The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine?
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to the inquiry Petitioner was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician within the state of Florida, having been issued license No. ME0045474, effective December 28, 1984. Respondent's last known address is 1401 Centerville Road, Suite 202, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. Respondent is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. The board certification is by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Respondent is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Respondent received his undergraduate degree from Florida State University and his medical degree from Howard University. His training at Howard University included a four- year residency program from 1982 to 1986. Respondent holds staff privileges at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (TMH) in Tallahassee, Florida. Patient A.G. Patient A.G. began treatment with Respondent in 1998 and continues as Respondent's patient. A.G. is an Hispanic female who is not proficient in English. When seen by Respondent in his office she has been accompanied by an interpreter that would allow Respondent to discuss details of her health care in English for translation into Spanish for the patient's benefit. Respondent's understanding of Spanish is limited to education in high school and a year at the university. He has the ability to describe some matters that are pertinent to gynecologic practice or obstetric practice and in particular as it relates to telling patients, for example "how to push and when not to push." The record does not reveal that Respondent has the ability to discuss A.G.'s overall health care in Spanish, her language. A.G.'s husband, T.Q., who accompanied her at relevant times principally spoke Spanish and not English. He is somewhat proficient in English. On June 16, 1999, A.G. had an office appointment with Respondent. At that time A.G. had undergone gallbladder surgery but her pelvic pain persisted. In consultation on that day it was decided that A.G. would undergo diagnostic laparoscopy to explore the reason for her chronic pelvic pain. Through the discussion the patient was told that biopsies of the pelvic anatomy might be performed during the procedure and that any problems that could be addressed through laparoscopy would be addressed as Respondent felt comfortable in carrying out that correction. Otherwise, Respondent said that he would "take pictures" and "get out of the case" with the decision to offer further treatment left for another time. Patient A.G. had been referred to Respondent for her persistent pelvic pain following an examination on April 27, 1999, that had been made by Margaret Cantor, a Nurse/Mid-Wife and Registered Nurse. She conducted a pelvic examination of the patient that date. The examination included the use of speculum to examine the cervix and vagina in the interest of looking for abnormalities, lesions, growths, and discolorations. No cervical lesions were found in this examination. A pap smear taken at the time revealed normal results with some inflammation. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a surgical procedure involving an incision in the abdominal wall through which a scope is inserted to visualize the abdominal cavity. Typically the workup for performing a diagnostic laparoscopy would include use of ultrasound, pelvic examination, and a pap smear. Possible complications in this procedure include vascular injury, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection, and bleeding. Preliminary to the diagnostic laparoscopy it is the custom and practice in the medical community to perform a vaginal examination with the use of a speculum. On July 1, 1999, patient A.G. was seen by the Respondent in his office for her pre-operative check. On this occasion A.G. was unaccompanied by a translator. Nonetheless, Respondent was able to perform a brief physical and obtain a history with the assistance of A.G.'s husband. Respondent listened to the patient's heart and lungs and performed a bi- manual examination in which one or two fingers were inserted in the vagina and with a hand on the abdomen compression was performed on the pelvic viscera, uterus, tubes, and ovaries and the lower section of the pelvis. Nothing significant was observed in the patient since last seen. On July 1, 1999, an employee in Respondent's office witnessed patient A.G. sign a consent form allowing the diagnostic laparoscopy. The consent form makes no reference to the agreement for Respondent to perform a loop electrocautery excision procedure, referred to by abbreviations as a "LEEP" conization biopsy procedure or a LEEP cone. No evidence of such consent is contained in patient A.G.'s medical records maintained at Respondent's office. The diagnostic laparoscopy was to be performed at TMH. On July 1, 1999, Patricia Charbonneau, a clinical nurse at the hospital, reviewed a consent form with patient A.G. concerning the diagnostic laparoscopy for the purposes of that facility. Nurse Charbonneau was aware of the scheduling of the diagnostic laparoscopy by reference to the history and physical prepared by the Respondent. This conference involved the discussion of potential risks and complications of the laparoscopy. No discussion was conducted concerning possible risks and complications of a LEEP conization biopsy. The consent form from TMH pertaining to patient A.G. and the diagnostic laparoscopy stated "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure, I request and authorize my physician to proceed." Nurse Charbonneau was left with the impression that the patient understood the explanation concerning the upcoming procedure and gave her consent. Ms. Charbonneau was assisted in this communication by A.G.'s husband. No discussion was held concerning the performance of a LEEP cone biopsy, in that the permit from Respondent made no mention of that procedure. Ms. Charbonneau took steps for an interpreter to be available the next morning when the surgery was to be performed given the nature of the surgery, the use of anesthesia and the desire to have "everything" reviewed again. A LEEP conization is a form of biopsy performed either in an office or hospital setting with anesthesia. The cervix is examined with the assistance of a speculum. Lugol solution is placed on the cervix to identify any abnormal cells and an excesion is made by shaving a small piece of the cervix for examination. The workup for LEEP conization includes a pap smear and a colposcopy. The performance of LEEP conization presents potential risks and complications related to infection, endometrious, bleeding, cervical stenosis, and cervical incompetence. On July 2, 1999, patient A.G. came to the TMH outpatient surgery center for her scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy to be performed by Respondent. She was the fourth patient on a schedule of surgeries to be performed by Respondent on that date. Respondent was conversant with the sequence of surgeries to be performed. Patient A.G. was placed in a holding area in the outpatient surgery center to prepare her for her surgery and to await transport to the operating room. Sometime before moving the patient to the operating room Respondent saw the patient in the holding area. Respondent addressed patient A.G. by saying hello and asking her how she was doing. This was not a visit intended to educate the patient and was not involved with any other medical purpose. At the time the patient's husband was with her during this brief encounter which was intended to confirm that the patient was there for the surgery as had been previously arranged. Several hours may have passed between the time Respondent saw patient A.G. in the holding area and when he next encountered the patient in the operating room. Respondent also saw patient N.C. in an adjacent cubicle to where patient A.G. was located while the patients were awaiting their surgery. Patient N.C. was the third patient on the schedule, there for the performance of a LEEP conization biopsy. Respondent followed his surgical schedule for the first two patients in the intended sequence. Some delay was occasioned by a problem experienced in the surgery performed on the second patient. Valerie Anne Lazzell, M.D., is an anesthesiologist licensed to practice in Florida. She is employed by Anesthesiology Associates of Tallahassee, Florida. It was intended that she provide anesthesia during Respondent's performance of the diagnostic laparoscopy for patient A.G. It was anticipated that the patient be subjected to general anesthesia which involves a rapid loss of consciousness and blocks the sensory, mental and motor functions of the patient. A general anesthesia can be provided by using an endotracheal tube, with a mask or with an LMA. This is as distinguished from the use of a neurolept employed in most instances when performing LEEP conization biopsies. In that setting the patient is generally anesic, not really aware, and has analgesia "on board." The use of a neurolept promotes a pain-free state of immobility and an insensitivity to pain and is usually accomplished by use of IV medications. From the record, it appears that Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., with Anesthesiology Associates was scheduled to provide anesthesia by neurolept for the third patient N.C. who was scheduled for LEEP conization biopsy. Patient A.G. at the time in question was 4'9" tall and weighed 103 pounds. Patient N.C., an African-American woman was 5'2" tall and weighed 242 pounds. Their skin tone was similar in color. Dr. Lazzell saw patient A.G. before the patient was taken for surgery. In this examination the doctor filled out the patient's airway, listened to her heart and lungs, and considered the patient's ASA classification which was one of good health. Dr. Lazzell considered the plan for anesthesia with an endotracheal tube. She gained the assistance of a Dr. Becker who was fluent in Spanish in explaining the use of anesthesia to the patient. Dr. Lazzell sought Dr. Becker's assistance when the hospital did not make an interpreter available. Dr. Lazzell discussed the possible risks and complications of use of this form of anesthesia and a consent form was signed and dated. While this assessment was being made A.G.'s husband was in attendance. It was Dr. Lazzell's expectation that the patient A.G. would next be seen as scheduled when the nurse anesthetist called Dr. Lazzell to the operating room to intubate patient A.G. in association with the provision of anesthesia for the diagnostic laparoscopy. Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., when performing her duties in the operating room setting at TMH outpatient surgery center was expected to induce anesthesia, maintain the anesthesia, monitor vital signs, treat untoward events during surgery and maintain fluids in the patient while under the supervision of the physician, in this instance, Dr. Lazzell. Nurse Mauch was principally responsible for providing the anesthesia for the third procedure on patient N.C., the LEEP conization biopsy. This included preparation in the operating room of medications and other related tools and supplies. The third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy for N.C., was referred to on a typed surgical schedule in the preoperative desk in the outpatient surgery center. Having checked the schedule Nurse Mauch obtained the chart for N.C. and went to the cubical, not of N.C. but A.G. When Nurse Mauch arrived at A.G.'s cubical, Jamie Martin, R.N., the pre-op nurse and Dale Dunsmore, R.N., the circulating nurse, were there. Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch arrived at the cubicle where patient A.G. was located at about the same time. When arriving at the cubicle for patient A.G., Nurse Mauch had in mind that the process was one in which she was getting ready for the surgery to be performed on patient N.C. While in the cubical Nurse Mauch introduced herself to the person she believed to be the patient N.C., at which time Nurse Dunsmore said that the patient only speaks Spanish. Nurse Mauch recalls that a translator was not available for assisting in any communication with patient A.G. Realizing that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband for identification, the reference to the fact that the patient only spoke Spanish did not cause Nurse Mauch any concern. Nurse Mauch never heard Nurse Dunsmore orally refer to patient A.G. by name. Nurse Mauch continued with her presentation by commenting that she was the nurse anesthetist who was going to put the patient to sleep. Patient A.G. nodded her head in response to Nurse Mauch's physical gesture that the patient was going to be put to sleep. Beyond that point Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore took patient A.G. to the operating room ostensibly as the third patient on the schedule for provision of a LEEP conization biopsy wherein Nurse Mauch would provide the necessary anesthesia. The chart for N.C. was brought to the operating room. Before the patient was removed from the cubicle Nurse Martin provided pre-op medication to patient A.G., phenergan robinul. The fact that Nurse Martin was giving preoperative medication and that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband on what turned out to be patient A.G. led Nurse Mauch to believe that patient A.G. was patient N.C. the third scheduled patient, according to Nurse Mauch. As Nurse Mauch recalls, when the Respondent entered the operating room where the third scheduled procedure was to be performed he checked the chart for patient N.C. Respondent went out and washed his hands, returned and started the procedure. At the end of the procedure Nurse Mauch recalls Respondent commenting that the next patient speaks only Spanish, to which Nurse Mauch said, "No, this patient," meaning the patient who had been subjected to the procedure is the one who speaks Spanish. Respondent replied "I must be mixed up." Nurse Mauch recalls Dr. Lazzell arriving at the door of the operating room with patient A.G.'s chart. Dr. Lazzell looked surprised to find the circumstances. Nurse Mauch told Dr. Lazzell that this is the neurolept, the case involving the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Lazzell commented that "No it isn't." Nurse Mauch heard Dr. Lazzell ask Respondent, "What procedure did you do?" Respondent replied "LEEP conization." Dr. Lazzell said "No, this was supposed to be the diagnostic laparoscopy." Nurse Mauch observed Respondent leave the room and return. Patient A.G. was re-preped and the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be provided was performed with the patient being intubated by the use of an endotracheal tube. Nurse Martin in her capacity as pre-op nurse was responsible for receiving patients and getting the patients ready for administering medications that were prescribed and getting IVs and things started on the patients prior to the patients being sent to the operating room. She recalls performing pre- operative duties on the patient A.G. Nurse Martin was familiar with the schedule of patients, the sequence. She understood that patient A.G. was the fourth patient in the schedule and provided the pre-anesthetic to patient A.G. in preparation for the operation. This involved the use of phenergan. Nurse Martin made no mistake in identifying patient A.G. when providing care. Nurse Martin heard Nurse Dunsmore identify patient A.G. in Nurse Martin's presence and agreed with that identification. Nurse Martin had seen the patient A.G. before the occasion at which Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore were there with the patient in Nurse Martin's presence and the patient A.G. was taken to the operating room. Nurse Martin had reviewed patient A.G.'s chart earlier in caring forward responsibilities for preparing the patient for the operation. Nurse Dunsmore identified her duties as circulating nurse at TMH outpatient surgery center as being related to setting up rooms for surgeries, transporting patients from pre-op holding areas, identifying patients, verifying surgeries, verifying allergies, and so forth. Ordinarily Nurse Dunsmore in performing her duties would read the chart of the patient scheduled for a procedure to make certain that all