Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Turner has been licensed as a chiropractor in the State of Florida, holding license CH 1454. He has maintained offices as a chiropractic physician at 7650 South U.S. Highway One, Fort Pierce, Florida 34952 since May 19, 1985. Prior Discipline The Board of Chiropractic Examiners has maintained other prosecutions against Dr. Turner. On August 28, 1972 a Final Order was entered revoking Dr. Turner's license for solicitation for prostitution and giving oral medication and injections to a person, but his licensure was reinstated by Order dated September 11, 1974. Thereafter, on July 14, 1977, his licensure was revoked for a second time. Although the Administrative Complaint which had been filed in the second prosecution had alleged sexual misconduct towards patients and staff, those charges were not sustained. The revocation was imposed for obtaining prescriptions for narcotics, stimulants or habit-forming drugs under false pretenses from medical doctors and dentists in an amount so large as to show either drug abuse by Dr. Turner or the offering and administration of drugs to patients, employees, or other persons without lawful authority to do so. Ultimately, Dr. Turner was relicensed, and reestablished his practice in 1985. Alteration of Records The applicable paragraph of the Administrative Complaint alleges that On or about October 25, 1989 a former employee of the Respondent issued a sworn statement, to the State Attorney's Office. In her statement the former employee stated that the Respondent had her change her therapist's notes on a patient to reflect that certain treatments were not being used. The former employee also stated in this interview that the Respondent frequently had her and "other employees" change patient notes in order to mislead future "attorneys" reviewing said notes. Turner hired Debbie Corderre as a therapist and staff member in 1987, and she remained in his employ into 1989. One of the patients to whom she provided therapy was patient E.M. The physical therapists in Dr. Turner's office are not persons who are graduates of a physical therapy school approved for the educational preparation of physical therapists by an accrediting agency recognized by the Council on Post-Secondary Accreditation or who have passed an examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation to determine fitness to practice as a physical therapist. See Section 486.031 Florida Statutes (1989). Rather, they are persons who have received brief on-the-job training of two weeks or so to provide such therapy as might be ordered by Dr. Turner as part of his office practice. Ms. Corderre testified that Dr. Turner had ordered her to alter the medical records of E.M. to remove diathermy as a therapy given. Diathermy is the heating of body tissues due to their resistance to the passage of high- frequency electromagnetic radiation, electric currents, or ultrasonic waves. (Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 26th Edition 1985). The office therapies included massage, traction, electric muscle stimulation, the use of hot packs and ultrasound treatment. Electric muscle stimulation and ultrasound treatment involved the use of a machine with pads; gel was put on the patient and the pads were attached. Ultrasound was performed using the same machine; lotion was placed on the patient and an instrument attached to the machine was rubbed over the body part being treated. How these treatments differ from diathermy, or what constituted diathermy at Dr. Turner's office, was never adequately explained at the hearing. The office notes maintained for Dr. Turner's patients were broken into four sections, each of which were identical, and permitted notes to be made for four separate visits on one sheet. The notes for each individual visit was made up of five parts. The first included a space for the date and abbreviations for the different therapies next to which a check mark could be placed. These spaces were checked off by therapists for billing purposes. None of these spaces ever were checked in any of the extant records for patient E.M. Below the abbreviations was a larger space for therapists notes, in which the therapist would write the therapy provided to the patient during that visit. Below the therapist's note area was a space of equal size containing the acronym SOAP, in which Dr. Turner would make his notes when he saw the patient, after his therapist had already completed the therapy. The fourth portion of the record of a visit is a line to note any material dispensed to the patient during the visit, and the fifth portion is a line to note any X-rays that may have been taken. In none of the records for patient E.M. have any of the abbreviations for any of the different types of therapy been checked off, even though Dr. Turner maintains that these notes are the source of billing information (Tr. 240-41). It is incomprehensible that from the period October 27, 1987 through April 12, 1988, over a total of 59 visits, that a therapist never correctly filled out the portion of the patient record which another employee would need in order to render a bill for the service provided that day. By way of contrast, however, the records for another patient entered into evidence, B.S., do for the most part, have check marks in that portion of the record for a visit which would be useful for billing. The inference which is drawn from the absence of any billing entries in the records for patient E.M. over so long a period of time is that the records which purport to be the contemporaneous records for E.M. are in fact records generated after the fact by the therapist, Debbie Corderre at the instruction of Dr. Turner. Dr. Turner's contention that Ms. Corderre failed to keep appropriate records is rejected. Ms. Corderre testified that Dr. Turner had instructed her to remove reference to diathermy given to patient E.M. Dr. Turner counters by noting that the insurance claim forms submitted by his office on behalf of patient E.M. to the Workers Compensation insurance carrier for E. M.'s employer never showed that diathermy was administered. Dr. Turner argues that Ms. Corderre's testimony must be wrong, for the insurance billings would have shown a charge for diathermy, if the testimony of Ms. Corderre were correct. Dr. Turner's point is well taken, but it does not negate the core of Ms. Corderre's testimony. Ms. Corderre had told the State Attorney's office before the hearing that she thought Dr. Turner had instructed her to change the records to remove any reference to having provided patient E.M. with ultrasound therapy. Based upon all the evidence I find that the records for patient E.M. were changed by Ms. Corderre in some significant way at the direction of Dr. Turner. Because the original records were necessarily lost, and all that remains are revised records, it is not possible to determine with certainty in what way the records were altered. On this aspect of her testimony the recollection of Ms. Corderre is faulty. Her testimony that she changed all records for patient E.M. is persuasive, and the absence of any entry in the portion of the records used for billing reinforces this conclusion. Why Dr. Turner wanted to have the records changed and the manner in which he told Ms. Corderre to change them are not particularly significant. Dr. Turner regarded the change as sufficiently important to have Ms. Corderre spend almost a full day of filling out the newly created records. He then manufactured what are supposed to be contemporaneous entries of his own in the portion of the records which are his notes (the SOAP notes). Improper Sexual Touching of a Patient Dr. Turner employed Brenda Stanley, who later became Brenda Sika by marriage, during the period August 1988 to 1989. She was trained as a physical therapist at the office. About a month after she was employed, in September 1988, Brenda Sika was injured in an automobile accident, and had gone to the hospital emergency room. She discussed her condition and her need for treatment with Dr. Turner, who agreed to examine her and treat her. Dr. Turner first saw Brenda Sika as a patient on September 13, 1988. Ms. Sika's principle complaints included back pain over the whole back, but which was worse in the lower back; neck pain, and ankle pain, all of which had resulted from the automobile accident. She also had bruising and tenderness of her chest due to the action of her seat belt in the accident. Ms. Sika contends that while she was lying on her stomach in a treatment room on several occasions Dr. Turner had placed his hand on her ankle, and slid it up until his hand was on her buttocks, and that on one occasion he had placed his hands between her legs while she was lying face down, with the inside of his hands on the inside of her legs and his thumb on the outside. She also alleged that on the Sunday following the initial visit on September 13, she sought additional treatment from Dr. Turner, and in the course of that treatment he requested her to remove her bra, remained in the room while she undressed, and afterwards asked her to stretch out her arms, after which he felt her breasts, including placing his hand around the fleshy part of her breasts. Finally, Ms. Sika alleges that while in the X-ray room, Dr. Turner asked to check if her groin muscle had been pulled, and in the process used his thumb and index finger to squeeze or grip her in the groin. It is difficult to accept the contention that Dr. Turner had engaged in inappropriate and unwarranted sexual touching of Ms. Sika's breasts, buttocks or groin area, in view of the continuing employment relationship. Ms. Sika had only recently been hired when she was injured. It seems unlikely that she would have remained in the employ of someone who had engaged in lecherous touching while she was supposedly being treated. She remained an employee of Dr. Stanley for a substantial amount of time, and only left that employment when she went to Michigan for her wedding. What is more significant, however, is that after she returned to Florida following her wedding, she decided to return to employment with Dr. Turner (Tr. 75). Ms. Sika did not tell other employees such as Deborah Coderre or Tammy Prescott that Dr. Turner had engaged in unwarranted sexual advances or made sexual innunendoes to her at the office. With respect to the accusation of fondling of a breast, after the accident Dr. Turner had conducted an examination which included palpation in the area of the rib cage underneath the breast, where there was a bruise caused by the seatbelt in Ms. Sika's car. That sort of touching in an area of complaint is appropriate. The charge with respect to running Dr. Turner's hands from the ankle to the buttocks is unconvincing. Attempting to determine whether there was involvement of a groin muscle would be appropriate, but the description of the examination given by Ms. Sika would have constituted inappropriate conduct, had the examination occurred as described. As stated above, given her continued employment, and reemployment after she had left work with Dr. Tuner at the time of her wedding, the evidence of sexual misconduct is not convincing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order revoking the licensure of Dr. Turner, without right of reinstatement or relicensure. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of November, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5707 Rulings on the proposed findings by the Department: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 9. Recounted in Finding 6, but the testimony that the alteration was to remove diathermy is not accepted. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within in the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected because the testimony was not sufficiently specific to establish that other medical records were altered. The testimony with respect to patient E.M. is sufficiently specific. Rejected because the testimony was not sufficiently specific with respect to alteration of records other than those of E.M. Moreover, the charge made in paragraph 3 is not one with respect to purposeful mis-billing. See, Finding 3. See, ruling on Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 14. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony recounted in Findings 19-27 is rejected for the reasons stated in Finding 16. Included in Finding 14. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Adopted in Finding 2. Rulings on findings proposed by Dr. Turner: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. 9 and 10. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally accepted for the reasons given in Finding 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, adopted in Finding 17. Generally adopted in Finding 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent persuasive, these arguments are covered in Findings 16 and 17. Accepted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 4. Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony, and because the argument that Dr. Turner had not required Ms. Corderre to change records of diathermy is accepted, but the argument that Dr. Turner did not instruct Ms. Corderre to make some significant changes in E. M.'s record is rejected. The testimony is recounted in Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. What is significant is that Ms. Corderre changed records at the direction of the doctor, the exact nature of the change is not essential. See, Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary; any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Rejected as unnecessary, any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Rejected as unnecessary, any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Accepted in that the only findings made with respect to Dr. Turner's conducts are made with respect to the records of E.M. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected. I have accepted most of the testimony of Ms. Corderre. Rejected as unnecessary. No "Taylor" case is at issue here. Rejected. See, especially Finding 9. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 Miami, FL 33156-7115 Donald C. Dowling, Esquire 501 East Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure exam should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a chiropractic doctor who has been licensed to practice in the state of Ohio since 1993. He maintains an active practice in Ohio, and he currently sees approximately 190 patients per week. Petitioner filed an application with the Department for a Florida chiropractic license. Applicants for licensure are required by statute and rule to take the licensure exam developed by the Department. Petitioner took the exam in May 2001. The exam consists of four parts, three practical and one written. The practical parts test the applicant on physical diagnosis, X-ray interpretation, and technique; and the written part tests the applicant on the Florida laws and rules regulating chiropractors. An applicant for licensure must receive a score of 75 on each part to pass the examination. Petitioner passed the written part of the exam as well as the X-ray and technique practical parts; however, on the physical diagnosis part, he received a failing score of 70. As a result, he failed to pass the exam and may not receive a Florida chiropractic license.2 The physical diagnosis part of the exam consisted of 26 tasks which the applicant was required to perform within the allotted time of 70 minutes. The physical diagnosis part of the chiropractic licensure exam is developed by a team of consultants retained by the Department. The team consists of licensed chiropractic doctors with varied practices and at least ten years of experience. The team derives the exam questions from case studies from prior administrations of the exam. The team meets on several occasions to refine the case studies and rework the questions. The team also develops and refines the answers to the questions based upon their research and a consensus reached after debate. After the exam questions are finalized and before the administration of the exam, the Department holds standardization sessions which all of the examiners are required to attend. The purpose of the standardization sessions is to ensure that each examiner knows what is a correct answer and what is an incorrect answer for each question. This, in turn, ensures consistency in the evaluation and grading of all applicants. The examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis exam attended all of the standardization sessions. The applicant's performance of each task in the physical diagnosis part of the exam is independently graded by two examiners. The purpose of the independent grading is to eliminate any potential bias in the grading and to increase reliability in the scoring of the exam. The examiners independently assigned a letter score -- A, B, or C -- to the applicant's performance on each task. A score of "C" represents full credit for the task. A score of "B" represents partial credit for the task. A score of "A" represents no credit for the task. Where the examiner awards less than full credit, he or she provides a notation on the score sheet regarding what the applicant failed to do properly. The letter score was translated into a numerical score based upon the pre-determined point value for the task. Each of the tasks at issue in this proceeding -- numbers 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 -- were worth 4 points each. A grade of "C" for these tasks translates into a raw score of 4 points; a grade of "B" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 2 points; a grade of "A" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 0 points. The raw scores resulting from each examiner's grades are totaled separately and, then, those totals are averaged. The averaged score is what is reported to the applicant as his or her final score on the physical diagnosis part of the exam. As noted above, Petitioner received a score of 70 on that part. Task 13 (S1 Dermatome) Task 13 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 13, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the S1 dermatome, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 13. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. A "dermatome" is an area of the body surface served by a particular spinal nerve. The S1 dermatome is the area of the body surface served by the S1 nerve. The S1 dermatome encompasses an area which begins on the back of the leg below the calf, runs down the back of the foot over the heel, along a portion of the bottom of the foot to the toes, and then around the outside (lateral) portion of the foot. The expert testimony and the scientific texts introduced in this case vary on the exact portion of the bottom of the foot included in the S1 dermatome. Some indicate that it encompasses only that area from the outside of the foot to the fourth or fifth (little) toe, while others indicate that it extends from the outside of the foot all the way to the midline of the foot at the third (middle) toe. The common element in all of the expert testimony and the scientific texts is that the location of the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot is towards the outside of the foot rather than the inside (arch) of the foot. The S1 dermatome is tested by touching the dermatome with an instrument to determine whether the patient exhibits any sensory reaction, i.e., whether and to what degree the patient feels the touch. The dermatome can be tested without tracing its entire area; however, in order to map out the entire dermatome, its entire area would be tested. On the video tape of Petitioner's performance of Task 13, it appears that he is attempting to test the S1 dermatome, rather than demonstrating its area as the task requires. Petitioner can be heard telling the patient that he is going to "test" the dermatome level by touching the patient's foot to see if the patient can feel it. Immediately after these comments, one of the examiners (Dr. Weiss) can be heard on the video tape telling Petitioner to "trace the path of S1." Dr. Weiss also can be heard asking Petitioner to show the examiners where S1 starts and where it goes. Petitioner performed Task 13 by making a single straight-line motion starting on the back of the leg below the calf, then proceeding downward and under the foot, and ending near the big toe. Petitioner repeated the movement, again ending near or even slightly to the inside (arch side) of the big toe. By making only a single straight-line motion along the bottom of the foot, Petitioner failed to demonstrate the area of the S1 dermatome. At most, Petitioner demonstrated the line separating the S1 dermatome from the L5 dermatome, which is adjacent to the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot. As noted above, however, the S1 dermatome extends no further than the mid-line of the foot and therefore the line demonstrated by the Petitioner could not have been the boundary of the S1 dermatome. Even if Petitioner understood the task as "test the S1 dermatome" rather than demonstrate its area, the weight of the evidence shows that Petitioner did not correctly test the dermatome along the bottom of the foot. As discussed above, Petitioner's instrument appeared to travel along the inside (arch) of the bottom of the foot rather than the outside of the bottom of the foot. The S1 dermatome does not extend inward on the bottom of the foot beyond the mid-line and it certainly does not extend to the big toe. The notes written by the examiners on the grading sheets indicate that the "B" grade that Petitioner received on Task 13 was based upon the his tracing of an incorrect area on the bottom of the foot. The notes written by Dr. Weiss, the examiner who testified at the hearing, stated "traced wrong area under foot." The notes written by the other examiner similarly stated "S1 under foot incorrect." The notes were corroborated at hearing by the videotape and the testimony of Dr. Mathis. Because Petitioner failed to properly demonstrate the S1 dermatome, the examiners properly gave him only partial credit on Task 13. Task 14 (Acquilles Reflex Test) Task 14 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 14, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the Achilles reflex test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 14. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. Petitioner tested the Achilles reflex by lying the patient face down (prone) and then tapping a reflex hammer directly on the Achilles tendon of each foot. Petitioner did not dorsiflex either foot before striking the tendons. The taps elicited a reflexive response which can be clearly seen on the video tape of Petitioner's exam. Had the tap not elicited a response, Petitioner testified that he would have pursued alternative means of testing the reflex. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at the hearing show that there are several alternative ways to test the Achilles reflex, all of which are professionally accepted. One way is to tap directly on the Achilles tendon as Petitioner did. This can be accomplished with or without dorsiflexing the foot. The Department was looking for the candidate to pre-stress the tendon by dorsiflexing the foot prior to striking the tendon with the reflex hammer. The evidence does explain why dorsiflexing the foot would be the preferable method of testing the Achilles reflex under the facts of the case study. Another way to test the Achilles reflex is for the doctor to dorsiflex the foot by pressing his or her fingers against the ball of the patient's foot and then tap his or her fingers with a reflex hammer. Where the ankle is swollen or it is too painful to strike the tendon itself, this method of eliciting the reflex is preferred. The case study on which Task 14 was based indicated that the patient had "severe pain and swelling in the right calf, ankle, and heel." The case study did not indicate that the patient had a ruptured Achilles tendon, but that injury could not be ruled out based on the case study. In such circumstances, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the preferred method of checking Achilles reflex would not be striking the tendon itself. Task 18 (X-Ray of 5-year Old) Task 18 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 18, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to answer the question of whether he or she would X-ray a 5-year-old child with certain symptoms, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 18. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The question required applicants to answer "yes" or "no." They were not permitted to explain their answer. The question provided only limited information regarding the child and his medical history. The question did not state whether the parent had signed a consent form authorizing treatment of the child. Without parental consent, it would not be proper for the doctor to render any medical treatment to the child. It would have been reasonable for Petitioner to assume that any necessary consent forms had been signed. Petitioner did not request any clarification on this point from the examiners nor did his response during the exam mention the lack of a signed parental consent form. Instead, Petitioner explained that he would not X-ray the child because of the apparent severity of the child's injury and a concern that the child may have an injury "that wouldn't be chiropractic in nature." Based on these concerns, Petitioner stated during his exam that he would refer the child to his family physician. At hearing, Petitioner indicated that his concern regarding the severity of the child's injury was based upon the case study which indicated that the child was holding his neck. Petitioner considered this to be Rust's Sign. Petitioner did not request any clarification from the examiners regarding the manner in which the child was holding his neck. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing indicate that Rust's Sign is most commonly exhibited by the patient supporting his or her head by holding the chin, rather than the neck. The patient holds his or her head to compensate for some muscular, ligament, or disk damage, which causes the neck to be unable to support the head. Even if Petitioner construed the limited case history provided to be evidence of Rust's Sign, the proper course of treatment would not have been to refer the patient to a family physician as Petitioner stated during his exam. Instead, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the proper course of treatment would have been to immediately stabilize the neck with a cervical collar or something similar and immediately perform imaging (e.g., X-ray) to determine the source of the injury. Petitioner is not entitled to additional points for Task 18. Task 21 (Gluteus Maximus Test) Task 21 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 21, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the second sub-task. Only the first sub- task, which required the applicant to perform the gluteus maximus muscle test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 21. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The gluteus maximus muscle is the largest muscle in the body and is largely responsible for the shape of the buttock. It extends and laterally rotates the hip joint. The muscle is tested by having the patient lie face down (prone) with his or her knee bent 90 degrees or more. The importance of bending the knee is to isolate the muscle. While the doctor holds the patient's hip to stabilize it and applies downward pressure to the back of the thigh, the patient attempts to raise his or her leg. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that Petitioner had the patient in the prone position. Petitioner did not have the patient bend his knee. Nor did Petitioner have the patient lift his leg up. Instead, the tape shows Petitioner pulling the leg outward as the patient attempted to move the leg inward. Petitioner did not rotate the leg. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing show that the test performed by Petitioner was the proper test for the gluteus medius or gluteus minimus rather than the gluteus maximus. This evidence corroborates the notation on one of the examiners' score sheet which stated "did gluteus med[ius]?" And see Endnote 1. Indeed, it appears from the video tape that Petitioner misunderstood the task he was to perform. When Petitioner first read the question for Task 21, he correctly read the two tests he was to perform, gluteus maximus and soleus. Petitioner then performed the soleus test. Then, he could be heard saying "gluteus medius" as if to remind himself what test he was to perform. Immediately after that comment, one of the examiners suggested that Petitioner reread the question. He did so, correctly reading "gluteus maximus." Petitioner then set up the table and got the patient situated. Then, one of the examiners asked which muscle test Petitioner was going to perform. He stated "gluteus medius." Petitioner then stood over the patient for a minute or so, apparently thinking to himself, and then performed the test as described above. Any confusion regarding the test to be performed was not a result of the form of the examination or the conduct of the examiners. The examination clearly indicates that the test to be performed is gluteus maximus. The words "gluteus maximus" are in bold type. The examiners attempted to clarify Petitioner's confusion by giving him an opportunity to correct himself after he first misstated the test to be performed. Task 22 (Trendelenburg Test) Task 22 required the applicant to perform two distinct tests and state what he or she is looking for in each test. To receive full credit for Task 22, the applicant was required to properly perform each test and state what he or she is looking for in each test. The only dispute in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's statement of what he was looking for in the Trendelenburg test was the correct response. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 22. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The Trendelenburg test is used to evaluate the ability of the hip abductors, primarily the gluteus medius, to stabilize the pelvis on the femur. The test is performed by having the patient stand facing away from the doctor. The patient then lifts one of his or her legs. A positive sign is where the pelvis/hip of the lifted leg tilts downward instead of rising. Reference to the pelvic/hip tilt was what the Department considered to be a correct answer for Task 22. When performing the Trendelenburg test, the doctor should stand behind the patient with his or her hands on the patient's hips. This placement of the hands serves two purposes. First, it allows the doctor to feel even slight movement of the pelvis/hip in order to detect even a mildly positive sign. Second, it allows the doctor to stabilize the patient in the event that the patient loses his or her balance. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that he correctly performed the Trendelenberg test. He was positioned behind the patient with his hands on the patient's hips. He directed the patient to raise his right leg. Then, he stated that if the patient were to fall over, there would be a gluteus medius problem. Dr. Weiss requested clarification from Petitioner, specifically asking him what he was looking for. Again, Petitioner stated that the patient would fall over or lose his balance. Petitioner never used the word "lurch." The Trendelenberg test could cause the patient to lose his or her balance and "lurch" in the direction of the lifted leg or even fall over, but only in cases of severe weakness in the gluteus medius muscle. Such a response would be a positive Trendelenburg sign. The most common positive sign, however, is a downward tilt of the pelvis/hip on the side of the lifted leg. All of the scientific texts, including that offered by Petitioner, identify the tilt as the positive sign which the doctor should be looking for. The tilt is what causes the "lurch" that occurs in more severe cases. If the doctor is looking only for a "lurch," he or she might miss the tilt and thereby miss the most common positive sign of the Trendelenburg test. Because Petitioner stated that he was looking for the patient to fall over or lose his balance, rather than looking for the pelvis/hip tilt, his response to Task 22 was incomplete at best. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for Task 22. Disruptive Noise During Petitioner's Examination The physical diagnosis part of the May 2001, licensure exam was administered in several conference-type rooms of a hotel. Approximately five or six applicants were administered the exam in the same room as Petitioner. Several of those applicants went before Petitioner and several went after him. While Petitioner was taking the examination, loud noises could be heard. On the video tape of Petitioner's exam, the noises sounded like loud scraping, scratching, and rumbling of metal, as if a large piece of equipment or furniture was being moved in a nearby area of the hotel. At other points, the noises sounded like thumping or banging. In his testimony, Petitioner described the noise as sounding like a mechanical tool or jack-hammer. Dr. Weiss, one of the Department's examiners who graded Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis part of the exam, testified that he heard the noise as well and described them as construction noises outside of the room. The noise was not continuous throughout the exam. The noise first could be heard on the video tape near the end of Petitioner's performance of Task 1. It was very loud, but lasted only for several seconds before subsiding. It could also be heard at a very loud level during Tasks 2, 4, 7, and 17, again for only a few seconds each time. The noise could also be heard during Tasks 6, 8, and 16, but at a much lower level. Immediately after the noise first occurred during Task 1, one of the examiners asked Petitioner if the noise was bothering him. Specifically, the examiner asked, "Is that distracting you?" To which Petitioner responded "No, it’s okay." Had Petitioner indicated that the noise bothered him, Dr. Weiss testified that the examination would have been stopped until the source of the noise problem could be addressed. Neither Petitioner nor the examiners mentioned the noise during the remainder of the exam. The video tape does not show any significant difference in Petitioner's demeanor during the tasks where the noise could be heard than the remainder of the tasks. Throughout the test, Petitioner looked somewhat uncomfortable, but not any more so than would be expected under the pressure of this type of exam. At most points where the noise could be heard, Petitioner appeared to be oblivious to it because he was so deep in concentration on the task at hand. Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis exam with more than 17 minutes of the allotted 70 minutes remaining. After he completed his exam, Petitioner filled out a Candidate Concern Form on which he stated that the noises made it hard for him to concentrate. The form was provided to Adrian Washington who was the Department employee in charge of administration of the exam. Mr. Washington informed the two examiners who evaluated Petitioner that a concern had been filed and requested that they independently describe the incident. Dr. Weiss' written comments on the incident referred to the noises as "distracting to me." However, Dr. Weiss' comments, as well as the comments of the other examiner, stated that Petitioner was asked during the examination whether the noises were distracting to him and that he said "no." The comments of the other examiner confirmed what the undersigned witnessed on the video tape, i.e., that "he [Petitioner] did not appear to be visually upset during the examination." The examiners comments also noted that even with the distraction from the noise, Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis part of the exam with time remaining. Based upon the responses of the examiners, primarily the fact that Petitioner stated during the exam that the noises were not bothering him, Mr. Washington determined that no further action was warranted with respect to Petitioner's examination. He did notify the hotel staff about the distractions around the testing area. No other candidate or examiner expressed any concern to Mr. Washington regarding noise problems during the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for a chiropractic license based upon the failing score that he received on the physical diagnosis part of the May 2001 licensure exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 15th day of March, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard Powers, was at all times material hereto a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH0003372. Respondent has routinely advertised his chiropractic practice in the Palm Beach Post. On July 8, 1984, July 15, 1984, and September 2, 1984, Respondent ran an advertisement in the Palm Beach Post which offered a free examination and which stated that the "usual value of this exam is $80. This includes X-rays if needed." The advertisement did not include the disclaimer mandated by Section 455.24, Florida Statutes. That statute, effective June 12, 1984, required that: In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care provider ... (such as Respondent) ... the following statement shall appear in capital letters clearly distinguishable from the rest of the text: THE PATIENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PAY, CANCEL PAYMENT, OR BE REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT WHICH IS PERFORMED AS A RESULT OF AND WITHIN 72 HOURS OF RESPONDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FREE, DISCOUNTED FEE, OR REDUCED FEE SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT. By memorandum dated September 30, 1984, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic (Board), advised all licensees of the aforesaid amendment to section 455.24. Respondent asserts he had no knowledge of the amendment until his receipt of the Board's memorandum in October, 1984, and that he complied, or attempted to comply, with the amendment at all times thereafter. The evidence supports Respondent's assertions. The advertisements of July 8, 1984, and July 15, 1984, were captioned in bold type "ADVANCED APPLIED CHIROPRACTIC," listed Respondent as a diplomate of the National Board of Chiropractic, and concluded in bold type "A STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE." The advertisement of September 2, 1984, touted Respondent's clinic as "Advanced Applied Chiropractic and Comprehensive Pain Center." The generally accepted definition within the medical community of diplomate is an individual who has completed an extensive post graduate program and successfully passed the board's examination. This establishes superior qualifications in the individual's field of practice. Although the National Board of Chiropractic issues diplomate certification to those individuals who pass its examination, its examination is a basic licensing examination which establishes minimal competency, not excellence. Respondent's use of the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" to describe his clinic implies that he possesses skills superior to the average chiropractor. Respondent has registered the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" as a fictitious name. Respondent was, on one prior occasion, disciplined by the Board for an advertising violation.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, should receive a passing grade on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, applied for examination and licensure as a chiropractor and arranged to take the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. She received passing grades on two sections of the examination (Florida Laws and Rules, and X- ray Interpretation) but failing grades in Physical Diagnosis and Technique. During the pendency of this proceeding, it was stipulated that Petitioner should receive a passing grade in Technique, leaving only a failing grade of 74 (with 75 passing) in Physical Diagnosis. Since 75 was passing, Petitioner would pass the examination either if she is given credit for an additional answer, or if a question for which she did not get credit is eliminated. On July 24, 1998, Petitioner telephoned Respondent, the Department of Health, to request that a "review form for Chiropractic" be sent to her address in Dunedin, Florida. On July 30, 1998, Petitioner requested a post-examination review, which provided the same address in Dunedin, Florida. Respondent arranged for the review on September 10, 1998, and attempted to notify Petitioner of the review by letter dated August 21 and postmarked August 25, 1998, and addressed to Petitioner at her address in Dunedin, Florida, certified mail, return receipt requested. Not long after asking for the review, Petitioner moved to Georgia. Petitioner gave the United States Postal Service (USPS) a forwarding address in Cartersville, Georgia, but never notified Respondent of a change of address. When the USPS received Respondent's letter to Petitioner, it placed a postal stamp dated August 30, 1998, on the envelope, bearing the Cartersville address and a request addressed to Petitioner to notify the sender (Respondent) of Petitioner's Cartersville address. The USPS attempted to deliver the letter to Petitioner at the Cartersville, Georgia, address on September 2 and 7, 1998, but could not and had to leave notices for Petitioner to claim the letter. When Petitioner did not claim the letter, the Postal Service "X"-ed out the postal stamp with the Cartersville address and returned the letter to Respondent on September 17, 1998, with a notation that Petitioner had not claimed the letter. The USPS "X"-ed out the postal stamp to signify that the Cartersville address was not a good address. Respondent received the returned letter on September 23, 1998. Because the review notice could not be delivered, Petitioner never received notice. Not having received notice, Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled examination review and was recorded as a "no-show" even though the post office had not yet delivered a return receipt to Respondent. Ten to fifteen percent of the 200 examination reviews a year do not "show." Respondent treats them the same way as it treated Petitioner in this case, which is the same way Respondent treats examination "no-shows." It is not Respondent's practice to attempt to contact either examination or review "no-shows." Petitioner did not re-contact Respondent until August 1999. Initially, Petitioner applied to re-take the Chiropractic Examination in November 1999 but withdrew her application on September 27, 1999, when she realized that her national board part I score expired on December 31, 1998, and her national board scores for parts II and III were going to expire on December 31, 1999. On December 31, 1999, Petitioner attempted to "lock-in" her national board scores but was told that it was too late. When Petitioner realized that there was no way to preserve her national board scores, she renewed her request to review the May 1998 examination. With the assistance of her new attorney, Petitioner persuaded Respondent to agree to an examination review, which was scheduled for February 2000. In its proposed recommended order (PRO), Respondent contended that examination review in February 2000 was "for the sole purpose of preparing for the next examination." (Emphasis in PRO.) Respondent cited no evidence to support this contention, and none is found in the record. Petitioner's examination challenge was filed on March 15, 1998. Respondent also contended in its PRO that Petitioner should be barred from challenging the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination under the doctrine of laches. But not only was laches not raised as a defense in the Joint Response to Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions or at any time prior to Respondent's PRO, there was no evidence that the delay in the examination challenge made it difficult for Respondent to defend against the challenge. Petitioner's examination challenge blamed Respondent for the delay in reviewing the May 1998 examination and for the expiration of her national board scores. It also complained of alleged lack of anonymity and erasure marks on the answer key as well as on "the visceral portion of physical diagnosis." It then challenged two specific physiotherapy questions: one dealing with ultrasound (Question 23); and another dealing with cryotherapy (Question 24). As to the ultrasound, Petitioner essentially complained that she should not have been tested on ultrasound because, as a "straight" chiropractor (as opposed to a "mixer"), Petitioner did not use ultrasound in her practice and did not study it in school. As to the cryotherapy, Petitioner also complained that the answer she gave on the examination was correct and should have received credit. Finally, Petitioner challenged the Technique section of the examination (which Respondent eventually conceded). Like Question 23, Question 24 was worth 5 points on the 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Question 24 consisted of two parts, A and B, each worth 2.5 points. Question 24 dealt with the use of cryotherapy. Part A required a demonstration, which Petitioner clearly failed. (Petitioner did not challenge part A.) After Petitioner attempted her demonstration, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but was somewhat different from the actual first subpart of Question 24B. It does not appear from the evidence that Petitioner herself read the first subpart of Question 24B; she clearly did not read the question aloud. But it does not appear that Petitioner was confused by the way in which the examiner asked the first subpart of Question 24B. Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B varied from (was more conservative than) the accepted answer for time and length of cryotherapy treatment using ice packs. Petitioner testified that she answered conservatively because the hypothetical patient was 60 years old. Petitioner's proposed, more conservative treatment may be appropriate for 60 year-olds with diabetes, fragile skin and blood vessels, or other hypersensitivity to cold due to aging. But for most other 60 year-olds, normal cryotherapy protocol is not contraindicated. Question 24 was silent as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated in the hypothetical patient. During the examination, Petitioner did not ask for clarification as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated. It could not be ascertained from the videotape of the examination whether Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B was adjusted to take into account possible contraindications due to age of the hypothetical patient. The authoritative source for the accepted answer (Applied Physiotherapy, Second Edition, by Jaskoviak and Schafer, p. 249) stated: Cold packs are usually applied for 20-30 minutes when maximum effect is to be achieved. After 30 minutes, the packs lose their necessary degree of therapeutic coolness and must be returned to the refrigerated tank. The point of the authoritative source appears to be that cold packs do not remain cold enough for maximum therapeutic effect for longer than 30 minutes, not that cold packs must be used for 30 minutes for maximum therapeutic effect. It also does not rule out more conservative treatment for a 60 year-old, even assuming no contraindications. Respondent's expert testified persuasively that the authoritative source supported and bolstered his independent knowledge from personal education and extensive experience that the accepted answer was correct, not only generally but also in the case of a 60 year-old female with no contraindications. Petitioner's two experts testified to the contrary. But one had virtually no education, training, and experience in physiotherapy, and the other's education, training, and experience in physiotherapy was far less than Respondent's expert. When Petitioner finished her answer to the first subpart of Question 24B, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but differed significantly from the actual second subpart of Question 24B. The second subpart of Question 24B asked for a listing of physical sensations related to cryotherapy, in sequential order. But the examiner did not initially ask for them in sequential order. The evidence was clear that Petitioner herself did not reread the second subpart of Question 24B; again, she clearly did not read the question aloud. Petitioner began to answer the examiner's question, naming second and fourth sensations in the sequence. As Petitioner paused in her response, one of the examiners told Petitioner that there were four sensations and that Petitioner was required to name all of them in sequential order. The examiner then repeated the sensation mentioned by Petitioner as the first in the sequence. Petitioner continued her response by repeating only the second sensation in the sequence, adding the third sensation in the sequence, and not repeating the fourth sensation in the sequence. Petitioner never named the first sensation in the sequence. At the end of her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B, she commented: "I'm sorry. That's the best I can do. I guess this is why I should have taken physiotherapy." Petitioner argued that the examiner(s) violated the Examiner Manual for the Chiropractic Examination May 1998 (the Examiner Manual) and, in so doing, may have misled Petitioner into thinking that the first sensation mentioned by Petitioner in her answer to the second subpart to Question 24B was the first sensation in the sequence and may have caused Petitioner to omit the actual first sensation in the sequence. The Examiner Manual stated in pertinent part: During the examination If necessary, remind the candidate to read the questions out loud for the video. Do not read the questions to the candidate or ask the candidate for additional information. (Emphasis in original.) We have agreed on the following solutions to possible problems: * * * The answer is incomplete: ask for a complete answer. * * * Avoid Giving Clues DO NOT ask any additional questions, and DO NOT provide any feedback about the correctness of the answers. When the candidate gives a wrong answer, do not ask the candidate to answer it again. You may think you are doing the candidate a favor, but most of the time candidates do not think that way. While the examiner(s) may have misled Petitioner as to the first sensation in the sequence, Petitioner also never gave the last three sensations in proper order. The evidence did not prove that the examiner(s) misled Petitioner in regard to those sensations. In addition, Petitioner more or less conceded to the examiners that she was guessing throughout her attempted answers to Questions 23 and 24. She told the examiners that she had no education in or knowledge of cryotherapy and did not use it in her practice. While correct guesses count as correct answers, Petitioner's admitted guessing supports the finding that she did not answer the second subpart to Question 24B correctly. Petitioner also argued that she should be given partial credit for her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B. But while partial credit was given for a completely correct answer to either subpart of Question 24B, partial credit was not given for a partially correct answer to a subpart. Petitioner did not prove that the it was arbitrary or unreasonable not to give partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart. To give Petitioner partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart of Question 24B would give Petitioner an unfair advantage over other candidates. Question 23 also was worth 5 points on a 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Petitioner clearly did not answer Question 23 on the use of ultrasound as physiotherapy. Petitioner asserted that it was unfair and improper for Respondent to ask questions on physiotherapy on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination because she had no education, training, or experience in it. Petitioner learned "straight" chiropractic at Life University in Georgia and practiced "straight" chiropractic for 12 years in Georgia. "Straight" chiropractic is limited to identification and correction of skeletal subluxations by direct manipulation. It does not use physiotherapy techniques, such as ultrasound and cryotherapy (icing). But, contrary to Petitioner's position in this case, it is found that Petitioner did have the opportunity to study physiotherapy during and after college, but she chose not to. Petitioner also asserted that Respondent gave her inadequate notice that physiotherapy questions would be on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. The Candidate Information Booklet for the May 1998 Chiropractic Licensure and Certification Examination (the Candidate Information Booklet) advised candidates approximately what areas would be covered in the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination, namely: Orthopedic and Neurological 30-35%; Diagnostic Imaging 20-25%; Case History and Physical 15-20%; Laboratory 5-10%; Diagnosis 15- 20%; and Clinical Judgment 5-10%. But it also included the following statement: Based on the Board of Chiropractic's approval of a proposal made by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, starting with the May 1998 examination, the Physical Diagnosis portion of the examination will include questions relating to the practice of Physiotherapy. The inclusion of these questions does not alter the percentage of areas to be tested on the Physical Diagnosis portion [of] the examination, as stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. The only other evidence as to whether inclusion of the physiotherapy questions (i.e., Questions 23 and 24) caused the percentage of areas to be tested to depart from the approximations in the Candidate booklet or the percentages stated in the pertinent Board rule was the testimony of Respondent's psychometric expert. It was her general understanding that inclusion of the physiotherapy questions did not alter the percentages because: "They are covered all through the exam I believe." But she conceded that her expertise does not extend to examination content, and she could not testify specifically as to how inclusion of the physiotherapy questions affected the percentages in the Candidate Information Booklet and in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. No "content expert" addressed the issue. It is found that the only place where physiotherapy possibly might fit under the Candidate Information Booklet's description of Physical Diagnosis would be under "clinical judgment." If the physiotherapy questions were assigned to "clinical judgment" under Physical Diagnosis, the ten points assigned to those questions would have to be added to the six points assigned to "clinical judgment" on other parts of the Physical Diagnosis examination, for a total of 16 points, which exceeds the maximum percentage in the Candidate Information Booklet. (As reflected in the Conclusion of Law 42, infra, the same holds true for the percentages stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Health, enter a final order that Petitioner passed the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Post Office Box 37094 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-7094 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should Petitioner receive a passing grade for the technique portion for the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination (the examination) administered by Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner practices chiropractic in Massachusetts. In November 1997, Petitioner took the Florida chiropractic licensure examination. To pass that examination it was necessary