Findings Of Fact Ellen K. Clark is a registered nurse holding license number 0927962 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. Mrs. Clark was employed at Florida Hospital North, Orlando, Florida, in August and in September of 1977, in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). During her employment, she had access to Meperedine (Demerol) used to medicate patients in the ICU. On September 28, 1977, Joann Johnson, Head Nurse of the ICU, discovered a shortage in the quantity of Demerol during a routine drug audit. She asked Clark to assist her in a recount, and at that time, Clark admitted to her that she was powerless to drugs and had taken and used Demerol from the ICU. Clark also admitted having been recently hospitalized for the treatment of Demerol abuse at Palm Beach Institute. Clark made similar admissions to the Board's investigative nurse. The chief pharmacist for Florida Hospital North, Arthur Lu, identified narcotic control forms for the drug Demerol which were received into evidence as Exhibit 1. Lu also stated that Demerol is the trade name for the drug Meperedine. Kathy Wahl, Assistant Director of Medical Records, identified the medical records for Jerome Kalish, a patient at Florida Hospital North. These records were received into evidence as Exhibits 2, 3 and 4. These records show that Clark withdrew many more doses of 50mg. and 75mg. Demerol injectable than were administered to Kalish. No wastage of these drugs was recorded as required. Dr. Kenneth Crofoot, a clinical psychologist who had treated Clark from October until December, 1977, testified concerning his treatment of Clark. Dr. Crofoot obtained his doctorate in guidance counseling from George Washington University and did a two year residency in the specialty in the Federal Mental Hospital in Washington, D.C. He worked in this field in a hospital environment until his retirement to Florida. Since his retirement, he has done volunteer counseling with the Seminole County mental health authorities and has served as a consultant to the state courts in Seminole County. He has been qualified and has testified as an expert witness in both the federal and state courts. Mrs. Clark was referred to Dr. Crofoot by the pastor of a Seventh Day Adventist Church, of which denomination Dr. Crofoot is also an ordained minister. Dr. Crofoot has had experience with the treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics in his career as a clinical psychologist. Mrs. Clark admitted to Crofoot that she was taking Demerol, and Crofoot assumed that she was addicted to the drug. Mrs. Clark sought Dr. Crofoot's help and treatment for her drug problem. Mrs. Clark met one hour per week for three months in therapy sessions with Dr. Crofoot. Dr. Crofoot diagnosed Mrs. Clark's problem as a serious lack of self identity and a lack of value system sufficient to permit her to cope with the stress of personal crises. This condition was brought to a critical stage by Mrs. Clark's concern over her husband's health, a recent move to the Orlando area where she had no friends, and the financial problems which arose from the move and her husband's illness. Dr. Crofoot was of the opinion that Mrs. Clark had received a good start in the treatment of her problems which were the cause of her abuse of Demerol while at Palm Beach Institute. Building on her earlier treatment, Dr. Crofoot expressed his professional opinion that Mrs. Clark developed a new sense of self identity and a value system sufficient to now enable her to cope with her personal problems without relying on drugs. Mrs. Clark has been employed since October by a physician specializing in Neurology for four hours a day, five days a week. Mrs. Clark advised the doctor of her problem with drugs when she sought employment with him, and at that time, an agreement was reached that she would have no responsibility for the administration of the drug Demerol. Mrs. Clark admitted that during her employment she had abused Demerol twice, a fact which she reported immediately to the doctor. The first instance of abuse occurred in October, shortly after commencing work with the doctor, and again in December of 1977. She has continued her employment with the physician and has not had any further episode of drug abuse.
Recommendation Because of the admissions of the Respondent, the only real issue presented in this case is the penalty to be assessed. This is made very difficult by the extreme candor of Mrs. Clark. At the proceeding, Mrs. Clark admitted all of the allegations against her except admitting she was using 125mg. of Demerol I.V. every four hours. She was very assertive and refused to admit this allegation of the complaint, which was subsequently determined to be an error. Mrs. Clark admitted to Mrs. Johnson her abuse of the drug Demerol prior to even a repeat audit of the drugs on hand in the ICU or the records were reviewed to determine who was responsible for the shortages. Mrs. Clark advised her current employer that she had a drug problem when she was initially interviewed. She also admitted with absolute candor at the hearing that she had abused Demerol at his office but had reported this to the doctor immediately. Such honesty substantiates Dr. Crofoot's observation that Mrs. Clark has developed a new and stronger value system. Mrs. Clark offered no excuse for her conduct and admitted her problem. She also admitted when she "fell off the wagon." Her only defense in mitigation of the charges against her was that she was seeking help for her problem and was making progress. From her testimony concerning her abuse of drugs in October and December, a question clearly exists of whether Mrs. Clark has conquered her problem. However, she has made progress and appears to be a good candidate for rehabilitation. As an ICU nurse, Clark must be a competent, experienced nurse and it would be worth the attempt to salvage her nursing career. Her abuse of drugs after her release from treatment at Palm Beach Institute and again after the termination of therapy with Dr. Crofoot indicates that she receives support from her therapy, and should not be abruptly released from therapy while practicing. Mrs. Clark has the apparent support of her husband, her employer, and others in the community in assisting her with her problem. This is a strong base upon which to build a program of probation which would provide reasonable safe guards to the public while permitting Mrs. Clark to overcome her problem without lose of her nursing credentials which would undoubtedly be a personal set back. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board revoke Mrs. Clark's license but that the enforcement of the revocation be suspended on the condition that Mrs. Clark reenter therapy and that the therapist make regular reports to the Board on Mrs. Clark's progress, that Clark be required to appear personally before the Board on a regular basis to report on her progress, that her employer be advised by Mrs. Clark of her drug problem and the conditions of the Board's probation, that the employer be required to advise the Board that Mrs. Clark has disclosed her problem and be required to report any abuse of drugs by Mrs. Clark or any narcotic discrepancies in which she may be involved, that Mrs. Clark be required on her own to cease employment when it appears to her that she is faced with a personal crisis with which she feels unable to cope until the crisis or stress is resolved, that it be clearly understood that a reoccurrence of the abuse of any drug or unprofessional conduct by Mrs. Clark will result in her immediate revocation through imposition of the suspended revocation, and that this probation shall remain in effect until the Board is satisfied that Mrs. Clark is fully rehabilitated DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mrs. Ellen K. Clark 5338 Dawn Mar Street Orlando, Florida 32810 John H. Mogan, Esquire 2900 N. E. 33rd Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification from mental health personnel employment should be granted pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jack V. Fulford, at the time of hearing, was twenty-nine years old. In June of 1997, he was hired as a member of the mental health personnel at the Heart of Florida Behavioral Center. In order to continue in the position, Mr. Fulford was subject to "level 2 screening," a type of security background check conducted under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The background check indicated that Mr. Fulford had been found guilty of a felony prohibited under one of the provisions of the Florida Statutes (or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction) listed in Section 435.04(2), Florida Statutes. It is not clear from the record whether Heart of Florida or the Department notified Mr. Fulford that he was disqualified for employment, but he was so notified. Mr. Fulford then sought an exemption from the disqualification. The Department of Children and Family Services is the licensing agency with discretionary power "to grant to any employee otherwise disqualified from employment [in this case, Mr. Fulford] an exemption from disqualification for . . . [f]elonies committed more than three years prior to the date of disqualification . . .". Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. The Department denied Mr. Fulford's request for the exemption following the recommendation by an Exemption Review Committee that the exemption be granted. An FBI record introduced into evidence shows that Mr. Fulford has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. Mr. Fulford admitted as much in testimony in which he described in some detail the destructive consequences the abuse has caused to friends, family and himself. His use of drugs and alcohol, begun in high school, continued to the point of unquestionable abuse while he was in the United States Navy, from which he received a discharge classified by the Navy as "other than honorable." Mr. Fulford participated in several programs and different treatment centers after his discharge. Although successfully able to discontinue drug use in the early part of this decade after a fourteen to fifteen-month stint in prison for violation of probation, Mr. Fulford continued to drink. In February of 1997, a conviction for DUI convinced him that he could drink no more. At the time of hearing, Mr. Fulford had been drug and alcohol free for at least 15 months. During that fifteen months he had consumed "no drugs, alcohol or mind- altering substances, whatsoever." (Testimony of Mr. Fulford.) The FBI record introduced into evidence by the Department, although difficult to decipher without any supporting explanation, is full of arrests and convictions suffered by Mr. Fulford since 1987. The only item that reflects an offense that falls within the list for "level 2 screening" is a plea of nolo contendere with a disposition of "guilty/convicted" (Petitioner's No. 1, page 6) for the third degree felony of possession of cocaine. The arrest leading to the disposition occurred on March 2, 1990; the disposition, twenty days later, on March 22, 1990. During his service in the Navy, Mr. Fulford received training in the medical field. He worked as an orderly, emergency room technician, and a mental health facilitator. He was trained in CPR. The only meaningful employment he has enjoyed during his adult life has been in a hospital environment. In one of the treatment programs in which Mr. Fulford participated, one of the steps in the multi-step pdrocess was to participate as a facilitator providing therapy to other patients or participants. Mr. Fulford reached that step. When asked about his work experience, therefore, in the papers reviewed by the Exemption Review Committee, Mr. Fulford listed his "work" as a facilitator for other participants in the abuse program in which he was also a patient or participant. The Exemption Review Committee recommended that Mr. Fulford be granted an exemption. Prior to exemption becoming finalized, however, one of the department's employees, Mr. Miller, discovered that the "work" done by Mr. Fulford in the treatment program was not done as an employee of the program but as a patient/participant progressing along a multi-step process. Thinking that Mr. Fulford had filled out papers of the committee falsely, Mr. Miller advocated that the Department reject the review committee's recommendation. The Department did so. On February 25, 1998, the Department advised Mr. Fulford that his request for an exemption had been denied "because [he had] failed to show clear and convincing evidence that [he had] been sufficiently rehabilitated." Letter from Sue B. Gray, District 14 Administrator, filed with the Department Clerk on April 2, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order either: Granting the exemption subject to a probationary period, (the terms of the probation could include participation by Mr. Fulford as an out-patient in a drug rehabilitation program, monitoring at work at the Heart of Florida Behavioral Center, and participation in regular attendance at Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous Groups;) or Denial of the exemption without prejudice to reapply and obtain an exemption upon a showing of rehabilitation by sufficient evidence at the appropriate time in the future. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issues presented for resolution in the two consolidated cases are whether Rule 10E-16.004 (27), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and whether Petitioner violated that rule on a specified occasion and is subject to fine or other penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Associated Counselling and Education, Inc., doing business as Substance Abuse Family Education (SAFE), is a Florida corporation doing business in Orange County, Florida. SAFE provides substance abuse treatment to adolescents, mostly within the ages of twelve (12) to eighteen (18) years, with a few young adults who have turned nineteen while in treatment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency with statutory authority to license and regulate certain treatment programs, including SAFE. At all times material to this proceeding HRS has licensed SAFE to provide substance abuse treatment services in a category titled "non-residential day and night treatment with a host home component." SAFE is not licensed as a secure facility or an addictions receiving facility. SAFE uses a program similar to the Alcoholic Anonymous twelve-step program as a tool for rehabilitating drug abusing juveniles. The program includes five phases through which the clients progress at varying rates. The "first phase" describes clients who are new to the program. As clients progress they enter into stages of increasing responsibility and freedom, until they are able to graduate and return to the everyday world. The program requires that the youths' parents or legal guardians admit them into treatment, even when children are referred by a court, by HRS or another source. The program requires rigorous participation by the parents and any siblings of the client. SAFE's contract for treatment includes a voluntary withdrawal provision which requires that the client request withdrawal through a "chain of command." The purpose of the deliberate, several-step process is to avoid withdrawal on an impulsive or transitory whim of the client. SAFE's rules, including the withdrawal provision, are explained to the client at the beginning of treatment and are reviewed daily with the clients. Clients who are just starting in the program, "first phasers," spend their days at the program and are placed at night with host parents, generally parents with experience in the program through their own children's participation. Staff and host parents are trained in crisis intervention and aggression control techniques through an HRS sanctioned training program. The techniques are progressive; they range from verbal intervention, to putting an arm around a client's shoulder, to physically forcing a client to the floor when the client has threatened to injure himself or others. SAFE contends that when a client attempts to leave treatment without going through the withdrawal process and without involving the parents or guardians in the process, the client is in serious danger of injuring himself or others immediately following departure from the program. SAFE uses physical intervention as a last resort to prevent clients from leaving the program without going through the "chain of command." At night, however, such intervention is used by host parents only to restrain dangerously aggressive behavior. SAFE instructs its host parents to not physically stop a child from leaving the host home. S. B. was a "first phaser" in SAFE's program in August 1993. During dinner one evening he had been staring or glaring at other clients and acting in a provoking and disruptive manner. After dinner, during an organized "rap" session, several clients were called on to confront S. B.'s behavior. He reacted by throwing a chair, across several rows of clients, at the client who was confronting him. Then he bolted, or attempted to bolt, from the