permits were signed. She would then go to where the patient was being held, introduce herself to the patient and ask for identification, verifying the surgery that is scheduled for the patient, and perform other related assignments. In performing her duties Nurse Dunsmore would accompany the patient with the anesthesiologist to the operating room. The method of identification in effect at the time in question would be to compare an addressograph card which accompanied the patient's chart with the information on an identification bracelet worn by the patient. Nurse Dunsmore verified that the operating room for the third procedure was set up for a LEEP conization biopsy. After the second procedure on the schedule, Nurse Dunsmore recalls that she went to patient A.G.'s room. However Nurse Dunsmore had handed Nurse Mauch patient N.C.'s chart. Nurse Mauch carried the chart to patient A.G.'s cubicle. The two nurses essentially entered the cubicle together. Nurse Martin and patient A.G.'s husband were already there. Nurse Martin left the cubicle shortly thereafter. Nurse Dunsmore introduced herself to the patient and reached for the patient's identification bracelet and read it out loud. The patient smiled and nodded in response. In turn the patient's husband smiled and nodded in response. Patient A.G. was then taken to the operating room by Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch. The patient was sedated by Nurse Mauch and positioned for provision of the LEEP conization biopsy. Nurse Dunsmore observed the Respondent enter the operating room and look at the chart which was in relation to patient N.C., not patient A.G. Nurse Dunsmore saw Respondent leave the operating room to scrub. Nurse Dunsmore was in attendance when the procedure was performed. Nurse Dunsmore recalls Dr. Lazzell entering the operating room at the end of the procedure with the chart belonging to patient A.G. and the realization by those in attendance that the chart in the operating room was for N.C., whom they understood to be undergoing the procedure when in fact the patient undergoing the procedure was A.G. Diane Jordan was a surgical technician assigned to assist in the third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy. She recalls the patient being put to sleep by Nurse Mauch and the patient being prepared for the procedure. The patient was covered by draping towels across the upper portion of the thighs. A blanket was placed over the patient's torso. The patient was placed in the lithotomy position allowing observation of the patient's buttocks, vulva, vagina and external pelvic organs. The patient had a mask on her face and a surgical hat to cover her hair. All of these arrangements had been made before Respondent entered the operating room. Ms. Jordan recalls that the chart in the room was for N.C., the patient anticipated to undergo the LEEP conization biopsy. Ms. Jordan did not realize that the patient in reality was patient A.G. Ms. Jordan recalls that the Respondent when entering the room asked is this "such and such" in relation to a LEEP conization biopsy and that Nurse Dunsmore replied in the affirmative. Ms. Jordan remembers Respondent looking at the chart for N.C. and signing it. Ms. Jordan was in attendance while the procedure was performed. Ms. Jordan heard Respondent mention something about a lesion before he started. Ms. Jordan provided medication to be injected during the LEEP conization. Ms. Jordan identified the fact that a specimen was obtained which was given to her and provided to the nurse to send to pathology for evaluation. When Respondent entered the room for what he anticipated to be the third procedure what he asked specifically was "Is this Ms. C our case for the LEEP?" referring to the LEEP conization to be performed on patient N.C. That is when Nurse Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. After inquiring about the identification of the patient in association with the nature of the procedure Respondent expected to perform and in receiving an affirmative response, Respondent took no further steps to personally confirm the identity of the patient. Respondent opened the chart that was patient N.C.'s chart. Respondent took a drawing from his pocket that a Dr. Thompson had made of patient N.C.'s cervix when he had treated the patient. The drawing was in association with a colposcopy. Respondent intended to compare that drawing with what was observed in the patient during the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy in locating the suspected pathology. In proceeding with what he considered to be the third scheduled procedure for N.C., Respondent placed the speculum, applied the tenaculum and observed what looked to be a lesion that roughly approximated what he anticipated it would be based upon the drawing from Dr. Thompson. Respondent applied Lugol's solution and proceeded with the LEEP conization biopsy. Having applied the solution there was an indication of some pathology in roughly the position as the drawing had depicted. Respondent obtained the sample from the cervix. The size of the specimen was less than the diameter of a dime with a depth or thickness of about two dimes. The performance of the LEEP conization biopsy took less than five minutes. As Respondent finished Dr. Lazzell came to the operating room and informed Respondent that this was not the patient the he thought he was treating. Having been told by Dr. Lazzell that there was a misidentification, Respondent for the first time while engaged with the patient in the operating room proceeded to the front of the table and looked at the patient while the patient was being unmasked. By doing so Respondent discovered that indeed the patient had been misidentified and that he had actually performed surgery on patient A.G., not patient N.C. Respondent left the operating room and informed patient A.G.'s husband of the problem. Respondent returned to the operating room. The patient was provided anesthesia by Dr. Lazzell and the diagnostic laparoscopy that was scheduled was performed. Notwithstanding that it was never intended that Respondent perform a biopsy on patient A.G. from the cervix, Respondent expresses the opinion that if the physician encounters a visible lesion some form of biopsy is in order. Respondent expresses the opinion that in performing procedures such as a diagnostic laparoscopy greater latitude is afforded in terms of what the physician can do when he or she discovers "What's amiss with the patient." This in Respondent's view is because the patient is going into the procedure with the understanding that there may be an unanticipated problem and if the unexpected problem can be addressed, it should be taken care of. Of course this assumes that the biopsy that was performed on patient A.G. was in association with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy, when in fact the biopsy was the product of happenstance, in that, Respondent when addressing what he considered to be the condition in the patient N.C., by chance observed a similar condition in the patient A.G. Respondent concedes that prior to patient A.G.'s arrival at the outpatient surgical center that LEEP conization was not an indicated procedure for that patient. The biopsy that was performed was with the misapprehension as to the patient whose needs were being addressed, not merely an unanticipated circumstance in a patient whose identity was established when Respondent performed the biopsy. This was not an additional surgical procedure that came about in connection with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy; it was perceived by Respondent as the intended surgery being performed on a different patient when the case began. As a consequence it is the planned- for diagnostic laparoscopy which became the additional procedure. Nonetheless, Respondent tries to explain his result by expressing the opinion that other unexpected and unplanned-for procedures may be undertaken in the instance "Within the realm of the comfort level of the physician and the patient ahead of time; where they know each other, other things can be done as well." Respondent believes that the ability to proceed with the biopsy on patient A.G. while thinking that he was responding to the case involving patient N.C. is implicit and is promoted by "A feeling of trust that we had developed at the point in time." This refers to the point in time at which the other surgery, the diagnostic laparoscopy was being discussed with the patient A.G. The type of pathology that was encountered by Respondent with patient A.G. that led to the biopsy was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. That is what Respondent observed and collected for evaluation. The laboratory confirmation of the specimen was performed by Dr. Woodard Burgert, a board-certified anatomic and clinical pathologist. In his assessment Dr. Burgert observed that the cone biopsy in question was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. There was no significant dysplasia. Expert Opinions Dr. Edward Zelnick is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who practices in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Hollywood Medical Center and Memorial Regional Hospital. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. In the instance where pathology is found in examining the cervix, Dr. Zelnick believes that action should be taken in addressing that pathology, but only in the instance where the pathology has been discussed with the patient and the appropriate alternative treatment has been discussed. Absent an emergency it is necessary to provide the patient the alternative to surgery and identify the risk of surgery. Absent life-threatening circumstances, a biopsy such as that performed on patient A.G. should not be performed without the patient's consent, which had not been given. Dr. Zelnick further describes the instance in which a biopsy in a case such as this would be in order, would be in relation to an instance in which it appeared that the circumstance was an immediate threat to the health of the patient that needed to be addressed. None of the exigent circumstances existed in this case. Therefore, Dr. Zelnick expresses the opinion that the performance of the biopsy by Respondent did not meet the expected standard of care. Based upon his familiarity with the form of consent in this case which states, "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure I request and authorize my physician to proceed," Dr. Zelnick believes that the physician's responsibility there is to respond during the course of the surgery, if medically necessary, to such matters as repairing of a blood vessel that has been cut or damage to an internal organ or bowel. None of those circumstances were associated with the biopsy performed on the patient A.G.. While Dr. Zelnick delegates patient identification to surgical staff or nursing staff, he believes that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification to make certain that the right operation is performed on the proper patient resides with the surgeon. To do less is to practice below the standard of care universally accepted and a matter of common sense. According to Dr. Zelnick, Respondent did not meet that standard when performing the biopsy on patient A.G. who was misidentified. Whatever rules and procedures may be in place setting standards for identification in a hospital, Dr. Zelnick does not believe those standards abrogate the duty of the physician to properly identify the patient. What is expected of a physician is 100 percent certainty as to who the proper patient is and to assure that the proper procedure is carried out on the proper patient. The method of arriving at that determination is not significant, in Dr. Zelnick's view. Dr. Roberto Fojo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Jackson Memorial and North Shore Medical Center in South Florida, and he is affiliated with the University of Miami, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecology. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He does not view a diagnostic laparoscopy as being intended to discover and diagnose cervical lesions, where, as here, the lesion is on the surface of the cervix and vagina. A diagnostic laparoscopy is not intended to promote an examination of the cervix, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo is familiar with the consent form executed by patient A.G., the language previously described. He has seen that language before or something similar to it and considers it part of the standard surgical consent in connection with a diagnostic laparoscopy that was intended in this case. The consent is designed to allow the surgeon to address matters such as puncture of the bowel or a problem with a major artery or veins or scar tissue or adhesions. This consent would not include addressing lesions on the cervix. A LEEP conization procedure is not an accepted procedure to perform in the patient undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy unless the LEEP conization had already been discussed and there was a problem with the cervix that the patient knew about. There, in Dr. Fojo's perception, the patient would be undergoing what he refers to as dual procedure. Dr. Fojo does not believe that surgery should be performed on a patient absent the patient's consent as being part of the original procedure or in an emergency. The LEEP conization biopsy by Respondent was not related to the consent that had been provided nor pertaining to an emergency. In this sense, Dr. Fojo expresses the opinion that Respondent failed to meet the standard for medical practice when performing the LEEP conization biopsy on Patient A.G. Dr. Fojo believes that a surgeon should ascertain without any doubt that the patient in the room is a patient that he or she should be performing surgery on, the appropriate surgical procedure. This need for identification is an independent responsibility of the physician and may not be delegated. It requires 100 percent accuracy, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo holds to the opinion that the physician is responsible for the identification regardless of his or her efforts that may have been compromised by others in attempting to properly identify the patient and perform the indicated procedure. He believes this to be common medical practice. Respondent was not within the standard of care in performing the LEEP conization procedure on patient A.G. under Dr. Fojo's assessment. Dr. Michelle McCallanahan is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida and practices in Jacksonville, Florida. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. The consent form executed by patient A.G. is not unfamiliar to Dr. McCallanahan. Her perception of this consent language is that it relates to complications that occur during the course of the diagnostic laparoscopy that were not foreseen and constitute an emergency requiring an immediate procedure to correct the condition. Examples are vascular injuries to vessels, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection and bleeding. By contrast, lesions on the cervix do not constitute an example of an unforeseen circumstance. Dr. McCallanahan expresses the opinion that an appropriate workup for LEEP conization was not done for the patient A.G. Nonetheless, there are some circumstances in which it would not be violative of the standard of care to perform LEEP conization without conducting a workup. That circumstance would be in the instance where the lesion that was observed was highly suggestive of cervical cancer, according to Dr. McCallanahan. The case that Respondent was presented with did not constitute such a condition. Ordinarily, the standard of care contemplates the discussion of possible risks or complications associated with LEEP conization procedures before performing them. According to Dr. McCallanahan it would be appropriate to perform a surgical procedure without discussion of the risks and possible complications in an emergency when the patient was unconscious and could not give consent in advance. Those are not the facts here. While Dr. McCallanahan relies upon the assistance of other persons within the surgical and nursing staff, she expresses the opinion that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification prior to the performance of surgery resides with the physician. She believes that it is below the standard of care to not correctly identify the patient before the procedure is done and perform an improper procedure or non- consenting procedure on that patient, as was the case here. Dr. Jana Bures-Forstheoefel is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida. She practices in Tallahassee, Florida, and has privileges at TMH and performs surgeries in the outpatient surgery center. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. She believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying patient A.G. before performing surgery on the patient. The method used by Respondent to identify the patient was common to the practice of other physicians who performed surgeries in that setting, according to Dr. Forstheoefel. In the event that Dr. Forstheoefel was performing a diagnostic laparoscopy and observed a cervical lesion she would evaluate the condition to include the performance of a biopsy, the most common method for cervical biopsy being a LEEP conization. Notwithstanding the lack of specific consent by the patient for Respondent to perform the LEEP conization, Dr. Forstheoefel holds to the opinion that it was correct to biopsy, given what was observed in the patient. The prospect that a physician would be 100 percent accurate in identifying a patient undergoing surgery is not humanly possible and is a standard that should not be imposed upon a physician in Dr. Forstheoefel's opinion. She considers that the matter of proper identification preoperatively is a team effort. One person should not be solely responsible for all things in making certain of the patient's safety and assuring that the right thing is done. Dr. Kenneth John McAlpine is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He believes that Respondent met the standard of care in identifying the patient A.G. before performing the surgery and in performing the LEEP conization on that patient. Although Dr. McAlpine has not experienced a situation in which he observed a reason to do a LEEP conization in a diagnostic laparoscopy case, where consent for LEEP conization had not been given ahead of time, he does not question the decision to address the condition observed, such as in the case at issue. From his point of view, it was acceptable to do a LEEP conization biopsy to address the lesion. Although no prior indication existed before the lesion was observed during the procedure Dr. McAlpine would not want to ignore the lesion. Dr. McAlpine believes that the process that Respondent undertook in identifying the patient A.G. before surgery was consistent with practices in effect at the hospital, this included reliance on staff in the operating room. Dr. McAlpine does not believe that it is necessary for a physician to be 100 percent accurate in the identification as a person ultimately in charge. No matter as to the facts, he sees the issue of the identification being a multi-disciplinary approach among health care providers. Dr. David O'Bryan practices obstetrics and gynecology. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. The method employed by Respondent in identifying the patient was consistent with the practice used in the immediate medical community at the time, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the Respondent performed the appropriate surgery on Patient A.G. For Dr. O'Bryan, what is more important in addressing the patient's needs is the apparent pathology, not the consent that may have been provided by the patient in advance of the procedure. It would be negligent not to address the lesion on the cervix in his view. The pathology present determines the response even without a consent for the procedure. Dr. O'Bryan did not consider that the pathology constituted an issue of life or death. The fact that the LEEP conization biopsy was not planned was less significant than the need to address the pathology. It does not matter if the patient were A.G. or N.C. or some other patient, Dr. O'Bryan believes that it was appropriate to perform the biopsy. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the surgeon bears a great deal of responsibility in patient identification, but the ultimate responsibility for identification does not reside with the physician or any other operating room staff member in Dr. O'Bryan's assessment. Dr. O'Bryan does not conceive that there can be any greater comfort in the identification than in the instance where the "operating room crew" tells the physician who it is and the physician has a chart in his hands which indicates that it is the same patient as the operating staff has identified and the pathology that was found is consistent with what had been anticipated according to the patient chart and the staff identification. Nothing in medicine involves the imposition of a 100 percent standard of care to include properly identifying the patient preoperatively, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. Roberto Morales is a board-certified obstetrician in gynecology licensed to practice in Florida. At times relevant, he performed surgery at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in Patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. Dr. Morales believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying the patient A.G. in that hospital and in other places as well. Dr. Morales believes that the patient was correctly identified by Respondent earlier in the day and that the incorrect patient was brought back to the operating room. Under those circumstances, Respondent did what was appropriate to identify the patient in the performance of the LEEP conization on patient A.G. and was within the standard of care, according to Dr. Morales. Assuming the patient was scheduled for a diagnostic laparoscopy, if during the examination, visualization of the cervix, a lesion was observed, a biopsy would be the typical next step, according to Dr. Morales. The caveat to his opinion in the ability to perform that biopsy would depend upon the patient that was being taken care of and the sense that the physician had about the patient's expectations of what should be done and not done. It is assumed that Dr. Morales believed that the level of relationship between Respondent and Patient A.G. would allow the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Morales believes that the attempt to be 100 percent accurate in the identification of patients preoperatively is an aspirational goal, not a requirement. For him all persons concerned have the responsibility for taking care of the patient. Having considered the opinions expressed by the experts, the ultimate facts to be determined must be based upon the realization that Respondent proceeded to perform the LEEP conization biopsy on patient A.G. without advance written consent, that Respondent believed that he was confronting the case of patient N.C., and that the performance of the LEEP conization on Patient A.G. was not in its timing and justification part of the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be performed on Patient A.G. The earlier effort by Respondent to identify his patient in the holding area was sufficient for that stage of the process. Respondent acted in the customary manner in relying upon his knowledge that Patient N.C. was to be the third patient based upon the schedule. It was not unexpected that Respondent would rely upon the surgical staff in orally confirming the patient identity and the procedure to be performed when entering the operating room for the scheduled third procedure. This identification was further confirmed by the presence of the chart for Patient N.C. Respondent's failure to take further steps to physically identify the patient by looking at her arm bracelet, by looking at her face, or in some other manner recognizing the mistake that had been made by others in readying Patient A.G., and not Patient N.C. for surgery could be forgiven if there were no consequences, but there were. Although Respondent should not be the absolute guarantor in the identification of the patient, what he did in the operating room was not enough, when the result is that Respondent performed the LEEP conization that was not consented to in advance, and performed believing that the patient was N.C., the patient for whom the procedure was intended, and was not in response to an emergency regardless of patient identity. As a result, Respondent failed to meet the standard of care for reasonably prudent similar physicians under acceptable similar conditions and circumstances in his actions. In mitigation, the outcome was not harmful to the patient. Moreover, other health care professionals were in great measure responsible for the failure to properly identify the patient.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine and costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Kim Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 David W. Moye, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensed medical doctor on the basis of alleged violations of subsections (k), (m), (n), and (t) of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME 0030238. The Respondent's last known address is 2817 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Coral Springs, Florida 33306. The Respondent's area of practice is cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is a sub-specialty within the broader specialty known as plastic surgery. In general terms, the specialty of plastic surgery encompasses two sub-specialties; reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is also known as aesthetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is primarily for the purpose of restoring normalcy to abnormal conditions. Cosmetic or aesthetic surgery is primarily for the purpose of improving normal conditions. On or about December 13, 1990, Patient Number 1, a 38-year-old female, presented to the Respondent with concerns about bulging and puffiness around her eyes. Patient Number 1's self-referral was in response to an advertisement in which the Respondent offered a free consultation. While waiting in the Respondent's office, Patient Number 1 read some brochures that included information about face-lifts. After reading the brochures, she decided to also ask the Respondent about a face-lift to address what she referred to as "sagging skin under her chin." During the initial visit with patient Number 1, the Respondent explained to her that he could offer her reduced prices if she agreed to have several cosmetic procedures done at the same time. In this regard, the Respondent inquired of Patient Number 1 as to how she felt about other parts of her body as he began to examine her breasts, legs, thighs, and abdomen. During the initial visit, Patient Number 1 and the Respondent agreed that the Respondent would perform the following cosmetic surgery procedures on Patient Number 1: (a) surgery on the lower eyelids to remove fat deposits and tighten skin, (b) a face lift, (c) liposuction on the inner thighs to improve thigh contour, (d) injection of fat into the lips, and (e) injection of fat into the breasts. It was agreed that the Respondent would also do some liposuction on Patient Number 1's abdomen if he needed additional fat to inject into the lips or breasts. 2/ The Respondent's medical records document the following assessment or diagnosis of Patient Number 1's condition and concerns: "Drooping face skin needs face lift, agree; fat herniation lower lids bilateral needs fat removal, agree; breasts sagging 3/4 with medium-large (good amount) of volume; bulge fat medial thighs only; rest of body good shape." The Respondent's medical records also document the following plan of treatment: face lift and lower lid fat removal; liposuction medial thighs and/or abdomen and/or anterior thighs; fat injection, cheeks (little), lips, nasolabial fold, and chin; and breasts either inject fat in upper 1/2 or lift in future. The Respondent initially offered to perform all of the aforementioned procedures as a "package deal" for a total charge of $4,300.00 and offered to lower his charges to $3,500.00 in exchange for Patient Number 1's pledge to refer two (2) friends for consultations as possible candidates for cosmetic surgery. Subsequently the Respondent lowered his total charge to a year end special deal of $4,000.00 for all of the aforementioned procedures with a requested deposit to hold this special price and agreement that the remainder be paid by the end of the year. Patient Number 1 paid the Respondent a $500.00 cash deposit (receipt dated December 17, 1990) and the remainder of $3500.00 on December 31, 1990, by two credit cards, all of which was deposited directly into the Respondent's general office account. On or about December 17, 1990, Patient Number 1 presented to Respondent for a follow-up consultation. At that time the Respondent advised Patient Number 1 that her breasts were too ptotic (droopy) and, therefore, he had decided not to perform the breast augmentation by fat injection procedure; instead, the Respondent advised that a second procedure (i.e., a breast lift) would be required in the future. The following day, on December 18, 1990, Patient Number 1 was confused by the Respondent's decision not to perform the breast augmentation by fat injection procedure and telephoned Respondent's office and scheduled another appointment with the Respondent to discuss her concerns. Upon Patient Number 1's arrival for the appointment, she raised the issue with Respondent but still was unable to gain any understanding of why Respondent was no longer planning to inject fat into her breasts. Respondent brought up the subject of performing a "breast lift" and showed her pictures of models' breasts in a Playboy magazine and explained that such a procedure would take her from a 7 to a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. On or about February 7, 1991, Patient Number 1 presented to Respondent for a final consultation whereupon Respondent took a preoperative (i.e., "before") photograph of Patient Number 1's face. On or about February 13, 1991, Patient Number 1 presented to Respondent's office for surgery. At the beginning of the procedure the Respondent used a black marker and started making marks on Patient Number 1's face and explained he had to cut her hair in some areas. Respondent also drew circles and marks on her abdomen and thighs which she observed and the Respondent told her that he wished she had gained five pounds. Respondent also told Patient Number 1 that the breast surgery would be done a few weeks later. Prior to leaving the Respondent's office, Patient Number 1 was not informed that the agreed-upon liposuction procedures were not going to be performed. Patient Number 1 was very sick for a couple of days post-surgery. She noticed the black marks previously described, but did not see any bandages, incisions and/or bruises on her inner thighs or abdomen where the surgery was supposed to have been performed. After a few days when Patient Number 1 was no longer sick she went back to Respondent for a scheduled follow-up appointment and inquired of him about her observations. In response the Respondent said nothing and simply walked out of the room. Patient Number 1 returned to Respondent for another follow-up examination. At that time, patient Number 1 again attempted to discuss her dissatisfaction with her surgical results with Respondent, including but not limited to his not performing the contouring liposuction on her thighs as agreed and paid for. Respondent once again brushed off her concerns and told her she should quit complaining. Subsequently, Patient Number 1 returned for yet another office visit where she wanted to talk about her increasing dissatisfaction with the surgical results and her increasing observations (once the postsurgical swelling had gone down) that it was clear that certain agreed-upon procedures were not performed, i.e., her thighs and lips. Respondent initially responded by not talking and by walking out of the room. Upon his return, having received no answers to her questions, Patient Number 1 requested her medical records in order to obtain a second opinion. The Respondent said that was a very bad move on her part and walked out again. A few minutes later he came back in the examining room and asked Patient Number 