Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a physician authorized to practice medicine in the State of Florida under license number ME 0013979. F.E. and her young daughter are former patients of Respondent. They visited Respondent's office on November 27, 1989, and again on December 14, 1989. The November 27, 1989, visit was uneventful. During her December 14, 1989, visit, F.E. complained that she had been experiencing pain on the right side of her body behind her knee and in the groin area. Respondent requested that F.E. lower her pantyhose and lie on her back on the examining table. F.E. complied with Respondent's request. Respondent proceeded to examine F.E. He tracked, by both visual inspection and palpation, the saphenous vein on the right side of F.E.'s body. The saphenous vein runs from near the knee to around the groin area, where it meets the femoral vein. F.E. still had on her panties. Respondent therefore had to lift up the leg of the panties in order to observe and feel the area around the upper terminus of her saphenous vein. F.E. tried to sit up when Respondent did this, but Respondent restrained her and told her that she needed to remain still inasmuch as the examination was not completed. Thereafter, Respondent had F.E. turn over on her stomach and, from this different vantage point, proceeded to again track F.E.'s right saphenous vein employing the same technique he had used previously. Following the completion of the examination, F.E. pulled up her panty hose and got off the examining table. She then engaged in conversation with Respondent, who was filling out her chart. Respondent diagnosed Respondent's condition as a mild form of phlebitis in her right saphenous vein. He told her to wrap her leg and to take two Advil tablets four times a day to reduce the inflammation in the vein. Following her exchange with Respondent, F.E. retrieved her daughter and left the office. Respondent's examination of F.E. on December 14, 1989, itself was in accordance with generally accepted medical standards. 1/ During the examination, however, when Respondent was inspecting the area around F.E.'s groin, he inappropriately remarked in Spanish to F.E., who is Spanish-speaking, that she was the prettiest woman in the world, or words to that effect. This made F.E. feel uncomfortable. She thought that Respondent wanted "some sort of romance." Respondent, though, said nothing else, nor did he engage in any conduct, during his encounter with F.E. that day to indicate that this was his intention. Sometime after F.E.'s visit to Respondent's office on December 14, 1989, the Department received a complaint concerning Respondent's behavior toward F.E. that day. The Department investigated the complaint. Following the completion of the investigation, it prepared and submitted to a probable cause panel of the Board of Medicine a written investigative report. The probable cause panel met on June 22, 1990, to consider whether there was probable cause to bring formal charges against Respondent. In attendance at the meeting were probable cause panel members Dr. Robert Katims, who chaired the meeting, and Dr. Marilyn Wells. Prior to their vote, Katims and Wells took part in discussion regarding the case. They both indicated during the discussion that they had reviewed the investigative materials with which they had been provided by the Department. Following the conclusion of the discussion, Katims and Wells both voted to find probable cause. Thereafter, an Administrative Complaint was issued against Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the instant Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of December, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of December, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida pursuant to Sections 20.165 and 20.43, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is at all times material to this case a licensed physician in the state of Florida. As such, he is subject to disciplinary action for failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable, prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Iribar has been disciplined on two prior occasions. Both cases involved standard of care violations. In Case No. 113487, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order on April 20, 1992, disciplining Respondent for multiple violations of Section 458.331(1)(t) related to, among other things, prescribing errors. In Case No. 1991-03407, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order on July 17, 1995, disciplining Respondent for additional prescribing violations. On August 25, 1997, C. H. required medical attention for pain and swelling in his left knee. By the time he was "worked in" at the office of his primary care physician, C. H. was unable to get around without the aid of crutches. In seeking relief for his knee problem, C. H. set in motion a chain of events which would cost him his life. C. H. had been for years a patient at the clinic where Iribar practiced medicine in partnership with Dr. Raul Alvarez (Alvarez). C. H. had a complex medical history, and had long been under the care of Alvarez. Iribar had never seen C. H., but was covering his partner's emergencies on August 25, 1997. C. H.'s knee swelling, which was visible from across a medical examining room, plainly qualified as a matter which needed prompt attention. The clinic had an extensive chart on C. H. It contained records of many office visits, tests, and information concerning care received at other locations which occurred over a period of years in which Alvarez served as C. H.'s primary care doctor. As a partner in the practice, Iribar would of course have been authorized to read every word on the chart before, during or after C. H.'s visit. Numerous references in the chart address real or perceived allergies. At many places in C. H.'s chart, an allergy to aspirin in indicated. In many other places, C. H. is said to be allergic to penicillin as well as aspirin. Iribar's focus in his lone encounter with C. H. was totally upon the need for emergency attention to the swollen and sore knee. On August 25, 1997, it was the routine in the Iribar/Alvarez practice to maintain a form detailing the patient's history, including allergies, on the inside left cover of the file. C.H.'s chart had such a document and it reflected an allergy to penicillin. Iribar freely admits that he never looked at C. H.'s chart prior to prescribing penicillin for his injured knee. Instead, Iribar testified that he conversed with C. H. while examining him and felt that he could obtain from C. H. an accurate answer to the question of whether he was allergic to any medications. During the examination and treatment process, C. H. was articulate regarding his complex medical history. He enumerated at least six medications which he was currently taking. Iribar testified that he asked C. H. if he was allergic to any medications and C. H. responded "aspirin." Iribar states that he informed C. H. that he was going to place him on oral penicillin, which might later be discontinued depending upon the outcome of lab results. According to Iribar, C. H. failed to inform him of a penicillin allergy. For reasons more fully set forth below, the undersigned does not credit Iribar's recollection that he in fact asked C. H. if he had allergies. Neither does the undersigned credit Iribar's testimony to the effect that he informed C. H. of his intent to administer penicillin. Apart from that dispositive fact, the undersigned does credit Iribar's account of his encounter with C. H. Based upon that testimony and the corroborating opinion of the experts for both sides, the evidence established that Iribar entered the examining room and noted that C. H. had a large left knee effusion with pain, redness, and increased temperature to touch. Iribar properly performed an arthrocentesis (a puncture through a joint capsule to relieve an effusion), removing 20cc of yellow pus-like material to relieve the pain. He then prescribed ibuprofen for