room through the exit door. He was restrained by staff, was calmed, and he returned to his seat. Very shortly after he returned to his seat S. B. began staring or glaring at a client by the exit door. He jumped up and ran for the door. Again, he was physically restrained as he kicked, fought and yelled with anger. Staff person Pamela Mardis was one of the persons who participated in the restraint of S. B. on August 27, 1993. She considered the client to be in harm's way if he were permitted to leave the program without the assurance of proper safeguard for his well-being and safety. The January 12, 1994 amended notice of violation provided by HRS to Loretta Parrish, SAFE's owner and executive director, states, in pertinent part: As an amended complaint, the following incidents have been found to be in violation of 10E-16, F.A.C., requirements and are therefore subject to administrative fines: * * * August 27, 1993, 5:20 p.m., (report written August 27, 1993, 6:45 p.m.) in which a client was restrained in an effort to keep the client from leaving treatment, your agency will be fined $100 for non-compliance with 10E-16.004 (27)(a), F.A.C., requirements. (Petitioner's exhibit no. 6) HRS interprets its rule to prohibit restraint when the perceived danger to the client is in leaving and getting back on drugs. SAFE contends that to let one client leave voluntarily without going through the withdrawal procedures would mean that all of the clients, adolescents with poor decision-making skills, would walk out. There is a program in Palm Beach County, Florida, purportedly similar to SAFE, called Growing Together, Inc. On January 22, 1994, HRS and Growing Together, Inc., entered into a stipulated Final Declaratory Judgement in case no. CL93-9599-AO, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, which provided, in pertinent part: In the absence of a Court Order restricting the rights of a parent or legal guardian to control decisions affecting the health and welfare of a minor, Growing Together, Inc., may act upon the request of a parent or legal guardian in accepting a minor client for substance abuse treatment regardless of the minor's objections. In the absence of a Court Order limiting the authority of a parent or legal guardian to control decisions affecting the health and welfare of a minor, Growing Together, Inc., may reasonably restrict minor clients from terminating their participation in treatment contrary to the express direction of a parent or legal guardian. So long as the minor's rights to challenge the reasonableness of restrictions imposed at the express direction of a parent or legal guardian are protected -- that is, so long as the minor is informed of his or her rights and is provided a practical means by which to exercise those rights -- Growing Together, Inc., may continue to act in loco parent) in declining to release a minor from treatment where such release is against the will of a parent or legal guardian and no court order has been issued to direct otherwise. The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is hereby prohibited from taking any action contrary to the legal principles enunciated herein and is expressly prohibited from enforcing any interpretation of F.S. Section 397.601 which interpretation is contrary to the findings of this Judgement. (Petitioner's exhibit no. 7)
The Issue Whether Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to his patients.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Raul F. Nodal, Respondent, was licensed by the Florida Board of Medicine as a medical doctor. Dr. Nodal is a board certified neurologist. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is a state agency charged with enforcing provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. The history of Respondent's problem with chemicals is noted in Exhibit 4, the medical records of Respondent which was admitted into evidence. However, those records were not properly authenticated and are admissible only as hearsay evidence which corroborates other admissible evidence. Respondent acknowledged that the stress of his brother's apparent murder in 1985 created stresses which he relieved with sedatives and that he developed a dependency on those tranquilizers which progressed to the point where he felt his use was out of control. In the summer of 1990 Respondent found himself taking more and more tranquilizers just to stay calm enough to conduct his practice. A friend referred Respondent to Dr. Krone of the Physician's Recovery Network (PRN) in Tampa, Florida. The PRN is a non-profit association under contract with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to monitor the progress of Florida physicians admitted to the impaired physicians program for treatment for alcohol or drug dependency and to act as agent for the Department and liaison between the practitioner and the treatment providers. Dr. Krone referred Respondent to the treatment program at South Miami Hospital where Respondent entered and completed the 28 day residence program. Upon completion of the inpatient treatment on 10/18/90 Respondent entered into the first of three Advocacy Contracts in which he agreed, inter alia, to abstain from further use of medications, alcohol or other mood altering substances including over the counter medications unless ordered by his primary care physician; to participate in a random urine drug or blood screen program through PRN; to attend various self-help programs; to provide release forms for urine screen results, treatment center records, therapist reports and other written and verbal information (to comply and in compliance) with the above request; and to withdraw from practice for evaluation at the request of the PRN if any problem develops. Upon his release from South Miami Hospital Respondent was given the name of a doctor as his contact person in Tampa. Because his contact turned out to be a colleague with whom Respondent had worked, Respondent did not feel comfortable sharing his problem with this doctor. Accordingly, he did not do any follow-up care at that point except some meetings he attended on his own. In April, 1991 a friend of Respondent who was being cared for by Respondent in an emergency situation died within hours of a brain hemorrhage. Respondent resumed taking tranquilizers to relieve his stress and a random urine sample taken 5/23/91 tested positive for barbituates. Respondent was then referred to Glenbeigh Hospital in Tampa for an evaluation. He was admitted on 6/03/91 and discharged 6/12/91. Respondent testified he stayed at Glenbeigh close to two weeks. Upon discharge from Glenbeigh he entered an after care program with an addiction counselor in a one on one situation. After a few months his funds ran out and Respondent stopped the program. He continued sporadic attendance at after care groups such as AA and NA. On July 18, 1991 Respondent signed another Advocacy Contract with PRN similar, if not identical, to the contract signed 10/18/90. As the result of a random urine sample which tested positive for barbituates Respondent was requested to enter a long term treatment program. He was admitted at Talbott-March Recovery Program (TMP) in Atlanta, Georgia on December 9, 1991 for evaluation. At TMP Respondent received neuropsychological testing and it was recommended he enter a long range rehabilitation program for three to six months. Respondent testified he could not afford the recommended treatment and he was discharged and returned to Tampa where he was supervised by Dr. David Myers at Health Care Connections. Although Respondent denies taking any drugs other than those noted in findings 9-14 above at any time, competent evidence was presented that a urine sample taken April 1, 1992 tested positively for methaphetamine; on November 3, 1992 a sample tested positive for barbituates; and on March 22, 1993 a sample tested positive for amphetamines and barbituates. Respondent's denial of having used tranquilizers since 1991 despite the positive samples noted in the above finding and of his persistance in disclaiming any present dependency clearly indicates Respondent is in the denial stage of addiction and is failing to face the fact that he has a serious problem. Upon receipt of these 1992-1993 results PRN found Respondent to be not in compliance with the Advocacy Contracts he had signed; and Dr. Roger A. Goetz, Director of the PRN, submitted a complaint to the Department of Professional Regulation alleging that Respondent was unable to practice medicine with a reasonable degree of safety to his patients by reason of his impairment due to chemical dependency. This complaint is predicated on Respondent's failure to comply with the provisions of his Advocacy Contract. Urine samples referred to above were taken and tested in accordance with standard procedures established to insure the integrity of the sample and of the test results. Those reports accurately reflect the presence of illicit drugs found in urine samples provided by and from Respondent. Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Michael Sheehan, M.D. is board certified in psychiatry and specializes in addiction psychiatry. Dr. Sheehan's opinion that Respondent cannot practice medicine with a reasonable degree of safety to his patients by reason of his impairment due to chemical dependence is based upon the documents contained in Exhibit 4 which is a medical record of Respondent maintained by the PRN from his entry into the impaired physician's program in 1990 until the complaint was submitted by the PRN to the Department. Although Exhibit 4 purports to be the business records of PRN they were not authenticated as such at the hearing. Numerous documents in Exhibit 4, particularly the drug screens, were admitted into evidence by virtue of witnesses testifying to their authenticity. Other documents in Exhibit 4 were corroborated by Respondent's testimony. Thus, those parts of Exhibit 4 which were admitted by other means are sufficient to support the opinion of Dr. Sheehan that Respondent is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of his chemical dependence; and Dr. Sheehan's opinion that Respondent is in denial of his addiction. Respondent's expert witness, Christie Roberts, holds a Ph.D. in counseling psychology and specializes in addiction therapy. Dr. Roberts administered the Minnesota multifacet personality inventory (MMPI) to Respondent. All of the ten clinical scores assigned to Respondent from the test were in the normal range. On the McAndrews scale, an important scale in determining addiction, Respondent's score was below the established cutoff score indicating addition. Above this cutoff Dr. Roberts usually finds addiction. However, when the McAndrews is below the cutoff, Dr. Roberts acknowledged the possibility that the person tested could have an addiction problem. Petitioner's second expert witness Dennis Brightwell, M.D. has been board certified in psychiatry since 1976 and has treated literally thousands of substance abusers, principally alcoholics. Dr. Brightwell interviewed Respondent for one hour and fifteen minutes and considered the MMPI performed by Dr. Roberts. Dr. Brightwell did not review the medical records of Respondent or administer any other test to Respondent, but based his opinion on the interview and the MMPI. Dr. Brightwell opined Respondent could practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients and did not currently present that he was substance dependent. Based upon the information provided by Respondent Dr. Brightwell further opined that "given the fact that in 1990 he was using it on a regular basis, there is a risk that he could resume that. And I think the appropriate approach to insure that that doesn't happen would be very tight behavioral control to make sure it isn't occurring. Assuming that he is not so sick from substance abuse that he can't make the decision to not use, all he would need is very close monitoring to give him the opportunity, really, to make the decision on a regular basis not to use." Respondent's front office employee who had worked 1 1/2 years for Respondent observed no abnormalities in Respondent's conduct during the time she worked for him. She never saw him self-medicate or appear under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Two medical doctors who have known Respondent both professionally and socially for several years and who testified in these proceedings have never observed Respondent under the influence of drugs or alcohol and consider Respondent to be a capable neurologist. One of these doctors attends a weekly meeting of a group, including Respondent, who study philosophy and discuss the writings of philosophers. This witness deems Respondent an intellectual member of that group.
Recommendation It is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of violation of Section 358.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes and that his license to practice medicine be revoked. It is further recommended that imposition of that discipline be stayed for a period of five years probation under such terms as the board may direct but to require Respondent to remain in the impaired physician's program and submit random urine samples as directed, and that, if any one of those samples tests positive for banned chemicals, the stay be vacated and the license revoked. However, if Respondent successfully completes this five years' probation, the revocation shall be vacated and Respondent's license be restored to good standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 7th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3972 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Proposed findings neither noted below nor contained in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 13. Rejected. This hearsay evidence in Exhibit 4 was not corroborated by admissible evidence. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted except as noted below. Those proposed findings neither included in the Hearing Officer's findings nor accepted below were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 4. Rejected. Respondent testified that he felt "more and more tense" for the next several weeks following the death of his friend and he "remembers taking something for sleep or something for, like a tranquilizer during the day." 11. First sentence rejected. Dr. Roberts testified that she virtually never sees a patient who has an elevated McAndrews scale who was not also addicted. 13. Accepted. But see Hearing Officer's Nos. 21 and 22. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. Blazicek, Esquire 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not Respondent's incense to practice medicine should be suspended, revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Chapters 458 and 893, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein signed May 31, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, stipulations of the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is a medical doctor and has been issued license number ME 0017825. Respondent's last known address is 2361 N.W. 24 Terrace, Miami, Florida 33172. (Stipulation of the parties) Respondent has been licensed as a medical doctor in Florida since 1971. Respondent studied at Havana University School of Medicine and graduated in 1957. He practiced in Cuba from 1957 through 1966. During that period, he was engaged in a general practice and was also a psychiatrist at Clinica Dependiente. While at Clinica Dependiente, Respondent served as a medical director for the rehabilitation of minors and as medical director for Santa Clinica Psiquiatria. Respondent relocated from Cuba and came to Miami on or about February 15, 1967. Respondent sat for the Federation of State and Medical Boards of the United States during September of 1968, the standardized test for graduates of foreign medical schools. During 1968 and 1969, Respondent was engaged as a psychiatrist at Halifax District Hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida. During 1969, he served a rotating internship at Mount Sinai Hospital for one year. Thereafter, he served rotating internships at Doctors, Victoria, Parkway and one other hospital in the Dade County area until approximately 1974. During his tenure at Halifax Hospital, Respondent treated some parties who were drug addicts. Respondent admits to having treated the patients referred to in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Additionally, pursuant to Petitioner's Request for Admissions filed herein, Respondent has admitted the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52 and 59 of the Administrative Complaint, to wit: Between the dates of approximately January 5, 1981 and December 15, 1981, Respondent prescribed 360 Dilaudid 2/ (Hydromorphone), a controlled substance, pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Patrick Golden. Between the dates of approximately March 26, 1981 and January 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 1425 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ellen Henderson. Between the dates of approximately March 2, 1981 and November 11, 1982, Respondent prescribed 855 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Chica. Between the dates of approximately May 12, 1981 and January 9, 1982, Respondent prescribed 132 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for James Brannigan. Between the dates of approximately February 19, 1981 and February 2, 1982, Respondent prescribed 965 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Gilbert Fernandez. Between the dates of approximately November 21, 1981 and December 12, 1981, Respondent prescribed 180 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Patsy Gamlin. Between the dates of approximately January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1982, Respondent prescribed 820 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Rudolph Ferguson. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2220 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Michael Salle. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2190 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Weatherington. Dale K. Lindberg, M.D., was tendered and received as an expert in these proceedings in the area of Family Practice, Methadone and Drug Addiction. Dr. Lindberg has been instrumental in establishing a methadone detoxification program at Memorial Hospital in Hollywood, Florida. Methadone is the only legally recognized Schedule II controlled substance used in this country for the treatment of drug addiction. Private practitioners, pursuant to specific federal law, cannot legally administer methadone or any other Schedule II controlled substance for the treatment of drug addition. In order to qualify or be certified to treat drug addicts, application must be made simultaneously with the Federal Food and Drug Administration (to their Methadone Monitor Division), to the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and to the Federal Department of Mental Health and Drug Abuse. Upon certification with these governmental departments, only then can a physician prescribe methadone to a drug addict to be ingested in oral form, once a day. (21 C.F.R. 291.505) Dr. Lindberg received and reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for those patients by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2-19). Dr. Lindberg, after review, concluded that Respondent inappropriately and excessively prescribed Dilaudid to said patients. Dr. Lindberg opined that Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for those patients for "very little indication" and continued over long periods of time prescribing Dilaudid to those patients. He considered that Respondent was maintaining the patients on Dilaudid in violation of the law. (TR 148, 239). Dr. John Handwerker, M.D., testified as an expert herein on behalf of Petitioner. He has served as the first Chairman of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Florida Family and Community Medicine Programs. He is Chairman of the Family Practice Department of Mercy Hospital in Miami and is Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Miami. Dr. Handwerker is knowledgeable regarding generally prevailing and accepted standards of family practice in Dade County and was accepted, without challenge, as an expert in the field of Family Practice. Dr. Handwerker reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for each patient. Based upon Dr. Handwerker's review of those records and prescriptions, Respondent committed gross and repeated malpractice. This opinion stems from Respondent's "inappropriately and excessively prescribing Dilaudid to patient for chronic" while the Physicians Desk Reference clearly stated that Dilaudid should not be prescribed for patients with chronic pain. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) SPECIFIC PATIENTS A. Patrick Golden first visited Respondent's office on October 7, 1981. Golden complained of chronic pain arising from trauma suffered while he was involved in an industrial accident. His diagnosis was a compression of the fourth and fifth lumbar disk. He was treated for radiculitis. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain that patient Golden was suffering from and based on the fact that Golden reportedly had been receiving Dilaudid from a former physician. Respondent conducted an examination of patient Golden and prescribed exercises for him. Respondent did not take x-rays although he states that he observed x-rays which had been taken by Golden's former physician. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for Golden because it was the only drug which "killed the pain, unlike motrin and metrobromate." Nearing the end of Respondent's treatment of patient Golden, his wife began stealing Mr. Golden's drugs. Respondent referred her to a methadone program and obtained a notarized statement from Mrs. Golden to substantiate the fact that she was diverting drugs intended for her husband. Respondent observed that patient Golden was becoming addicted to Dilaudid nearing the end of his treatment although throughout the major portion of his treatment of patient Golden, he felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not "addicted." Respondent tried to reduce the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing to patient Golden without success. Respondent believed that Dilaudid was medically necessary to treat patient Golden due to the suffering he was undergoing from the chronic pain. (Respondent's testimony and Petitioner's Exhibit 20). B. Ellen Henderson was treated by Respondent during the dates of approximately March, 1981 through January, 1982. Henderson suffered with her lumbar spine. Patient Henderson took motrin tablets since her preteen years. Patient Henderson has been treated at several methadone centers and is believed to have been taking approximately 25-40 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. Upon Respondent's first treatment of patient Henderson, he advised her that she was "killing herself and that she needed to reduce that terrible dosage of Dilaudid." Patient Henderson was "treated for pain in the back and to reduce the amount of Dilaudid." In this regard, Respondent tried to reduce her intake of Dilaudid to approximately 8 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. When Respondent stopped treating patient Henderson, he had reduced the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing for her to approximately 8 four- milligram tablets of Dilaudid per day. C. Respondent treated Ronald Chica from approximately March, 1981 through November, 1982. Chica was treated for spondylolysis--a degeneration of the vertebrae. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for patient Chica because it relieved the pain. Respondent knew that patient Chica was addicted to the drug Dilaudid. D. James Brannigan was treated by Respondent from approximately May of 1981 through January of 1982. Respondent knew that Mr. Brannigan was dependent upon Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued to prescribe Dilaudid for Mr. Brannigan in an effort to treat Brannigan's addiction with Dilaudid. Respondent was attempting to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Brannigan would suffer if he were immediately cut off from his supply of Dilaudid. E. Respondent treated patient Gilbert Fernandez during the dates of approximately February of 1981 through approximately February of 1982. During that period, Mr. Fernandez suffered from compression features of the ribs and the lumbar region. Mr. Fernandez had a physical and psychological dependence on the drug Dilaudid. Respondent treated patient Fernandez by prescribing Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Fernandez had been treated at methadone centers in the past and presently was receiving methadone treatment while Respondent was treating him. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain as well as to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Fernandez would undergo if he was immediately taken from the administration of Dilaudid. F. Between the dates of approximately February of 1981 through February of 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,190 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Ronald Wetherington. Patient Wetherington was given approximately 60 tablets every 7 days. Patient Wetherington was addicted to the drug Dilaudid and Respondent ultimately referred him to a methadone center to deal with his withdrawal problems. G. During the period of February, 1981 through February, 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,220 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Michael Sallee. Patient Sallee suffered from and was treated by Respondent for a compression fracture of the fifth lumbar. Mr. Sallee was a cabinetmaker and did considerable lifting in the performance of his work. Respondent knew that Mr. Sallee was dependent upon Dilaudid and continued to prescribe the narcotic during the term of his treatment. Respondent attempted to treat Mr. Sallee's addiction with Dilaudid. H. During the period of January of 1981 through January of 1982, Respondent treated patient Rudolph Ferguson and, during that period, prescribed approximately 820 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Ferguson suffered from and was treated for back and rib problems from an auto accident. Respondent knew that patient Ferguson was dependent upon the drug Dilaudid and knew he was addicted to Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued prescribing the drug Dilaudid to patient Ferguson to reduce the withdrawal symptoms and "to continue to treat the disease." Respondent referred patient Ferguson to a methadone clinic and, in fact, drove him to a nearby clinic for treatment. I. Respondent treated patient Patsy Gamlin during the period of November 21, 1981 through December 12, 1981. During that period, he prescribed 180 tablets or approximately 60 tablets every 10-14. Respondent administered a drug screen during December of 1981 and did not treat patient Gamlin after December. Dilaudid is a narcotic analgesic; its principal therapeutic effect is relief of pain. There is no intrinsic limit to the analgesic effect of Dilaudid; like morphine, adequate doses will relieve even the most severe pain. Clinically however, dosage limitations are imposed by the adverse effect, primarily respiratory, depression, nausea and vomiting which can result from high dosages. (Physicians Desk Reference, page 1038 [1984 Edition]) The Physicians Desk Reference has this to say about drug abuse and dependence: Dilaudid is a schedule II narcotic. Psychic dependence, physical dependence, and tolerance may develop upon repeated administration of narcotics; therefore dilaudid should be prescribed and administered with caution. However, psychic dependence is unlikely to develop when dilaudid is used for a short time for treatment of pain. Physical dependence, the condition in which continued administration of the drug is required to prevent the appearance of a withdrawal syndrome, usually assumes clinically significant proportions only after several weeks of continued narcotic use, although some mild degree of physical dependence may develop after a few days of narcotic therapy. Tolerance, in which increasingly large doses are required in order to produce the same degree of analgesia, is manifested initially by a shortened duration of analgesic effect, and subsequently by decreases in the intensity of analgesia. The rate of development of tolerance varies among patients. Prior to prescribing a drug such as Dilaudid, a physician should take a full history from a patient and perform a thorough physical examination. The history should include, inter alia, the patient's chief complaint, with questions from the physician to the patient involving areas of past problems with the nervous system, ears, eyes, lungs, chest, respiratory system, GI tract and urinary tract. The physical examination should involve all body systems, including blood pressure, examination of the head, neck, chest and back regions. If patient complains of low back pain, there should be a physical examination specifically involving the low back area before prescribing the scheduled controlled substance here at issue. The past history is important to determine the duration of the problem, any previous medical treatment, examinations or tests by other physicians regarding the lumbosacral or low back area. A physical examination should be performed designed to elicit indications of neurological evolvement, including straight-leg raise tests, impairment of sensation in the extremities tests and other neurological inquiries. Such a full history and a physical examination is prior to initiating a course of treatment involving treatment of chronic pain due to the existence of a wide assortment of other treatment modalities which might treat the root of the problem, rather than merely being pain symptoms. An examination of the Respondent's records and the prescribing patterns of Dilaudid for the patients involved indicates that Respondent simply made insufficient findings upon which to base the decision to prescribe the drug Dilaudid. By prescribing Dilaudid, without an adequate physical examination, or the gathering of detailed patient medical history, would constitute a failure to conform to the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under these conditions and circumstances. By continuing to prescribe these drugs, without any involved discussion or consideration of the effect the previous course of treatment had had on the patient, other than simple inquiry by Respondent concerning, as example, how the patient was feeling, 3/ also constitutes inappropriate prescribing of scheduled controlled substances, and demonstrates a failure to conform to the generally accepted an prevailing standards of medical practice in the Dade County community. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) Respondent has never been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the past. His past professional record reveals that he has a sincere concern for his patients. Throughout these investigative proceedings and the final hearing herein, the Respondent was candid, forthright and truthful. His prescribing of the controlled substance Dilaudid was based on his mistaken opinion that it was medically necessary to prescribe Dilaudid for his patients. Throughout these proceedings, it became clear that Respondent had not kept abreast of the proper course of treatment, detection and proper prescribing patterns for scheduled drugs for the patients be treated. To Respondent's credit, he has been studying the proper prescribing of controlled substances since the initiation of the investigation and the administrative proceedings involved herein. Respondent has never "faked" exams and every prescription that he wrote was based on an office visit and an exam, though a very cursory exam. Respondent did not receive any illegal profits from the sale of drugs nor did he divert, or attempt to divert, any drugs for illegal profit. His office fees, which range from $15 to $25 were not based on the amount of the drugs prescribed but, rather, on the patient's ability to pay. Respondent operates a small general practice with his wife serving as his receptionist. He personally completes all prescription forms with his wife/receptionist. Patients receiving treatment from Respondent are free to get their prescriptions filled at any pharmacy of their choice. Respondent was unaware and the evidence does not show that any of his patients had prior criminal records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the entire evidence of record, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered imposing a written reprimand and one year's probation upon the Respondent Carlos de la Fe, and requiring that during the probationary, he enroll and complete, to the satisfaction of the Board of Medical Examiners, a continuing medical education course concerned with the appropriate indications for and prescription of scheduled controlled substances. 4/ RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1984.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a physician.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is that state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Respondent holds license number ME 0055126. The State of Michigan Department of Commerce Board of Medicine is the licensing authority for the State of Michigan. On or about April 18, 1994, the State of Michigan Board of Medicine issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent, and ordered that Respondent pay a fine in the amount of $1,500.00 within ninety days of the Order for prescribing anabolic steroids for the purpose of improving body-building or weightlifting. Respondent is guilty of having action taken against his license to practice medicine by the licensing authority of the State of Michigan. The State of Michigan notified the agency of its action against the Respondent. A search of the agency's records revealed he had not notified the agency of the action taken by Michigan against him. On or about September 5, 1995, an attempt was made to notify Respondent about the information the agency had received. This letter was subsequently returned unclaimed with a forwarding address in Dallas, Texas. On or about November 9, 1995, a second attempt was made to notify Respondent of the complaint. The letter was sent to Post Office Box 12131, Dallas, Texas 75225, which is the Respondent's current address.1 The Respondent returned the election of rights form and a letter requesting a formal hearing. Respondent failed to notify the Florida Board of Medicine within thirty days of the action taken against his medical license in Michigan. The Respondent failed to notify the Board of his change of address. The Respondent was preciously disciplined by the Board of Medicine by Final Order number AHCA96-00464. The Respondent's license was suspended until he appeared and demonstrated that he could practice with skill and safety.