999, patient A.G. was seen by the Respondent in his office for her pre-operative check. On this occasion A.G. was unaccompanied by a translator. Nonetheless, Respondent was able to perform a brief physical and obtain a history with the assistance of A.G.'s husband. Respondent listened to the patient's heart and lungs and performed a bi- manual examination in which one or two fingers were inserted in the vagina and with a hand on the abdomen compression was performed on the pelvic viscera, uterus, tubes, and ovaries and the lower section of the pelvis. Nothing significant was observed in the patient since last seen. On July 1, 1999, an employee in Respondent's office witnessed patient A.G. sign a consent form allowing the diagnostic laparoscopy. The consent form makes no reference to the agreement for Respondent to perform a loop electrocautery excision procedure, referred to by abbreviations as a "LEEP" conization biopsy procedure or a LEEP cone. No evidence of such consent is contained in patient A.G.'s medical records maintained at Respondent's office. The diagnostic laparoscopy was to be performed at TMH. On July 1, 1999, Patricia Charbonneau, a clinical nurse at the hospital, reviewed a consent form with patient A.G. concerning the diagnostic laparoscopy for the purposes of that facility. Nurse Charbonneau was aware of the scheduling of the diagnostic laparoscopy by reference to the history and physical prepared by the Respondent. This conference involved the discussion of potential risks and complications of the laparoscopy. No discussion was conducted concerning possible risks and complications of a LEEP conization biopsy. The consent form from TMH pertaining to patient A.G. and the diagnostic laparoscopy stated "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure, I request and authorize my physician to proceed." Nurse Charbonneau was left with the impression that the patient understood the explanation concerning the upcoming procedure and gave her consent. Ms. Charbonneau was assisted in this communication by A.G.'s husband. No discussion was held concerning the performance of a LEEP cone biopsy, in that the permit from Respondent made no mention of that procedure. Ms. Charbonneau took steps for an interpreter to be available the next morning when the surgery was to be performed given the nature of the surgery, the use of anesthesia and the desire to have "everything" reviewed again. A LEEP conization is a form of biopsy performed either in an office or hospital setting with anesthesia. The cervix is examined with the assistance of a speculum. Lugol solution is placed on the cervix to identify any abnormal cells and an excesion is made by shaving a small piece of the cervix for examination. The workup for LEEP conization includes a pap smear and a colposcopy. The performance of LEEP conization presents potential risks and complications related to infection, endometrious, bleeding, cervical stenosis, and cervical incompetence. On July 2, 1999, patient A.G. came to the TMH outpatient surgery center for her scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy to be performed by Respondent. She was the fourth patient on a schedule of surgeries to be performed by Respondent on that date. Respondent was conversant with the sequence of surgeries to be performed. Patient A.G. was placed in a holding area in the outpatient surgery center to prepare her for her surgery and to await transport to the operating room. Sometime before moving the patient to the operating room Respondent saw the patient in the holding area. Respondent addressed patient A.G. by saying hello and asking her how she was doing. This was not a visit intended to educate the patient and was not involved with any other medical purpose. At the time the patient's husband was with her during this brief encounter which was intended to confirm that the patient was there for the surgery as had been previously arranged. Several hours may have passed between the time Respondent saw patient A.G. in the holding area and when he next encountered the patient in the operating room. Respondent also saw patient N.C. in an adjacent cubicle to where patient A.G. was located while the patients were awaiting their surgery. Patient N.C. was the third patient on the schedule, there for the performance of a LEEP conization biopsy. Respondent followed his surgical schedule for the first two patients in the intended sequence. Some delay was occasioned by a problem experienced in the surgery performed on the second patient. Valerie Anne Lazzell, M.D., is an anesthesiologist licensed to practice in Florida. She is employed by Anesthesiology Associates of Tallahassee, Florida. It was intended that she provide anesthesia during Respondent's performance of the diagnostic laparoscopy for patient A.G. It was anticipated that the patient be subjected to general anesthesia which involves a rapid loss of consciousness and blocks the sensory, mental and motor functions of the patient. A general anesthesia can be provided by using an endotracheal tube, with a mask or with an LMA. This is as distinguished from the use of a neurolept employed in most instances when performing LEEP conization biopsies. In that setting the patient is generally anesic, not really aware, and has analgesia "on board." The use of a neurolept promotes a pain-free state of immobility and an insensitivity to pain and is usually accomplished by use of IV