pain and Pen VK, which is in fact penicillin, to prevent infection. Penicillin is, for most patients, safe and effective for the prevention of infection following a procedure such as the one performed on C. H. Alternative antibiotics exist and would have been prescribed for C. H. had Iribar been aware of the existence of a possible allergy. For an allergic patient such as C. H., the result of taking penicillin can be, and in this case was, swift cardiac arrest followed by a coma from which the patient never emerged. He died five months later. Expert witnesses for both sides agree, and the undersigned finds, that it would have been a gross violation of the standard of care to prescribe penicillin to a person known to be allergic. There is no contention that Iribar actually knew of the allergy, and Iribar did not intend any harm to C. H. Instead, the evidence established that Iribar was covering his partner's emergency and trying to help the patient. Thus, the issue is whether Iribar fell below the standard of care of failing to take reasonable steps to determine whether C. H. had a penicillin allergy. In this case, the totality of the record compels the conclusion that Iribar did not take even a first step. He did not inquire of C. H. as to whether he had any allergies, nor did he look at the patient's chart, which would have placed him on inquiry notice regarding the existence of a penicillin allergy. In failing to take either precaution, he fell below the standard of care. Iribar's disciplinary history reveals prior failures in adhering to the standard of care with respect to the professional obligation to ask the questions a doctor needs to ask to determine if a drug should or should not be prescribed. Additionally, his careless response to the Board of Medicine's inquiry regarding his treatment of C. H. is telling. In an undated letter to Board investigator, Lidice Muniz, Iribar stated, ". . . I asked the patient in front of two medical assistants aiding me [Ana Dickinson and Barbara Olesco] if he was allergic to any medication, he replied 'Aspirin' and he denied all other drug allergies." Common sense suggests that Iribar would have been scrupulously accurate in communicating in writing to state investigators about a matter of such importance. Thus, the undersigned takes seriously Iribar's statement that two assistants witnessed the exchange referenced in the letter. Yet, at the final hearing, neither Iribar nor Olesco claimed that this exchange was witnessed by one, let alone two medical assistants. The undersigned carefully observed Iribar's demeanor while under oath. His recollection that he engaged C. H. on the question of allergies is determined to be untrustworthy. Specifically, the undersigned does not credit Iribar's assertion that he asked his patient about allergies. In light of this finding, it is not necessary to address whether Iribar would have been bound to review the chart had C. H. in fact been asked about allergies. With respect to C. H., Respondent failed 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 in that he failed to take any step to afford himself the opportunity to know what if any allergies C. H. had prior to prescribing the medication which caused the patient's death.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the Recommended Range of Penalty under the Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty and imposing the following penalty: A fine of $10,000; continuing medical education classes specified by the Board of Medicine; a six- month suspension; two years of probation, with terms set by the Board of Medicine; a letter of reprimand; and requiring Respondent to report to the Board of Medicine regarding procedures he has or will implement to assure appropriate inquiry of patients regarding their allergies in accordance with the standard of care currently prevailing. It is also RECOMMENDED that the Board impose costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this case in compliance with Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Sean M. Ellsworth, Esquire Dresnick, Ellsworth & Felder, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle Sun Trust Plaza, Suite 701 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5108 John E. Terrel, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The matters presented for consideration in this action are related to an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against Dr. Lee, accusing him of having violated various provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, pertaining to his practice of medicine. The complaint accuses the Respondent of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, related to the treatment of several patients. Respondent is also accused of having failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment for those patients in violation of Section 458.331(1)(n) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact William J. Lee, M.D., is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida through a license issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, License No. MEO12345. He has held that license at all times relevant to this case and in that time sequence has practiced general medicine and general surgery in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, in his office and at Jacksonville Beach's Hospital in that same community. Dr. Lee is 51 years old and is a graduate of Emory University in 1958, receiving his M.D. from Emory in 1964. He did an internship at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, followed by a residency in general surgery at the University of Florida from 1965 through 1968 and completed his residency at Duval Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1969. The Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of this hearing was filed on February 22, 1983. Proper service of the Administrative Complaint was effected upon the Respondent and Dr. Lee made a timely request for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. THELMA A. PARKER From August 9 through 13, 1974, Thelma Parker was treated medically at Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, for acute diverticulitis. This treatment was provided by Dr. C. Cooksey. In particular, Dr. Cooksey's medical regime was NOP, IV fluids, and large doses of Fibramycin. A barium enema was done on the patient on August 10, 1974, and revealed diverticulosis of the sigmoid colon and one large acutely inflamed diverticulum of the mid-sigmoid level. This diverticulum was unusually long and Dr. Cooksey was of the impression that the diverticulum produced some edema of the bowel wall with low grade obstruction. Finally, Dr. Cooksey felt that at some point the diverticulum should be resected because of its size. In late August 1978, Ms. Parker, who had become a patient of the Respondent's, began to experience cramping, and diarrhea pain for which she took lomotil to slow down the bowel activity. This relieved her symptoms temporarily. Nevertheless, the symptoms persisted and on September 2, 1978, Ms. Parker went to the emergency room at Jacksonville Beach's Hospital, displaying the same type of pain and showing a mild distention. This pain was a generalized to and fro type of pain of cramping nature across the area of the abdomen. It was not localized. Dr. Lee admitted the patient to that hospital on that date. At that time, Dr. Lee was aware of the prior 1974 bout which the patient had with diverticulitis. Lee obtained an x-ray obstruction series and based upon this information felt that possible explanation was adynamic ileus versus early obstruction. He did not feel that the patient was suffering from diverticulitis in that there was no indication of lower left quadrant abdominal pain, bowel dysfunction such as constipation or obstipation and no indication of temperature elevation, indicators of diverticulitis. The symptoms she did display were not inconsistent with diverticulitis. At admission, the Respondent did note the past history of diverticulitis