Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and holds license number ME 0043566. Respondent has never been the subject of a previous complaint from the Department of Professional Regulation (now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation). No patient involved in this proceeding incurred injury as a result of any procedure performed by Respondent or as a result of any medical record kept by Respondent, nor did any patient claim injury or make a complaint against Respondent. Respondent derived no financial gain from any act or omission alleged in the administrative complaint. All events pertaining to this proceeding occurred in 1987 or 1988. Prior to February 8, 1988, the effective date of Chapter 88-1, Laws of Florida, Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Section 25 of Chapter 88-1, Florida Statutes, became effective February 8, 1988, and amended the pertinent provisions of Section 458.311(1), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered, and reports of consultations and hospitalizations. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that a physician be incompetent to practice medicine in order to be disciplined pursuant to this paragraph. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner had adopted no rules pertaining to the keeping of records by a licensed physician. Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point) is a hospital located in Broward County, Florida. Unless otherwise indicated, all hospital records referred to in this matter are from Imperial Point. PATIENT #1 (C.S.) On August 8, 1988, Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #1, a male, who was 44 years old at the time of the procedure. This procedure was performed at Imperial Point on an outpatient basis. An upper endoscopy is the viewing of the mouth, the pharynx, the esophagus, the stomach and portions of the duodenum with a fiber optic instrument that allows direct visualization of the lining of these structures and allows therapeutic maneuvers. The records kept of this procedure performed on Patient #1 on August 8, 1988, include an outpatient hospital record entitled "Operative Report". The description of the procedure portion of this report includes the following: ". . . The gastric portion was infiltrated with 1:1,000 adrenaline . . ." Adrenaline, also known as epinephrine, is a vasoconstrictor that can be used to control minor bleeding and oozing. It is used regularly in gastroenterology to treat actively bleeding lesions or ulcers with evidence of recent bleeding prior to performing a more permanent type of hemostasis. Dr. Goldberg testified that epinephrine was usually injected into these areas by a needle. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that epinephrine should not be used in cases of trivial bleeding or oozing or after routine biopsies unless there is an imminent danger of a significant arterial bleed. The testimony of Dr. Cerda and Dr. Singh established that spraying epinephrine over an area that is subject to bleeding is a precautionary technique some gastroenterologists follow. Dr. Singh and Dr. Cerda have both either used this technique, or have observed its use by other physicians. The expert witnesses agreed that the injection by needle of epinephrine into the gastric wall would be a procedure that falls below an established standard of care. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to how the term "infiltrated" should be interpreted. Petitioner contends that the term "infiltrated" is synonymous with the term "injected", and that the medical records should be construed to mean that Respondent injected the gastric wall with a needle, and therefore practiced below the standard of care. This contention is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Respondent asserts that the medical record should be construed to mean that Respondent sprayed the gastric wall as a precautionary measure. This contention is consistent with the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent. This dispute is resolved by finding that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and does not prove that Respondent injected Patient #1's gastric wall with a needle. This conclusion is based, in part, on the definition of the term "infiltrate" and on the context in which epinephrine is sometimes administered by gastroenterologists during this type procedure. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the term "infiltrate" means to pass a liquid or a gas into something through its interstices or to permeate with a liquid or gas passed through interstices. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Twenty Sixth Edition (Dorland) has a similar definition of the term "infiltrate". According to Dorland, an "interstice" is small interval, space, or gap in a tissue or structure. According to Dorland, the term permeate means to penetrate or pass through, as through a filter. Also according to Dorland, the term inject means the act of forcing a liquid into a part, as into the subcutaneous, the vascular tree, or an organ. Based on these definitions, it is found that the use of the term "infiltrate" is more consistent with the practice of spraying epinephrine onto the gastric wall, and that the use of the term "infiltrate" does not prove that Respondent injected the epinephrine into the gastric wall with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #1 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. A pathology report dated August 8, 1988 contained in the medical file provided a pathological diagnosis as follows: "esophageal brushings: no evidence of malignancy." Brushings are the result of passing a small brush through the biopsy channel of an endoscope, rubbing it over an area of concern that might have either a malignancy or a fungal infection, taking the brush out of the scope, wiping it on a microscopic slide, and sending the slide to the pathologist for cytological examination. The reference to the "esophageal brushings" in the pathology report was error. The brushings taken from Patient #1 during the procedure on August 8, 1988, came from the stomach, a fact obvious to all of the expert witnesses in light of the operative report and operative drawing made by Respondent. Because Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent took esophageal brushings from Patient #1, its charge that he failed to properly document his reasons for doing so must also fail. 1/ Petitioner proved that Respondent's medical records, including his office notes as to Patient #1 failed to contain an adequate medical history for Patient #1 and failed to reflect the findings of any physical examination of Patient #1 by Respondent. Petitioner further proved that such failures fall below an established standard of care as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. PATIENT #2 (R.B.) Patient #2 was a 70 year old male seen by Respondent for a consultation because of the patient's history of hematemesis, which is the vomiting of blood. Respondent prepared a formal consultation note dated September 25, 1988. The consultation note contains a description of the patient's condition, references a rectal exam, which was positive for blood, and indicates that a physical examination of the patient was made. Respondent again saw the patient on September 27, 1988 and performed an upper endoscopy. Dr. Goldberg was critical of the medical records kept by Respondent as to this procedure and was of the opinion that the medical records were inadequate. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedure. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records pertaining to this patient were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. The records kept of this procedure reflect that Respondent "infiltrated" Patient #2 with epinephrine. This is the identical dispute over the meaning of the term "infiltrated" that pertained to Patient #1 as discussed above. For the reasons given in resolving the dispute as it pertains to Patient #1, it is found that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and that the use of the term does not prove that Respondent administered the epinephrine by injecting Patient #2 with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #2 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. PATIENT #3 (B.B.) Patient #3, a 65 year old female was admitted to Imperial Point with chest pains by her physician, a Dr. Fanfan. Patient #3 had a history of cancer which included the prior surgical removal of a tumor. On October 3, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy of Patient #3. A colonoscopy is an examination of the colon from the anus to the ileocecal valve using a fiber optic instrument. A colonoscopy is indicated to evaluate abnormal X-rays, changes in bowel habits, evidence of bleeding, suspicions of inflammation, tumors, or polyps. Respondent adequately performed the procedure on Patient #3. The colonoscopy detected that Patient #3 had polyps. Subsequent laboratory results established that these were hyperplastic polyps that required no follow-up. Had the polyp been an adenomatous polyp, which is a true neoplasm with malignant potential, a follow-up for recolonoscopy would have been appropriate in one year. Prior to receiving the pathology reports, on the polyp, Respondent recommended a six month follow-up for the patient. This follow-up recommendation was appropriate at the time it was made. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that a follow-up be performed was below an established standard of care. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that the follow-up for this patient with a history of cancer be in six months as opposed to one year fell below an established standard of care. The barium enema for this patient was originally scheduled by the attending physician, Dr. Fanfan. Dr. Fanfan clearly wrote a note on the same day following Respondent's report of the colonoscopy that the barium enema was pending, yet the attending physician did not cancel the barium enema. There is no disagreement among the experts that the barium enema was unnecessary in light of the findings of the colonoscopy. It is medically unnecessary and inappropriate for both tests to be performed on the same day. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent was responsible for the patient once he began his consultation and that Respondent should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Cerda, Dr. Eberly and Dr. Singh were of the opinion that the attending physician was responsible for scheduling the barium enema and that the attending physician or the radiologist should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Eberly testified that as the primary care physician, the admitting physician is the "captain of the ship" and has the responsibility to make final determinations with respect to tests of this nature. Because of the conflicting testimony from equally credible expert witnesses, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care by not cancelling Patient #3's enema. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #3 were inadequate. He had several criticisms of the records. Dr. Goldberg opined that there should have been a formal consultation note on Patient #3's chart that included past history, present illness, review of systems, allergies, pertinent laboratories, a thorough organ specific or system examination, an impression, an adequate discussion of the consultant's impression and the consultant's plans. He opined that the indications for Patient #3's procedure were inadequately dictated on the procedure notes and that Respondent's history pertaining to Patient #3 was inadequate because there was no pertinent review of systems or past history, no mention of the previous tumor, no mention of allergies, and an extremely scant examination. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of this patient's medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #4 (E.K.) On October 4, 1988, Patient #4, a 92 year-old female, was admitted to the hospital with an acute onset of vomiting, dehydration, and abdominal pain. Respondent was asked by Patient #4's attending physician to evaluate Patient #4 for a potential small bowel obstruction following an X-ray that was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #4 on October 7, 1988. An obstruction of the intestines is a blockage in the large or small intestine. The bowel behind the blockage may become inflated with fluid or air and may be seen on X-ray. The obstruction may result from a variety of abnormalities. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the upper endoscopy was contra- indicated and potentially dangerous to the patient because of the X-ray indicating a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that an upper endoscopy should be used only under compelling circumstances if there is a partial bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did the right tests on Patient #4, but in the wrong order since he did not first rule out an obstruction. Prior to performing the upper endoscopy Respondent monitored the patient for several days. During that time period, examinations indicated that the patient was having bowel movements. Both the attending physician's notes, Respondent's notes, and the nurse's notes indicate positive bowel signs on October 5 and 6, indicating that there was not a complete bowel obstruction. Respondent ordered a Golytely preparation administered to the patient, which usually consists of one or two liters of non-absorbable solution that basically washes the bowel out. That preparation would have been improper with a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the use of a Golytely prep in this patient was a gross judgment error. Dr. Singh was of the opinion that there was no contra-indication for using the preparation in this situation. Petitioner failed to prove that Patient #4 had a complete bowel obstruction or that the procedure, including the use of the Golytely preparation, violated an established standard of care. It is found that Respondent was acting within the scope of his discretion as the consulting physician to order the administration of the Golytely preparation and to perform the upper endoscopy. On October 11, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #4. Respondent stated on the operative report that the colonoscopy was indicated because of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis was not mentioned in any of Respondent's notes concerning Patient #4, and there was no notation as to the reasons Respondent thought the patient had diverticulitis. Although Respondent failed to document why he felt that diverticulitis was an appropriate indication for the colonoscope, there is no dispute that a colonoscope was, in fact, indicated. Further, the colonoscope established that the pretest diagnosis of possible diverticulitis was not incorrect. The colonoscopy revealed areas of colitis, and the pathology report noted an ulcer with acute and chronic inflammation. Respondent's experts testified that they were of the opinion that Respondent violated no established standard by listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscopy. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent practiced below an established level in listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscope. During the colonoscopy, Respondent found several mildly bleeding areas and infiltrated Patient #4 with epinephrine. For the reasons discussed pertaining to Patient #4, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care in administering epinephrine to Patient #4. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation report was inadequate. Dr. Goldberg bases his conclusion on the following observations. The report was difficult to read and failed to include any significant historical events concerning Patient #4. In his consultation report, the Respondent failed to note anything about having done a rectal examination on this patient, whether or not the abdomen was distended, and whether there were active or inactive bowel sounds. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that these findings would help to distinguish between an obstruction and an ileus or paralysis of the bowel. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that the patient's records of the upper endoscopy performed October 7, 1998, fail to reveal any significant findings. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #5 (J.T.) Patient #5, an 89 year-old male, was admitted to Imperial Point with a history of peptic ulcer disease and arthritis. This patient was seen by Respondent on a consulting basis. The patient was vomiting blood and Respondent was asked to see the patient to determine the source of the bleeding. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on October 13, 1988, and found a significant outlet obstruction. On October 17, 1988, a G.I. series was performed and a repeat upper endoscopy and pyloric dilatation was performed. The procedures performed by Respondent were properly indicated and had a beneficial result to the patient. Back-to-back pyloric dilatations were appropriate and clinical judgment was properly exercised. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the upper endoscopy of October 13, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report failed to document Respondent's findings in detail. Dr. Goldberg testified that an essential endoscopy report that physicians are trained to do should include the following: indications for the procedure, medication used to sedate the patient, identification of instrument used, description of the anatomical landmarks and their condition as visualized by the physician passing the endoscope, the removal of the scope, the physician's impressions and what the physician plans to do about those impressions, how the patient tolerated the procedure and what the patient's condition was after the procedure, and that the patient was sent to the recovery area. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the procedures performed on this patient on October 17, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report did not document Respondent's findings in detail and did not indicate if the scope was passed through Patient #5's dilated pylorus into the duodenum. In Respondent's impressions on the second endoscopy, he noted pyloric stenosis and duodenal ulcer. In his procedure note Respondent does not mention whether he passed the scope into the duodenum or how he knew there was a duodenal ulcer. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did not properly document what he did. On October 18, 1988, Respondent performed a repeat pyloric dilation on Patient #5. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to record the reasons for the second procedure and to document his findings. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the third endoscopy note did not adequately detail the examinations of the esophagus and stomach. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that every procedure note stands alone, and that if a physician does an endoscopy on day one and repeats it on day two, the physician still must make that report complete because it is not always going to be part of a document. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's records did not stand alone. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation note was sketchy and should have contained a history of allergies because of the need to give the patient medications for sedation. Dr. Goldberg's criticisms of Respondent's medical records do not prove that the medical records kept by Respondent were inadequate as measured by an established standard. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedures and that the records were adequate. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #6 (D.Y.) From October 19, 1988, until October 22, 1988, Respondent was consulting physician to Patient #6, a 72 year-old male, who was admitted to Imperial Point with rectal bleeding. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to Patient #6 because a formal consultation note was lacking. The medical records which were reviewed by Dr. Goldberg were incomplete when reviewed by him. A specific reference is made to a consultation note that is not contained in the hospital records. Respondent established that other medical records were missing from the hospital records. In light of the specific reference to the consultation note, it is found that the absence of this consultation note from the hospital records is insufficient to prove that there existed no consultation note. On October 20, 1988, Respondent performed an colonoscopy on this patient and a biopsy was taken in the segmental descending colon area. The colonoscopy could not be completed because the colonoscopy could not pass to the patient's cecum. The following recommendation was made by Respondent (the original is in all capital letters): IN VIEW OF NOT REACHING TO THE CECUM, THE PATIENT WOULD NEED BE (this is an abbreviation for barium enema) AND ALSO IF EVERYTHING IS NEGATIVE, RECOLONOSCOPY IN ONE YEAR AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IN THE BIOPSY OF THE POLYP, THEN ACCORDINGLY WILL PLAN. On October 21, 1988, the follow-up barium enema was performed by Dr. Nicholas M. Arfaras, a radiologist. The radiology report reflected the following finding: "Also in the sigmoid there is an approximately 1 cm. rounded filling defect identified near the junction with the descending colon. This is felt to be secondary to a polyp." The possible polyp detected by the barium enema should have been followed up. However, it was not established that Respondent was consulted by the attending physician about the results of the barium enema. Dr. Lipton, as the attending physician, would have had the responsibility for following up the recommendations made by Respondent and for bringing Respondent or another gastroenterologist in for further consultations following the barium enema if Dr. Lipton had believed it necessary to do so. This patient was discharged from Imperial Point by Dr. Lipton on October 22, 1988. The final page of the discharge summary for this patient reflected the following notation: "Condition was improved. The patient is to have a follow up in one week in the office with Dr. Lipton and with Dr. Gupta in two weeks." The evidence presented in this proceeding, including Respondent's office notes, does not reflect that Respondent had any involvement with this patient after October 21, 1988, until 1990, when he performed on the patient at North Broward Medical Center a procedure described as a "multiple colonoscopy with multiple biopsies and cauterization." This procedure in 1990 revealed multiple polyps. The polyp removed on colonoscopy in 1988 was an adenomatous polyp, a polyp with significant malignant potential. This patient needed a follow-up colonoscopy in one year. Respondent was the consulting physician and recommended reevaluation of the patient in one year. Follow-up care was not the responsibility of Respondent, but of the treating physician. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records in that Respondent failed to adequately document the indications for the colonoscopy performed on Patient #6 and why the colonoscope could not be passed to Patient #6's cecum. Dr. Goldberg opined that a physician doing a colonoscopy needs to tell why he did not get to the cecum so that the next physician colonoscoping this patient can take appropriate precautions. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #7 (C.R.) Respondent was a consulting physician to Patient #7, a 64 year old male who was hospitalized with rectal bleeding. Respondent saw this patient because of a possible colonic fistula, which is a connection with any piece of the intestine and some other structure. Respondent recommended a barium small bowel X-ray and a barium enema, both appropriate clinical recommendations. On November 11, 1987, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #7. Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the aforementioned procedure in that Respondent failed to document an adequate history as an indication of Patient #7's colonoscopy. This contention is rejected based on the testimony of Dr. Singh. The medical records provide adequate justification for the procedure. Dr. Goldberg was critical of Respondent's records pertaining to this patient and considered the records inadequate. He was of the opinion that the records should have better detailed his findings and should have recorded any follow-up plans for a repeat colonoscopy on the patient. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide a history or physical examination for Patient #1 as alleged in Count Two, which reprimands Respondent for that violation, and which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 against the Respondent for that violation. It is further recommended that all other charges against Respondent contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Moheb Ishad Girgis El-Far was licensed as a physician in Florida under license number ME 0026895, and the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing and monitoring of physicians in this state. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent practiced medicine with a specialty in obstetrics at his clinic located a 401 East Olympic Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida. Patient 2, C.L., first went to see Respondent at his office in Punta Gorda in January, 1989 because she was pregnant and had heard he was delivering babies in his office. She was referred to the Respondent by the Sarasota Health Department when she indicated she wanted to have her child in a birthing center. During that first visit, the doctor and patient agreed on a treatment plan which would culminate with the baby's being delivered in his office and C.L. paid for this pursuant to their agreement. During the period of the patient's prenatal care with the Respondent, he told her her baby was due on August 30, 1987, and when labor began, she was to come to his office and bring her own sheets. On August 24, 1987, C.L. began her labor and went to Respondent's office as agreed. By the time she got there, she was about ready to deliver and a few minutes after her arrival, she did so in a birthing room with her husband present. At the time of the delivery, both Respondent's wife and Ms. L.'s boss, neither of whom played any part in the proceedings, were standing in the doorway to the birthing room. No nurse was present and C.L. cannot recall seeing any sterilization or resuscitation equipment in the room. C.L. experienced little pain during the delivery, which appeared to go smoothly. Afterwards however, Respondent told her she had sustained an inverted uterus and when Respondent attempted to remove the afterbirth, she started to hemorrhage. When this happened, Respondent gave her a shot and towels with which she was to try to stem the bleeding while he tried to correct the uterine problem. He was unsuccessful and thereafter called the paramedics who came to his office and took C.L. to St. Joseph's Hospital in Punta Gorda for treatment. Respondent did not treat her at the hospital because he had no hospital privileges. While there she required 6 units of blood and 2 units of plasma. At no time during the course of her prenatal care did Respondent advise her to go to the hospital. She fully recovered. C.L. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by Department investigators at some time subsequent to her delivery. With the exception of the fetal monitor which she had seen in his office, the pictures she saw bore little similarity to the condition of the office whenever she was there. Though the office was not as messy as the pictures show, she was, nonetheless concerned about its condition at the time of her delivery. The carpet was dirty and so was the aquarium. She could not do anything about it at that time, however, and it was not so bad as to cause her to feel unsafe. S.K., Patient 1, first went to the Respondent for her pregnancy care in November, 1987 on a referral from a friend. They agreed on a fee of $1600.00 for prenatal care and delivery in his office. During these initial discussions, Respondent did not discuss in detail with the patient the possibility of complications. He stated only that if there were complications, they could probably be treated in the office. S.K. went to Respondent's office about 6 times after that initial visit. During this period, on an early visit, Respondent gave her some medicine samples and a prescription for vitamins. When she asked about the cost, he said he would include the cost of the samples when he billed her insurance company. During these visits, she also saw his personal office, an examining room, and a small room where the patient's blood pressure was taken. She noted that the office was not as clean and orderly as others she had seen, and in fact, was usually in a state of disarray. On one occasion when Respondent examined her, he was wearing a wrinkled shirt with a blood spot on it. The next time she went for a visit, Respondent was wearing the same shirt. S.K. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by investigators and several were similar to conditions she observed there. His personal office was not well organized and there was clutter about but not as aggravated as appears in the photos. Based on her experience with other doctors, Respondent's office was far more untidy and in disarray but not necessarily nonsterile or unsafe. On February 5, 1988, S.K. went to Respondent's office because she was having pains and thought she was in labor. When she called him and explained her symptoms, he told her to come in and he examined her when she did. He gave her something to calm her and to try to stop her labor in an attempt to save her baby. He gave her a shot of demerol and put her in an examining room to lie down. She slept there for quite a while with her husband present. When she awoke she again began to have pains but Respondent would not give her any more medicine. After a while, the baby spontaneously delivered while Respondent was sleeping in another room. He was called but by the time he came in, the baby was dead. He asked S.K. if she wanted to see the fetus but she declined. After a period of recovery, she was released to return home. When this patient came into the office that day and it appeared she was going to deliver, her husband asked Respondent if he thought she should be in the hospital. Respondent replied that it was up to her because the baby, if delivered, was too premature to survive. The decision not to go to the hospital was hers. Respondent did not try to dissuade her from going. In fact, in most ways she considered Respondent's treatment of her to have been satisfactory. During the period she was in his office Respondent was in and out of the room checking on her. The only complaint she has relates to his handling of the fetus she delivered. About 2 weeks after delivery she again went to see Respondent at his office where he showed her her baby which he had preserved in a jar of formaldehyde. This was a strange and sad experience for her. Mr. K. basically confirms that testified to by his wife. While she was in labor or sleeping prior to the delivery, he wandered about the building into other parts of the clinic. He also rested in one of the examining or birthing rooms and observed the general state of cleanliness of the facility was poor. For example, the floor and rugs were spotted throughout with a dark stain and the examining table also had a dark stain on it. These stains looked to him like blood. In addition, the hallway carpets were dirty, there were bags off debris laying out, spare pieces of wood were stacked in the halls, and medical instruments were left out in the birthing and examining rooms. In his opinion, many of the pictures shown to him displayed scenes similar to what he saw when he was there with his wife. Both Dr. Borris and Dr. Marley agreed that Respondent's treatment of Ms. K. had no relationship to her miscarriage. By the same token, neither claims that his treatment of Ms. L.'s inverted uterus was inappropriate. Both agree, however, that other factors in Dr. El Far's operation of his practice as regards both patients failed to conform to generally accepted standards of care in providing obstetrical services. Specifically, he failed to have a nurse present during the delivery; he failed to have emergency equipment in the form of resuscitative and lifesaving equipment available to handle potential surgical complications which might have arisen; he had no emergency backup care available; and he had no hospital privileges in Punta Gorda, the area in which he was engaged in an obstetrical practice. Without those privileges, it was not prudent for him to undertake a delivery in the office. While the prenatal care of patient 1 was within standards, the balance of Respondent's practice was below standards because: the patient was not monitored while in the office; if the conditions as appearing in the pictures existed at the time he was seeing patients, he did not meet sanitation standards because of the general disarray.; he attempted a delivery in his office when a hospital was only 1.5 miles away, (not prudent in light of the patient's condition when there was no emergency to justify it); and his records were not complete. The standard of a reasonably prudent physician is the same regardless of the locality. Acceding to the wishes of a patient, when to do so is not in the patient's best interests, is not necessarily acceptable medical care. Mr. Cook, the Department's investigator, inspected Respondent's office on September 16, 1988, in the company of investigator Clyne, as a result of a call he received from an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who was then on the premises. When they arrived, they observed a female sitting on the couch in the waiting room changing a baby's diaper. From conversation he had with Respondent at the time, Mr. Cook inferred the lady was a patient. In addition to the previously mentioned lady and the state investigative personnel, Cook also noticed two children, who Respondent indicated were his, running freely about throughout the building. Cook examined the patient log maintained by Respondent for that day and noted that two patients were scheduled. Nonetheless, while he was there, there were no nurses, receptionists or office staff present. Though Respondent claims he did not have any patients that day, and though Cook did not see any other than the lady aforementioned, from the patient log and the fact that at least one patient was there, it is found that Respondent was engaged in at least a minimum practice and was available to see patients. Mr. Cook observed conditions in Respondent's office on the day in question that were inconsistent with a proper medical practice. Trash was not contained, food was left open, and dust and dirt were in evidence, all in the area where medical services were or would be rendered. Mr. Cook took photos and a video tape of the condition of Respondent's office. The photos were those shown to the two patients who testified herein and to Mr. K. Though he looked throughout the office, Mr. Cook could find no sterilization equipment, no general anesthesia equipment, no blood transfusion equipment, and no emergency resuscitation equipment. When asked about his sterilization capability, Respondent stated his "heater" was broken and in for repairs. When during a visit to Respondent in October, 1988, Ms. Clyne told him he needed sterilizer equipment, he indicated it had recently been purchased. On that visit, Respondent had a patient in the office. Ms. Clyne again went to Respondent's office on February 15, 1989 and observed it to be still in a state of disarray. Ms. Hampton, another Department investigator, visited with Respondent in his office on January 11, 1989 and found it to be unsatisfactory. The waiting area was cluttered, the carpet was dirty, the walls stained, and magazines were laying around. The clinic area was piled up with mail leaving no counter space. Respondent took Ms. Hampton on a tour through the office during which she observed the computer, patient records, and the typewriter to be unclean. Her examination of the halls, examining rooms, birthing rooms, and the like revealed that in one room, a sink had an unclean speculum in it and others were lying about. The paper on one examining table was soiled and when Respondent saw that, he quickly tore it off. The spread in one of the birthing rooms was soiled and the floor needed sweeping. Trash cans were not lined and needed cleaning. The covering on the baby examining table was soiled and there were bloody cotton balls on a table in the room. She, too, saw no evidence of any sterilization, anesthesia, or emergency resuscitation equipment. On this visit, Respondent indicated he was not seeing any new patients; only those former patients who were still pregnant. Respondent indicates that during the period from July 4 through September 16, 1988 he had closed up his office for an extensive vacation and was living in his office on that latter date. He does not deny that his office was in the condition as depicted in the photos when they were made but contends he has since cleaned it up and put new carpet down. During the period his office was closed, he referred his patients to other doctors and has not been actively practicing while waiting for his malpractice insurance to come through. Respondent also does not deny that the Certificate of Education form he signed and submitted to the Board was in error. He contends, however, that at the time he signed it he believed it to be a certificate of regular continuing education hours, not a certification used for approval for dispensing drugs. He also claims that at no time did he intend to defraud the Board, and when Ms. Clyne brought the error to his attention, he wrote to the Board explaining what had happened. He contends that when he affirmed the statement that he had the appropriate hours, he considered the "a" in "affirm" to be a negative prefix indicating he did not have the required hours. This contention is both ingenuous and unbelievable. It is found that Respondent well knew the meaning and effect of the certification he signed and his affixing his signature thereto was both false and with intent to mislead.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida be suspended for two years and that he thereafter be placed on probation for an additional period of three years under such terms and conditions as are imposed by the Board of Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1507 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1.- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected in so far as it editorializes on the condition of the clinic. While below standard, there was no evidence of health hazard to patients. 6.-8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted. For the Respondent: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of expert testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as it finds that Respondent's performance of medical procedures was within standard. Rejected as to the finding that overall care and practice was within standards. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David K. Oaks, Esquire The Professional Center 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 205, Box 3288 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine DPRB 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent has violated subparagraphs (m) and (t) of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment, and by failing to practice medicine with the appropriate level of care, skill, and treatment.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David Zufi, M.D., is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0014856. The Respondent's last known address is 641 Reinaute Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33156-2345. The Respondent was and is a Board Certified plastic surgeon certified by the American Board of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery since 1976. At all times material to this case, Dr. Ricardo Samitier-Cardet 1/ was the primary care physician or the attending physician for the Patient C.R. The Patient C.R. had sought out Dr. Samitier for the purpose of having several cosmetic surgical procedures performed; procedures which for a patient with a normal health history would have been minor cosmetic procedures. At all times material to this case, Dr. Samitier was a licensed practicing physician in the State of Florida. Dr. Samitier has never been Board Certified in any area of medicine. Dr. Samitier self-designated himself as a "cosmetic surgeon." At all times material to this case, the Respondent was unaware of any pending charges against Dr. Samitier. 