1 to come into his office. Once in the office, the Respondent advised her that sometimes the fat injections do not work and have to be repeated several times. The Respondent said that he was willing to put some more fat in her lips and to give her some makeup. He also advised her that she had been a very difficult surgical patient and that she should be grateful for the extra time he had spent on her surgery. Patient Number 1 responded to the Respondent that she had paid for and expected permanent results; that she had trusted Respondent and that she had no desire to have continuous fat injections which were only temporary; and that she did not wear makeup or desire it. After consulting several cosmetic and/or plastic surgeons, Patient Number 1 revisited the Respondent in May of 1991 to make a final attempt at obtaining an explanation from the Respondent regarding her postsurgical results and an explanation as to why there was no evidence of certain agreed upon procedures having been performed on her. She brought with her several "after" photographs taken by others and attempted to show them to the Respondent to illustrate why she was so dissatisfied. The Respondent refused to look at the photographs, refused to discuss the matter with Patient Number 1, told her he did not want her to come back and told her that he was not going to do breast surgery on her. He then escorted Patient Number 1 to a desk where he instructed his staff to give her a $500.00 check, representing reimbursement for the breast surgery and told her to leave. No discussion took place regarding the liposuction issues. Cosmetic surgery is no less a surgery than any other form of surgery and all of the principles and practices and basics of surgery and medicine need to be applied in the treatment of cosmetic surgery patients. Cosmetic surgery patients often undergo very complex procedures that require a significant amount of surgical training and experience in order to be performed safely and properly. The Respondent did not pursue the appropriate plan of treatment for this patient because she had need for face lift surgery, lower eyelid surgery and suction lipectomy of the lower extremities. There is no evidence that she received suction lipectomy of the lower extremities even though the medial thigh fat was noted as a preoperative condition, even though a preoperative treatment plan included suction lipectomy of the lower extremity, even though the patient paid for lower extremity suction lipectomy, and even though postoperative instructions included references to pressure garments which are used in lower extremity liposuction. The aforementioned suctional lipectomy referred to is the type of procedure where an incision is made and a large cannula is inserted to suck out fatty tissue to help with contouring of the body and in this case specifically the medial thighs. It is this type of liposuction procedure that Patient Number 1 thought she was going to receive at surgery and did not receive. What Patient Number 1 did receive was the harvesting of small amounts of fat by means of small needle punctures in her anterior thighs to get fat to inject into her face. Such small needle punctures do nothing to contour the inner thighs. Patient Number 1 does not have any scars in the area of the medial thighs such as would be present if the Respondent had performed the aforementioned contouring liposuction or lipectomy that Patient Number 1 was promised and paid for. The Respondent made untrue representations related to the practice of medicine because he told the patient he would do an operative procedure and she paid for it and he did not perform the procedure. The Respondent did not pursue his plan of treatment because the Respondent did not do the proposed liposuction or lipectomy procedure that he told Patient Number 1 he was going to do. The Respondent exercised influence on the patient to exploit the patient because Patient Number 1 paid for the above procedures and did not receive all of the services she paid for. Further, if the Respondent knew a portion of the fee he collected from Patient Number 1 was for a procedure he did not perform, he should have reimbursed that fee to Patient Number 1, which he did not do. The Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of Patient Number 1 in that the Respondent failed to document an adequate physical examination of Patient Number 1 in his medical records to justify his diagnosis of Patient Number 1 and failed to document an adequate description of Patient Number 1's defects in the medical records to justify his diagnosis and/or plan of treatment in the following respects: There is no mention as to any psychological evaluation of the patient documenting her reasons for undergoing the planned surgery. As to the breast evaluation there is no mention of the ptosis of the breasts, the position of the nipples, any masses, any lumps, any breast drainage, any examination of the armpits, any prior medical history of breast cancer, or whether the patient has had previous surgeries on her breasts. As to the face and neck, no notation is made of the function of the eyes, of where the lids are positioned on the globe; or of the patient's visual acuity. Further, there is no notation regarding the amount of wrinkling on the patient's face. There is also no notation regarding previous surgery or regarding the condition of the patient's neck. The records also fail to document the condition of the patient's upper eyelids. Additionally, Respondent failed to adequately document Patient Number 1's pre-operative condition in that Respondent's pre-operative photographs provided poor documentation of Patient Number 1's appearance prior to surgery in that they are not close enough and they are only from one side. Particularly for eyelid surgery it is necessary to have good photographs of both eyes in order to document the patient's status at the pre-operative examination. The Respondent also failed to adequately document in Patient Number 1's medical records in the operative note, the surgical procedures and technique used in sufficient detail for the reader to decipher what actually occurred during Patient Number 1's operation. Illustrative of this fact is that the operation performed on Patient Number 1 occurred over a period of five (5) hours and fifty (50) minutes; yet, the operative note is only eleven lines to document what occurred during all that time. The Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in that he failed to meet the standard of care in his treatment of Patient Number 1 by failing to perform those procedures for which he billed and collected fees from Patient Number 1 and told her he would perform.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of each of the four violations charged and imposing the following penalties: Suspension of the Respondent's medical license for a period of one year to be followed by one year of supervised probation; Imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), and Requiring payment of restitution to Patient Number 1 in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the liposuction which was not performed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Oakwood was licensed by Petitioner as a skilled nursing facility. Oakwood operates a 120-bed nursing home located in Eustis, Florida. From June 19 through July 1, 2002, Dorothy Mueller, who at the time was employed by AHCA as a Registered Nurse Specialist, conducted a complaint investigation at Oakwood. She received the complaint from Florida Protective Services of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Ms. Mueller is Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT) qualified. She is currently licensed as a registered nurse in Florida but retired from AHCA in December 2002. Ms. Mueller began the complaint investigation on June 19, 2002. She announced her visit to the facility's administrator, observed residents, interviewed staff, and reviewed records. She requested a sampling of residents' records. The sample she reviewed included the record of Resident D.R. During the course of the complaint investigation, Ms. Mueller did not interview Resident D.R. as she had already been discharged from the facility. Ms. Mueller examined Resident D.R.'s care plans, assessments, nursing notes, and wound care. Nurse Mueller was specifically looking for whether anyone at Respondent's facility was actually looking at the skin of Resident D.R.'s heels because Resident D.R. was wearing TED hose. Because Resident D.R. was at risk for developing pressure sores, Ms. Mueller was concerned that she found no specific preventative measures taken by the facility to help prevent the development of pressure sores on Resident D.R.'s heels.1/ In determining her findings, Ms. Mueller took into consideration the findings of the person from DCFS who had filed the complaint that caused AHCA to send Ms. Mueller to investigate. Additionally, Ms. Mueller also took into consideration notes from Resident D.R.'s family physician and statements he made to her regarding the condition of Resident D.R.'s heels two days after her discharge from Oakwood.2/ Based on Ms. Mueller's findings during this complaint investigation, federal tag F224 was cited against Oakwood. Resident D.R. was admitted to Oakwood on February 24, 2002, following a four-day hospitalization for hip surgery due to a fall at her home which resulted in a hip fracture. Resident D.R.'s hospital records reveal the development of a skin ulcer in her sacral area the morning of February 23, 2002, and that the ulcer worsened before Resident D.R.'s discharge from the hospital on February 24, 2002. Upon admission to Oakwood, Resident D.R. was assessed by Dorothy Gilbert, a Registered Nurse employed by Oakwood. Nurse Gilbert's full skin assessment of Resident D.R. noted two skin ulcers on Resident D.R.'s sacral area with no other skin breakdown. Nurse Gilbert noted that Resident D.R.'s heels were "soft nonreddened." According to Nurse Gilbert, that notation meant that the skin on Resident D.R.'s heels was normal, intact, nonreddened and showed no deterioration. The nurse's assessment form contains a diagram of a person showing front and back with the following instruction: "Skin: Indicate on diagram below all body marks such as old or recent scar, bruise, discoloration, laceration, amputation, decubitus ulcer, and any other questionable marking(s) considered other than normal." Nurse Gilbert made detailed notations and drawings on the diagram indicating any and all skin breakdown of Resident D.R. The foot area of the diagram contained no notation or drawing indicating any skin breakdown on Resident D.R.'s feet upon admission to Oakwood. Another page of the nurse's assessment form is entitled "Braden Scale-For Predicting Pressure Sore Risk." Nurse Gilbert gave Resident D.R. a score of 14 which identified her to be at moderate risk for pressure sores or ulcers. She was at risk for skin breakdown over her entire body, not just her heels, and her care plan accounted for this. Resident D.R. was wearing TED hose at the time of admission and wore them throughout her stay. TED hose are anti- embolism stockings typically used following surgery to enhance blood flow and prevent clotting. Resident D.R. was a petite, elderly woman weighing 83 pounds. Appropriate assessments and interdisciplinary care plans were developed for Resident D.R., including for her existing skin ulcers also referred to as sores or wounds. During Resident D.R.'s stay at Oakwood, one of her existing sacral skin wounds improved and the other wound healed. She received daily wound treatment by the nurses on duty and the wound care nurse measured her ulcers and assessed her skin each Thursday. Cynthia Burbey is an Licensed Practical Nurse employed by Oakwood. She observed Resident D.R.'s heel condition usually every day when she gave her treatment for wound care on her coccyx, and on her shower days which occurred twice a week. While the Certified Nurses Assistants (CNAs) give showers to the residents, the nurses follow the bathing of the resident with a body check/body assessment. Nurse Burbey never saw any skin deterioration on Resident D.R.'s heels, including the day Resident D.R. was discharged. At the time of the discharge, Nurse Burbey did a body assessment from head to toe of Resident D.R. and did not observe any skin deterioration on Resident D.R.'s heels. The CNAs at Respondent's facility play a significant role in observing skin condition and are to report any change in skin condition to the nurses. In addition to their role in observing skin condition at bath time, the CNAs repositioned Resident D.R. every two hours and assisted her in and out of bed each day. She was completely dressed and undressed each day by her attending CNAs who would remove her TED hose and change them. Pressure on skin over bony areas is a primary cause of pressure ulcers or bed sores. Resident D.R. received a variety of services and devices during her stay at Oakwood aimed at reducing the likelihood of bed sores, including knee wedges for both her bed and wheelchair, calf pads for her wheelchair, a pressure reducing mattress, and physical therapy. Because of her petite size, the knee wedge used for her bed resulted in Resident D.R.'s heels being "floated" off her mattress. Resident D.R., also received physical therapy services including range of motion exercises while at Oakwood. The range of motion exercises for her lower extremities would have provided her therapists and restorative aids an opportunity to detect evidence of skin breakdown on her heels, because her heels were touched by the therapists or aides during these exercises. While Resident D.R. wore socks for these therapies, the therapists and aides saw no evidence of staining on her socks, which often happens from drainage from a heel wound, or any evidence that their touching her heels resulted in any pain to Resident D.R. The restorative aides provided Resident D.R. with range of motion exercises six days a week, including the day before her discharge from Respondent's facility. The initial nursing assessment indicating "heel soft, nonreddened" raised Ms. Mueller's concerns that there was no care specifically directed toward Resident D.R.'s heels. However, there is no competent evidence that Resident D.R. had heel wounds either upon admission or which developed during her stay at Oakwood. Accordingly, there was no reason for Oakwood to have a skin care plan specifically addressing Resident D.R.'s heels, particularly in light of the fact that Oakwood had a skin care plan in place for Resident D.R. which was followed. Further, during cross examination, when asked whether the phrase "heel soft nonreddened," was an indicator that Resident D.R. had a problem with her heel, she acknowledged, "I would have to answer yes and no to that." AHCA 's charge of failure to have due diligence taken to prevent, subsequently detect if the condition could not be prevented, and then provide appropriate care and treatment for avoidable bilateral pressure ulcers is based solely on hearsay evidence. AHCA's sole witness, the surveyor who conducted the complaint investigation, never observed Resident D.R. at any time, either in Respondent's facility or after her discharge. The evidence presented does not establish that Oakwood failed to have due diligence to prevent, subsequently detect if the condition could not be prevented, and then provide appropriate care and treatment for bilateral pressure sores. There is no competent proof that any heel sore developed on Resident D.R.'s heels while a resident at Oakwood. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff appropriately addressed the skin care needs of Resident D.R.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued against Respondent, Oakwood Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 21st day of March, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a medical doctor, in his treatment of Patient M.A., failed to keep legible medical records in violation of section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2007); prescribed or administered inappropriate or excessive quantities of controlled substances in violation of section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2007); committed medical malpractice by practicing below the standard of care in violation of section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007); failed to perform a statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician in violation of section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2007); and violated any provision of chapter 458 or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto in violation of section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2007), as Petitioner alleges in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Paul M. Goldberg, M.D., violated sections 458.331(1)(g) and (nn), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts IV and V of the Complaint; Dismissing Counts I-III of the Complaint; Imposing $20,000 in administrative fines; issuing a reprimand against Dr. Goldberg's medical license; requiring Dr. Goldberg to complete the "Laws and Rules" Course; suspending Dr. Goldberg's medical license until such time as Dr. Goldberg undergoes a "UF CARES" evaluation; and placing Dr. Goldberg's license on probation for three years under indirect supervision with 100 percent chart review of cosmetic surgery patients and 25 percent chart review of all other patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2015.