and the emergency room admission and hospital records indicated chronic lower quadrant abdominal pain and change in bowel habits and diarrhea, which are consistent with diverticulitis. Based upon examination of the patient, x-rays and associated materials, Respondent performed an exploratory laparotomy on September 4, 1978, for the purpose of relieving a small bowel obstruction. In the surgery, he found grossly dilated loops of the small bowel with obvious obstruction of the terminal ileum approximately 15 cm's proximal to the ibocacal valve. He found that area to be "firmly adherent to a mass of scar tissue in the sigmoid colon area of the pelvis with chronic low grade inflammatory reaction present in the region." The portion of the ileum that was involved in this was wound severely upon itself with the massive scar tissue in the area. Given the condition, he determined to resect that portion of the small bowel and effected a repair by anastomosis. No evidence was revealed in the course of the operation of any blockage of the large bowel, based upon his observations and manipulations. Gross examination was also made of the sigmoid colon and this revealed no dilation. No contrast studies were done to examine the lumen of the sigmoid colon, such as barium enema or colonscopy. Those studies would have ruled out diverticulitis in the area of the sigmoid colon. The post operative diagnosis by Dr. Lee was small bowel obstruction, secondary to diverticular disease and upon the discharge date of September 14, 1978, the diagnosis was 1) small bowel obstruction and 2) diverticular disease. The patient was seen in Dr. Lee's office on September 18, 1978 and had a fever and abdominal symptoms. She was told to see the doctor again on the next day and lacking improvement on that date was admitted to the hospital on September 19, 1978. At the time of admission on September 19, 1978, initial impression by Dr. Lee was that the patient was suffering intra-abdominal abcesses, secondary to anastomostic break or leakage in the area of the resection of the small bowel. The patient demonstrated a tenderness in the lower abdomen and had some nausea and vomiting. On rectal examination, the patient demonstrated a fluctuant area in the rectum, at the pelvic basin formed by the peritoneum. This area was determined to be an abscess and on September 26, 1978, Dr. Lee performed a procedure by going through the anus into this area of abscess and making an incision in the wall of the rectum to allow drainage of the abscess through the rectum. There was some improvement but the patient continued to have temperature elevation and abdominal pain and on October 2, 1978, further laparotocy was done and an anastonimotic break was discovered. Reanastomosis was achieved following a second resection in the area of the initial small bowel obstruction. Gross examination during the course of this surgery did not reveal any evident blockage of the large intestine or active diverticulitis. Again, no specific diagnostic work was done to determine the condition of the sigmoid colon related to diverticulitis. During the surgery, in addition to the revision of the ileostomy, abdominal abscesses were also evacuated. The patient was discharged on October 21, 1978. After her release in October 1978, the patient was seen on a number of occasions by the Respondent and indicated occasional episodes of cramping, diarrheal type stool but no localized pain in the left, lower quadrant, constipation or obstipation. The patient developed a ventral hernia in the area of the incision related to the abdominal surgery performed by the Respondent and on June 21, 1979, was admitted to the hospital to attend that condition. Exploratory laparotomy was dome on June 22, 1979 and the Respondent did further resectioning and reanastomosis in the area of the small bowel repair together with repair to the ventral incisional hernia. The large intestine in the area of the previous diverticular disease was examined and no indication, on gross examination, was given as to obstruction of the large bowel or any showing of acute inflammation in the area of the sigmoid colon suggesting diverticulitis. As was the case before, no specific examination of the sigmoid colon by a process of barium enema or otherwise was made at the time of this hospitalization. The patient was seen in the Respondent's office on July 3, 1979, and it was noted that her wound from the most recent operation was healing and that her appetite was good and bowel movements normal. A further visit of July 6, 1979, revealed a pink, serous drainage from the portion of the most recent incision and the abdomen was tender. Eventually, the patient had to be readmitted on July 23, 1979. Upon admission, it was believed that the patient was suffering intra-abdominal abscesses. She demonstrated temperature elevation and abdominal pain. The serous drainage from the incision had subsided. On this admission, particularly July 27, 1979, Dr. Lee did obtain a barium enema for purposes of examining the sigmoid colon and it showed a narrowed portion within the sigmoid colon with a communication to an abscess in the pelvis and from there a fistula to the small bowel at the site of the anastomosis. The abscess described was an abscess that had been addressed by Dr. Lee on September 26, 1978. This narrowing in the sigmoid colon was a partial obstruction, leaving an approximate functional capability of 10 percent. No dilation was observed in the bowel proximal to the area of partial obstruction and there was no distention. The narrowing was caused by the diverticular disease process. No evidence was found of an active condition of diverticulitis in the sigmoid colon. On July 30, 1979, a further surgical course was pursued by Dr. Lee and a segment of the small bowel in the area of the previous attempts at anastomosis was removed and a reanastomosis was done with a cleaning up of the previously described fistula tract and associated repairs. No attention was given to the narrowing of the sigmoid colon. On August 6, 1979, Dr. Lee opened and drained large abscesses in the abdominal wall and this was followed on August 9, 1979, with his notation of a small bowel fistula. On August 10, 1979, the patient requested consultation with another surgeon, Dr. James Corwin and was transferred to his care on August 12, 1979. Corwin advised the patient to have a loop colostomy to try and address continuing problems as described by prohibiting the sigmoid colon from contributing to those difficulties. This procedure was carried out by Dr. Corwin on August 17, 1979. Resection of the sigmoid colon was done by Dr. Corwin on September 17, 1979. (Pathology related to the sigmoid colon showed diverticulosis, indication of diverticular disease. It did not show active diverticulitis.) The patient accepted Dr. Corwin's suggestion that the colostomy and resection of the sigmoid colon were necessary, without hesitation. Respondent's suggestion by testimony or record that he had discussed with Ms. Parker the need to address her diverticular condition and possible resection of the sigmoid colon and her rejection of such diagnosis and treatment is not accepted. These discussions allegedly occurred between her release from the hospital in October 1978, and her hospitalization in June 1979. When examined in light of the facts found, specifically her willingness to submit to all other operations and procedures by Dr. Lee and to accept Corwin's treatment of the colon when suggested, Respondent is not to be believed on this subject. Ms. Parker failed to recover from the series of problems as discussed and died on October 28, 1979. The diverticular disease in the colon contributed to her demise and Dr. Lee failed to diagnose and treat that condition. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Parker did not take care of herself in terms of her physical condition, related to her drinking habits, Respondent was not relieved from the necessity to diagnosis and address the problem with the sigmoid colon. Dr. E. R. Woodward testified on behalf of the Petitioner, after being accepted as an expert in medicine with particular emphasis on general surgery. Dr. Woodward is a professor of surgery and former chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University of Florida, College of Medicine, and is a member of various boards, colleges and associations related to the practice of surgery and has written approximately 250 publications and authored two books in the field of general surgery. His testimony was based upon the review of hospital records related to Parker's various hospitalizations under the care of Dr. Lee that have been addressed. Dr. Woodward is of the opinion that the patient suffered diverticulitis in the sigmoid colon at times relevant to the inquiry and finds fault with Dr. Lee's failure to diagnose and treat this condition which Dr. Woodward felt was the underlying cause of the patient's problems pertaining to obstruction in the small bowel and associated anastomotic failures. Even without such diagnoistic procedures as barium enema or otherwise, Dr. Woodward feels that Dr. Lee recognized the diverticulitis of the colon in describing the chronic inflammatory reaction in the area of the sigmoid colon in his September 4, 1978, post operative report. Dr. Woodward revealed that in the September 19, 1978, admission that one of the x-rays showed air fluid levels in the right colon which is indirect evidence of a possible problem of an obstruction in the sigmoid colon. Moreover, given the fact that the intestines heal extremely well, according to Dr. Woodward, the problem with the anastomosis was possibly due to the fact that the lining of the intestine beyond the anastomosis was not open sufficiently and that there was some degree of obstruction as was revealed in the area of the sigmoid colon, which had been caused by chronic diverticulitis. By the time of the June 21, 1979, hospitalization, Dr. Woodward felt that the patient's condition was such that her recovery was not promising. Even in the face of information found after the July 27, 1979, barium enema, Dr. Lee did not address the difficulty with the narrowing in the colon by some process of diverting colostomy or other surgery of the colon. In Dr. Woodward's mind, this was necessary at the time of the September 4, 1978, surgery and continued to be a need at the time of the July 30, 1979, surgery. Risk of mortality increased from 2 percent to as high as 10 percent at the July 30, 1979, operation. Subsequent to that operation, the patient was so ill and the infection so severe that the mortality risk related to surgery was prohibitive, per Woodward. In summary, Woodward felt that the Respondent's failure to diagnose and treat the diverticular condition in the sigmoid colon led to her eventual demise and was such quality of treatment as to constitute gross or repeated malpractice and the failure to practice medicine with a level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions or circumstances. Dr. Corwin, gave his expert opinion, as a general surgeon, after being accepted in that field. This is the same Dr. Corwin who treated Thelma Parker. Dr. Corwin feels that given a past history of diverticulitis, which the Respondent knew about and the condition which he found upon the original surgery performed in the abdomen, Respondent should have searched for the cause of that condition which most likely was the patient's diverticulitis. This opinion refers to the need for an examination by barium enema or some other form of contrast study to determine the condition of the sigmoid colon. The narrowing or obstruction in the area of the distal colon, as described, was felt by Dr. Corwin to be almost total in that the colon was reduced to an approximate 10 percent function. Corwin felt that the Respondent had made a major mistake in his treatment of the patient in not attempting to ascertain the cause of the abscesses and obstruction and to deal with the problem in the colon which he considered to be the underlying cause of her difficulties. According to Corwin, the quality of that mistake was so severe as to constitute gross mistreatment of the patient. He feels there was malpractice in that the problem in the colon was at least partially responsible for the anastomotic breaks. At minimum, Dr. Corwin felt that a diverting colostomy was necessary to address the problem with the colon and probably a resection of the sigmoid colon, which procedures were done by Corwin subsequent to assuming the case. Dr. Wiley Douglas Fowler, Jr., who is a board certified, general surgeon, practicing in the community where Respondent practices, gave testimony. He too felt that the Respondent had failed to deal with the condition in the sigmoid colon which he considered to be diverticulitis. There was a need to do a diverting colostomy and to do further definitive treatment as necessary to address the diverticular condition, per Fowler. He felt that there was a breakdown in surgical judgment to the point that the doctor was unable to perform the responsibilities of care in the case. Dr. Samuel Stephenson, who is a board certified general surgeon practicing in Jacksonville, Florida, testified. He did not find the quality of Dr. Lee's care to be-substandard related to the patient Parker. He placed emphasis on the fact that in his opinion gross signs such as dilation in the colon or large bowel were not observable and no active condition of diverticulitis was ever discovered during Parker's treatment course from the time of the Respondent's involvement to her demise. He did indicate that the barium enema results of July 27, 1983, might make one wonder if the narrowing in the sigmoid colon had caused some of the other recurring problems associated with anastomotic breaks in the small intestine. He indicated that by July 30, 1979, there might be a need for a colon resection. Stephenson was impressed with the fact that the patient died even after attempts to address the problems with the colon, i.e., the temporary colostomy and resection of the colon done by Dr. Corwin, leading him to wonder if the cause of continuing failure in the area of repair at the small bowel was due to some circumstance other than problems in the sigmoid colon. He believed that in the initial admission of September 1978, that there was a possibility of a problem with diverticulitis as well as the small bowel obstruction but no gross signs indicated an active condition of diverticulitis in the area of the colon, such as dilation. The mass that was discovered at the point of the initial laparotomy in September 1978, might have been from the colon or might not have been in the mind of Dr. Stephenson. The thrust of Dr. Stephenson's testimony seems to be that absent a clear indication that diverticulitis in the colon or the narrowing in the colon was the proximate cause of the anastomotic breaks and attendant processes of infection, there was no duty on Dr. Lee's part to rule out the possible involvement of the sigmoid colon as an explanation for the problems with the healing process in this patient. Upon reflection, the impressions gained by Drs. Woodward, Corwin and Fowler, witnesses for the Petitioner, are more compelling than those of Dr. Stephenson, on the subject of culpability by the Respondent related to the patient's care. Evidence reported establishes that the Respondent should have examined the colon by barium enema or some similar process at the point of the initial surgery and certainly before her final admission in July 1979, and when finally so examined the colon was not treated. This failure is excerbated by the fact that the Respondent knew that the patient had a history of diverticulitis. The diverticular condition in the colon, to include the partial obstruction by narrowing, based upon the opinions of the third party experts, is found to have been a contributor to the continuing problems of anastomotic leakages, abscesses and other conditions which would not allow a successful treatment course for the