medications. From the record, it appears that Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., with Anesthesiology Associates was scheduled to provide anesthesia by neurolept for the third patient N.C. who was scheduled for LEEP conization biopsy. Patient A.G. at the time in question was 4'9" tall and weighed 103 pounds. Patient N.C., an African-American woman was 5'2" tall and weighed 242 pounds. Their skin tone was similar in color. Dr. Lazzell saw patient A.G. before the patient was taken for surgery. In this examination the doctor filled out the patient's airway, listened to her heart and lungs, and considered the patient's ASA classification which was one of good health. Dr. Lazzell considered the plan for anesthesia with an endotracheal tube. She gained the assistance of a Dr. Becker who was fluent in Spanish in explaining the use of anesthesia to the patient. Dr. Lazzell sought Dr. Becker's assistance when the hospital did not make an interpreter available. Dr. Lazzell discussed the possible risks and complications of use of this form of anesthesia and a consent form was signed and dated. While this assessment was being made A.G.'s husband was in attendance. It was Dr. Lazzell's expectation that the patient A.G. would next be seen as scheduled when the nurse anesthetist called Dr. Lazzell to the operating room to intubate patient A.G. in association with the provision of anesthesia for the diagnostic laparoscopy. Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., when performing her duties in the operating room setting at TMH outpatient surgery center was expected to induce anesthesia, maintain the anesthesia, monitor vital signs, treat untoward events during surgery and maintain fluids in the patient while under the supervision of the physician, in this instance, Dr. Lazzell. Nurse Mauch was principally responsible for providing the anesthesia for the third procedure on patient N.C., the LEEP conization biopsy. This included preparation in the operating room of medications and other related tools and supplies. The third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy for N.C., was referred to on a typed surgical schedule in the preoperative desk in the outpatient surgery center. Having checked the schedule Nurse Mauch obtained the chart for N.C. and went to the cubical, not of N.C. but A.G. When Nurse Mauch arrived at A.G.'s cubical, Jamie Martin, R.N., the pre-op nurse and Dale Dunsmore, R.N., the circulating nurse, were there. Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch arrived at the cubicle where patient A.G. was located at about the same time. When arriving at the cubicle for patient A.G., Nurse Mauch had in mind that the process was one in which she was getting ready for the surgery to be performed on patient N.C. While in the cubical Nurse Mauch introduced herself to the person she believed to be the patient N.C., at which time Nurse Dunsmore said that the patient only speaks Spanish. Nurse Mauch recalls that a translator was not available for assisting in any communication with patient A.G. Realizing that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband for identification, the reference to the fact that the patient only spoke Spanish did not cause Nurse Mauch any concern. Nurse Mauch never heard Nurse Dunsmore orally refer to patient A.G. by name. Nurse Mauch continued with her presentation by commenting that she was the nurse anesthetist who was going to put the patient to sleep. Patient A.G. nodded her head in response to Nurse Mauch's physical gesture that the patient was going to be put to sleep. Beyond that point Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore took patient A.G. to the operating room ostensibly as the third patient on the schedule for provision of a LEEP conization biopsy wherein Nurse Mauch would provide the necessary anesthesia. The chart for N.C. was brought to the operating room. Before the patient was removed from the cubicle Nurse Martin provided pre-op medication to patient A.G., phenergan robinul. The fact that Nurse Martin was giving preoperative medication and that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband on what turned out to be patient A.G. led Nurse Mauch to believe that patient A.G. was patient N.C. the third scheduled patient, according to Nurse Mauch. As Nurse Mauch recalls, when the Respondent entered the operating room where the third scheduled procedure was to be performed he checked the chart for patient N.C. Respondent went out and washed his hands, returned and started the procedure. At the end of the procedure Nurse Mauch recalls Respondent commenting that the next patient speaks only Spanish, to which Nurse Mauch said, "No, this patient," meaning the patient who had been subjected to the procedure is the one who speaks Spanish. Respondent replied "I must be mixed up." Nurse Mauch recalls Dr. Lazzell arriving at the door of the operating room with patient A.G.'s chart. Dr. Lazzell looked surprised to find the circumstances. Nurse Mauch told Dr. Lazzell that this is the neurolept, the case involving the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Lazzell commented that "No it isn't." Nurse Mauch heard Dr. Lazzell ask Respondent, "What procedure did you do?" Respondent replied "LEEP conization." Dr. Lazzell said "No, this was supposed to be the diagnostic laparoscopy." Nurse Mauch observed Respondent leave the room and return. Patient A.G. was re-preped and