2/ Prior to Friday, May 1, 1992, the Respondent was acquainted only marginally with Dr. Samitier. For a period of six months the Respondent had in the past rented office space one day a week to Dr. Samitier for consultation purposes. The Respondent had also spoken to Dr. Samitier a few times at meetings of the Coral Gables Hospital staff. The Respondent and Dr. Samitier had never shared any type of professional relationship with regard to the medical care of any patient. There were no referrals of patients between the two doctors, nor had the Respondent ever acted as a consultant in any capacity for Dr. Samitier prior to Friday, May 1, 1992. The Respondent had never visited Dr. Samitier's office prior to Friday, May 1, 1992. Dr. Samitier's medical records for the Patient C.R. include the following historical details. The patient had had an aortic valve replacement approximately twenty years earlier and had no history of angina. The patient was taking Coumadin, 5 mg. daily. The patient had no history of bleeding or hematomas and had normal erections. On Friday, May 1, 1992, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Patient C.R. underwent a Suction Assisted Lipectomy to the face, neck, and trunk, plus Circumferential Autologous Penile Engorgement (CAPE), which was performed by Dr. Samitier at Dr. Samitier's office. At the time of the foregoing surgical procedure Patient C.R. was a 47-year-old male who had previously undergone two open heart procedures, had a permanent pacemaker inserted, had a prosthetic aortic valve, and had been on Coumadin therapy for approximately twenty years. 3/ Coumadin is an anticoagulant drug which is taken to prolong a patient's blood clotting time. A patient maintained on long-term Coumadin therapy is at increased risk for clotting when the Coumadin is discontinued. The Patient C.R.'s long-term Coumadin anticoagulation therapy was made necessary by the fact that he had a prosthetic aortic valve. Before performing surgery on a patient with a history of cardiac problems such as those presented by the Patient C.R., a surgeon should obtain a cardiac clearance by means of consultation with a cardiologist. Dr. Samitier did not obtain a cardiology consultation prior to the surgery on the Patient C.R. 4/ A Prothrombin Time Test is a test which is utilized to evaluate a patient's blood clotting time. A Prothrombin Time Test should have been performed on the Patient C.R. immediately before the surgery on May 1, 1992. The test was not performed at that time. 5/ A Prothrombin Time Test was performed on the Patient C.R. about two weeks prior to the surgery. The Patient C.R. was a high risk patient who should never have been considered a candidate for elective surgery due to his history of cardiac problems, his prosthetic aortic valve, and his long-term Coumadin therapy. 6/ The two primary risks for a patient like Patient C.R. are that if his coagulation rate is substantially slower than normal the patient is at risk of uncontrollable bleeding at the surgery sites and if his coagulation rate becomes normal or slower than normal he is at risk of clot formation on his prosthetic aortic valve. Either condition can produce serious consequences, even fatality. On Friday, May 1, 1992, at approximately 11:30 p.m., which was approximately two hours after completion of the surgical procedure, the Patient C.R. began bleeding from his right cheek. It was a slow venous oozing bleed. The patient was taken back to the operating room where Dr. Samitier attempted without success to stop the bleeding with digital pressure. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on Saturday, May 2, 1992, by which time the bleeding from the patient's right cheek had persisted for approximately three hours, Dr. Samitier placed an emergency telephone call to the Respondent to request assistance in controlling the bleeding from a right buccal stab incision. The Respondent discussed the matter briefly with Dr. Samitier and told Dr. Samitier to try to control it with pressure. A few minutes later the Respondent became concerned that Dr. Samitier might need more assistance and called him back. During the second telephone call Dr. Samitier made it clear that he would feel more comfortable if the Respondent came to his office. The Respondent went to Dr. Samitier's office, arriving at approximately 3:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 2, 1992. Upon arrival, the Respondent discussed the situation with Dr. Samitier, obtained patient history information from Dr. Samitier, examined the patient, and promptly applied digital pressure with an adrenaline pad. The Respondent and Dr. Samitier alternated in the application of digital pressure and the bleeding stopped in approximately twenty minutes. There is no evidence that the patient was bleeding from any of the other surgical sites. While the Respondent was at Dr. Samitier's office, the Respondent did not review Dr. Samitier's medical chart on the Patient C.R. because he did not feel it was necessary to do so. During the entire time that the Respondent was examining, evaluating, and treating the Patient C.R., Dr. Samitier was right beside the Respondent providing the Respondent with information and answering the Respondent's questions about the patient. Under these circumstances, especially in view of the Respondent's limited role in the care of the patient, it was reasonable for the Respondent to rely on the oral information provided by Dr. Samitier and it was not necessary for the Respondent to review the written chart. 7/ Dr. Samitier advised the Respondent that the Patient C.R. had been on maintenance Coumadin and that the Coumadin had been discontinued three days prior to the surgery. Dr. Samitier also advised the Respondent that no pre- operative Prothrombin Time Test had been performed immediately prior to the surgery, and that the Patient C.R. had a pacemaker. At the time the Respondent was applying pressure to stop the oozing bleed, the Respondent was unable to communicate with the Patient C.R. because the patient was sedated with Nubain, a synthetic pain killer. Dr. Samitier explained to the Respondent that he had used Nubain during the surgical procedure and had also administered Nubain post-operatively when the patient had complained of pain during the course of Dr. Samitier's efforts to control the cheek bleeding prior to calling the Respondent. The Respondent's examination of the Patient C.R. included an examination of all of the surgical wounds inflicted during the procedures performed by Dr. Samitier, which included the cheeks, the portion of the neck immediately under the chin, and the lower abdominal area. No significant bruising or swelling was noted and no bleeding was detected at any of the incision sites other than the right buccal site which had occasioned Dr. Samitier's call to the Respondent. The Respondent looked for hematomas and ecchymosis and discoloration. There was no evidence that the patient had any generalized bleeding or hematoma at the time the Respondent was examining or treating him. During the entire time the Respondent was at Dr. Samitier's office in the early morning hours of Saturday, May 2, 1992, the Patient C.R. was connected to various monitors, all of which gave readings within normal ranges. The patient's blood pressure and pulse rate were both checked and found to be within normal ranges. While the Respondent was at Dr. Samitier's office during the early morning hours of Saturday, May 2, 1992, the Respondent discussed with Dr. Samitier the fact that the most prudent course of treatment for the Patient C.R. would be to hospitalize the patient. Dr. Samitier agreed that hospitalization would be the most prudent course, but then told the Respondent that he could not hospitalize the patient because the patient had told Dr. Samitier that he would not, under any circumstances, agree to be admitted to a hospital. Dr. Samitier also told the Respondent that the patient had said he did not want the nature of his operation to be disclosed to his wife or family members. During this discussion Dr. Samitier also disclosed to the Respondent that Dr. Samitier did not have admitting privileges at any hospital. In view of Dr. Samitier's reluctance to hospitalize the patient at that time, the Respondent told Dr. Samitier that Dr. Samitier should continue to monitor the patient and observe him clinically and if the vital signs or clinical observations demonstrated any deterioration of the patient's condition, or if the patient changed his mind about hospitalization, Dr. Samitier should call the Respondent and the Respondent would arrange to have the patient admitted into Coral Gables Hospital where the Respondent had admitting privileges. The Respondent also discussed with Dr. Samitier the need for a consultation with a cardiologist or hematologist in the event the patient were to be hospitalized. The Respondent emphasized the need for such a consultation before any action was taken to modify the patient's coagulation status. The Respondent's suggestions to Dr. Samitier regarding the future care and management of the Patient C.R. were appropriate under the circumstances. During the visit to Dr. Samitier's office during the early morning hours of Saturday, May 2, 1992, the Respondent did not recommend to Dr. Samitier that he have a Prothrombin Time Test performed on the Patient C.R. Although such a test might have been useful in the management of the patient's condition if the patient had been hospitalized, it is doubtful that the test would have served any useful purpose while the patient remained at Dr. Samitier's office. Under the circumstances, the failure to recommend a Prothrombin Time Test was not a departure from acceptable standards of medical practice. After the bleeding stopped, the Respondent remained at Dr. Samitier's office for at least two hours waiting to see if there was any recurrence of the bleeding. During that time period the Respondent examined the Patient C.R. several times to monitor his status and check for any bleeding. There was no recurrence of the bleeding from the patient's right cheek, nor was there any visible bleeding from any of the other surgical wounds. Sometime between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 2, 1992, the Respondent left Dr. Samitier's office and returned to the Respondent's home. Dr. Samitier remained at his office to monitor and otherwise care for the Patient C.R. Dr. Samitier never contacted the Respondent to request that the Respondent arrange for the hospitalization of the Patient C.R. At approximately noon on Saturday, May 2, 1992, the Respondent was driving in his car a few blocks from Dr. Samitier's office. Because he was near Dr. Samitier's office, the Respondent decided to stop by Dr. Samitier's office to see how the patient was doing instead of making a telephone call later. The Respondent arrived at Dr. Samitier's office unannounced and inquired as to the status of Patient C.R. Dr. Samitier told the Respondent that the patient was doing fine, that his vital signs remained stable, that he was up and about, that he had taken oral sustenance, and that he had passed urine. Dr. Samitier also told the Respondent that the Respondent did not need to see the patient. After the foregoing discussion, Dr. Samitier invited the Respondent to observe a penile engorgement procedure Dr. Samitier was getting ready to perform on another patient. While walking with Dr. Samitier to the operating room, the Respondent had a brief glimpse of the Patient C.R. sitting up in bed in a small room. The Respondent continued on with Dr. Samitier and watched Dr. Samitier perform a penile engorgement procedure on another patient. After watching that procedure, the Respondent left Dr. Samitier's office. During the noon visit to Dr. Samitier's office on Saturday, May 2, 1992, the Respondent did not examine or treat the Patient C.R. On Sunday morning, May 3, 1992, at approximately 1:10 a.m., the Respondent received a telephone call from Dr. Samitier's office advising him that the Patient C.R. had gone into cardiac arrest. The Respondent went to Dr. Samitier's office. When the Respondent arrived at Dr. Samitier's office, the Patient C.R. was already being treated by emergency medical technicians. The emergency medical technicians told the Respondent that his services or assistance in the care of the patient were not needed and that they were going to transport the patient to Mercy Hospital. The emergency medical technicians took the Patient C.R. to Mercy Hospital where he was pronounced dead in the Emergency Room. The Respondent did not examine or treat the Patient C.R. during the early morning hours of Sunday, May 3, 1992. Later that same day an autopsy was performed on the body of the Patient C.R. The Respondent and Dr. Samitier attended the autopsy. The medical examiner did not come to any conclusion as to the cause of the patient's death. The Respondent did not document any of his contact with the patient C.R. in Dr. Samitier's office chart because the Respondent did not think it was necessary for him to do so. The Respondent thought it was sufficient for him to make his own record of what he did in the form of a consultation report. In the normal course of events he would have written such a report the