patient. Even if diverticulitis in the colon or the diverticular condition in that organ did not cause failure in her treatment results, per the physicians, whose opinion is accepted, the circumstance in the colon should have been examined and ruled out at a minimum. The idea expressed by Dr. Stephenson, that in the absence of being able to clearly establish that the colon's condition caused the patient's demise, the Respondent may not be held accountable, is unacceptable. Having determined that the diagnosis should have been made, Respondent should have performed the diverting colostomy to be followed by a resection of the colon if necessary, again in keeping with the opinions of Petitioner's experts. Finally, the opinion related to Respondent's malpractice and failure to perform at an acceptable standard for same or similar physicians, as attributed to Dr. Woodward and supported in concept by Dr. Corwin, is accepted. Respondent is accused of having failed to keep adequate medical records pertaining to the patient Parker. Although there was some demonstrated ambiguity in his record keeping, that ambiguity does not rise to the level of finding facts showing a violation related to record keeping on this patient. JOHN WILLIAM PHILLIPS On July 2, 1979, John William Phillips had an accident in which he fell off of a ladder and came to the emergency room at Beach's Hospital for treatment. An admission was made on July 3, 1979, and Dr. Lee undertook the care of the patient. The patient suffered multiple fractures of the ribs, had a contusion of the left shoulder, was demonstrating slight tenderness in the left flank and evidenced a large swollen and contused area in the left chest wall posterior with tenderness. He showed a normal abdomen with bowel signs present but hypo-active. The patient suffered nausea, abdominal distention and tachycardia. From admission through July 12, 1979, the patient waxed and waned. He received fluids and pain medication and a series of x-rays were taken to better understand his condition. On July 12, 1979, a liver scan was made which demonstrated a cold area in the left lobe of the liver, leaving Dr. Lee in the position of ruling out hemotoma versus tumor versus cyst, though he believed the condition to be benign and unrelated to the accident. The cold spot on the x- ray appeared as a smooth contoured defect. The patient continued to show distention following the liver scan and continued to evidence tachycardia and vomiting for the next several days. Respondent did not choose to verify his preliminary clinical impression of the condition of the liver related to the defect, by use of sonogram or angiogram, electing instead to wait for the patient's condition to change for better or worse. On July 15, the patient showed marked increase in temperature. On that date, a chest x-ray demonstrated plate-like atelectasis in the right lung and an elevated diaphragm. With the advent of the temperature elevation on July 15, the patient was transferred to the CCU unit of the hospital and among other matters prescribed, a broad spectrum antibiotic was ordered. The patient was showing an elevated blood count at that time. Following the liver scan, the patient had also developed rapid pulse and shown mental confusion. By the morning of July 15, the patient's condition was one approaching septic shock if not in that condition. Clinically, there was indication of sepsis or septicemia. The family of the patient requested a second opinion and the patient was subsequently transferred to Dr. Corwin. Dr. Woodward gave his opinion about the treatment of Phillips, expressing the belief that the problems evidenced related to this patient were too long and severe and too related to an abdominal condition to be associated solely with the injury in the chest. Given the location of the injury, Dr. Woodward felt like the defect in the liver, seen on the scan, may have been related to the injury. Dr. Woodward felt that the Respondent should have established whether or not the lesion in the liver was caused by the accident, either by exploratory laparotomy or selective arteriogram. To do otherwise would be less than expected of a prudent general surgeon, according to Dr. Woodward. In essence, Dr. Woodward felt that something should have been done to verify the character of the defect shown on the liver scan and whether that defect was associated with injury suffered by the patient. Dr. Corwin testified about the treatment afforded Phillips. He felt that at the time that he took over the case on July 15, that the quality of the septicemia suffered by the patient was such that he was in septic shock and that an operation was necessary to address the defect in the liver. An operation was undertaken to remove that defect and when first visualized, Dr. Corwin was not sure whether the defect was a cystic hemangioma or not, although it gave an appearance of being that condition. (At the time of the liver scan, given the location of the liver defect, Corwin felt that most probable explanation was hematoma or tear in the left lobe of liver, cystic hemangioma being a rare occurrence in liver.) After removal of this cyst, the patient began to improve and Dr. Corwin believes that the removal of the cyst contributed to that improvement. He thinks that the area of the cyst became a seed bed for the septicemia in the sense of aiding in the circulation of bacteria in the patient's system. Dr. Corwin had criticism of Dr. Lee in the treatment of Mr. Phillips in the sense that once the patient's condition began to decline, approaching the place and time at which Corwin was substituted as the physician, Dr. Lee should have done more to determine the true nature of the patient's problem. He does not feel that the Respondent's treatment can be described as malpractice. He is simply of the opinion that the case was not handled very well and showed poor judgment by the treating physician. Dr. Fowler testified about the care of the patient Phillips after examining the records of hospitalization. He indicated that given the deteriorating condition of the patient, that there was an indecisive action pattern on the part of Dr. Lee but it was not of such proportions as to constitute a breakdown in the care of the patient. He had no specific opinion as to whether this conduct by Dr. Lee constituted gross or repeated malpractice. Stephenson's opinion of the Respondent's treatment of Phillips was to the effect that it was not substandard. Given the appearance of the cold spot on the liver scan, he felt certain that this was a cyst or hemangioma and not a hematoma. He indicated that uncertainty in this regard could have been confirmed by a sonogram. He did not find the necessity to conduct surgery to discover the condition of the liver. Having considered the facts of the treatment of Phillips and the opinions of the experts, while the Respondent's reactions to Mr. Phillips' condition were less than sterling, they did not reach the level of constituting gross or repeated malpractice or care unworthy of a same or similar physician. Again, the records kept by the Respondent related to the care of Mr. Phillips were sufficient. CLIFTON WORCESTER On January 31, 1977, Respondent conducted surgery on Clifton Worcester to patch a perforated duodenal ulcer. Worcester had further hospital admissions on June 21, 1978 and August 1, 1978, for recurrent ulcer symptoms. On these occasions he was treated medically. On December 27, 1978 through January 4, 1979, the patient was admitted for the treatment of pneumonia. On September 6, 1979, Worcester was admitted to the hospital under the Respondent's care for conditions which preliminarily seemed to be related to respiratory and cardiac problems. At that time, the patient was 74 years old and was in a deteriorated condition suffering from a variety of maladies to include cardiac and respiratory conditions as well as the peptic ulcer disease. On September 9, 1979, Respondent after diagnosis determined that the patient was suffering from ulcer disease and an