the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be provided was performed with the patient being intubated by the use of an endotracheal tube. Nurse Martin in her capacity as pre-op nurse was responsible for receiving patients and getting the patients ready for administering medications that were prescribed and getting IVs and things started on the patients prior to the patients being sent to the operating room. She recalls performing pre- operative duties on the patient A.G. Nurse Martin was familiar with the schedule of patients, the sequence. She understood that patient A.G. was the fourth patient in the schedule and provided the pre-anesthetic to patient A.G. in preparation for the operation. This involved the use of phenergan. Nurse Martin made no mistake in identifying patient A.G. when providing care. Nurse Martin heard Nurse Dunsmore identify patient A.G. in Nurse Martin's presence and agreed with that identification. Nurse Martin had seen the patient A.G. before the occasion at which Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore were there with the patient in Nurse Martin's presence and the patient A.G. was taken to the operating room. Nurse Martin had reviewed patient A.G.'s chart earlier in caring forward responsibilities for preparing the patient for the operation. Nurse Dunsmore identified her duties as circulating nurse at TMH outpatient surgery center as being related to setting up rooms for surgeries, transporting patients from pre-op holding areas, identifying patients, verifying surgeries, verifying allergies, and so forth. Ordinarily Nurse Dunsmore in performing her duties would read the chart of the patient scheduled for a procedure to make certain that all permits were signed. She would then go to where the patient was being held, introduce herself to the patient and ask for identification, verifying the surgery that is scheduled for the patient, and perform other related assignments. In performing her duties Nurse Dunsmore would accompany the patient with the anesthesiologist to the operating room. The method of identification in effect at the time in question would be to compare an addressograph card which accompanied the patient's chart with the information on an identification bracelet worn by the patient. Nurse Dunsmore verified that the operating room for the third procedure was set up for a LEEP conization biopsy. After the second procedure on the schedule, Nurse Dunsmore recalls that she went to patient A.G.'s room. However Nurse Dunsmore had handed Nurse Mauch patient N.C.'s chart. Nurse Mauch carried the chart to patient A.G.'s cubicle. The two nurses essentially entered the cubicle together. Nurse Martin and patient A.G.'s husband were already there. Nurse Martin left the cubicle shortly thereafter. Nurse Dunsmore introduced herself to the patient and reached for the patient's identification bracelet and read it out loud. The patient smiled and nodded in response. In turn the patient's husband smiled and nodded in response. Patient A.G. was then taken to the operating room by Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch. The patient was sedated by Nurse Mauch and positioned for provision of the LEEP conization biopsy. Nurse Dunsmore observed the Respondent enter the operating room and look at the chart which was in relation to patient N.C., not patient A.G. Nurse Dunsmore saw Respondent leave the operating room to scrub. Nurse Dunsmore was in attendance when the procedure was performed. Nurse Dunsmore recalls Dr. Lazzell entering the operating room at the end of the procedure with the chart belonging to patient A.G. and the realization by those in attendance that the chart in the operating room was for N.C., whom they understood to be undergoing the procedure when in fact the patient undergoing the procedure was A.G. Diane Jordan was a surgical technician assigned to assist in the third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy. She recalls the patient being put to sleep by Nurse Mauch and the patient being prepared for the procedure. The patient was covered by draping towels across the upper portion of the thighs. A blanket was placed over the patient's torso. The patient was placed in the lithotomy position allowing observation of the patient's buttocks, vulva, vagina and external pelvic organs. The patient had a mask on her face and a surgical hat to cover her hair. All of these arrangements had been made before Respondent entered the operating room. Ms. Jordan recalls that the chart in the room was for N.C., the patient anticipated to undergo the LEEP conization biopsy. Ms. Jordan did not realize that the patient in reality was patient A.G. Ms. Jordan recalls that the Respondent when entering the room asked is this "such and such" in relation to a LEEP conization biopsy and that Nurse Dunsmore replied in the affirmative. Ms. Jordan remembers Respondent looking at the chart for N.C. and signing it. Ms. Jordan was in attendance while the procedure was performed. Ms. Jordan heard Respondent mention something about a lesion before he started. Ms. Jordan provided medication to be injected during the LEEP conization. Ms. Jordan identified the fact that a specimen was obtained which was given to her and provided to the nurse to send to pathology for evaluation. When Respondent entered the room for what he anticipated to be the third procedure what he asked specifically was "Is this Ms. C our case for the