following Monday when he got to his office, which seems to be a common practice of physicians who perform consultation services away from their own offices on weekends. There is no clear and convincing evidence that under the circumstances of this case the Respondent was required to write anything in Dr. Samitier's medical records concerning the Patient C.R. There is no established practice in this regard because it is very rare for a physician to perform consultation services in the office of another physician. Further, although consultation reports are virtually always prepared following formal consultations, when a consulting physician is called in for a very limited purpose, performs his services in the presence of the primary care physician or the attending physician, and orally advises the primary care physician or the attending physician what he has discovered or done, the consulting physician often does not prepare any written report at all, but leaves it to the primary care physician or the attending physician to memorialize what was discovered or done in the patient's chart. During the late afternoon or early evening of May 3, 1994, after the autopsy of the Patient C.R., the Respondent wrote a historical recapitulation of his involvement with the care and treatment of the Patient C.R. The record prepared by the Respondent on May 3, 1992, documents the Respondent's involvement in the care and treatment of the Patient C.R. The record demonstrates the Respondent's observations, recommendations, treatment, and the reasons why the Respondent did not get involved in all aspects of the patient's care. The record prepared by the Respondent on Sunday, May 3, 1992, was sufficiently timely to comply with applicable standards of medical care and record-keeping. The information contained in that record was sufficient to comply with applicable standards of medical care and record-keeping. The Respondent was called by Dr. Samitier for the limited function of stopping an oozing venous bleeding from an incision wound in the right cheek of the Patient C.R. The Respondent's consultation in this regard was of an informal nature and was limited in scope. His treatment of stopping the bleeding with direct pressure with an adrenalin pad was an appropriate course of treatment for the condition he was called to resolve. The Respondent was not at any time the primary care physician or attending physician for the Patient C.R.; that responsibility was at all material times the responsibility of Dr. Samitier. By assisting Dr. Samitier to stop the bleeding from one incision wound, the Respondent did not undertake, nor did he become responsible for, the overall care and management of the patient. Inasmuch as the nature of the consultation the Respondent was asked to perform was limited in scope, the Respondent's examination of the Patient C.R. was sufficient. Under the circumstances of this case it was not necessary for the Respondent to perform a comprehensive physical examination. The Respondent's authorized role in the care of the Patient C.R. was complete when he departed between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. on the morning of Saturday, May 2, 1992. He had performed all he had been authorized to perform and, although he had offered to do more (such as arrange for the patient to be hospitalized), his offer of further assistance was rejected by Dr. Samitier. When the Respondent paid his courtesy visit to Dr. Samitier's office at about noon on Saturday, May 2, 1992, the Respondent did not have permission or authority from anyone to examine or treat the Patient C.R. At that time Dr. Samitier expressly told the Respondent that the Respondent did not need to see the patient. Under those circumstances, the Respondent had neither authority nor obligation to examine the Patient C.R. at the time of his noon visit on Saturday, May 2, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1995, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 January, 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 2006, the Department filed with the Board of Medicine a one-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Thompson, alleging that Dr. Thompson violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003). The Administrative Complaint was based on a probable cause finding by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine (Panel) on October 27, 2006. The Panel included two physicians. Prior to the meeting of the Panel on October 27, 2006, the members of the Panel received the following materials on the cases to be considered: “the complete case files, including any patient medical records, expert opinions, if any, any materials supplied by the licensee or their counsel” and a draft of the Administrative Complaint. The file on Dr. Thompson included the investigator’s file; the expert opinions of Thomas F. Blake, M.D., F.A.C.S.; Dr. Blake’s curriculum vitae; medical records for the treatment of T.C.; and letters from Bruce M. Stanley, Sr., counsel for Dr. Thompson, along with a draft of the Administrative Complaint. At the Panel meeting, the members indicated that they had received the materials with sufficient time to review and familiarize themselves with the materials. The Panel members did not find any problems with the materials such as missing pages or illegible copies. Additionally, the panel members indicated that they had no conflict of interest or prior knowledge of the cases before them that would make it inappropriate to deliberate and vote on the issues. In the case of Dr. Thompson, the Panel was supplied with expert opinions from Dr. Blake. Dr. Blake was a diplomat certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, and a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. By letter dated December 20, 2004, Dr. Blake rendered the following opinion concerning the care provided by Dr. Thompson: Thompson, M.D. fell below the standard of care by abandoning a patient under general anesthesia and leaving the facility to attend to another patient. However, there were no complications or injury to either patient. The potential problem would be that he would unexpectedly be confronted with complications in the delivery. This could detain him for a prolonged period of time and place the patient under anesthesia in jeopardy of having to have the anesthesia discontinued and subjecting her to further risks. By letter dated December 29, 2004, the Department requested clarification on the issue of whether there were any identifiable deficiencies or problems with the medical records that were maintained by Dr. Thompson. Dr. Blake sent an addendum to his report dated January 11, 2005, in which he gave the following opinion: Medical records utilized in the treatment of the patient are complete and justify the treatment. There are no identifiable deficiencies or problems with the medical records maintained by the subject. At the Panel meeting, an attorney for the Department summarized the case against Dr. Thompson as follows: Patient T.C. presented to the surgery center for several gynecological procedures. While T.C. was under general anesthesia, the Respondent physically left the surgery center to attend to another patient in another building. Respondent delivered a baby of that other patient. T.C. was left under the care of a certified registered nurse anesthetist. After returning from delivering the child, Respondent finished the gynecological procedure. The Department is charging a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), for violation of the applicable standards of care by leaving T.C. for several minutes in the middle of surgery and in between procedures while she was under a general anesthesia, by failing to notify the patient that Respondent had left and by failing to note in the medical record that Respondent had left the building. The Panel members discussed the case against Dr. Thompson during the meeting and voted on the case, finding there was probable cause to believe a violation had occurred. The findings of the Panel resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. The case was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 8, 2007, for assignment to an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the final hearing. The Department retained another expert, Jose H. Cortes, M.D., F.A.C.O.G, to provide an opinion concerning Dr. Thompson’s actions relating to the treatment of T.C. By letter dated February 27, 2007, Dr. Cortes opined that Dr. Thompson fell below the standard-of-care while attending T.C. by leaving the operating room and going to another building to attend to another patient. Dr. Cortes was also of the opinion that Dr. Thompson did not adequately maintain the medical records for T.C. by the following actions: The departure from the normal course of surgery such as leaving the operating room was not documented by the attending physician, the outpatient establishment nursing staff, nor the anesthesia attending or nurse anesthetist. A signed consent form not available. * * * As the record documents the evaluation of 07/18/03 and 08/05/03 by the Physician Assistant describes the patient’s complaint and ultrasound study review respectively. The blood count presented from 07/18/03 shows a Hemoglobin of 13.6 gms and Hematocrit of 40.1 percent with normal indices, a pelvic ultrasound which documented fibroids of less than 2.1 cm in size each. With the above findings a conservative management strategy is usually employed initially and the patient is followed prior to recommending any surgical procedure unless declined by the patient. However, all of this has to be documented as recommended by the literature and agencies which review patient care and guidelines such as KePRO. On July 10, 2007, the Department filed a motion to amend the Administrative Complaint, which motion was granted by Order dated July 13, 2007. The Amended Administrative Complaint added a count alleging a violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2003), alleging that Dr. Thompson: [F]ailed to keep legible medical records justifying the course of treatment by failing to document in T.C.’s medical records that he left the building during the procedures he performed on T.C. on or about September 11, 2003, and/or by failing to document any discussion with T.C. about alternative treatment options such as discontinuing oral contraceptives, a formal dilation and curettage, and/or the use of a Mirena IUD to address T.C.’s problems or concerns. The final hearing was held on July 27, 2007. A Recommended Order was entered on October 31, 2007, recommending that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Thompson did not violate Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. A Final Order was entered on December 18, 2007, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Recommended Order and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Dr. Thompson. The parties have stipulated to the reasonableness of the fees and costs claimed by Dr. Thompson. Dr. Thompson has incurred $34,851.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Dr. Thompson is a prevailing small business party and that Respondent is not a nominal party to this action.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Robb E. Ross was a licensed physician engaged in the practice of family medicine as a sole practitioner. He was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in 1966 and holds license number 12433. He was board certified in family practice in 1970. Respondent also holds a license as a pharmacist. Respondent treated patient N.B. from September of 1970 through October of 1986. She initially presented as a new patient moving into the area, aged 61, for maintenance of her general physical medical care, primarily relating to her mild depression that she had for years following a mastectomy. While believing that patient N.B. had previously been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist, respondent never requested her prior medical records. Patient N.B. informed the respondent that she had been taking Biphetamine, a steroid amphetamine that is no longer produced, for the past ten years. Respondent continued patient N.B. in that treatment modality for over ten years, as well as treating her for other complaints. At some point, he did attempt to titrate her from Biphetamine, but she did not function as well with a substitute drug. When the drug Biphetamine was phased out of the market in either 1980 or 1982, respondent prescribed Dexedrine to patient N.B. and continued to do so approximately every six months. Respondent maintained her on Dexedrine due to her mild depression and the fact that she had been on amphetamines for many, many years. He was reluctant to take her off Dexedrine for fear that she could become overtly depressed. Since she did well with Dexedrine, respondent maintained her on that regiment due to the adverse side effects of other compounds utilized to control depression. The respondent's medical records for patient N.B. contain virtually no patient history or background information. For each patient visit, there is a brief notation which includes N.B.'s temperature, blood pressure and weight and also a reason for the visit. The reason noted on the records are either "check- up" or a brief statement of the patient's complaint on that particular day. The medication prescribed is noted, though very difficult to read. While the symptom or patient complaint is often noted, the patient records contain no statements of medical diagnosis, assessment or treatment