operation was done to repair the perforated pyloric ulcer. A Graham closure was used with omental patch and permanent silk sutures were employed. This ulcer was the same ulcer as had caused problems for the patient in 1977. On the morning of September 12, 1979, blood was visualized from the nasogastric tube which had been placed in the patient and when the patient was later irrigated, a large amount of blood appeared. The initial impression by Dr. Lee was that this blood was either due to the active peptic ulcer or possibly gastritis. To ascertain the source of bleeding, Dr. Corwin was called in to do a gastroscopy. That procedure was done around 7:00 pm. on September 12, 1979. Although the entire area of the stomach could not be visualized, Dr. Corwin was of the impression that the cause of the bleeding was not gastritis, leaving the most probable explanation to be that the patient had a problem of a bleeding ulcer. Dr. Corwin made it known to the Respondent that the bleeding was probably due to an ulcer as explanation for the lesion and Dr. Lee acknowledged that the probable source of bleeding was an ulcer condition. In the early morning hours of September 13, 1979, Dr. Lee again operated on the patient, envisualized the prior pyloric ulcer and was satisfied that the sutures in that ulcer were holding fast. He also discovered a gastric ulcer. The gastric ulcer measured approximately 8 centimeters in diameter. The gastric ulcer was shallow in its depth. There was present in the patient 1200-1500 cc's of old blood and a clot in the duodenum. No active bleeding was seen at that time and no major vessels were present in the ulcer beds. Dr. Lee waited 15 to 20 minutes to see if any active bleeding would occur and failing such appearance, he placed a tube gastrostomy. After cleaning out the blood and placing the gastrostomy tube, the patient was closed. No direct attention was given to the ulcers either in the oversewing of the ulcers or by more definitive surgery addressing both ulcer beds. The reason given for not conducting some form of definitive surgery was to the effect, according to Dr. Lee, that he was worried that the patient would not survive the time it would take to conclude such surgery. The surgery that was done took two hours and twenty minutes to achieve. On reflection, Dr. Lee believes that he should have at least sutured the gastric ulcer by oversewing it like a baseball, being unable to identify a bleeding point. This is in opposition to what he did which was to hope that the patient would not rebleed after the operation of September 13, 1979. That hope was not realized because on September 15, 1979, the patient again experienced massive bleeding between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. Dr. Lee had tried to treat the ulcers with Tagamet and irrigation through the gastrostomy tube. On September 16, 1979, Respondent operated and performed a vagotomy and antrectomy related to the pyloric and gastric ulcers. At that time, the patient was not better able to tolerate that operation than he would have been on September 13, 1979. In fact, between those two operations, he lost a considerable amount of blood, further weakening his resistance. In view of the relative condition of the patient, that is to say, generally poor health, the effects of the bleeding ulcers and associated insult caused by the surgeries, the patient died on September 27, 1979. Among the problems experienced by the patient, in the waning days of his life, were an anastomotic leak and peritonitis. Dr. Woodward, after review of the patient's hospital records, was of the opinion that the bleeding experienced by the patient on September 13, 1979, was from one of the ulcers and not because of gastritis. This belief is held notwithstanding the failure of the ulcers to bleed in the course of the operation on September 13, 1979. Bleeding sometimes subsides during surgery. Given the patient's circumstance related to bleeding ulcers, the least acceptable approach by the treating physician would have been to oversew and/or excise the ulcer craters. The excision would relate to the gastric ulcer. In addition, if possible, Respondent should have done a vagotomy and antrectomy or vagotomy and pyloroplasty during the September 13, 1979, surgery. Alternatively, the ulcers could have been treated medically after oversewing or excision. Use of Tagamet and irrigation would not stop the ulcers from bleeding, in Woodward's opinion. Woodward felt that a patient such as Worcester, who was in distress during the course of the operation, and had lost a great volume of blood, was a patient in greater need of the aforementioned procedures than the average patient, based upon the patient's inability to tolerate additional blood loss if the ulcer started to rebleed after he had been sewn up. At the time of the September 13, 1979, operation, there was evidence that the patient was in shock, which might cause the surgeon to stabilize the patient before conducting the minimum procedures identified, according to Dr. Woodward, but this would not cause the closure of the patient without addressing the bleeding ulcer or ulcers. The shock in Woodward's opinion was due to blood loss. In summary, in Dr. Woodward's mind, to visualize the ulcers on September 13, 1979, having recognized that they were the source of bleeding and to do nothing to stem that bleeding, was unacceptable Performance by the surgeon. Per Woodward, the procedures of September 16, 1979, a vagotomy and antrectomy, were correct but too late. The risk of mortality on September 13, 1979, as opposed to September 16, 1979, was 10 to 20 percent versus a prohibitive chance for recovery. Dr. Woodward found the treatment of Clifton Worcester to be clearly substandard in the face of the requirement to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Dr. Woodward's opinions as stated herein are accepted with the exception that pyloroplasty was not an appropriate choice given the location of the pyloric ulcer. Antrectomy would have been the substitute choice. Dr. Corwin, with the knowledge that Dr. Lee had been informed of the results of the gastroscope indicating that the source of bleeding on September 13, 1979, was probably an ulcer, felt that the Respondent, when he opened the patient on September 13, 1979, even though the ulcers were not bleeding, should have dealt with those ulcers to prohibit rebleeding, as opposed to cleaning out the ulcer beds and closing the patient. The minimum response would have been oversewing the ulcers with nonabsorbable sutures, and the aging condition of the patient should not have deterred Dr. Lee in that task. When asked if Dr. Woodward had performed the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, Corwin was of the opinion that the patient had received very poor treatment and that most any physician practicing as a surgeon would have done differently. Corwin did not think there was any value to the irrigation of blood within the stomach and the treatment of the ulcers by Tagamet through the gastrostomy tube. The treatment of the patient in failing to correct the bleeding constituted gross malpractice according to Dr. Corwin. The opinions of Corwin are accepted. Dr. Fowler also believed that to simply open the patient on September 13, 1979, and close without treating the bleeding ulcer in the sense of definitive suturing was unacceptable. While the antrectomy and vagotomy were recognized as appropriate responses, in terms of surgical technique, Dr. Fowler felt that in the sense of appropriate judgment, those procedures came too late, having followed another bleeding episode after. the September 13, 1979, surgery. According to Dr. Fowler, when asked the question about whether this conduct by Dr. Lee in his September 13, 1979, operation in his treatment of Worcester was at the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent, similar health care providers as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, he was of the opinion that the breakdown in surgical judgment