LEEP?" referring to the LEEP conization to be performed on patient N.C. That is when Nurse Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. After inquiring about the identification of the patient in association with the nature of the procedure Respondent expected to perform and in receiving an affirmative response, Respondent took no further steps to personally confirm the identity of the patient. Respondent opened the chart that was patient N.C.'s chart. Respondent took a drawing from his pocket that a Dr. Thompson had made of patient N.C.'s cervix when he had treated the patient. The drawing was in association with a colposcopy. Respondent intended to compare that drawing with what was observed in the patient during the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy in locating the suspected pathology. In proceeding with what he considered to be the third scheduled procedure for N.C., Respondent placed the speculum, applied the tenaculum and observed what looked to be a lesion that roughly approximated what he anticipated it would be based upon the drawing from Dr. Thompson. Respondent applied Lugol's solution and proceeded with the LEEP conization biopsy. Having applied the solution there was an indication of some pathology in roughly the position as the drawing had depicted. Respondent obtained the sample from the cervix. The size of the specimen was less than the diameter of a dime with a depth or thickness of about two dimes. The performance of the LEEP conization biopsy took less than five minutes. As Respondent finished Dr. Lazzell came to the operating room and informed Respondent that this was not the patient the he thought he was treating. Having been told by Dr. Lazzell that there was a misidentification, Respondent for the first time while engaged with the patient in the operating room proceeded to the front of the table and looked at the patient while the patient was being unmasked. By doing so Respondent discovered that indeed the patient had been misidentified and that he had actually performed surgery on patient A.G., not patient N.C. Respondent left the operating room and informed patient A.G.'s husband of the problem. Respondent returned to the operating room. The patient was provided anesthesia by Dr. Lazzell and the diagnostic laparoscopy that was scheduled was performed. Notwithstanding that it was never intended that Respondent perform a biopsy on patient A.G. from the cervix, Respondent expresses the opinion that if the physician encounters a visible lesion some form of biopsy is in order. Respondent expresses the opinion that in performing procedures such as a diagnostic laparoscopy greater latitude is afforded in terms of what the physician can do when he or she discovers "What's amiss with the patient." This in Respondent's view is because the patient is going into the procedure with the understanding that there may be an unanticipated problem and if the unexpected problem can be addressed, it should be taken care of. Of course this assumes that the biopsy that was performed on patient A.G. was in association with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy, when in fact the biopsy was the product of happenstance, in that, Respondent when addressing what he considered to be the condition in the patient N.C., by chance observed a similar condition in the patient A.G. Respondent concedes that prior to patient A.G.'s arrival at the outpatient surgical center that LEEP conization was not an indicated procedure for that patient. The biopsy that was performed was with the misapprehension as to the patient whose needs were being addressed, not merely an unanticipated circumstance in a patient whose identity was established when Respondent performed the biopsy. This was not an additional surgical procedure that came about in connection with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy; it was perceived by Respondent as the intended surgery being performed on a different patient when the case began. As a consequence it is the planned- for diagnostic laparoscopy which became the additional procedure. Nonetheless, Respondent tries to explain his result by expressing the opinion that other unexpected and unplanned-for procedures may be undertaken in the instance "Within the realm of the comfort level of the physician and the patient ahead of time; where they know each other, other things can be done as well." Respondent believes that the ability to proceed with the biopsy on patient A.G. while thinking that he was responding to the case involving patient N.C. is implicit and is promoted by "A feeling of trust that we had developed at the point in time." This refers to the point in time at which the other surgery, the diagnostic laparoscopy was being discussed with the patient A.G. The type of pathology that was encountered by Respondent with patient A.G. that led to the biopsy was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. That is what Respondent observed and collected for evaluation. The laboratory confirmation of the specimen was performed by Dr. Woodard Burgert, a board-certified anatomic and clinical pathologist. In his assessment Dr. Burgert observed that the cone biopsy in question was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. There was no significant dysplasia. Expert Opinions Dr. Edward Zelnick is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who practices in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Hollywood Medical Center and Memorial Regional Hospital. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. In the instance where pathology is found in examining the cervix, Dr. Zelnick believes that action should be taken in addressing that pathology, but only in the instance where the pathology has been discussed with the patient and the appropriate alternative treatment has been discussed. Absent an emergency it is necessary to provide the patient the alternative to surgery and identify the risk of surgery. Absent life-threatening circumstances, a biopsy such as that performed on patient A.G. should not be performed without the patient's consent, which had not been given. Dr. Zelnick further describes the instance in which a biopsy in a case such as this would be in order, would be in relation to an instance in which it appeared that the circumstance was an immediate threat to the health of the patient that needed to be addressed. None of the exigent circumstances existed in this case. Therefore, Dr. Zelnick expresses the opinion that the performance of the biopsy by Respondent did not meet the expected standard of care. Based upon his familiarity with the form of consent in this case which states, "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure I request and authorize my physician to proceed," Dr. Zelnick believes that the physician's responsibility there is to respond during the course of the surgery, if medically necessary, to such matters as repairing of a blood vessel that has been cut or damage to an internal organ or bowel. None of those circumstances were associated with the biopsy performed on the patient A.G.. While Dr. Zelnick delegates patient identification to surgical staff or nursing staff, he believes that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification to make certain that the right operation is performed on the proper patient resides with the surgeon. To do less is to practice below the standard of care universally accepted and a matter of common sense. According to Dr. Zelnick, Respondent did not meet that standard when performing the biopsy on patient A.G. who was misidentified. Whatever rules and procedures may be in place setting standards for identification in a hospital, Dr. Zelnick does not believe those standards abrogate the duty of the physician to properly identify the patient. What is expected of a physician is 100 percent certainty as to who the proper patient is and to assure that the proper procedure is carried out on the proper patient. The method of arriving at that determination is not significant, in Dr. Zelnick's view. Dr. Roberto Fojo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Jackson Memorial and North Shore Medical Center in South Florida, and he is affiliated with the University of Miami, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecology. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He does not view a diagnostic laparoscopy as being intended to discover and diagnose cervical lesions, where, as here, the lesion is on the surface of the cervix and vagina. A diagnostic laparoscopy is not intended to promote an examination of the cervix, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo is familiar with the consent form executed by patient A.G., the language previously described. He has seen that language before or something similar to it and considers it part of the standard surgical consent in connection with a diagnostic laparoscopy that was intended in this case. The consent is designed to allow the surgeon to address matters such as puncture of the bowel or a problem with a major artery or veins or scar tissue or adhesions. This consent would not include addressing lesions on the cervix. A LEEP conization procedure is not an accepted procedure to perform in the patient undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy unless the LEEP conization had already been discussed and there was a problem with the cervix that the patient knew about. There, in Dr. Fojo's perception, the patient would be undergoing what he refers to as dual procedure. Dr. Fojo does not believe that surgery should be performed on a patient absent the patient's consent as being part of the original procedure or in an emergency. The LEEP conization biopsy by Respondent was not related to the consent that had been provided nor pertaining to an emergency. In this sense, Dr. Fojo expresses the opinion that Respondent failed to meet the standard for medical practice when performing the LEEP conization biopsy on Patient A.G. Dr. Fojo believes that a surgeon should ascertain without any doubt that the patient in the room is a patient that he or she should be performing surgery on, the appropriate surgical procedure. This need for identification is an independent responsibility of the physician and may not be delegated. It requires 100 percent accuracy, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo holds to the opinion that the physician is responsible for the identification regardless of his or her efforts that may have been compromised by others in attempting to properly identify the patient and perform the indicated procedure. He believes this to be common medical practice. Respondent was not within the standard of care in performing the LEEP conization procedure on patient A.G. under Dr. Fojo's assessment. Dr. Michelle McCallanahan is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida and practices in Jacksonville, Florida. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. The consent form executed by patient A.G. is not unfamiliar to Dr. McCallanahan. Her perception of this consent language is that it relates to complications that occur during the course of the diagnostic laparoscopy that were not foreseen and constitute an emergency requiring an immediate procedure to correct the condition. Examples are vascular injuries to vessels, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection and bleeding. By contrast, lesions on the cervix do not constitute an example of an unforeseen circumstance. Dr. McCallanahan expresses the opinion that an appropriate workup for LEEP conization was not done for the patient A.G. Nonetheless, there are some circumstances in which it would not be violative of the standard of care to perform LEEP conization without conducting a workup. That circumstance would be in the instance where the lesion that was observed was highly suggestive of cervical cancer, according to Dr. McCallanahan. The case that Respondent was presented with did not constitute such a condition. Ordinarily, the standard of care contemplates the discussion of possible risks or complications associated with LEEP conization procedures before performing them. According to Dr. McCallanahan it would be appropriate to perform a surgical procedure without discussion of the risks and possible complications in an emergency when the patient was unconscious and could not give consent in advance. Those are not the facts here. While Dr. McCallanahan relies upon the assistance of other persons within the surgical and nursing staff, she expresses the opinion that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification prior to the performance of surgery resides with the physician. She believes that it is below the standard of care to not correctly identify the patient before the procedure is done and perform an improper procedure or non- consenting procedure on that patient, as was the case here. Dr. Jana Bures-Forstheoefel is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida. She practices in Tallahassee, Florida, and has privileges at TMH and performs surgeries in the outpatient surgery center. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. She believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying patient A.G. before performing surgery on the patient. The method used by Respondent to identify the patient was common to the practice of other physicians who performed surgeries in that setting, according to Dr. Forstheoefel. In the event that Dr. Forstheoefel was performing a diagnostic laparoscopy and observed a cervical lesion she would evaluate the condition to include the performance of a biopsy, the most common method for cervical biopsy being a LEEP conization. Notwithstanding the lack of specific consent by the patient for Respondent to perform the LEEP conization, Dr. Forstheoefel holds to the opinion that it was correct to biopsy, given what was observed in the patient. The prospect that a physician would be 100 percent accurate in identifying a patient undergoing surgery is not humanly possible and is a standard that should not be imposed upon a physician in Dr. Forstheoefel's opinion. She considers that the matter of proper identification preoperatively is a team effort. One person should not be solely responsible for all things in making certain of the patient's safety and assuring that the right thing is done. Dr. Kenneth John McAlpine is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He believes that Respondent met the standard of care in identifying the patient A.G. before performing the surgery and in performing the LEEP conization on that patient. Although Dr. McAlpine has not experienced a situation in which he observed a reason to do a LEEP conization in a diagnostic laparoscopy case, where consent for LEEP conization had not been given ahead of time, he does not question the decision to address the condition observed, such as in the case at issue. From his point of view, it was acceptable to do a LEEP conization biopsy to address the lesion. Although no prior indication existed before the lesion was observed during the procedure Dr. McAlpine would not want to ignore the lesion. Dr. McAlpine believes that the process that Respondent undertook in identifying the patient A.G. before surgery was consistent with practices in effect at the hospital, this included reliance on staff in the operating room. Dr. McAlpine does not believe that it is necessary for a physician to be 100 percent accurate in the identification as a person ultimately in charge. No matter as to the facts, he sees the issue of the identification being a multi-disciplinary approach among health care providers. Dr. David O'Bryan practices obstetrics and gynecology. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. The method employed by Respondent in identifying the patient was consistent with the practice used in the immediate medical community at the time, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the Respondent performed the appropriate surgery on Patient A.G. For Dr. O'Bryan, what is more important in addressing the patient's needs is the apparent pathology, not the consent that may have been provided by the patient in advance of the procedure. It would be negligent not to address the lesion on the cervix in his view. The pathology present determines the response even without a consent for the procedure. Dr. O'Bryan did not consider that the pathology constituted an issue of life or death. The fact that the LEEP conization biopsy was not planned was less significant than the need to address the pathology. It does not matter if the patient were A.G. or N.C. or some other patient, Dr. O'Bryan believes that it was appropriate to perform the biopsy. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the surgeon bears a great deal of responsibility in patient identification, but the ultimate responsibility for identification does not reside with the physician or any other operating room staff member in Dr. O'Bryan's assessment. Dr. O'Bryan does not conceive that there can be any greater comfort in the identification than in the instance where the "operating room crew" tells the physician who it is and the physician has a chart in his hands which indicates that it is the same patient as the operating staff has identified and the pathology that was found is consistent with what had been anticipated according to the patient chart and the staff identification. Nothing in medicine involves the imposition of a 100 percent standard of care to include properly identifying the patient preoperatively, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. Roberto Morales is a board-certified obstetrician in gynecology licensed to practice in Florida. At times relevant, he performed surgery at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in Patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. Dr. Morales believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying the patient A.G. in that hospital and in other places as well. Dr. Morales believes that the patient was correctly identified by Respondent earlier in the day and that the incorrect patient was brought back to the operating room. Under those circumstances, Respondent did what was appropriate to identify the patient in the performance of the LEEP conization on patient A.G. and was within the standard of care, according to Dr. Morales. Assuming the patient was scheduled for a diagnostic laparoscopy, if during the examination, visualization of the cervix, a lesion was observed, a biopsy would be the typical next step, according to Dr. Morales. The caveat to his opinion in the ability to perform that biopsy would depend upon the patient that was being taken care of and the sense that the physician had about the patient's expectations of what should be done and not done. It is assumed that Dr. Morales believed that the level of relationship between Respondent and Patient A.G. would allow the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Morales believes that the attempt to be 100 percent accurate in the identification of patients preoperatively is an aspirational goal, not a requirement. For him all persons concerned have the responsibility for taking care of the patient. Having considered the opinions expressed by the experts, the ultimate facts to be determined must be based upon the realization that Respondent proceeded to perform the LEEP conization biopsy on patient A.G. without advance written consent, that Respondent believed that he was confronting the case of patient N.C., and that the performance of the LEEP conization on Patient A.G. was not in its timing and justification part of the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be performed on Patient A.G. The earlier effort by Respondent to identify his patient in the holding area was sufficient for that stage of the process. Respondent acted in the customary manner in relying upon his knowledge that Patient N.C. was to be the third patient based upon the schedule. It was not unexpected that Respondent would rely upon the surgical staff in orally confirming the patient identity and the procedure to be performed when entering the operating room for the scheduled third procedure. This identification was further confirmed by the presence of the chart for Patient N.C. Respondent's failure to take further steps to physically identify the patient by looking at her arm bracelet, by looking at her face, or in some other manner recognizing the mistake that had been made by others in readying Patient A.G., and not Patient N.C. for surgery could be forgiven if there were no consequences, but there were. Although Respondent should not be the absolute guarantor in the identification of the patient, what he did in the operating room was not enough, when the result is that Respondent performed the LEEP conization that was not consented to in advance, and performed believing that the patient was N.C., the patient for whom the procedure was intended, and was not in response to an emergency regardless of patient identity. As a result, Respondent failed to meet the standard of care for reasonably prudent similar physicians under acceptable similar conditions and circumstances in his actions. In mitigation, the outcome was not harmful to the patient. Moreover, other health care professionals were in great measure responsible for the failure to properly identify the patient.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine and costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 8th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Kim Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 David W. Moye, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