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent the Agency enter its Final Order finding the violation of Section 458.331(1)(b), Section 458.331(x) and 458.331(1)(kk) and, Florida Statutes, and revoking the Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Answers on the Application Amer Alanbari, M.D., applied to the Board of Medicine for licensure as a physician by endorsement on February 19, 1992. The application form he filled out and submitted asks two questions on page 4 under no. 8: "Are you now or have you ever been emotionally/mentally ill?" and "Have you ever received psychotherapy?" To both questions, Dr. Alanbari answered "No." Under "POSTGRADUATE TRAINING," Dr. Alanbari listed "[f]rom 7/1/88 to 6/30/89: No training." The application form also asked, "Have you ever had to discontinue practice for any reason for a period of one month or longer?" To this question, Dr. Alanbari answered "No." Events Prior to the Application Amer Alanbari, M.D., naturalized in Newark, New Jersey, as a citizen of the United States on August 29, 1989, was born in Damascus, Syria in 1958. He received his medical degree in the same city on September 7, 1982, from the University of Damascus. Within a month he began specialty training in pulmonary diseases at the University of Nancy, Centre Hospitalier Regional de Nancy, in Nancy, France. His attendance in the program in France was from October 1, 1982 until July 30, 1984, From August 1984 until November 1986 he resided in Prospect Park, New Jersey, where he has family, a time during which he received no medical training. For the next year and one-half, approximately, from December 1, 1986, until June 30, 1988, Dr. Alanbari enjoyed an Internship in Internal Medicine at The University of Toronto, The Toronto Western Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He completed training in Core Internal Medicine on June 30, 1988, and left the program in good standing. Sometime shortly before completing the training in Internal Medicine in Toronto, Dr. Alanbari suffered a crisis brought on by serious family and financial problems following the death of his father. The chief resident at The Toronto Western Hospital arranged for Dr. Alanbari to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist's diagnosis of Dr. Alanbari's condition was "depression"; an anti-depressant medication was prescribed. Dr. Alanbari took the medication for three weeks. After the three weeks, not convinced that he was suffering from depression and having received some training in psychiatry, himself, Dr. Alanbari ceased the medication. He has not seen a psychiatrist since. Upon leaving Toronto, Dr. Alanbari returned to Prospect Park, New Jersey. On November 18, 1989, Dr. Alanbari entered the Internal Medicine Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He entered the program as a first year medical resident even though he had completed a first year residency earlier because, for whatever reason, he was unable to obtain a second year residency. Dr. Alanbari was not given an official letter from the VA facility informing him of the status of his training because it was an unusual time of the year to begin training. He was told by the VA Medical Center that he could remain until June and then his status would be determined. Dr. Alanbari, however, did not remain at the facility until June. He left the Medical Center on April 18, 1989, under the affectation that his ulcer had begun bleeding. Although Dr. Alanbari had an ulcer at the time, it was, in fact, not bleeding. In truth, Dr. Alanbari left the program because of difficulties in an engagement to be married. Dr. Alanbari did not reveal the true nature of the basis of his departure from the Wilkes-Barre VA facility because the issue of difficulties in his personal relationship with his fiancee was sensitive to him at least, in part, because of the Syrian culture in which he was raised. Moreover, he did not want to suffer a suggestion from supervisory medical personnel at the VA facility, as had been made earlier at the Toronto facility, that he see a psychiatrist again. He resisted such a suggestion because he felt he was capable of solving the problem himself. Dr. Alanbari's fiancee, a Syrian woman residing in New York, wanted to return to Syria while Dr. Alanbari was intent on conducting the practice of medicine in the United States. Forced to choose between his fiancee and his career, a decision with at least the potential for affecting the remainder of his life, Dr. Alanbari returned to Prospect Park, New Jersey, in order to make a decision free of the pressures of residency and the practice of medicine. For several months, Dr. Alanbari lived with family in New Jersey. In July of 1989, less than three months after leaving the Wilkes-Barre VA facility, Dr. Alanbari moved to New York and entered a first-year residency for the third time, again in Internal Medicine, but this time at the Methodist Hospital at 506 Sixth Street in Brooklyn, New York. At the time Dr. Alanbari submitted his application in February of 1992, he had completed the first two years of his residency at the Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn and was in the second half of his third year of residency in internal medicine. Events after the application's submission During the processing of Dr. Alanbari's application, the Board received a profile from the American Medical Association revealing the training Petitioner received at the Wilkes-Barre VA hospital. The contradiction between the profile and Dr. Alanbari's application led the Board to inquire further. On May 24, 1992, two months after the filing of the application, Dr. Alanbari appeared in the office of the Board to discuss problems with his application. The visit was followed by letters from Dr. Alanbari to the Board less than one month later. Although copies of the letters were stricken from the record, Dr. Alanbari testified at hearing that he informed the board by letter of the crisis he had suffered following his father's death shortly before leaving Toronto, the single visit to a psychiatrist at the suggestion of the Chief Resident, the psychiatrist's diagnosis of depression and the prescription of the anti-depressant. Dr. Alanbari answered "No," to the question on the application as to whether he had ever been emotionally or mentally ill because he was not convinced that he suffered from depression, was hesitant to reveal matters that were private and was not sure he could obtain a report from the psychiatrist because of his limited treatment. Dr. Alanbari also related to the Board in the same letter that he had started training at the Wilkes-Barre VA facility in December of 1988 but left in April of 1989 because of serious problems in his marital engagement. In November of 1992, Dr. Alanbari appeared before the Board's Credentials Committee. The meeting's minutes relate: After receiving testimony, it was determined that Dr. Alanbari has been less than truthful not only during the application process, but during his medical training and the independent psychiatric evaluation which was arranged through PRN. Dr. Alanbari stated that he was very hesitant to give details about his personal problems because he feels it is a matter of privacy. The minutes go on to reflect that Dr. Goetz of the Physicians Recovery Network recommended that Dr. Alanbari undergo a five-day inpatient evaluation through the Physicians Recovery Network. After a discussion with Dr. Goetz outside the Committee's meeting room, the minutes report, "Dr. Alanbari stated that he is agreeable to undergoing the five-day evaluation through PRN as suggested by Dr. Goetz." Motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to retain jurisdiction until no later than the March, 1993, meeting to allow