was to the point that the doctor was unable to fully perform the full responsibilities of care in the case. Dr. Fowler's opinions are also accepted. Dr. Stephenson felt that the choices made on September 13, 1979, to close the patient and treat with Tagament and to irrigate were appropriate. He felt that the source of the bleeding might have been gastritis but was most likely from the ulcers. To him, conservative treatment of the patient in not further addressing the ulcers was acceptable given the condition of the patient. Had the patient been in better health, Dr. Stephenson said he might have taken a chance in addressing the ulcers. He felt that when you cannot visualize the source of the bleeding oversewing isn't particularly helpful because you don't know whether anything is achieved. Given this patient's condition, he felt that the chances were one in three that the patient would not rebleed. Dr. Stephenson's opinion as to the acceptability of the Respondent's conduct at the time of the surgery of September 13, 1979, is not accepted. Even this physician recognized that the patient's source of bleeding was most likely the ulcer beds and that there was a great likelihood that he would rebleed and this considered together with the fact of the tremendous amount of blood that the patient had already lost prior to the September 13, 1979, surgery causes a rejection of the opinion of this physician about Respondent's performance. The related charge of failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of patient Worcester has not been shown. There is ample information to gain an understanding of the patient's condition, as evidenced by the ability of the experts to give opinion testimony.
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Namen is entitled to a re-grading of the score which he received on the written clinical portion of the podiatry examination given in Orlando in July 1990.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Namen is a candidate for licensure as a podiatrist and sat for the clinical portion of the podiatry examination administered in Orlando in July 1990. At the time of the final hearing, Dr. Namen challenged the Department's grading of his answers to questions 3, 47, 118, and 145. At the final hearing, the expert for the Department, Dr. Warren Simmonds, agreed with Dr. Namen that the challenges to the grading of questions 3 and 118 had merit. Dr. Namen's score was increased so that Dr. Namen would be entitled to a passing score if the answers he gave to either of the two remaining questions under challenge, questions 47 and 145, were correct. Question 145 is based on case history #50, concerning a patient with a painful left ankle. Although the case history does not state directly that the joint is inflamed, it does state that "the joint is slightly warm" which is an indication of the presence of inflammation, which is confirmed by the patient's report of pain in the joint. Question 145 asked which of a number of possible treatments was the "least indicated (emphasis in original)." Dr. Simmonds testified that the answer chosen by the Board, "systemic adrenal corticosteroid therapy," was the least indicated treatment because of the side effects of steroids. Dr. Simmonds believes that steroids should not be used unless there is some acute inflammatory reaction which needs to be controlled. The best treatment, or the treatment of choice, is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Dr. Namen contends Tylanol is the least indicated treatment because all available choices other than Tylanol were anti-inflammatory drugs, and the case history provides an indication of inflammation. Tylanol relives pain but has no anti-inflammatory effect, and is therefore the least appropriate treatment. The question stem is somewhat unusual because it asks the candidate for the "least indicated" treatment. Since Tylanol has no anti-inflammatory effect at all, Dr. Namen's testimony was persuasive that the "least indicated" treatment was Tylanol. Among the remaining choices, systemic adrenal corticosteroid therapy is the least appropriate among that group, but all answers within that group are better answers than administration of Tylanol. Question 47 is based on case history 19 concerning the appropriate dose of anesthetics to be used in a procedure for the removal of toe nails on a 58- year-old, Caucasian male weighing 150 pounds. The case history states that a certain combination of two anesthetics was used, bupivicaine and lidocaine. The question asks "how close to toxic dose would use of the entire amount bring the patient." The Department's answer was that the stated dose would be within 96 percent of a toxic dose; Dr. Namen believed that the use of the anesthetics in the amounts stated would bring the patient only within 66 percent of a toxic dose. The crux of the question is whether the toxicities for the two anesthetics interact in such a way that their toxicities must be added, or whether the correct answer involves only the calculation of the toxicity of the drug with the higher level of toxicity. On balance, the Department's answer is the most persuasive. The article in the Journal of Anesthesiology written by deJong and Bonin concludes, based upon their research which is described in the article, that local anesthetic toxicity for lidocaine and bupivicaine are essentially additive. The letter from Dr. Orta only states that the administration of both the lidocaine and bupivicaine at the doses described in the question are "well below toxic level." This observation does not answer the question posed, which is just how far below the toxic level use of the mixture stated would bring the patient. The letter from Dr. Padron, also a board certified anesthesiologist offered by Dr. Namen, says that "studies on compounding local anesthetics were done in animals and it was found that the toxicity was synergistic rather than additive," but no study was offered in evidence. The study in the Journal of Anesthesiology the Department offered into evidence is to the contrary. The evidence based on actual research is more persuasive. Dr. David's letter only reports in a hearsay fashion the opinion of an unidentified pharmacologist, and is entitled to little weight.
Recommendation It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation raising Dr. Namen's score, and designating him as having successfully completed the examination in clinical podiatry. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of April 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice veterinary medicine. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating the practice of veterinary medicine. Respondent is licensed as a veterinarian pursuant to license number VM 0002578. Respondent practices veterinarian medicine in Orlando, Florida. Kari On May 5, 1993, Respondent performed an ovariohysterectomy on a feline ("Kari"). An ovariohysterectomy is the surgical removal of the uterus and both ovaries, i.e., a "spay." Respondent failed to remove the left ovary from "Kari." During the surgery, Respondent noted that the ovary was not on the gauze where Respondent had placed the right ovary and other incidental material that Respondent removed surgically. 