for Petitioner to score 75 points on the technique portion of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 70 points. Petitioner disputes the scores received on several questions, described as questions 1, 4, and 7. Each contested question is worth five points. As a candidate for licensure, Petitioner received an information booklet which contained a reading list informing the candidates of writings of experts in various subjects covered by the examination, upon whom the candidates should rely. This included a list of experts in the technique portion of the examination. Respondent intended to defer to the opinions of those experts in grading the candidates. Additionally, Petitioner and other candidates in the November 1997 examination, were provided written instructions concerning the technique portion of the examination. Those instructions stated: TECHNIQUE EXAMINATION FORM 1 Demonstrate the following chiropractic techniques on the patient. For each technique, indicate the patient and doctor position. location of the segment. patient and doctor contact point. line of drive. Do not actually perform the techniques, but set them up and indicate how you would perform them. If the technique is grossly inadequate and/or clinically inappropriate, no credit will be given for that technique. Technique 1: Bilateral Anterior-Superior Ilia Technique 2: Posterior Radial Head on Left Technique 3: Plantar Cuboid Technique 4: Posterior Superior Occiput on Right Technique 5: L-2, Left Posterior Spinous Yes or No for position, location, contact, and line of drive/correction CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICAL EXAMINATION 11/97 TECHNIQUE (EXAMINER) The expectation was that each candidate in the examination would set up and indicate the manner in which the candidate would perform the five techniques and the four specific positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive related to the five techniques, without actually performing to conclusion. Petitioner and other candidates were graded by two examiners. The examiners, in scoring the candidates, used a grading sheet which described the activities by referring to the five techniques as cases. The various positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive were numbered 1 through 20, with the first four numbers referring to case 1, numbers 5 through 8 referring to case 2, et cetera. Before performing as examiners in the November 1997 session, the examiners who graded Petitioner underwent training to ensure that they followed the same criteria for scoring the Petitioner. Petitioner contests the scores that he received in relation to technique 1 position a./case 1 position 1; technique 1 line of drive d./case 1 line of drive 4; and technique 2 patient and contact point c./case 2 contact point 7. Those items respectively correspond to questions 1, 4, and 7, referred to by the parties. After the two examiners entered the individual scores for the various items within a technique, the scores by the individual examiners were added to arrive at an aggregate score. The aggregate score was then divided by two to reach the final results on the technique portion of the examination. By that arrangement Petitioner received a score of 70 points, insufficient to pass the technique portion of the examination. Although examiner 07, in the score sheet reference case 1 position 1, marked "Y" to point out that the Petitioner had achieved compliance with the expectations of that technique, the examiner did not assign five points to the Petitioner indicating credit for that item. Instead the score sheet reflects zero points for the item. Examiner 15 in relation to that item, wrote "N" on the score sheet signifying non-compliance and provided zero points for non-compliance. In all other respects the scores of the two examiners in relation to the technique portion of the examination, to include the disputed items, were in accord. Notwithstanding the determination by the initial examiners that Petitioner had failed the technique portion, Respondent instituted a non-rule policy to have three additional examiners review Petitioner's performance on the technique portion, by resort to the audio-video tape that had been made during the pendency of the technique portion of the examination. Apparently, Respondent in view of the reference by examiner 07 to "Y," indicating compliance with case 1 position 1, treated the item in a manner which signified compliance. Thus Petitioner was entitled to 5 points on the score sheet of examiner 07. The activities of the discrepancy reviewers were designed to determine whether that view finding compliance should be upheld in a setting where examiner 15 had entered "N" for that item signifying non-compliance. The review was expected to break the impasse. The three reviewers determined that Petitioner had not complied with the requirements of case 1 position 1. As a result, the score of 70 points, the average arrived at by adding and then dividing the two 70-point scores assigned by the original examiners was upheld. When Petitioner was given notice of the examination results, the 70-point score for the technique portion was reflected in those results. By inference it is found that the original examiners and discrepancy reviewers practiced chiropractic in Florida. In reference to case 1 position 1, examiner 15 commented about "contact P.S.I.S. should be ischium." P.S.I.S. stands for Postier Superior Iliac Spine. Examiner 07 made no comment concerning that item. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, both examiners felt that Petitioner had not complied with that requirement. Examiner 07, in commenting, stated "not on ischium." Examiner 15 commented "wrong line of drive." In reference to case 2 contact point 7, examiner 07 commented, "Not thumb-thenar." Examiner 15 commented, "No thumb contact." At the hearing to contest the preliminary determination finding Petitioner to have failed the technique portion of the examination, Petitioner offered his testimony as an expert in chiropractic concerning the several items at issue. To rebut that testimony, Respondent presented Dr. Darryl Thomas Mathis, an expert who practices chiropractic in Florida. Dr. Mathis also served as an examiner in the licensure examination, but did not test Petitioner. In his opinion Petitioner feels that he is entitled to additional points on each of the several questions at issue. In his opinion, Dr. Mathis disagrees. In explaining his performance related to case 1 position 1, Petitioner opined that his placement of the patient in the side posture position was correct. Petitioner also opined that his position for the case was correct. By contrast to the Petitioner's opinion concerning case 1 position 1, Dr. Mathis expressed the opinion that Petitioner's position in addressing the patient was incorrect. According to Dr. Mathis, Petitioner had his hand pointing upward parallel to the spine of the patient and not 90 degrees to the spine when contacting the ischium as required. In Dr. Mathis' opinion the table height for the examination area Petitioner was working in did not prohibit Petitioner from positioning himself appropriately to demonstrate his position reference to the patient. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 1 position 1. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, Petitioner offered his explanation in the examination that he would use the opposite of the actual listing. He opined that given the way that the inter-joint subluxates, one would go in the opposite direction to get a more neutral setting. Therefore when dealing with anterior-superior, one would go postier and inferior to accomplish the opposite of the listing. In contrast, Dr. Mathis, in offering his opinion about this item, referred to the anterior-superior listing as one in which the pelvis, in the circumstance that is bilateral, makes it such that both hip bones, or the pelvis in its entirety, has tipped forward and up over the femur heads or leg bones. Noting that Petitioner stated in his examination that he would thrust in the opposite manner, postier to anterior, meaning back to front, and superior to inferior, from top to bottom, Dr. Mathis opined that Petitioner was partially correct. However, Dr. Mathis was persuaded that additional information was required as to the actual angle or direction of thrust determined by the shaft of the femur or leg bone, and this additional information was not addressed by Petitioner. Dr. Mathis criticizes Petitioner's explanation of the technique to be employed on this item by leaving out the shaft of the femur as constituting the determinate of the angle employed. Moreover, Dr. Mathis did not believe that Petitioner could, in the attempt to demonstrate the technique at issue, perform adequately. The Petitioner was on the upper portion of the pelvis or ilium as opposed to being on the ischium, or lower portion of the pelvis. Consequently, according to Dr. Mathis, if Petitioner was going to thrust in the direction that Petitioner stated he would, he could not get the correction that he was attempting to obtain because Petitioner was on the wrong segment or portion of the pelvis. As Dr. Mathis perceives it, Petitioner could not physically accomplish by demonstration, what he claimed he could do because Petitioner was in the wrong location to make that correction. Dr. Mathis' opinion about case 1 line of drive 4 is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for this item. Case 2 contact point 7 is what Petitioner refers as to tennis elbow. Petitioner concedes that normally he would use the thumb as the contact point; however, he offers his opinion that during the time of his practice, he has learned other techniques. According to Petitioner, those other techniques are especially useful to address an acute patient with a lot of swelling, where a thumb contact can be painful. Therefore, Petitioner believes that the thenar, the soft part of the palm of the hand below the thumb, is appropriate as a contact point in an acute situation. Given this alternative, Petitioner did not believe that his use of the thenar in the examination was harmful. By contrast Dr. Mathis believes that the thumb is the only acceptable answer. Further, Dr. Mathis stated that the reference list provided to Petitioner and other candidates prior to the examination, in association with A.Z. States' description of the appropriate technique, upon which the Respondent relied in determining the appropriate answer for this item, concludes that the thumb is to be employed in this technique. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 2 contact point 7.
Recommendation It is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued finding that Petitioner did not pass the technique portion of the 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John Bisanti 150 Sumner Avenue Springfield, Massachusetts 01108 Ann Marie Frazee, Esquire Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0752