Dr. Alanbari to undergo evaluation through PRN and to complete a new, complete and accurate application. The Credentials Committee reconvened on March 19, 1993. Minutes of this second meeting show that, On March 10, 1993, a letter was received from Dr. Alanbari stating that he could not afford the cost of the PRN evaluation. Motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend denial of application based on his testimony at the November, 1992 Committee meeting, attempting to obtain a license by fraud and misrepresentation, failure to comply with the Board's request that he undergo five-day inpatient evaluation through PRN and failure to submit a new, complete and accurate application. The minutes also show, apparently, that an inde- pendent evaluation, an evaluation other than the five-day inpatient evaluation the board had requested Dr. Alanbari to undergo, had been conducted of Dr. Alanbari. Dr. Goetz of the Physicians Recovery Network opined to the board that "he felt Dr. Alanbari had not been forthright during the independent evaluation . . ." Dr. Goetz did not testify at the hearing. There was, therefore, no foundation laid for the opinion; nor, was it elaborated upon or explained by Dr. Goetz. No evidence was introduced as to who conducted the evaluation, of what it consisted or anything else about it. On November 4, 1993 the Order of the Board denying Dr. Alanbari's application was rendered. There is nothing of record to indicate what, if anything, relevant to this case transpired during the eight month period between the March meeting of the Credentials Committee and the Board's order. In the order's statement of grounds for the denial is the following, "Your mental condition interferes with your ability to practice medicine with skill and safety." Although nothing was produced by the Board at hearing to show what happened between March of 1993 and November of 1993, the minutes of the Credentials Committee contain the grounds found by the committee in support of a recommendation to the Board that the application be denied. Dr. Alanbari's "mental condition" as "interference with his ability to practice medicine" was not among the Credential Committee's grounds supporting the recommendation to the Board formulated in March of 1993. The hearing. Following Dr. Alanbari's explanation at hearing of the reasons for filling out his application as he had, the Board presented no witnesses to support its action in entering the denial order. The remainder of the Board's case was comprised of four exhibits: (1) Dr. Alanbari's application; (2) A letter from Robert A. Bear, M.D., stating that Dr. Alanbari left the program at the University of Toronto "in good standing. He did not break a contract. He was not offered a contract to continue training"; (3) the Credential Committee's minutes from its November 1992 meeting, and; (4) the Credential Committee's minutes from its March 1993 meeting. Aside from the four exhibits, the Board's case for denial rests on the "admission" under oath by Dr. Alanbari that his replies on the application were false, an "admission" made by an unrepresented applicant under withering cross- examination by substitute counsel for the board: Q . . . First of all, I want to establish, is it not true that you stated on your application to the Board of Medicine that you have never had any mental illness or been treated with any psychotherapy? A Yes, it was true, and that's why -- Q Doctor, however, isn't it also true that, in fact, you were seen by a psychiatrist and given medication? A Only once and I gave all the details, that's why I made my trip from New Jersey to meet with higher authorities to explain that special situation. It's my privacey [sic]. Q Doctor, that was after you said no, isn't that correct? A Yes. Q You keep talking about privacy here. Do you believe that you have a right to give a false answer on your application because you believe it to be a private matter. A It was delicate situation, I tried to deal with it with honesty, that's why I made my trip to Florida. I wanted to speak to someone. Q Doctor, was your answer on the application honest? A Yes. Q When you said no on the application, was that an honest answer? A If you asked me if any question on the application was honest, yes. Q No, I asked you if your answer on the application was honest, your answer to the question about psychotherapy and you said no. A The honest question, I don't know. Not yes, not no. Q But you answered no, didn't you, Doctor? A It was a very delicate situation and I presented the events as they happened and I left it to you to appreciate -- Q Doctor, did you submit such an explanation with your application when you said no? A No. Q You didn't, did you? A No. Q Now, did you honestly answer that question as to whether or not you had psychotherapy? A Initially, I said no, but -- Q Is that an honest answer, Doctor? A No, its not. Q Thank you. Do you believe, Doctor, that you have a right to tell a lie about something just because you consider it to be private? A I don't believe in telling lies. Q But you did, Doctor, didn't you? A I initially wrote down this, but again, the issue was very delicate, there was no good answer to this. Not a yes, not a no. Q Doctor, the truthful answer to that question was yes, wasn't it? A No. Q Doctor, did you receive psychotherapy? A No, sir. (Tr. 40-43, emphasis supplied). At hearing, Dr. Alanbari was also asked in light of the fact that he had discontinued the practice of medicine for more than a month on several questions why he had answered "no," to the question on the application, "Have you ever had to discontinue practice for any reason for a period of one month or longer?" (emphasis supplied). From his testimony, it was apparent that Dr. Alanbari believed "no" to be a correct answer because although he had ceased to practice medicine for more than a month on several occasions after graduation, he had never been forced by a licensing authority or anyone else to cease practicing medicine. Whenever he had lapses in practice of more than a month they were always by choice. He, therefore, had never had to discontinue practice, the precise question posed by the application. Dr. Alanbari's testimony on this subject squares with the remainder of his application from which it is obvious that he informed the board from the moment he first applied that he had not practiced for several periods of more than one month's duration subsequent to his graduation from medical school. This included a period from August of 1984 until November of 1986 and the time that he did not practice between July of 1988 and June of 1989 that preceded and followed his practice at the VA Medical Center.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That Dr. Alanbari be requested to submit additional information to the Board; and, That Dr. Alanbari's application be denied if he does not submit such additional information within 30 days of the request. If the Board does not choose to request additional information to clarify Dr. Alanbari's application then Dr. Alanbari should be certified by the Board to the Department for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 21st day of September, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner did not submit a proposed recommended order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, it was the Board which framed the issues of the hearing in its denial order. Dr. Alanbari adopted those issues. In all other respects the finding is accepted. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, Petitioner's representation was not fraudulent. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the representation was not fraudulent. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 10, the first sentence of the finding is accepted. The remainder of the finding is rejected. Although counsel stated at hearing that correspondence had been sent to Petitioner inquiring about the Wilkes-Barre program, there was no evidence presented of such correspondence. Nor was there evidence that Petitioner's participation in the program was anything other than temporary. His assertion, therefore, was not false. With respect to Respondent's finding of fact No. 11, the finding is accepted. The finding is relevant only to Petitioner's credibility. As explained in the body of the Recommended Order, under Petitioner's legitimate interpretation of the question, his answer was not false. COPIES FURNISHED: Amer Alanbari, M.D. 51 Layton Road Sussex, NJ 07461 Gregory A. Chaires, Esquire Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