The Issue Should Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stehpenson's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0051453. The patient, a 73 year old female, presented to Respondent on July 11, 1991, with complaints of flashes of light over the past ten years which had increased over the past two years. The patient also complained of seeing halos around street lights at night. During this visit, Respondent diagnosed the patient as having 20/30 corrected vision in her right eye and 20/40 plus 2 corrected vision in her left eye, and that the patient had cataracts. However, Respondent did not recommend cataract surgery at this time. In January, 1992, the patient took the State of Florida driver's license test, including the eye test, and received her driver's license. However, the examiner notice that the patient was having trouble with the eye test and, although the examiner gave the patient her driver's license, the examiner suggested that the patient see an opthalmologist. At the time the patient received her driver's license in January, 1992, the patient was enjoying golf, bowling and driving. Although the patient did not immediately follow the driver's license examiner's advice concerning her eyes, the patient did visit with Respondent on May 8, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised the Respondent that the flashes and floaters had improved but that her vision was interfering with her golfing and driving. Again, Respondent did not recommend removal of the cataract. The patient's vision continued to interfere with her golfing and driving, notwithstanding the patient's testimony to the contrary which I do not find to be credible. The patient's next visit with Respondent was on October 16, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised Respondent that her vision had "lessened a lot" in the left eye. Visual acuity testing indicated corrected vision of 20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 plus 2 in the left eye. However, while the level of vision at which the patient was able to perceive letters (20/40 plus 2) did not change, the refraction (stronger glasses) required to achieve that level indicated more myopia, indicating that the cataract had progressed which supports the patient's complaint that her vision had "lessened a lot". Also at the October 16, 1992, visit, Respondent tested the patient's vision using brightness acuity testing (glare test) and measured the patient's vision as 20/70, with glare in the left eye. The glare test is a method whereby the doctor shines a light in the person's eye to determine the effect of glare on the person's vision. Although some ophthalmologists consider the glare test of no value, other ophthalmologists consider the glare test as another tool to assist the surgeon in making a decision concerning the necessity for cataract surgery. During the October 16, 1992, office visit, Respondent discussed with the patient: (a) the effect the cataract was having on the patient's activities (life-style); (b) the patient's complaint that her vision had lessened; (c) the results of the glare test showing the patient's vision as 20/70 with glare and; (d) other visual acuity testing; and (e)advised the patient that cataract surgery was indicated. Also, Respondent explained the cataract surgery procedures and discussed with the patient the risks and the benefits of the surgery. The patient had no reservations or objections to the surgery and consented to the surgery in hopes of improving her eyesight as well as her life- style. For a person with cataracts, a corrected vision of 20/40 or worse is the vision level where some cataract surgeons will recommend cataract surgery, while other cataract surgeons consider a corrected vision of 20/50 or worse, with or without glare, as the vision level where cataract surgery should be recommended. However, because the vision as determined by visual acuity testing (the ability of the person to perceive letters) does not always accurately reflect the person's quality of vision (the quality of perception on a day to day basis), neither vision level referred to above when considered alone can be used as a hard and fast rule to form a basis for cataract surgery. Since the quality of vision can only be described by the person with the cataract(s), the cataract surgeon must also determine, after consultation with the person, that the cataract(s) are interfering with the person's life-style. Therefore, a person with corrected vision of somewhat better than 20/40 or 20/70 with or without glare, may be a candidate for cataract surgery, provided the cataract is causing a reduction in the person's quality of vision beyond what is indicated by visual acuity testing and thereby interfering with the person's life-style. Furthermore, there are no written standards or guidelines which set a particular vision level for the cataract surgeon to follow when making a decision to recommend cataract surgery. The surgeon must take into consideration all factors and make a decision based on the surgeon's judgment as to what is best for that person. The patient's vision level and the interference the patient was experiencing with her life-style because of the cataracts in her left eye justified Respondent's decision to recommend and perform the cataract surgery on the patient, notwithstanding any of the testimony of Dr. Leslie Monroe to the contrary. On November 3, 1992, Respondent performed phacoemulsification (removal of cataract) with posterior chamber intracular lens implant (implantation of lens) on the patient's left eye. While the patient was in the holding area being prepared for surgery there were complications with the anesthesia. The anesthesiologist, Robert Dienes, M. D., first gave the patient a retrobulbar block which was repeated apparently due to Dr. Dienes' conclusion that the first retrobulbar block was ineffective. Apparently, Dr. Dienes also concluded that the second retrobulbar block was ineffective and gave the patient a superior lid peribulbar block. After giving the peribulbar block, Dr. Dienes noticed a dissecting subconjunctival hemorrhage and notified Respondent. Upon examining the patient's eye, Respondent found the globe (whole eye) to be soft with no active bleeding, indicating the eye was not full of blood and that there was no retina tear or rupture of the globe. Respondent also noticed that "the conjunctiva was real chemotic or it had blood behind it". Respondent also measured the patient's eye pressure with a Schiotz tonameter because there was no slit-lamp in the holding area. The patient's eye pressure was 5, with a 5.5 gram weight, which was normal. The patient's medical records do not reflect an indirect ophthalmoscopy being performed by Respondent on the patient's left eye between Respondent being advised of the dissecting subjunctival hemorrhage by Dr. Diemes and the Respondent performing surgery on the patient's left eye to remove the cataract and implant the lens. Furthermore, Respondent has no independent recollection of performing an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Respondent's normal practice under conditions and circumstances similar to those in this case has been to perform an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Therefore, it is assumed that Respondent performed an indirect ophthalmoscopy on the patient after being advised of the subconjunctival hemorrhage but before surgery, notwithstanding the fact that patient's medical records do not reflect such procedure being performed or the fact that Respondent has no independent recollection of performing such procedure during the above period of time. However, assuming arguendo that Respondent did not perform the indirect ophthalmoscopy before surgery, the Agency has failed to establish facts to show that under the conditions and circumstances of this case that such failure amounted to the failure of Respondent 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. After considering the conditions and circumstances surrounding the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized, Respondent made a decision that it was in the best interest of the patient to go forward with the removal of the cataract and implantation of the lens. The operation was completed without any further incident and there was a successful removal of the cataract and lens transplant. Respondent's decision to go forward with the surgery had no adverse effect on the subsequent treatment of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. In fact, the result of the treatment subsequent to the cataract surgery would have been the same even if Respondent had not gone forward with the surgery. Respondent, using a ophthalmoscope, was able to see the inside of the eye more clearly and assess the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. While performing this indirect ophthalmoscopy, Respondent noted undulation of the vitreous with pigmented blood cells present and that the anesthesia needle had penetrated the globe. The patient was seen the next morning, November 3, 1992, by Respondent. After assessing the condition of the patient's left eye, Respondent referred the patient to Keye Wong, M. D., a retina specialist. Upon examining the patient's left eye on November 4, 1992, Dr. Wong noted vitreous hemorrhaging and retinal detachment. Dr. Wong performed an operation on the patient's left eye in an attempt to correct the damage and attach the retina. The patient's vision is not as good as it was before the operation, and still effects the patient's life-style. The patient has difficulty tolerating sunlight, which may or may not be a result of the complication experienced while the patient was being anesthetize. Respondent's action of going forward with the surgery after becoming aware of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized did not cause, complicate, aggravate or result in any of the problems the patient has suffered postoperatively. Respondent did not fail to recognize, identify or treat properly the complications that arose before, during or after the surgery. The Agency has failed to establish facts to show that 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 at anytime while Respondent was treating the patient, including both preoperative and postoperative treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stephenson, M. D. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1560 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Department in this case. Agency's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-2 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in Finding of Fact 3. The second and third sentence are not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 4 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 5, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 5 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 7, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 12, 13, and 14, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 8 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 21 and 22, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 9 is a restatement of Dr. Monroe's testimony and is not a finding of fact. However, see Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 8, Proposed findings of fact 10, 16, 17 and 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 15, 16, 10, 8 and 9. Proposed finding of fact 11 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 16, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Although proposed findings of fact 12, 13 and 15 are findings of fact, they are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. See Finding of Fact 9. Proposed finding of fact 14 is a restatement of Dr. Grabow's testimony and is not stated as a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. Dr. Grabow's testimony was 20/50 vision with or without glare which is different than just 20/50 vision. 11. Proposed findings of Fact 18 and 20 are not supported by evidence in the record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 27 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Marm Harris, M. D., Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building Number Three 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steve Rothenburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 William E. Partridge, Esquire Lutz, Webb, Partridge, BoBo, and Baitty One Sarasota Tower 2 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of an (ophthalmological) ambulatory surgical center in Palm Beach County, Florida. Subordinate issues are: Whether the proposed facility satisfies the CON criteria of Sections 381.494-499, Florida Statutes, as implemented by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS) rule and non-rule policy; Whether the proposed facility will result in unnecessary duplication of services, underutilization of existing services and increased health care costs to the community; Whether adequate resources are available for the construction and operation of the proposed facility; and Whether the proposed facility is financially feasible.