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November of 1997. The examination consisted of four parts: "x-ray interpretation"; "technique"; "Florida laws and rules"; and "physical diagnosis." The minimum passing score for each part was 75. Petitioner passed the "Florida laws and rules" and "technique" portions of the examination. She failed the "x-ray interpretation" and "physical diagnosis" portions of the examination, with scores of 63.20 and 70.50. respectively. As noted above, Petitioner's evidentiary presentation at hearing addressed only the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination. On this portion of the examination, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of physical diagnosis by responding to test questions, in the presence of two examiners, either verbally or, where appropriate, by demonstrating on a "patient." Their responses were independently evaluated and graded by the two examiners. A candidate's final score was the average of the examiners' scores. Prior to the administration of the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination (PD Test), examiners were provided with written instructions (Examiners' Instructions) regarding their role in the examination process and the standards they should follow in grading candidates' performance. In addition, examiners were required to attend a pre-examination organizational meeting at which they were provided with further instructions and training designed to enhance grading standardization. Questions 11 through 13 on the PD Test covered the subject of orthopedics. Candidates were presented with a written case history to which they were to refer in responding to these questions, as well as to all subsequent questions on the PD Test (including those at issue in the instant case). In question 11, candidates were asked to select (from a list) four orthopedic tests which, under the circumstances presented in the case history, were appropriate to administer to the "patient." As Petitioner conceded at hearing, of the four tests she selected, only three were appropriate. The fourth test she selected, Yergason's Test, was not an appropriate test to administer in view of the "patient's" case history. In question 12, candidates were asked to demonstrate on the "patient" how they would administer the tests they selected in response to question 11. Question 12 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting and properly demonstrating four appropriate tests; three points for selecting and properly demonstrating three appropriate tests; two points for selecting and properly demonstrating two appropriate tests; and one point for selecting and properly demonstrating one appropriate test. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 12. Although she selected three appropriate tests, she properly demonstrated only two of these three tests. The test she did not properly demonstrate was Tinel's Sign. The "patient's" case history suggested that ulnar nerve, not median nerve, testing needed to be done on the "patient." There are five types of Tinel's Sign tests. One is designed to test the ulnar nerve and involves tapping on the "funny bone." Another is for testing the median nerve and involves tapping on the wrist. Petitioner demonstrated the type of Tinsel's Sign test used to probe the median nerve, when she should have demonstrated the type used to test the ulnar nerve. Because she selected only three appropriate tests and demonstrated only two of these tests properly, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 12. Question 13 required candidates to state what conditions would be suggested by positive results from the tests selected and demonstrated. Question 13 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting four appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; three points for selecting three appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; two points for selecting two appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive results; and one point for selecting one appropriate test and correctly stating, as to that test, what condition would be indicated by positive test results. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 13. Petitioner did not correctly name the condition suggested by a positive Cervical Compression test, one of the three tests she correctly selected in response to question 11. Because Petitioner selected only three appropriate tests and, with respect to one of these tests (the Cervical Compression test), failed to correctly state what condition would be indicated by positive test results, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 13. Questions 14 through 16 on the PD Test covered the subject of range of motion. In question 16, candidates were asked to explain the difference and significance between active range of motion and passive range of motion. Question 16 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for answers to question 16. Neither examiner awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 16. In responding to the question, Petitioner gave an accurate explanation of the difference between active range of motion and passive range of motion (by noting that the former, unlike the latter, is performed by the patient without assistance), but she did not accurately explain the significance of the difference, as required by the second part of the question. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in attempting to answer this part of the question, that active range of motion is characterized by ligament involvement. Because Petitioner did not correctly answer question 16 in its entirety, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for this question. Questions 17 through 19 on the PD Test covered the subject of neurology and focused upon muscle testing. Question 17 required candidates to name all relevant muscles that that they would test in light of the case history with which they were presented (which reflected that the "patient" had neck pain and numbness radiating down her right arm into her ring finger and little finger). Question 17 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for naming four relevant muscles; one and a half points for naming three relevant muscles; one point for naming two relevant muscles; and a half point for naming one relevant muscle. Neither of the two examiners awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 17. There was no connection between the muscles Petitioner named and the nerve root that the symptoms (described in the case history) suggested was the cause of the "patient's" problems. Inasmuch as Petitioner named no relevant muscles, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for question 17. Question 18 required candidates to demonstrate on the "patient" how to test two muscles selected by the examiners. Petitioner was asked to test the "patient's "triceps muscle and the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points (full credit) for correctly demonstrating both tests and one point for correctly demonstrating one of the two tests. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her demonstration in response to question 18. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received one point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 18. Petitioner tested the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand in a manner that is unconventional, but nonetheless acceptable. She did not test the "patient's" triceps muscle correctly, however, inasmuch as she did not, during her demonstration, do what was necessary to isolate that muscle. Because she performed only one of the two tests correctly, awarding Petitioner more than the one point she has already received for her response to question 18 would be inconsistent with the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions. To receive credit for question 19, candidates had to explain and interpret a grade level of muscle testing selected by the examiners. (There are six such grade levels: zero through five. The examiners were instructed to select one of these six grade levels.) Petitioner was asked by the examiners to explain and interpret grade level three testing. Question 19 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for responses to question 19. One examiner awarded Petitioner one point for her response to question 19. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received a half point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 19. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in response to question 19, that grade level three testing involves range of motion without gravity. Grade level three testing actually involves range of motion with gravity. Accordingly, pursuant to the scoring guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should not have received any credit for her response to question 19. Questions 20 and 21 on the PD Test covered dermatomes and sensory testing. Question 20 required candidates to name all relevant dermatome patterns that they would test for in light of the "patient's" case history and to demonstrate one of these tests (selected by the examiners) on the "patient." Petitioner was asked to demonstrate dermatome C5 testing. Question 20 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for correctly naming all relevant dermatome patterns and correctly demonstrating the selected test, and one point if they correctly named all relevant dermatome patterns or correctly demonstrated the selected test (but failed to do both). One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 20. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 20. Petitioner correctly named all of the relevant dermatome patterns, but she incorrectly demonstrated dermatome C5 testing inasmuch as she focused upon the trapezium ridge, rather than the lateral aspect of the arm. Accordingly, pursuant to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should have received one point for question 20. Question 21 was worth two points. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 21. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 21. Respondent concedes that Petitioner should have received full credit (two points) for her response to question 21, and there is no evidence indicating otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of making or filing a false report signed in the capacity of a licensed chiropractic physician, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed chiropractor in Florida since 1978, holding license number CH0002696. Petitioner requires licensed chiropractors to file Mandatory Practitioner Profile Questionnaire Packets (Profiles). The subject Profile was due on or before April 15, 1999. The Profile asks the licensee to supply various items of information and answer several questions. Section II of the Profile requires information concerning "medical education." In response to the question of what medical school Respondent attended, he wrote: "Logan 'Quack Con-Artist' School of Chiropractic." In response to the type of his degree, Respondent wrote: "Quack Con-Artist Chiropractic Degree." In response to questions concerning medical training, Respondent answered: "'Fraudulent' Automobile Personal Injury Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)" and "'Fraudulent' Workers Compensation Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)." Respondent also added to these responses, as well as the responses cited in the preceding paragraph, the following: "Caveat: see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director)." Section VIII of the Profile requires information concerning criminal offenses. This section asks: "have you ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal misdemeanor or felony in any jurisdiction?" The question then states: "If "YES," briefly describe the offense(s), indicate whether the conviction is under appeal, and attach copy of notice of appeal." The form supplies three lines for each of these items of information. Respondent answered "no" to the first question in Section VIII and left the remainder of the section blank. The Profile concludes, immediately above the signature line: "I affirm these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 455.624, 458.327, 458.331, 459.013, 459.015, 460.413, 461.013, 775.082, 775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes." Respondent signed on the signature line and added the date of April 7, 1999. Immediately beneath the signature line, Respondent added: "Notice: Signed under caveat--see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director." Respondent's four-page letter to Gloria Henderson dated April 7, 1999, references the Profile, notifies Ms. Henderson and Petitioner of Respondent's intent to sue, and demands that Petitioner omit Respondent's listing from a website of chiropractors because, in part, "I do NOT accept their 'valueless treatment' known as an "adjustment" (it is a waste of money and time), and because I practice health care from an "Allopathic" (medical approach) point of view, including but not limited to, surgery, drug prescription, physical therapy " Respondent states in the letter that the Petitioner's failure to incorporate his comments in all computer files listing him as a chiropractor will result in his filing a federal action under tort and constitutional law seeking $1 million plus punitive damages. The final caveat in the April 7 letter states: My (Roy A. Day) signature on the instant letter, and the associated completed questionnaire, reflects the denial of Roy A. Day to have meaningful access to so-called "licensed attorney" courts of law, and the associated denials of each and all discovery, and trial by jury, and the right to each and all appeals, and the denial to write a brief on appeals, and each and all associated "railroading" of Roy A. Day, with the overlay for "licensed attorney" courts of law to deny the law, facts and evidence existed when they pertained to Roy A. Day, since Roy A. Day is not represented by a so-called "licensed attorney" at $300.00 per hour in artificial-monopolistic legal fees. In addition, the signature reflects each and all associated "forced and coerced" action, specifically, Roy A. Day has been denied "due process and equal protection of the law." On February 6, 1995, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered an Order of Probation. The Order states that Respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking, interception of oral communication, and uttering a check with a forged endorsement. The Order withholds adjudication and places Respondent on probation for two years. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of two counts of the third-degree felony of uttering a check with a forged endorsement, in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. The checks totaled approximately $20,000, and, sometime between March 13 and May 5, 1993, Respondent passed each check knowing that the signature of his brother, Donald Day, was forged. For each count, the court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 130 days he had already served in jail, and the sentences ran concurrently. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of the third-degree felony of aggravated stalking, in violation of Section 784.048(3), Florida Statutes. The stalking consisted of repeated and harassing telephone calls that Respondent made to the house of a person who had, at one time, expressed interest in purchasing a home in which Respondent had an interest, but later decided not to pursue the purchase. The court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 133 days that he had already served in jail, and this sentence ran concurrently with the sentences for uttering a check with a forged endorsement. Petitioner lacked a copy of a judgment concerning the interception of oral communications. This offense arose out of Respondent's surreptitious recording of a conversation that he had with a police officer who was investigating the stalking charges. Absent a copy of the judgment, however, insufficient evidence of this conviction exists for the purpose of this disciplinary case. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he did not disclose these criminal convictions on the Profile because doing so would somehow implicate him as a "co-conspirator" in the injustices perpetrated upon him by the authorities involved in prosecuting these offenses. Respondent falsely failed to disclose on the Profile his convictions for aggravated stalking and uttering a check with a forged instrument. His failure to disclose this information constitutes fraudulent concealment of these criminal offenses. In a fairly straightforward case, Respondent has filed nearly 250 pleadings containing thousands of pages. He also abused the subpoena power of this tribunal by subpoenaing judges and court officials from every level of the federal and state judiciaries. Last but not least, Respondent has defamed and discredited numerous persons without apparent reason, although some question exists whether Respondent is capable of exercising consistent control over the impulses leading to at least some of these utterances. The crimes of which Respondent was convicted may have arisen out of family disagreements, possibly concerning the sale of a family home. Respondent may be obsessively preoccupied with actual or perceived injustices that he suffered as a result of this transaction. Undoubtedly, Respondent compulsively litigates everything that has the most remote bearing upon this transaction, using court files as archives for materials that he believes will vindicate him, despite an ardent and often- expressed repulsion for judges, lawyers, and others connected with the legal system. No penalty but revocation is suitable under the circumstances, absent a showing by Respondent that he has commenced or is continuing therapy and that the prognosis is reasonably good. The record lacks such evidence. Respondent is not unintelligent, nor is he entirely devoid of insight. His thinking, although at times disordered, is capable of impressive organizational efforts, as best revealed by his meticulous organization in his proposed recommended order of what otherwise seemed to be a bewildering variety of materials that Respondent has seen fit to file in this case. Although his behavior seems at times compulsive, Respondent was capable of a certain level of self-restraint, at least during the hearing and when not directly confronting the underlying transaction or crimes. If they occur at some point in the future, successful diagnosis and treatment of Respondent should inform Petitioner's interpretation of the events and behaviors described in this Recommended Order, if Respondent seeks relicensure as a chiropractor.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr. Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Wings S. Benton, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Office of General Counsel Medical Quality Assurance Practitioner Regulation--Legal Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Roy A. Day Post Office Box 33 Tarpon Springs, Florida 34688-0033
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Petitioner passed the 1987 chiropractic examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mary Campilii, was a candidate for the May 14-17, 1987 chiropractic examination. Petitioner achieved an overall score of 72, as reflected by an upward revision to her original score of 66, on the practical section of the examination. Petitioner achieved a score of 76 on the Florida laws and rules section of the examination. A minimum score of 75 is required to pass both the practical and laws and rules sections of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the method of grading utilized by the Respondent contending that it is subjective as it elates to her, and did not properly reflect her level of achievement and knowledge to the questions that she answered on the May 1987 examination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she demonstrated expert or superior knowledge in her answers to any of the questions on the May 1987 exam that she now challenges. The oral practice examination for chiropractic certification is an independent, subjective grading of a candidate's responses to questions asked by two graders. The graders have all been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five (5) years in Florida and have undergone several hours of standardization training prior to examining the candidates for license certification. One of the techniques required of graders is that they must write their comments if they give a candidate any score less than a 3, which is a passing grade. The grade range is from 1-4. A score of 3 is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimum competency and a score of 4 is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested. Petitioner presented Thomas P. Toja, an expert in grading chiropractic examinations for the Board, who offered his opinion that had the grading system utilized by Respondent been different, i.e. a system whereby a candidate could be accorded a score somewhere between a 3 and 4, when such candidate has demonstrated more than minimum competency but less than superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested, a candidate, such as Petitioner, could have achieved an additional 3 points to her score of 72, and thereby received a passing score of 75. Petitioner has not, however challenged validity of the existing rule which permits Respondent to utilize the grading procedures applied in this case. Stephen Ordet, a licensed chiropractor in Florida for more than 7 years was received as an expert in the grading of chiropractic examinations in Florida, and was one of the graders during the May 1987 examination. Ordet's opinion, which is credited, was that Petitioner did not earn a score of 4 on any of the questions that she now challenges, and was correctly assigned a score of 3 for each of the responses she gave to questions she challenged. Thomas P. Hide, a chiropractor who specializes in the area of sports related injuries, was tendered and received as an expert in the area of reviewing x-rays and the grading of the chiropractic examination. Hide credibly testified and it is found that Petitioner was properly assigned a score of 3 on questions 8, 12, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30 and 33.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met the minimum criteria to pass the challenged chiropractic examination and deny her request for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dr. Mary Camiplii 2921 Buckridge Trail Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