3/ Respondent searched inside and outside the surgical area for about an hour but could not locate the ovary. Respondent noted in the medical record that an ovarian remnant may have been left in the cat. Respondent advised the owner that if the cat went into heat she should bring the cat back for exploratory surgery to attempt to find and remove the remnant. On July 12, 1993, 4/ the owner observed "Kari" in heat and returned the cat to Respondent. Respondent performed exploratory surgery in an attempt to find an ovarian remnant. Respondent spent approximately one hour searching for microscopic tissue that could be the ovarian remnant. He cleaned the ovarian ligaments in the area of the left and right ovaries, searched the peritoneal area, and searched the adjacent organs. Respondent removed some material but did not locate and remove an ovarian remnant. Respondent advised the owner that he did not find a remnant but that he thought he had removed all of the ovary. Respondent instructed the owner to advise him if the cat came back into heat. Respondent did not charge the owner for the second surgery. In August, 1993, the owner advised Respondent that the cat was in heat. The owner was unwilling to have Respondent perform surgery again. Respondent advised the owner to see a surgical specialist at Respondent's expense. On November 18, 1993, the owner took "Kari" to the Kissimmee Animal Hospital. Medical tests established the cat's estrogen level to be 43.4 pg/ml. The normal estrogen level for a spayed cat is below 25 pg/ml. The treating physician at Kissimmee Animal Hospital referred the owner to a specialist for a third surgery. The owner did not want to subject the cat to a third surgery or incur additional veterinary expenses. On February 16, 1994, "Kari" died. The owner had a necropsy performed. The left ovary was still present in the cat. The pathologist who performed the necropsy retrieved the left ovary from the cat. He initially identified the ovary by visual examination and subsequently confirmed his initial identification on histopathology. The histopathology examination revealed that the ovary and oviduct fimbria were normal. The ovary was the original ovary in its original anatomic position. The ovary was attached to the ligaments that attach the ovary to the dorsal abdominal wall and posterior part. The pathologist found no suture on the ligament that attaches the left ovary to the posterior wall of the abdomen. Respondent's treatment of "Kari," including Respondent's failure to remove the left ovary, did not cause the cat to die. The cat died from a massive infection in the abdominal cavity. The cause of infection could not be determined. Based upon the type and severity of the infection, it could not have begun more than two weeks before the cat's death on February 16, 1994. Respondent last treated "Kari" on July 12, 1993. Neither Respondent nor the treating physicians at Kissimmee Animal Hospital detected any infection in the cat. Dudley On September 7, 1994, Robert and Susan Micalizio took their dog ("Dudley") to a veterinarian who diagnosed the dog as having kidney stones. On September 8, 1994, the owners brought Dudley to Respondent for a separate opinion. Respondent confirmed the original diagnosis. Respondent performed a urinary catheterization. The catheterization failed to unblock the dog's urinary tract. On September 9, 1994, Respondent performed a cystotomy and urethrostomy on "Dudley." Respondent made three separate incisions in the dog's bladder to determine if kidney stones were present. Respondent did not take x-rays before performing surgery on the dog. Respondent's failure to take radiographs prior to surgery in order to properly diagnose the problem departed from the standard of care in the community. Respondent found no kidney stones in the dog's bladder or urethra. Respondent discharged the dog. The dog's urinary symptoms persisted after Respondent released the dog on September 9, 1994. The dog's condition worsened. On September 13, 1994, the owners took "Dudley" to an emergency clinic. X-rays disclosed the presence of kidney stones in the dog's urethra and bladder. The emergency clinic diagnosed the dog with kidney failure. On September 16, 1994, "Dudley" underwent a successful cystotomy and urethrostomy at another animal clinic. It was necessary to perform a cystotomy and urethrostomy to remove the kidney stones and successfully treat the dog. Respondent performed the appropriate procedures but failed to locate the kidney stones, extract them, and otherwise treat the dog appropriately. Respondent reimbursed the owners for the costs of his procedures. Respondent paid for the cost of the subsequent surgical procedures required to treat "Dudley." Penalty Respondent was incompetent and negligent in his care of "Kari." Respondent failed to remove all of the left ovary from "Kari" after two surgical attempts to do so. "Kari" went into heat several more times and endured a second surgery as a result of Respondent's incompetence and negligence. Respondent was incompetent and negligent in his care of "Dudley." Respondent failed to take x-rays prior to performing surgery. Although the surgery Respondent performed ultimately proved to be necessary to treat "Dudley," Respondent failed to detect kidney stones at the time Respondent performed surgery and failed to correct the condition causing "Dudley's" problems. As a result, the dog suffered longer and endured additional surgery. The incompetence and negligence committed by Respondent did not involve deceit, fraud, or misconduct. Respondent did not mislead the owners of either animal. Respondent's incompetence and negligence did not result in the death or serious injury of either animal. Respondent made a reasonable effort to locate the ovary he left in "Kari." Respondent either reimbursed or offered to reimburse the owners of each animal for expenses incurred by them as a result of Respondent's incompetence and negligence. Respondent has no history of prior disciplinary action against him. Respondent has performed over 20,000 spay procedures without incident. Veterinarians leave ovaries, or ovarian remnants, in approximately three percent of spayed animals. Respondent readily admits his lack of care in the treatment of "Dudley." 4 Subject Matter Index Petitioner maintains an index of its agency orders. Petitioner's index is not alphabetical, hierarchical, or numbered sequentially. Petitioner's index does not contain indentations below the subject headings or titles which are more specific than the subject heading or title. The index does not contain cross- referenced common and colloquial words as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 1S-6.008. 5/ Petitioner's index complies with the requirements of Section 120.53(2)(a)3. In lieu of a hierarchical subject matter index, Petitioner maintains an electronic database that allows users, including Respondent, to research and retrieve the full text of agency orders through an ad hoc indexing system prescribed by statute. Petitioner's electronic database contains complete case files related to any final order issued by Petitioner from July 1, 1992, to the present. The files include administrative complaints, settlement agreements, and orders. Any person may access this information between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, either in person, by mail, or by telephone. Respondent is able to determine those final orders that involve the statutory or rule violations for which Respondent is charged. Respondent's search of Petitioner's index revealed that Petitioner has never suspended or revoked a license for the same or similar charges as those against Respondent. Petitioner has not revoked the licenses of veterinarians for more serious offenses. Petitioner has imposed a reprimand, required direct supervised probation, or mandatory appearances before Petitioner in only two cases in which the veterinarian's treatment of the animal did not result in the death of the animal treated. Both of those cases involved charges more serious than those against Respondent. Petitioner has imposed the sanctions of suspension, direct supervision, and fines in excess of $500 only where a violation of the law has occurred and the veterinarian's treatment resulted in the death of the animal treated. Respondent's treatment did not result in the death of either animal treated by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 474.214(1)(r), imposing a fine of $499, requiring Respondent to attend 4.9 hours of continuing education courses, and placing Respondent on probation for one year without requiring mandatory appearances in front of Petitioner. The costs of compliance with the final order are the obligation of Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 6th day of August, 1996.