Findings Of Fact (Numbering corresponds to numbering used in proposed findings.) Preliminary findings: 1-4. Approved. On issue of compliance with applicable criteria: 1-7. Approved. 8. Approved, with caveat that this is subject to supplying an adequate record basis for the policy at hearing. 9-13 Approved. Approved but no presumption of correctness attaches to HRS earlier or more recent evaluation of the application. See, Boca Raton, supra. Approved. Approved but modified to more accurately reflect that HRS takes HMO's into account, but this factor was not used or relied on (in connection with the non-rule policy or standing alone) as the basis for granting Petitioner's application. Approved. 18-32. Approved, in the sense that an HRS expert witness at hearing offered conclusions as to compliance with each statutory criteria; rejected, in that his conclusions (except for those concerning quality of care, financial feasibility, the inapplicability of some criteria, and the cost advantages of modifying an existing facility instead of constructing a new one) are rejected as unsubstantiated by the facts. On the Issue of Need: 1-8. Approved. Approved. Modified to reflect that this is one estimate among several offered by experts. Rejected as unsupported by the credible evidence of record. Approved. Approved. First sentence, approved, in that this is the stated "attempt" of HRS' challenged non-rule policy. Second sentence, rejected as unsupported by the credible evidence; the profitable performance of outpatient surgery at a physician's office does logically compel a conclusion that his office should be licensed as an ambulatory surgical facility. On the issue of adequate resources: 1-8. Approved. On the issue of financial feasibility: 1-19 Approved. 20. Rejected as argumentative. RULINGS ON INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1-4. Approved. 5. Approved except for reference to equipment costs, of which there will be none. 9-16 Approved. 17. Such broad-brush incorporation of all facts asserted in argument is not susceptible to explicit rulings. RULINGS ON POST-HEARING MOTIONS. Intervenor's "Motion to Stay Issuance of Recommended Order" is denied. Intervenor's "Request for Hearing Officer to Take Official Recognition" of the Final Order of Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton II, in consolidated DOAH Case Nos. 85-2962R, 85-2963R and 85-3193R (attached to a "Notice of Supplemental Authority" dated November 1, 1985) is granted. The order is made a part of the record of this proceeding. A final order entered by another hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings the authenticity of which is not in question, is an appropriate document to be accorded official recognition. See, Health Quest Realty XII v. HRS, 10 FLW 1729 (Fla. 1st DCA July 16, 1985, pet. for reh. pending). COPIES FURNISHED: Eric B. Tilton, Esquire 104 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee Florida 32301 William B. Wiley, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Recommendation Based on the foegoing it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of an ambulatory surgical facility at his offices in Palm Beach County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of January, 1986.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(f) and (m), Florida Statutes (1997), by assisting an unlicensed person to practice medicine contrary to Chapter 458 and by failing to maintain adequate medical records; and, if so, what discipline, if any, should be imposed against Respondent's license. (All references to chapters and statutes are to those promulgated in Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida. Respondent is licensed to practice medicine in Florida pursuant to license number ME 0015824. Respondent owns and operates an ambulatory surgical center doing business as the Dermatologic & Cosmetic Surgery Center (Surgery Center). The Surgery Center is located at 2666 Swamp Cabbage Court, Fort Myers, Florida 33901. Respondent is a Board-certified Dermatologist and also performs cosmetic surgery that includes breast augmentation. Dermatology and cosmetic surgery involve similar procedures. The procedures used to remove skin cancers from the face are similar to those used in face-lifts and eyelid surgery. Respondent performs approximately a thousand skin cancer surgeries a year, has been doing cosmetic surgery since 1986, and has practiced breast surgery since 1989. Respondent is a member of the American Board of Cosmetic Surgery. That board is not approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties or the Florida Board of Medicine. Respondent has attended numerous seminars and satisfied relevant continuing education requirements throughout his career. Respondent has never been sued by a patient and has no prior discipline against his license. Prior to August 12, 1997, Respondent performed breast augmentations through the patient's nipple. Respondent made a small incision in the lower part of the binary nipple. He used his fingers to separate the overlying breast tissue from the muscle and create a pocket in which to place an implant. The incision left a scar at the nipple, and Respondent sought to develop competency in a different procedure identified in the record as the axillary method of breast augmentation. The axillary method allows the surgeon to access the breast from the patient's armpit. The surgeon makes a 1.5 inch incision under the armpit, uses an instrument to create a pocket in the breast, inserts a partially inflated implant into the pocket, and repeats the same procedure in the other breast. The surgeon then checks the breasts for symmetry, fills the implants, closes the pockets, and concludes the procedure. In the axillary method, a surgeon must use instruments rather than his fingers to create a pocket for the implant. The initial incision and placement of the implant do not require great skill. The greater skill is required in reaching the proper plane in the breast tissue and in creating the pocket. The brachial plexis is just below the incision in the armpit and contains all of the nerves that make the arm work. From the armpit, the surgeon must proceed over the sternum. If the surgeon applies too much pressure, the surgeon can cross the center of the chest and create a condition known as a unibreast. Respondent developed a basic understanding of the axillary method by watching video tapes for several years and by attending seminars approved for professional education credit in the State of Florida. In May of 1997, Dr. Daniel Metcalf taught one of those seminars in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Metcalf is licensed to practice medicine in Oklahoma. He is qualified by training and experience to perform the axillary method and to teach the method to other physicians. For approximately 25 years, Dr. Metcalf has limited his medical practice to breast surgery and performs approximately 650 surgeries each year. At the time that Dr. Metcalf taught the accredited seminar in Orlando, his license to practice medicine in Oklahoma was suspended. On November 13, 1995, Dr. Metcalf pled guilty to a felony charge that he violated federal interstate commerce law by selling silicon implants during a moratorium on their sale. The federal court fined Dr. Metcalf $5,000 and sentenced him to six months in federal prison beginning on April 5, 1996. The State of Oklahoma suspended Dr. Metcalf's medical license for one year beginning on the date of his release from prison. The suspension expired on or about October 5, 1997. In May of 1997, Respondent discussed the axillary method with Dr. Metcalf during the seminar in Orlando. Respondent and Dr. Metcalf had known each other since the early 1980s, and Dr. Metcalf agreed to come to the Surgery Center and teach the axillary method to Respondent. Respondent scheduled the teaching session at the Surgery Center for August 12 and 13, 1997. Five of Respondent's patients agreed to participate. The patients are identified in the record as B.D., T.R., R.K., M.P., and D.C. Each patient acknowledged in writing that it would be the first time Respondent would perform the axillary method. Neither Respondent nor Dr. Metcalf charged the patients for a surgeon's fee, and Dr. Metcalf did not charge Respondent. However, the patients paid the costs of the implant, the operating room, and the blood work. Respondent conducted a preoperative interview with each patient. He advised the patient that Dr. Metcalf would be in the operating room teaching Respondent. On August 12 and 13, 1997, Respondent introduced Dr. Metcalf to each patient. Respondent and Dr. Metcalf then scrubbed, gloved, and proceeded with the teaching session. Dr. Metcalf performed approximately 60 to 70 percent of the first surgery. Respondent performed progressively more of each successive surgery until Respondent performed the vast majority of the surgery. The surgery that Dr. Metcalf performed included at least one incision and pocket, insertion of an implant, use of the appropriate surgical instruments, and closure of an incision on at least one patient. Neither Respondent nor Dr. Metcalf caused any harm to a patient. The results of all five procedures were positive and without complication. No patients complained about their treatment. Two of Respondent's former employees are the complaining witnesses in this case. The first issue is whether Dr. Metcalf practiced medicine within the meaning of Section 458.305(3). Section 458.305(3) defines the "practice of medicine" as: [T]he diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition. Dr. Metcalf did not diagnose, treat, or prescribe medicine for any human disease, pain, injury, or deformity, or mental condition. The breast augmentations that he participated in were elective and cosmetic and did not treat any disease, pain, injury, or deformity. Dr. Metcalf must have performed an "operation" for some "other physical . . . condition" in order to practice medicine within the meaning of Section 458.305(3). Respondent's counsel argued during the hearing that the issue of whether Dr. Metcalf practiced medicine was an issue of law, rather than fact. Counsel argued that expert testimony would invade the province of the ALJ. If Respondent's counsel were correct, the result could be problematic for Section 90.702. Although a physician would be qualified by training and experience to opine that a peer's activities satisfy the standard of care applicable to the practice of medicine, the physician would not be qualified to know whether he or his peer practiced medicine. In an abundance of caution, the ALJ requested the parties to cite relevant legal authority in their respective PROs. Neither party cited any direct or analogous legal authority that resolves the issue raised by Respondent's counsel or construes the statutory definition of the practice of medicine in Section 458.305(3). Each party submitted expert testimony concerning the issue of whether Dr. Metcalf practiced medicine. As the trier of fact and arbiter of credibility, the ALJ must resolve the evidential conflicts between the experts. Accordingly, the fact finder has carefully considered the substance of the testimony of the two experts and determined the appropriate weight to be accorded the testimony of each. Respondent's expert based his opinion on a custom within the medical profession in which unlicensed persons, such as members of an emergency medical team, medical students, and first year residents, train under a physician. Respondent's expert opined that an unlicensed person does not practice medicine because the person is learning under the auspices of a physician who has responsibility for the unlicensed person. Respondent's expert relied on facts not in evidence. Unlike the custom described by Respondent's expert, the evidence shows that the person teaching was not licensed to practice medicine in the state where the teaching occurred. The person learning was the only person so licensed. While Respondent had ultimate responsibility, Respondent was not teaching Dr. Metcalf. Dr. Metcalf was teaching Respondent. The custom described by Respondent's expert operates within a framework of laws and rules that are inapposite to this case. Residents who are not licensed to practice medicine in Florida may practice under the supervision of a physician only if the residents, and the hospitals in which they work, comply with registration and reporting requirements in Section 458.345 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 648-6.008 and 6.009. None of those provisions apply to the facts in this case. (All references to rules are to those promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order.) Respondent's expert also testified that doctors customarily teach other doctors in states where the teaching doctor is not licensed. In Florida, however, that custom is limited by Section 458.303(1)(b) to activities that satisfy the definition of a consultation. A consultation is defined in Rule 64B8-2.001(8) to include the taking of a medical history, the examination of a patient, the review of laboratory tests and x-rays, and the making of recommendations to a person licensed to practice medicine in Florida. A consultation is not a set of activities separate and apart from the practice of medicine. It is a subset of the "practice of medicine" in Section 458.305(3). The opinion of Respondent's expert is limited, by operation of law, to that part of the practice of medicine that is a consultation within the meaning of Section 458.303(1)(b) and Rule 64B8-2.001(8). That part of the practice of medicine that is not a consultation is the practice of medicine that is at issue in Section 458.331(1)(f). Further references in this Recommended Order to the "practice of medicine" refer to those activities described in Section 458.305(3) that are not a consultation within the meaning of Section 458.303(1)(b) and Rule 64B8-2.001(8). Some of the activities engaged in by Dr. Metcalf at the Surgery Center satisfied the definition of a consultation. Other activities comprised the practice of medicine. The proportion of each is not material in this case. Dr. Metcalf performed at least 60 percent of the first "operation" for some "other physical . . . condition" within the meaning of Section 458.305(3). Dr. Metcalf practiced medicine progressively less with each successive operation and performed progressively more consultation. One purpose of the teaching session was for Dr. Metcalf to first demonstrate the axillary method and then to assist Respondent in the practice of that medicine. As it turned out, this purpose was more qualitative than quantitative because Respondent quickly demonstrated competency. However, if it were unnecessary for Dr. Metcalf to first demonstrate the axillary method, Respondent could have gained the competency he sought by reviewing video tapes, attending seminars, and consulting with Dr. Metcalf. Respondent aided, assisted, procured, or advised Dr. Metcalf to engage in the practice of medicine for at least 60 percent the first surgery performed on August 12, 1997. The next issue is whether Dr. Metcalf was an "unlicensed person" within the meaning of Section 458.331(1)(f). Chapter 458 commonly uses the term "licensed" to refer to persons licensed outside of Florida. For example, Section 458.303(1)(b) refers to physicians "licensed" in another state. Section 458.3115(1) authorizes restricted licenses for "foreign- licensed" persons. Section 458.313(1)(c) authorizes licensure by endorsement for those "licensed" in another jurisdiction, and Section 458.315 authorizes a temporary certificate for persons "licensed" in any other state. Dr. Metcalf was a licensed person in Oklahoma when he practiced medicine at the Surgery Center in August of 1997. A person licensed to practice medicine is not an "unlicensed person" while the person's license is suspended. A contrary finding could be problematic under Florida law. If a person with a suspended Florida license were an unlicensed person during the suspension and the person violated the terms of the suspension, the person would have no professional license against which the Board of Medicine could take further disciplinary action, including revocation of the license. Rather, the Board would be required to seek criminal prosecution pursuant to Section 458.327(1)(a). During the period of suspension, Dr. Metcalf was a licensed person in Oklahoma. However, Dr. Metcalf was not authorized to exercise any privileges under the license or to enjoy the benefits of his license until the suspension expired. Section 458.331(1)(f) does not prohibit Respondent from aiding, assisting, procuring, or advising an unauthorized person to practice medicine. Such a statutory prohibition would have been broad enough to proscribe the practice of medicine by a licensed person whose authority to practice was temporarily suspended. Rather, Section 458.331(1)(f) prohibits Respondent from "aiding, assisting, procuring, or advising any unlicensed person" to practice medicine. (emphasis supplied) Relevant terms in Section 458.331(1)(f) must be construed strictly in favor of the licensee because this is a license disciplinary proceeding that is penal in nature. A finding that Dr. Metcalf was a licensed person in Oklahoma does not resolve the issue of whether Dr. Metcalf was an unlicensed person for the purposes of Section 458.331(1)(f). An "unlicensed person" in Section 458.331(1)(f) is properly defined by reference to Section 458.327(1)(a). Section 458.331(1)(f) prohibits Respondent from "aiding, assisting, procuring, or advising an unlicensed person to practice medicine contrary to this chapter " (emphasis supplied). Section 458.327(1)(a) prohibits the practice of medicine without "a license to practice in Florida." When the term "unlicensed person" in Section 458.331(1)(f) is harmonized with Section 458.327(1)(a), an "unlicensed person" means a person not licensed in Florida. 