plan. It is not possible to determine from N.B.'s medical records the reason that Dexedrine was prescribed for this patient. While N.B. complained of tiredness, she did not suffer from narcolepsy. Patient G.B. was under respondent's care from August of 1979 through May of 1985. He initially presented, at age 56, with problems relating to emphysema, lung collapse, exhaustion, impotency and aches and pains. Respondent prescribed various medications for him, including Nitroglycerin for chest pains. Respondent felt that due to his age and his complaints, patient G.B. had some type of arteriosclerosis. Patient G.B. frequently complained of being weak, exhausted and having no endurance or energy. For this reason, respondent prescribed Dexedrine for him on March 30, 1984. Other medications to increase his energy were tried before this and after this time. Nothing appeared to give him any relief. After determining that patient G.B. "liked his medicine too much," respondent terminated his treatment of him. The respondent's medical records for patient G.B. are brief and difficult to decipher. Again, the patient's temperature, blood pressure and weight are recorded for each visit, and there is a brief statement of the patient's complaint. There is no statement indicating a medical diagnosis or a treatment plan. The medications prescribed at each visit are written on the records, but are difficult to read. D.M. was a patient under respondent's care from December of 1976 until his death, at age 84, in March of 1986. He initially presented with stomach problems and subsequently had a host of other medical problems, surgeries and hospitalizations throughout the years. This patient was given so many different medications for his various physical problems that respondent did not always write each of them down on his records after each office visit. It appears from respondent's medical records that he first started patient D.M. on Dexedrine in January of 1984. At that time, D.M.'s chief complaint was "dizziness, falling, no pep." Respondent maintained D.M. on Dexedrine or an amphetamine type of compound from that period until his death, primarily because of his weakness, dizziness, falling down and low blood pressure. Other specialists were consulted regarding D.M.'s fainting and falling episodes, caused by postural hypotension, and were unable to remedy the problem. Respondent was of the opinion that the administration of Dexedrine enabled patient D.M. to function more properly and that it worked better than anything else. Patient D.M. expired in March of 1986. Respondent listed the cause of death as "cardiac arrest." The respondent's medical records on patient D.M. are typical of those previously described for patients N.B. and G.B. The office visit notes list patient complaints or symptoms and no medical diagnosis or comprehensive assessments. There are indications in the record that D.M. complained of chest pains in 1983, 1984 and 1985. The medications prescribed indicate the presence of cardiac disease. Respondent's record-keeping with regard to patients N.B., G.B. and D.M. are below an acceptable standard of care. They fail to include an adequate patient history and initial assessment of the patients. It is impossible to determine from these records what medicines the patients had taken in the past, what reactions they had to such medications, what medical procedures they had in the past or other important information regarding the patient's background. The respondent's only notation of treatment is a listing, and a partial listing in the case of D.M., of medications prescribed. His remaining notations are not acceptable to explain or justify the treatment program undertaken. Dextroamphedimine sulfate, also known as Dexedrine, is a sympathomimetic amine drug and is designated as a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Commonly, it is referred to as "speed" or an "upper." It is addictive and highly abusive. While individual patients react differently to Dexedrine, its consumption can cause psychosis, marked elevations of blood pressure and marked rhythmic disturbances. As such, its use is contraindicated in patients with coronary disease. In addition, because Dexedrine is an "upper" and makes a patient "feel good," it can mask a true physical condition and prevent the patient from being treated for the physical ailment he is experiencing. A patient should not be relieved of pain without first knowing what is causing the pain. In Florida, Dexedrine may only be prescribed, administered or dispensed to treat specifically enumerated diseases, conditions or symptoms. Section 458.331(1)(cc), Florida Statutes. Neither respondent's medical records nor his testimony indicate that patients N.B., G.B. and/or D.M. suffered from the conditions, symptoms or diseases which warranted the statutorily approved and limited use of Dexedrine. Respondent was not aware that there were statutory limitations for the use of Dexedrine. He is aware of the possible dangers of amphetamines and he prescribes Dexedrine as a treatment of last resort when he believes it will help the patient. Respondent further testified that his medical record-keeping is adequate to enable him, as a sole practitioner, to treat his patients, though he admits that his medical records could be improved.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 458.331(I), subparagraphs (cc),(q),(t) and (n), Florida Statutes, and that the following penalties be imposed: an administrative fine in the total amount of $2,000.00, and probation for a period of twelve (12) months, with the following conditions: (a) that respondent complete continuing medical education courses or seminars in the areas of medical record-keeping and the dangers and authorized use of compounds designated as Schedule II controlled substances, and (b) that respondent submit to the Board on a monthly basis the medical records of those patients for whom a Schedule II controlled substance is prescribed or administered during the probationary period. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3483 The proposed findings of fact submitted by counsel for the parties have been carefully considered. To the extent that the proposed factual findings are not included in this Recommended Order, they are rejected for the following reasons: Petitioner: The 48 proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner consist of summaries or recitations of the testimony of the witnesses presented by the petitioner in this proceeding. While the summaries and/or recitations constitute an accurate representation of the testimony received by those witnesses at the hearing, and are thus accepted, they do not constitute proper factual findings by themselves. Instead, they (along with the testimony presented by the respondent) form the basis for the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. Respondent: Page 4, Paragraph 1 The reference to 30 years is rejected as contrary to the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: David E Bryant, Esquire Alpert, Josey, Grilli, Paris and Bryant 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 David J. Wollinka, Esquire P. O. Box 3649 Holiday, Florida 33590 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (2007-2011), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DOH is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of licensed physicians pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. DOH is pursuing sanctions against Respondent based on her provision of medical care to patients A.M., C.B., and P.A. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 59800. Respondent is board certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine with a specialty in Infectious Disease. Respondent received her medical degree from Christian Medical College in India in 1984. Her medical career, according to her curriculum vitae, includes the following places of employment: 1996 Bay Area Primary Care 1997 American Family and Geriatrics 1998 Faculty appointment at University of South Florida – voluntary 2/99-11/99 Veteran’s Administration (Medical Officer on Duty) 1993-present Private Practice Respondent’s June 30, 2014, deposition testimony was that she is currently working as a medical provider at Fort Tryon Rehab and Nursing Home in New York, and prior to that she was working at a walk-in clinic in Queens, New York. Respondent testified that she currently resides in Pinellas Park, Florida. In 2008, Respondent’s Florida practice, Bay Area Infectious Disease (BAID), was located at 5840 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, and most recently at 1527 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Each practice location is now closed. Respondent later testified that she had a practice located at 6251 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, which is also closed. Jamie Carrizosa, M.D. (Dr. Carrizosa) is a board- certified internal medicine and infectious disease physician who testified as an expert for DOH. Prior to his retirement in July 2011, Dr. Carrizosa had an active medical practice including hospital privileges. He is currently an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Central Florida, teaching first and second year students in the areas of microbiology and immunology. While in private practice, he treated patients with suspected skin infections, MRSA skin infections, candidiasis and other types of skin diseases. Issa Ephtimios, M.D. (Dr. Ephtimios) is a board- certified physician in internal medicine, infectious diseases and infection control who testified as an expert for Respondent. He is an attending physician at Sacred Heart Hospital, West Florida Hospital, Baptist Hospital, and Select Specialty Hospital in Pensacola, Florida. DOH Case No. 2009-13497 (DOAH Case No. 13-0595PL) On October 8, 2008, A.M. presented to Respondent with complaints of fatigue, headaches, and moodiness, according to a History and Physical Medi-Forms document. A BAID contract for services and an authorization for BAID to disclose protected health information (PHI) were executed on October 8. Within the records there was a diagram that contained pictures of a front and back body diagram and the handwritten words: “fatigue cold sweats fevers headaches.” Neither A.M.’s name nor the date appeared on the diagram, yet Respondent identified the diagram as belonging to A.M. and showing A.M.’s small lesions. On October 9, A.M. executed a Bay Area Infectious Disease and Infusion, PLC, “CONSENT FOR TREATMENT” form. Respondent’s progress notes are generally listed in the S.O.A.P. format.16/ The following appeared on one of A.M.’s October 9th Progress Notes: S: Complaint: MRSA,17/ headecha [sic], she like [sic] to talk W Dr. Pimple on but [sic] 3 rounds Zyvox, [illegible] c/o lethargic, gain wt, fatigue, headaches Pale, feets [sic] not Percocet –[illegible].” O: Exam: Ht 5.6” Wt 172 Age 16 M/F BMI T BP 118/64 P 65 R PO2 99_ Gluc A: General Appearance: WNL/18 HEENT: WNL Neck: WNL Chest: WNL Breast: WNL Heart: WNL Lungs: WNL Abdomen: WNL Genitalia: WNL Skin: WNL + multiple abcees [sic] Spine: WNL Extremities: WNL [All the “WNL” were typed capital letters.] DIAGNOSIS: Skin Abcess- Buttock, leg MRSA – Community Acquired P: PLAN: Vancomycin 1 gr daily [illegible] A second Progress Note for A.M., also dated October 9, contains the same information in the “S” and “O” portions, but at the “A” portion, it has no notations other than the pre-printed “WNL” at the “Skin” section, and it does not contain a “Diagnosis.” Respondent admitted that there were times when she would “complete records later on.” Respondent’s progress notes for A.M. from October 10 through October 16 were in a slightly different SOAP format. A.M.’s October 10 Progress Note reflects the following: S: Complaint: Vanco reaction O: Examination: BP P T R HT WT PO2 Glucose General Appearance; Awake alert,orientedx3 Head: Normocephalic atraurmatic EENT: PERLA, EOMI,Sclera-non-icteric, conjunctiva-pink Neck: Supple, no JVD. No Lymph nodes Heart: S1 S2 normal, murmurs Lungs: clear Abdomen: Soft, no masses, no tenderness, BS+, no hepatomegaly, no splenomegaly Left Lymph-inguinal: WNL Right Lymph-inguinal: WNL Extremities: No clubbing, cyanosis, edema Neurological: Motor-5/5, sensory-5/5, Deep tendon reflexes 2+ Cranial nerves Intact Skin: no rashes + circled Abscess Muskuloskeletal: WNL CLINICAL ASSESSMENT: MRSA, Skin Abcess CVIO PLAN: Zyvox A.M.’s progress notes between October 11 and 31, 2008, reflect various subjective complaints regarding her skin conditions. The physical examinations for each day do not contain consistent information regarding A.M.’s blood pressure, her height, weight, respirations, PO2, and glucose. On two days the “skin” section reflected “no rashes,” yet the clinical assessment reported “Skin Abces – improvely” [sic] or just “skin abcess.” On three progress notes (October 17, 18 and 20, 2008), there is a hand-written notation at the “Heart” section which indicates that A.M. might have a heart murmur, yet in the diagnosis section there is no mention of a heart issue or endocarditis.19/ All other progress notes regarding the “heart” contain the pre-printed “WNL.” A.M.’s IV/IM procedure notes beginning on October 10 and continuing through October 31, each reflect “heart murmur” in the diagnosis section along with “MRSA Skin abcess.” Respondent testified that she felt justified in using IV Vancomycin because A.M. was “doing the heart murmur.” However, Respondent’s initial plan included Vancomycin before any heart murmur was detected or assessed. Vancomycin is a prescription