44. Sections 458.327(1)(a) and 458.331(1)(f) operate in concert. The former proscribes the practice of medicine inside this state without a Florida license. The latter prohibits a person licensed inside the state from assisting in the violation of the former. In August of 1997, Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(f) by assisting an unlicensed person to practice medicine contrary to Section 458.327(1)(a). Respondent did not intentionally violate Section 458.331(1)(f) and had no prior knowledge of the violation. The cause of the violation is rooted in multiple instances of miscommunication, confusing circumstances, and statutory ambiguity that Respondent did not create. Respondent undertook reasonable efforts to comply with Florida law. Prior to the surgeries, Respondent contacted Ms. Anne Dean. Ms. Dean is the licensed risk manager for the Surgery Center and is qualified by training and experience to advise Respondent in matters of regulatory compliance. Ms. Dean owns and operates a risk management company in Deland, Florida. She is the certified risk manager for over 450 domestic and foreign ambulatory surgery centers. Ms. Dean provides a wide range of services including financial feasibility analysis and the processing of certificates of need. She also provides services to ensure that architectural design, equipment lists, inventories, and policies and procedures comply with applicable state and federal regulatory requirements. Ms. Dean also assists ambulatory surgical centers with other license certification, accreditation, and regulatory matters. Since 1988, Ms. Dean has been the risk manager required under state law for the Surgery Center. Ms. Dean was responsible for the Surgery Center's state licensure and Medicare certification. She has been present during each license and risk management survey conducted by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). AHCA has never cited the Surgery Center for a violation. Ms. Dean has assisted Respondent in ensuring that renovations to the Surgery Center complied with applicable regulations and, except for the calendar year 2000, has advised Respondent in all matters of regulatory compliance and accreditation. Respondent asked Ms. Dean to ensure that the teaching session to be conducted by Dr. Metcalf complied with applicable state law and any accreditation requirements. Ms. Dean spoke by telephone with unidentified representatives of both AHCA and Petitioner. The advice from those representatives was consistent for two areas of concern. The first area of concern involved the accreditation needed for Respondent to be certified to perform the axillary method. Pursuant to the advice of the agency representatives, Ms. Dean created a surgical proctor report and gave the form to Respondent. After the teaching session, Dr. Metcalf completed a report for each patient and provided the reports to Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean reviewed the reports and met with a three-member committee for the Surgery Center. The committee certified Respondent as qualified to perform the axillary method. The second area of concern involved the status of Dr. Metcalf's license to practice medicine. Respondent was specifically concerned that Dr. Metcalf was not licensed to practice medicine in Florida and that Dr. Metcalf's Oklahoma license was suspended. Respondent requested Ms. Dean to ensure that the teaching session complied with Florida law. Ms. Dean conferred with representatives for Petitioner and AHCA. Ms. Dean advised Respondent that if the person teaching were licensed in another state, the person would be entitled to practice medicine in Florida during the teaching session under the auspices of Respondent, a licensed person in Florida. However, if the person teaching were not licensed in another state, the person could not perform any function that required licensure. Ms. Dean conveyed the advice of the agency representatives to Respondent. The advice from those qualified by training and experience in regulatory compliance is consistent with an educational custom among practitioners. It is common for doctors to practice medicine for educational purposes in states where they are not licensed. Before Respondent began cosmetic surgery, Respondent spent four one-week periods with two different cosmetic surgeons in Texas and Virginia. Respondent was not licensed to practice in Virginia. Respondent obtained similar experience in California where he is not licensed. Respondent is 66 years old and did not attempt to become board certified in plastic surgery. That certification would have required two or three years of general surgery and plastic surgery. Respondent would have spent his time learning complex reconstructive procedures, including cleft lips and pallets, rather than simpler cosmetic surgery. The advice from Ms. Dean and representatives for Petitioner and AHCA was incorrect and based on a mistake of law. The statement that a person licensed in another state can do more than consult in Florida purports to amend or modify the limited authority in Section 458.303(1)(b) as well as the prohibitions in Sections 458.331(1)(f) and 458.327(1)(a). An agency cannot amend, enlarge, or deviate from a statute. The mistake of law arose from ambiguity in Chapter 458. Chapter 458 does not define the term "unlicensed person." An "unlicensed physician" is defined in Rule 64B8-6.001 to mean a medical doctor not licensed by the Board of Medicine. However, the term "unlicensed physician" applies only to Section 458.345 and does not apply to Section 458.331(1)(f). The law implemented in Rule 64B8-6.001 is limited to Section 458.345. The rule refers only to interns, residents, and fellows in a hospital setting. Rule 64B8-6.001 does not define an "unlicensed physician" for any purpose in Chapter 458 except Section 458.345. A broader reading of Rule 64B8-6.001 would conflict with the definition of a "physician" in Section 458.305(4). Section 458.305(4) defines a "physician" to mean a person licensed by the Board of Medicine. The rule defines an "unlicensed physician" as a medical doctor not licensed by the Board. Even if the rule were construed to imply that a medical doctor is not a person, for purposes of Section 458.305(4), the implication would not avoid the apparent oxymoron. Any ambiguity between Section 458.305(4) and Rule 64B8-6.001 must be resolved in a manner that effectuates the statute. Section 458.305(4) defines a physician "as used in this chapter. . . ." (emphasis supplied) Neither the definition of an "unlicensed physician" in Rule 64B8-6.001 nor the definition of a "physician" in Section 458.305(4) defines the term "unlicensed person" in Section 458.331(1)(f). Chapter 458 does not expressly state that a person licensed to practice medicine in another state is an "unlicensed person." Moreover, Chapter 458 uses the term "licensed" interchangeably to mean persons licensed inside and outside of Florida. The correct meaning of the term "unlicensed person" is not found in a single provision in Chapter 458. A licensee must glean the meaning from reading Sections 458.427(1)(a) and 458.331(1)(f) in a manner that harmonizes the two provisions. The following hypothetical further illustrates the unintended ambiguity in Chapter 458. If Dr. Metcalf were licensed in Florida in August of 1997, Section 458.331(1)(f) would not have prohibited Respondent from assisting Dr. Metcalf to practice medicine contrary to Chapter 458, including gross and repeated malpractice. Section 458.331(1)(f) does not prohibit Respondent from helping a licensed person to violate Chapter 458. Statutory ambiguity also exists in the distinction between a consultation and other activities defined as the practice of medicine. Although Chapter 458 recognizes a legal distinction between the two kinds of activity, the practical distinctions evidently ebb and flow on a daily basis through a custom in which practitioners teach others in states where the practitioners are not licensed. The ambiguity in Chapter 458 gave rise to, confusion, mistakes of law by individuals qualified by training and experience in regulatory compliance and miscommunications to Respondent. Respondent reasonably relied on the advice of those qualified by training and experience to advise him in his attempt at regulatory compliance. Respondent did not intend to violate Section 458.331(1)(f). The remaining issue for determination is whether Respondent maintained adequate records for the teaching session at the Surgery Center. The statutory requirement for adequate medical records is set forth in Section 458.331(1)(m). In relevant part, Section 458.331(1)(m) provides that Respondent's license is subject to discipline if Respondent fails: [T]o keep . . . medical records that identify the licensed physician or the physician extender and supervising physician by name and professional title who is or are responsible for rendering . . . supervising, or billing for each . . . treatment procedure and that justify the course of treatment of the patient. (emphasis supplied) The parties do not dispute that the medical records adequately identify Respondent. The contested issue is whether the medical records justify the course of treatment by adequately identifying Dr. Metcalf by name and title. The medical records include operative reports that identify Respondent by name but do not identify Dr. Metcalf. Petitioner argues that Section 458.331(1)(m) requires the operative reports to identify both Respondent and Dr. Metcalf. Petitioner argues that Respondent was the "licensed physician" and Dr. Metcalf was the "physician extender and supervising physician." Dr. Metcalf was neither the "physician extender" nor the "supervising physician" during the teaching session. Section 458.305(4) defines a physician as a person who is licensed by the Board of Medicine. Dr. Metcalf was not licensed by the Board and was not a physician under Florida law. Respondent was the "licensed physician." Petitioner admits that the medical records adequately identify the "licensed physician" in accordance with Section 458.331(1)(m). If the definition of a physician in Section 458.305(4) were disregarded, the ALJ agrees with Petitioner that Section 458.331(1)(m) implicitly distinguishes a "licensed physician" from a "physician extender and supervising physician." However, the implicit distinction does not serve the ends that Petitioner seeks. Rather, the implicit distinction suggests that the physician extender and supervising physician may be someone other than a licensed physician. If the implied distinction in Section 458.331(1)(m) were correct, it would need to be construed in pari materia with Section 458.331(1)(f) in a manner that gives force and effect to both subsections. The prohibition in Section 458.331(1)(f) could not prohibit Respondent from assisting an unlicensed person who is "physician extender and supervising physician" without nullifying the implied distinction in Section 458.331(1)(m). The interplay between Subsections 458.331(1)(f) and (m) does not alter the outcome of this case. However, it further elucidates the statutory ambiguity that Respondent, his risk manager, and two different agency representatives faced in attempting to ascertain whether the teaching session complied with Florida law. Assuming arguendo that Petitioner's view of Dr. Metcalf as the physician extender and the supervising physician were correct, Petitioner's statutory interpretation conflicts with the literal terms of Section 458.331(1)(m). Section 458.331(1)(m) requires the medical records to identify either the licensed physician or the physician extender and supervising physician. The statute does not require the medical records to identify the licensed physician and the physician extender and supervising physician. Relevant terms in Section 458.331(1)(m) must be construed strictly in favor of the licensee because this is a license disciplinary proceeding that is penal in nature. If it were determined that Dr. Metcalf could be a physician extender without being a physician defined in Section 458.305(4), no statute or rule cited by the parties defines a "physician extender." Although the term may be a term of art within the medical profession, Petitioner failed to adequately explicate that form of art. The evidence was less than clear and convincing that Dr. Metcalf was a physician extender. If it were determined that Dr. Metcalf could be a supervising physician without being a physician defined in Section 458.305(4), the definitions of "direct supervision and control" and "direct responsibility" in Rule 64B8-2.001(1) and (6) and Rule 64B8-4.026(1) aren't probative. The rules merely define the quoted terms by reference to physical proximity. Both Respondent and Dr. Metcalf were physically proximate. The evidence shows that Respondent was ultimately responsible for the surgeries. Respondent had actual control of each surgery, could have stopped each surgery at any time, and was responsible for billing each patient. Unlike the operative reports, the anesthetist reports identify Respondent and Dr. Metcalf by name and title. The parties agree that the anesthetist reports are part of the medical records. Petitioner argues that the identification of Dr. Metcalf solely in the anesthetist reports is inadequate. Petitioner claims the operative reports must also identify Dr. Metcalf. Each party submitted expert testimony concerning the issue of whether the identification of Dr. Metcalf solely in the nurse anesthetist reports was adequate. Petitioner's expert was tendered and accepted "as a physician, in general, and as a plastic surgeon." Respondent's expert practices emergency medicine, rather than cosmetic or plastic surgery, but is an expert in quality assurance. Respondent's expert is better qualified by training and experience, within the meaning of Section 90.702, to assist the trier of fact in a determination of whether the medical records are adequate. The testimony of Respondent's expert is consistent with the record-keeping requirements in Section 458.331(1)(m) and Rule 64B8-9.003. Neither the statute nor the rule requires medical records to identify Dr. Metcalf in multiple parts of the medical records or to identify Dr. Metcalf in any specific document. The anesthetist reports comprise adequate medical records that identify both Respondent and Dr. Metcalf. Petitioner argues that the patient consent forms do not identify Dr. Metcalf; and that Respondent did not tell his patients that Dr. Metcalf would be operating on them or that Dr. Metcalf's license to practice medicine was suspended. No finding is made concerning these issues because they are not relevant to any allegation contained in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent failed to obtain informed consent from his patients. If it were determined that Section 458.331(1)(m) requires the operative reports to identify Dr. Metcalf when the anesthetist reports already do so, Respondent did not cause the omission of Dr. Metcalf's name from the operative reports. Respondent instructed his circulating nurse and surgical supervisor (circulating nurse) to identify Dr. Metcalf in the operative reports that Respondent signed but did not read. The regular duties of the circulating nurse included the identification of surgeons in the operative reports. Respondent reasonably relied on the circulating nurse to perform her assigned duties correctly. The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with failure to supervise his employee or with failure to review the operative reports he signed. The circulating nurse failed to identify Dr. Metcalf in the operative reports she prepared for Respondent. Sometime after the teaching session in August of 1997, the circulating nurse abruptly terminated her employment at the Surgery Center following several employment problems. When Respondent hired the circulating nurse in July of 1996, she was in an impaired physician or nurses (IPN) program for treatment of a previous addiction to Xanex and Demerol that she developed during her divorce. However, representatives of the IPN program assured Respondent that the circulating nurse was successfully completing the program. After the circulating nurse terminated her employment, Respondent discovered that drugs were missing from the Surgery Center. Respondent also learned that the circulating nurse had stopped going to the IPN program in August of 1997 and had stopped taking her urine tests. In October, 1997, the IPN program dismissed the circulating nurse. Sometime between August 13 and September 11, 1997, the circulating nurse told Respondent that she suspected the anesthetist of being addicted to drugs because he was falling asleep during surgeries. The circulating nurse also thought some drugs were missing from the Surgery Center. Respondent barred the anesthetist from further surgeries and asked the circulating nurse to conduct a drug count. Respondent left the next day with his wife on a previously scheduled vacation but stayed in communication with the circulating nurse. The circulating nurse conferred with the risk manager and conducted a drug count but did not comply with prescribed procedures. The circulating nurse entered her drug count on a form but did not make any written findings. The circulating nurse told Respondent that she thought some drugs were missing. Respondent requested the circulating nurse to fax him the portion of the Surgery Center manual that prescribed drug audit procedures. The circulating nurse faxed the material and then terminated her employment. When Respondent returned from his vacation, the office keys used by the circulating nurse were in Respondent's mailbox. The circulating nurse quit her job because she felt Respondent expected too much of her. Prior to January 1998, Respondent requested a pharmacy consultant to assist Respondent and his wife in a second narcotic count. The pharmacy consultant confirmed that some drugs were missing from the Surgery Center. The missing drugs included Versed, Demerol, Tylox, and Valium. Respondent reported the missing drugs to the risk manager, and the risk manager reported the incident to the state. The appropriate state agency began an investigation in January of 1998 that included the potential involvement of the anesthetist and the circulating nurse. The anesthetist died shortly after January 1998, and the agency concluded the investigation without charging the circulating nurse. The circulating nurse and Respondent's former insurance secretary are the complaining witnesses in this case. On September 11, 1997, the insurance secretary altered the computer entrees for the employee manual so that the number of hours needed to be eligible for insurance benefits conformed to the number of hours that the insurance secretary worked. Respondent's wife is the office administrator. She discovered the changes and corrected them. She then instructed the insurance secretary not to come into the Surgery Center while Respondent was on vacation. When Respondent and his wife returned from their vacation, they discovered that the insurance secretary had copied all of the patient charts for August 12 and 13, 1997, and had resigned from her job. Neither Respondent nor his wife could locate any of the copied charts. The proctor forms that had been completed by Dr. Metcalf and reviewed by the risk manager and accreditation committee were missing from their files. Whole parts of the surgery manual were missing. The risk manager conducted an independent search for the missing records without success. The risk manager had helped compile the compliance files, was familiar with the records, and would have recognized any misfiled records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(m), guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(f), and imposing no penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 3rd day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 John E. Terrel, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 H. Roger Lutz, Esquire Lutz, Webb & BoBo One Sarasota Tower Two North Tamiami Trail, Fifth Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of deviating from the applicable standard of care, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and failing to keep adequate medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty the Board of Medicine should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0066606. Respondent has been board certified in plastic surgery since 1983 and is also board certified in hand surgery. Respondent has previously practiced in Kentucky. He relocated to Florida in 1994 to join a former physician colleague, Dr. Bolt, who had developed cancer and later died in early 1995. Respondent joined the Center for Cosmetic Surgery (Center), which Dr. Bolt had sold to two persons, including Jeff Davis. The record does not disclose whether Mr. Davis is a physician, but Respondent described him and the other principal/owner as felons. The Center held out Respondent as the medical director. This representation was obviously with Respondent’s knowledge and at least tacit consent. After Dr. Bolt’s death, Respondent recruited three more physicians for the Center, but none of them was board certified in plastic surgery. Mr. Davis served as the patient coordinator at the Center. The position of patient coordinator had significant marketing responsibilities. Typically, a prospective patient would contact the Center and schedule a free consultation. At the appointed time, the prospective patient would visit the Center and speak with a physician, such as Respondent. No physical examination would take place. During the discussion, the physician would make notes on a Physician’s Report, which the prospective patient would take to Mr. Davis, whose job was to sell the surgery. Using incentives such as free nose jobs, Mr. Davis was responsible for pricing surgical procedures and scheduling surgery, once the prospective patient agreed to have a Center physician perform the agreed-upon surgery. Mr. Davis was also responsible for collecting money from patients in payment for their surgery. Typically, one of Respondent’s patients would schedule surgery two to three months from the date of making the appointment. Before surgery, Respondent would see the patient before surgery for a physical examination and preoperative testing. Respondent determined what preoperative testing was necessary on a patient-by-patient basis. Following this visit, Respondent would dictate the findings from the physical examination and the treatment plan. A transcribing service was responsible for transcribing the dictation and filing it in the patient’s chart. In May or June of 1996, Respondent provided notice to the principals of the Center that he would be terminating his employment. He terminated his employment on November 1, 1996. After his departure, Respondent learned that Center employees had misinformed his patients as to Respondent’s nonavailability due to illness or surgery. It is unclear whether this situation existed before Respondent’s announced departure. Tensions developed between Respondent and the principals of the Center. Respondent determined that he could lawfully contact those patients still needing care, so he sent those patients an announcement that he was associating himself with the American Institute of Plastic Surgery. Litigation between Respondent and the Center principals followed, including a legal action by Respondent to obtain patient records. The litigation over the records concluded with the agreement by the Center to provide records as needed, but they have provided Respondent with incomplete records. A. S. first contacted the Center in June 1995 after seeing an advertisement on television. She chose the Center and two other facilities for plastic surgery that she was considering. At the time, A. S. was 48 years old. Wanting to improve her appearance, A. S. wanted a face lift and work on her lower eyelids. She had had her lower eyelids done in 1978 or 1979 and had had a “mini-lift” in 1984. A. S. met Respondent during her first visit to the Center. A. S. and Respondent spoke for 15-20 minutes. Respondent asked her what procedures she wanted done, and she said that she wanted a face lift and work on her lower eyelids. He showed her a copy of his resume and marked a picture of a face, as they discussed procedures. A. S. did not fill out any forms or questionnaires. Respondent did not explain much concerning the procedures that A. S. was contemplating. He mentioned that she would have a thin line, which would not be noticeable, under her eyes and told how long the stitches would remain in place. He did not discuss the possibility of scarring or other risks associated with the surgery. Following her visit with Respondent, A. S. saw Mr. Davis. They discussed costs and financing. Mr. Davis gave her an estimate of the cost of the surgery that she was considering. A. S. had already checked another plastic surgery center and, later on the same day that she visited the Center, she visited the third, and last, plastic surgery facility that she was considering. The next day, Mr. Davis called A. S. and asked if she had made a decision. Mr. Davis said that Respondent had told him that Respondent wanted to do A. S.’s nose, evidently for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Davis offered the nose work at no additional charge. Although Respondent had not offered to do A. S.’s nose for free or for a charge, he was aware that Mr. Davis would offer free additional work of this kind as an incentive to the patient to select the Center for the work that she was already considering. A. S. talked the matter over with her daughter. A. S. decided to have the surgery at the Center. She then informed Mr. Davis of her decision. Three to five days later, A. S. visited the Center to discuss payments with Mr. Davis because she did not have all of the money necessary for the surgery. During this visit, Mr. Davis suggested a brow lift. He said that Respondent was good at this procedure and would be working in this area anyway. At the end of this visit, a nurse gave A. S. some paperwork prohibiting her from smoking for two weeks before the surgery due to the anticipated bleeding. A. S. had smoked one pack of cigarettes a day since she had been a teenager. A. S. discussed the effect of smoking on the surgery with the nurse, but not with Respondent. As directed, she stopped smoking and never resumed smoking again. A. S. next visited the Center on June 26, 1995, for the surgery. No one performed a physical examination of A. S. On this date, Respondent performed a browlift, rhinoplasty, and facelift. After A. S. awoke from the general anesthesia, she did not receive any instructions from Respondent or staff regarding the care of her bandages, which extended across a large part of her face and top of her head. She was scheduled to return to the Center two days later. A. S.’s daughter drove her home. Once they got there, she noticed that her mother’s face seemed grey. A. S. told her to call Respondent. The daughter informed his answering service of her mother’s condition. She then waited one-half hour for Respondent or his staff to contact her. After hearing nothing, the daughter called the answering service again and waited another half-hour. After a third call and another half-hour wait, Respondent called A. S. and told her to cut the bandage under her neck. By cutting the bandages, A. S. revealed an open cut on her neck. When she returned for her followup visit two days later, A. S. asked Respondent about the cut, which extended along the right side of the neck below the ear. Respondent assured her that it would close up, which it did. When Respondent expressed concerns about her eyes and a dent in her nose, Respondent assured her that they would discuss these matters after the swelling went down. About one week later, Respondent returned to the Center for a second followup visit. During the second followup visit, Respondent removed the stitches. Now that some of the swelling had gone down, A. S. discovered that Respondent had not performed the surgery on her lower eyes. A. S. could not recall Respondent’s explanation for not performing this surgery. A. S. complained to Respondent that, since the surgery, her right eye had become smaller than her left eye, the right eyebrow had become lower than the left eyebrow, and the right side of her face from the eye down had become looser. Also, she complained about the extensive marks, scarring, loose skin, redness, and a dent under her chin; the dent in her nose and a misshapen right nostril; a swollen bump on her left cheek; a big chunk of skin gone from her hairline; and a gully on the left side of her face. Respondent assured her that he would fix these problems with revisions to the eyes and nose and the area under the neck. He did not offer any revisions to hair line, whose appearance worsened as the swelling reduced. Respondent later performed some relatively minor revisions to the right side of A. S.’s face at no cost to A. S. He reset the remaining revisions for a date in mid-December, 1995. Despite A. S.’s persistence at trying to obtain the additional revisions, Respondent failed to perform them. Repeatedly, Center employees canceled scheduled surgery dates, claiming that Respondent was ill or busy with unscheduled surgery. They rescheduled the December surgery to a date in mid- February, 1996. When she reported on this date, a Center employee took her to Mr. Davis, who informed her that the Center had lost money on her surgery and would not perform revision surgery until she paid additional money. They rescheduled her surgery for a date in late March. When A. S. reported on the date for her surgery in March, Mr. Davis told her that they would not do the revision surgery until she paid another $300. A. S. charged this sum on her credit card, so they would do the surgery. Mr. Davis told her that Respondent was too busy, and he rescheduled the surgery for April 8. On April 8, when A. S. reported for surgery, a Center employee sedated A. S., but, after A. S. waited a couple of hours, another Center employee informing her that the surgery could not take place either because Respondent was not coming into work that day or he was in emergency surgery. When A. S. called from home later that day to reschedule the surgery, a Center employee told her that Respondent was in surgery. The employee advised A. S. to call the Center each morning to see if Respondent had any cancellations. A. S. did as advised, but the Center was never able to accommodate her. Subsequently, A. S. sent Respondent two or three letters and left telephone messages for him to contact her on at least ten occasions. Realizing that Respondent and the Center would not perform the revision surgery, A. S. went to another plastic surgery facility in 1998 for work on her right nostril and under her neck. A surgeon repaired the nostril, but, due to financial constraints, could not do all of the work required to repair the damage under A. S.’s neck, which would require about $4000 in surgery. In the meantime, Respondent sent A. S. a card announcing the relocation of his practice to the American Institute for Cosmetic Surgery. A. S. wrote Respondent a letter at his new address, but Respondent never responded. A. S. never sued Respondent. All she wanted was that he perform the revisions that she could not afford to purchase elsewhere so as to reduce or, if possible, eliminate the deformities that Respondent caused surgically. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in several ways. First, preoperatively, his evaluation of A. S. was scanty. He did not take an ample history, and he did not adequately evaluate her medical status. He did not prepare a surgical plan with a description of all risks and a discussion of these details with the patient. Perhaps most importantly, Respondent never performed a physical examination of A. S. before surgery. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care operatively. The results in this case are so substandard in number and degree as to preclude assigning the outcomes to bad luck, as opposed to a hurried, careless surgery. Respondent violated the applicable standard of care postoperatively. He did not adequately the many problems that he caused. Perhaps most obviously, he failed to adequately treat the open wound in the neck, and he failed to form a plan to address the many revisions necessitated by his careless surgery. The Board of Medicine has previously disciplined Respondent for, among other things, his deviation from the applicable standard of care in treating three plastic surgery patients whose surgery he performed in 1995-96 and 1998.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in his treatment of A. S. and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Bin C03 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim M. Kluck Carol Gregg Senior Attorneys Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jerry C. Lingle 1419 Northeast 16th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