medication used to treat staphylococcal infections, and is usually utilized for more serious infections such as endocarditis. Zyvox is a prescription medication that comes in either an IV or oral form used to treat infections. Respondent claimed that there were missing medical records for A.M. However, with respect to patient A.M., Respondent claimed a progress note (part of the history and physical exam) from October 8 was the only medical record that was missing. Respondent then asserted that A.M. brought in her primary doctor’s referral which reflected A.M.’s treatment, including the medication prescribed; yet those medical records are not present. Respondent further testified that she “usually” puts prior treatment provider records in her patient’s file. Respondent maintained that she kept a lot of A.M.’s medical records on a computer that was bought in January 2001. However, that computer crashed in October 2011. A computer crash is plausible; however, the DOH subpoena was properly issued and served on Respondent on January 28, 2010, more than nine months before the alleged computer crash. Respondent then claimed that she “did not have access to that computer, which later crashed,” followed by her claim that “that practice was closed and when they came here, we only had the old, whatever, paper records.” Respondent’s position on these records was disingenuous at best. Respondent claimed that A.M. was seen and her medical records were at a different location (6251 Park Boulevard) than where the subpoena was served (5840 Park Boulevard).20/ Respondent then claimed the records that were moved from one facility to another facility could not be located. Respondent alluded to a potential police report regarding an alleged theft of medical records and other office items; however, nothing substantiated that, and Respondent’s testimony about possible criminal activity is not credible. Respondent admitted that some of A.M.’s medical records, specifically progress notes, were pre-printed, and that she wrote on some of the progress notes. In the progress notes dated October 10, 11, 13 through 18, 20 through 25, and 27 through 30, the handwriting appears to be the same, except for the change in each date. Further, Respondent confirmed A.M.’s 18 pages of progress notes of Vancomycin administration, yet distanced herself from them by saying “sometimes the charts were completed later on, so it’s possibility that it -- that it -- you know, it’s progress notes for the IV administration, but – um . . . the dates are written by nurses, so I don’t -- I don’t know.” Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to identify who may have written on A.M.’s progress notes and her avoidance in answering direct questions or claiming she did not recall the patient (and then discussing the patient) greatly diminished her credibility. Respondent claimed that there were “some verbal changes” she gave that were in a “set of nursing records,” which were not present. Any “changes” or directions given by Respondent should have been contained within her medical records for the care of A.M. Respondent maintained that her diagnosis of A.M. was based on Respondent’s total clinical picture of A.M., including A.M.’s “symptoms, her presentation, her lesions, her course -- she’d had repeated courses of oral antibiotics, and was getting recurrence.” Yet, Respondent also claimed A.M. “came in with these culture results from the primary, and that’s how the staff . . . it states MRSA, because it was already documented MRSA.” Standard of Care Respondent was required to practice medicine in her care of A.M. with “that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized in general law related to health care licensure.” Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of A.M. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. A reasonably prudent health care provider suspecting a patient has MRSA would observe the abrasion(s), culture the abrasion (MRSA), send the culture out for laboratory confirmation, prescribe oral antibiotics, and if the MRSA does not respond to the oral antibiotics, prescribe and administer IV antibiotics. Dr. Carrizosa noted that Respondent did not provide a description of A.M.’s abscesses, did not indicate that A.M.’s abscesses were drained, incised, cleaned or bandaged, or that Respondent provided any patient education to A.M. Although labs were ordered, there was no request for a bacterial culture or for an antimicrobial susceptibility test to be completed. Dr. Carrizosa expressed concern that young people can eliminate antibiotics within six to eight hours and there is a need for monitoring their medications to ensure they maintain a therapeutic level. Dr. Carrizosa opined that Respondent did not meet the standard of care in her treatment of A.M. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent violated the standard of care applicable to an infectious disease practitioner. Respondent presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Ephtimios. Dr. Ephtimios reviewed the same records as Dr. Carrizosa. Dr. Ephtimios admitted he had several lengthy conversations with Respondent during which time she provided additional information to Dr. Ephtimios that was not in A.M.’s written records regarding “the rationale for using the Vancomycin.” Respondent shared additional information with Dr. Ephtimios yet failed to recall or remember the patient during her own deposition testimony. Dr. Ephtimios’ opinion is not credible. Respondent’s deposition behavior lessens her credibility. Medical Records Medical records are maintained for a number of reasons. Primarily, medical records are necessary for the planning of patient care; for continuity of treatment; and to document the course of the patient’s medical evaluation, treatment, and progression through treatment. Further, medical records should document any communications between health care providers, and they serve as a basis for health care providers to be paid by either the patient or another party. See, rule 64B8-9.003. The medical records of A.M.’s contact with Respondent’s office between October 8, 2008, and October 31, 2008, do not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. A.M.’s records do not describe the abscesses, do not indicate if any of the abscesses were drained, incised, or cultured. Respondent failed to provide any assessment of a staph infection or provide any laboratory support for the use of the medication administered. Respondent did not document A.M.’s possible heart murmur, and failed to provide a diagnostic basis for endocarditis. Further portions of the medical record are illegible. There is no clear indication that Respondent provided A.M. with any education on her condition. Inappropriate Drug Therapy Respondent authorized the administration of Vancomycin and/or Zyvox to a 16-year-old female without adequately monitoring A.M.’s condition, or documenting the need for such use. Respondent’s failure to document the need for Vancomycin through appropriate or adequate testing was not in the best interest of A.M. DOH Case No. 2011-06111 (DOAH Case No. 14-0514PL) On February 28, 2011, patient C.B., a 42-year-old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of food allergy issues, and gastrointestinal problems, gas, bloating, and other stomach issues.21/ When she presented to Respondent in February 2011, C.B. did not have any concerns about candida or thrush.22/ Respondent prescribed a Medrol Pak (a steroid) and directed C.B. to have lab tests for the candida antibody and an immune system panel. One week later, C.B. again presented to Respondent. C.B. did not have any of the symptoms for a chronic yeast infection such as vaginal itching or thrush. Respondent advised C.B. that she had a chronic yeast infection and her immune system required treatment. However, Respondent did not prescribe any medication to C.B. at that time. On March 14, 2011, C.B. returned to Respondent’s office and received Immunoglobulin23/ via an intravenous (IV) line. On March 22, 24 and 25, 2011, C.B. received IV Ambisome.24/ Thereafter, C.B. developed a rash on her arm where the IV had been placed and a papule on her stomach. C.B. declined further IV treatments because she did not think the medication was working. On March 29, Respondent prescribed VFEND25/ to C.B. On March 30 and 31 and April 1, 2011, C.B. was a “no show” at Respondent’s office. Yet each of C.B.’s progress notes contained information regarding C.B.’s general appearance. Respondent testified that those progress notes are preprinted forms and would be adjusted upon a patient’s examination. On April 4, 2011, Respondent’s progress note for C.B. reflects “Discuss with patient in detail, patient complains of one papule, advised patient about candidiasis, GI tract not responding to azoles. Complains of diarrhea, abdominal symptoms, wants IV meds.” C.B.’s progress note dated April 5, 2011, reflects under the “S: COMPLAINT: No show - Refused to get PICC line out. Patient walked out yesterday. Patient was told to wait for dressing change. Patient states to receptionist she will come today.” Respondent elected to document on April 5, something that happened on April 4, despite the fact that the progress note for April 4 reflected a discussion with C.B. On April 11, 2011, C.B. presented a request for her medical records to Respondent’s staff. C.B. received copies of her medical records and provided them to DOH. Respondent testified as to C.B.’s 2011 presentation and Respondent’s course of treatment, including what medications were prescribed. Respondent confirmed that an undated “History and Physical” (H&P) for C.B. was C.B.’s “initial history and physical” created from a template. This H&P purports to reflect that C.B. was “discharged [from Respondent’s practice] for misbehavior . . . was in jail. . . [and] begging [for Respondent] to help her.” This H&P also contained Respondent’s physical examination of C.B., which was recorded on a “Progress Note” of the same date. Differences in the two records of the same date exist. C.B. testified that she has never been in jail and that she had not been discharged from Respondent’s practice. C.B. is found to be a credible witness. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. Respondent averred that she discussed C.B.’s vaginal itching with C.B. during the March 7, 2011, office visit, yet Respondent did not prescribe any medications for C.B. C.B.’s first IV immunoglobulin was administered on March 14, a week later. Respondent claims she discussed her care and treatment with C.B. on Wednesday, March 23, 2011. C.B. did not see Respondent on March 23, as C.B. went to Respondent’s office located on Park Boulevard in Pinellas Park and that location was closed. C.B. found out that Respondent was working at an address in Clearwater. C.B. did not have adequate time to get to that Clearwater location before it closed for the day. Thus, C.B. missed the appointment on that day. C.B.’s candid and succinct testimony is credible. Respondent testfied that certain medical records for C.B. were missing: anything that was documented electronic or anything -- any reports or any old records, old reports, it doesn’t contain anything. And she came in for the treatment of a disease that’s been existing since 2006, so a lot of workup that’s done in the prior years for -- which is the relevant basis of the treatment at this point is not there. Respondent was not clear which medical records were missing. C.B. had not been a patient of Respondent for approximately two years. Respondent’s reliance or purported reliance on C.B.’s “old records, old reports” without adequate confirmation of C.B.’s current health issues via appropriate work-ups, laboratory studies and tests falls below the reasonably prudent similar health care provider standard. Standard of Care Respondent was required to meet the same standard of care as outlined in paragraph 25 above. Dr. Carrizosa’s testimony was clear, concise, and credible. He did not appear to have any prejudice against Respondent as a person, but was concerned about how she was practicing medicine. Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of C.B. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. Respondent failed to practice in such a manner as to determine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that C.B. had systemic candida as was diagnosed by Respondent. Further, the laboratory results were not positive for an antimicrobial sensitivity culture taken from C.B. Additionally, C.B.’s complete blood count (CBC) and the differential count, which included neutrophils and lymphocytes, were normal. The administration of Ambisome, the most expensive of all the drugs available, was not warranted as C.B. did not have systemic candidiasis. Further, the immunoglobulin treatment was inappropriate as there was no evidence that C.B. had an immune dysfunction. Medical Records Dr. Ephtimios also provided an opinion on behalf of Respondent. Dr. Ephtimios had a discussion with Respondent regarding the care and treatment provided to C.B. outside the medical records provided. Dr. Ephtimios admitted that he does not use a Medrol Pak in his practice; he does not feel comfortable practicing immunology (and would have referred C.B. out to an immunologist.) Dr. Ephtimios would not have ordered the laboratory tests that Respondent ordered; his understanding of what candidiasis means may differ from Respondent’s, and he speculated on what he thought Respondent “meant” in several instances. Dr. Ephtimios provided a somewhat exhaustive approach to the various forms of candidiasis; however, he qualified each approach. Each physician practices medicine using their own skill set and different methods of providing clinical assessments and treatment. However, Dr. Ephtimios provided various qualifiers to his opinion which rendered it less credible. The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. The medical record of C.B.’s contact with Respondent’s office during this time does not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. C.B.’s records do not reflect an appropriate evaluation, as they fail to analyze C.B.’s main complaints, they fail to analyze the previous evaluations of C.B., and her physical exams were incomplete. DOH Case No. 2011-17799 (DOAH Case No. 14-0515PL) According to Respondent, patient P.A., a 38-year-old female, was “an ongoing patient [of hers] for over ten years.” Respondent saw P.A. between February 2008 and December 2011. Respondent provided medical records to DOH regarding P.A. However, Respondent admitted she did not provide all P.A.’s medical records because “a lot of records were missing,” and Respondent knew “at one point when they were very old records in the 6251 office some of them were also shredded.” Respondent further claimed in response to additional questioning about her shredding statement, [B]ecause the statute says, you know, after three years, so I’m not sure if the -- because I know some of the records were shredded by one of the secretaries. * * * The one [statute] which says once a practice is closed retain records for three years. Respondent identified one of P.A.’s progress notes (dated January 26, 2011) as “our procedure note,” but when asked “What was going on here according to these notes,” Respondent answered: “It’s hard to say. It’s not my handwriting.” Respondent could read the handwriting, but had “no clue” who wrote the progress note. Further, Respondent was unable to state if P.A. was administered either the gentamicin 40 milligrams or the clindamycin 600 milligrams as listed on the progress note. Medical Records The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. In this instance, the testimony of Respondent clearly and convincingly proves Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(m) and rule 64B8-9.003. No evidence was presented that Respondent has been previously disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent, Neelam Uppal, M.D., violated section 458.331(1)(m), (q) and (t), Florida Statutes; suspending her license for six months followed by two years probation with terms and conditions to be set by the Board of Medicine; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00; requiring the successful completion of a course or courses to make, keep and maintain medical records; requiring a course in professional responsibility and ethics, and such other educational courses as the Board of Medicine may require; and assessing costs as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September,2014.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine in Florida. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been a licensed physician, in the State of Florida, license number ME 0027088. Respondent is board certified in three areas of specialty: gastroenterology, radiology, and internal medicine. Respondent is on the staff of several hospitals in the Palm Beach County region. From March 28, 1986, until April 4, 1986, Respondent treated Goldie Marshak. At the time of such treatment, Mrs. Marshak was a seventy-one year old in good health. Mrs. Marshak had been referred to Respondent by Dr. Neil Katz. Dr. Katz was Mrs. Marshak's regular physician who had unsuccessfully treated her for persistent gas and burping. In accordance with Mrs. Marshak's health plan guidelines, Dr. Katz had referred her to Respondent, a specialist in similar disorders, for additional diagnosis. The referral form indicated Mrs. Marshak suffered from persistent stomach pain and gas. Attached to the referral were the results from a prior upper GI series which established there were no abnormalities of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Respondent first met with Mrs. Marshak on March 28, 1986. At the initial visit Mrs. Marshak completed a form which identified her current problem as "burping and rectal gas as soon as I eat. Some pain upper chest that has diminished." In addition, Mrs. Marshak supplied a social history, a past medical history, drug allergy, operations, injury, hospitalizations, family history, immunizations, and a general review of systems. No other records prepared on that date were retained. There are no records from which it can be determined what physical examination, if any, Respondent gave to Mrs. Marshak on March 28, 1986. Apparently, after reviewing the referral form and discussing her symptoms with Mrs. Marshak, Respondent elected to schedule her for a procedure called a flexible sigmoidoscopy. After conferring With Dr. Katz, whose consent was required for health plan purposes, the procedure was set to be performed April 3, 1986. Mrs. Marshak was given instructions regarding preparations required in order for the examination to be performed. When Mrs. Marshak returned to Respondent's office on April 3, 1986, she had successfully followed the instructions and was ready for the proposed procedure. Mrs. Marshak was given an authorization form which she signed in the presence of Marina Harmon. Mrs. Harmon was an unlicensed employee who assisted Respondent by escorting patients to the procedure room, having them sign the authorization form, and by explaining the procedure to be performed. The authorization form signed by Mrs. Marshak authorized Respondent to perform a flexible sigmoidoscopy. The form did not disclose risks or inherent dangers regarding the procedure but did provide the following: The motive and purpose of the diagnostic procedure, possible alternative methods, the risks and possible consequences involved, and the possibility of complications have been fully explained to me. I acknowledge that no guarantee or assurance has been made as the results that may be obtained. I also specifically authorize the physician, or his designee, to perform such additional procedures or render such treatment as he may, in his professional judgement deem necessary in the event any unforeseen condition arise during the course of the consented-to- diagnostic procedure that would put the patient's (my) well-being in jeopardy. A flexible sigmoidoscopy is a procedure whereby an instrument is inserted into the rectum and is then passed up the colon the desired distance. The length the instrument is extended specifies what the procedure is called. A flexible sigmoidoscopy involves looking into the rectum and the sigmoid colon only. A colonoscopy looks into the digestive tract beyond an anatomical portion of the colon called the splenic flexure. A left-sided colonoscopy involves looking into the lower digestive tract beyond the sigmoid colon but not beyond the splenic flexure. In terms of length, the flexible sigmoidoscopy would be the shortest procedure of the three described. On April 3, 1986, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Mrs. Marshak which resulted in a perforation of her colon. This perforation would have occurred regardless of the procedure performed since the tear was located approximately twenty centimeters into the colon. During and following the procedure, Mrs. Marshak complained of extreme pain. Respondent presumed the pain to be that typically experienced during the procedure. The pain which continued after the instrument was removed, Respondent attributed to trapped gas within the colon which would be passed naturally in the hours following the procedure. Respondent sent Mrs. Marshak home for rest and advised her that the procedure had not revealed any abnormal condition in the area examined. Once home, Mrs. Marshak continued to have pain and discomfort. Her husband, Kalman Marshak, telephoned Respondent's office to advise of his wife's continued suffering. Respondent did not speak with either of the Marshaks' but did telephone a prescription for Tylenol with Codeine to their pharmacy. Mr. Marshak picked up the drug and administered it to his wife as directed. Codeine is an improper drug to prescribe for a patient who may be retaining gas since it inhibits parastoltic activity of the bowel. Respondent should have discussed the patient's symptoms with her to ascertain whether or not the pain suffered warranted further examination or emergency treatment. Despite the drug, Mrs. Marshak's pain continued through the night. On the morning of April 4, 1986, Mr. Marshak again telephoned Respondent's office to advise them of his wife's discomfort. The Marshaks were given an appointment for three o'clock that afternoon. The delay in setting the appointment or referring the patient for emergency treatment was inappropriate. At the time of her revisit, Mrs. Marshak had a distended abdomen with some tenderness. Respondent took x-rays of the area and reinserted the colonoscope a very short distance in an effort to expel what Respondent believed to be trapped gas in the colon. The procedure did not relieve Mrs. Marshak's pain and she was advised to go to the hospital for further treatment. Subsequent to Mrs. Marshak leaving the office, Respondent read the x-rays and discovered the perforation. Respondent immediately telephoned the emergency room to advise the physician on duty of Mrs. Marshak's condition and her need for attention. The perforation required surgery which resulted in Mrs. Marshak having to wear a colostomy bag for several months. Afterwards, a second surgery restored her colon to allow normal elimination. At the time of the final hearing, Mrs. Marshak had completely recovered from the perforation. On April 8, 1986, Respondent prepared a letter to Dr. Katz which outlined the treatment given to Mrs. Marshak. Any notes or other records used to prepare the letter were destroyed. The x-rays taken at Respondent's office on April 4, 1986, were lost and were, therefore, unavailable. According to Respondent, the missing x-rays were very similar to the ones taken at the hospital when Mrs. Marshak arrived on April 4, 1986. The Respondent did not obtain a consent form or written authorization for the procedure performed on April 4, 1986. The reinsertion of the instrument into the rectum was inappropriate since the x-rays clearly showed the perforation. Other than the letter written to Dr. Katz, Respondent did not maintain any medical records for the treatment he gave to Mrs. Marshak on March 28, April 3, and April 4, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order which finds Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint, dismisses Counts II and III, imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $1000, places Respondent on probation for a period of two years, and requires Respondent to attend such continuing education courses as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3397 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. To the extent paragraph 11 describes a colonoscopy as "more invasive" the paragraph is accepted. However, as to all of the examinations performed (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy or left-sided colonoscopy) the basic description is similar. Consequently "more extensive explanation "is not required. Thus the balance of paragraph" is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted however it must be noted that such explanations given by Harmon are in supplement to those given by Rothenberg. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted, however, see note above re: paragraph 14. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as argument, irrelevant and immaterial. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 are accepted with the note that the communications addressed were with Respondent's office. There is no evidence that Respondent personally spoke with Mr. Marshak to determine the patient's condition. Paragraph 29 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. It was inappropriate to delay the revisit until 3 o'clock, but there is no evidence Respondent made that decision. Based upon the testimony, The more appropriate course would have had Respondent discuss the situation directly with the patient (or her husband) and to schedule the revisit as soon as possible or have the patient go to the hospital. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraphs 31, 32, and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. Paragraph 35 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant immaterial and assuming facts not in evidence. Paragraphs 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43 are accepted. Paragraphs 44, 45, 46, and 47, are rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 48 and 50 are rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 49 is accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12 the area of the perforation was between 15- 25 centimeters according to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 13 and 14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as to "reread." That paragraph with the word "read" for "reread" would be accepted. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, and 19 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Branson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles A. Nugent, Jr., Esquire Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth & Romano Servico Centre-Suite 300/400 1601 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
