The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of paragraphs (i), (m), (n), (r), and of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes, as set forth in a five-count Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed chiropractic physician, having been issued license number CH 0002560. He has been so licensed at all times material to this proceeding. On or about March 4, 1994, patient L. M. was involved in a motor vehicle accident. On November 7, 1994, patient L. M. presented to the Respondent with the following ten major complaints: frequent headaches, neck pain, black stool, upper- back pain, mid-back pain, lower-back pain, painful feet, bilateral thigh pain, bilateral knee pain, and bilateral calf pain. The Respondent presented his fee schedule to patient L. M. and the patient signed a copy of the fee schedule. The fee schedule stated, among other things, that missed appointments would be charged to the patient. The patient was a nursing assistant who had been treating herself at home with hot water and Tylenol. On November 7, 1994, the Respondent took a surgical and medical history, a history of the March 4, 1994, accident, a history of the onset of symptoms, and a history of the home care the patient had been attempting. The Respondent reviewed the nature of the patient's pain and how each area of her body was affected by her activities. The Respondent decided to perform physical, orthopedic, and neurological examinations of the patient. He also decided to obtain x-rays of her pelvis, of the lumbar, dorsal, and cervical areas of her spine, and of both of her knees. On November 8, 1994, the Respondent saw the patient again, at which time he began an examination of the patient by noting her height and weight, making a structural visual evaluation, checking her motor coordination, performing a cardiovascular examination, measuring her extremities, performing a sensory examination, and checking her reflexes. On November 8, 1994, the Respondent also took x-rays of the patient and read the x-rays that same day. The x-rays revealed subluxations. Based on the information he had obtained up to that point, the Respondent elected to commence treatment to the patient's lumbar spine. On November 8, 1994, he adjusted the patient's lumbar spine and also applied ultra sound and low voltage to the patient's lumbar spine. Where there are many complaints involving several areas of the patient's body, it is not unusual for a chiropractic physician to begin treatment prior to the completion of the full examination. It is not a deviation from the appropriate standard of care for a chiropractic physician to begin treatment prior to the completion of the full examination under such circumstances. Under the circumstances presented by the patient in this case, it was reasonable for the Respondent to commence treatment to her lower back on November 8, 1994, and to complete the examination the following day. On November 9, 1994, the Respondent did range of motion measurements and performed various orthopedic tests. He also performed a series of muscle tests. Based on the information he received on November 7, 8, and 9, 1994, the Respondent developed a treatment plan and treatment goals. His treatment plan called for adjustment to subluxated vertebrae and knees, ultrasound for tissue repair, low voltage muscle stipulation for spasm, traction to decrease intersegmental joint irritation, and acupressure for stimulation of the acupuncture points. He also proposed to brace the knees and the lumbar spine. The Respondent noted in his records that his treatment goals were to stabilize the patient's condition, increase range of motion, promote tissue repair, decrease spasm, and reduce subluxation. The Respondent also recorded a treatment frequency plan which provided for daily treatment for the first one or two weeks, followed by three weeks of treatment at a frequency of three times per week. The frequency plan was to be reevaluated at the end of one month. The Respondent's records provide a reasonable rationale for the services provided to the patient on November 7, 8, and 9, 1994. The course of treatment of the subject patient consisted of chiropractic adjustments and physiotherapeutic modalities such as low voltage, ultrasound, and traction. Chiropractic adjustment is performed to promote the reduction of subluxations, to increase the healing processes within the body, to increase the normal transmission of nerve impulses, and to reduce spasm. Ultrasound is administered to affect tissue where two dissimilar tissues come together. Low voltage stimulation is designed to relax tissue. All of the treatments administered by the Respondent were designed to meet the treatment goals he had previously established. Such treatments were consistent with a therapeutic outcome. The Respondent's course of treatment was appropriate for the various complaints and symptoms presented by the subject patient. The x-rays taken by the Respondent were appropriate under the circumstances presented by the subject patient. Justification for those x-rays is contained in the patient records. On December 16, 1994, the patient was involved in a second motor vehicle accident. The Respondent's records contain a history regarding the second accident. The Respondent obtained a copy of the accident report regarding the second accident. He also obtained x-ray reports from the hospital to which the patient was taken after the second accident. The Respondent noted in the patient records that he was going to continue with the same course of treatment following the second accident. That was a reasonable course of action under the circumstances of this case. Following the second motor vehicle accident, the Respondent concluded there was reason to suspect that the patient had a herniated disc. This conclusion was based on the chronicity of the patient and the acuteness of her problems. Accordingly, the Respondent ordered an MRI. The Respondent's patient records document a reasonable basis for the tests he ordered for the patient. The testing was reasonably calculated to assist in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment plan for the patient. The Respondent's patient records are legible in all material details. The few instances of illegible words do not materially affect an understanding of what is written in the records. The Respondent's patient records are sufficient to meet the record-keeping requirements of the rules that were in effect at the time the records were created. On or about November 7, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for a detailed one-hour consultation. On or about November 8, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for a half-hour consultation, a spinal adjustment, and two therapeutic modalities. On or about November 8, 1994, the Respondent also billed the patient's insurance company for skull, neck, thoracic, lumbar, left and right knee, and pelvic x-rays. On or about November 9, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for completion of the detailed physical, orthopedic, and neurological examination. Each time the patient visited the Respondent's office, the Respondent billed for an office visit. On numerous occasions, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for an office visit and for manipulations on the same day. On or about December 6, 1994, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for an office visit and for a re-examination. On or about January 3, 1995, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for an intermediate office visit and a consultation. On or about January 18, 1995, the Respondent billed the patient's insurance company for multiple vertebral segment manipulations. The Respondent has his own unique billing system in place. He does not use the current procedural terminology codes that are generally used by other chiropractic physicians in their billing.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997.
The Issue The issue is whether Carolynn Hendricks deserves additional credit for one or more content areas within the physical diagnosis practical section of the chiropractic examination administered in November 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Candidate made a timely challenge to the grade she received on the physical diagnosis/practical chiropractic licensure examination administered in November 1989. She received a score of 73.7%. The minimum passing score was 75%. The Candidate needs a .5 additional raw score points in order to obtain a minimal passing grade. If she receives any additional credit whatsoever from either examiner on any content area, she will obtain a minimal passing grade. The Candidate testified on her on behalf and also called Dr Loretta Bobo, D.C., as her witness. Dr. Albert Welberry, D.C., and David Paulson testified on behalf of the Respondent. The Candidate's petition challenged clinical judgment and neurology. Loretta Bobo, D.C., testified that she is currently licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in four separate states, including Florida. Dr. Bobo also holds a registered nurse's degree and teaches entrance clinical competency and exist clinical competency at Life Chiropractic College. Dr. Albert Welberry, D.C., was first licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida in 1961. He is currently a licensed Florida chiropractor. Dr. Welberry has been an examiner for the Florida Chiropractic Licensure Examination regularly since 1985. Both Drs. Bobo and Welberry are experts in chiropractic. The Department of Professional Regulation's expert, Dr. Albert Welberry, agreed with Petitioner's witness, Dr. Bobo, regarding the clinical judgment and neurologic content areas of the physical diagnosis exam. Regarding clinical judgment, Dr. Welberry testified that the question posed was out of place, was not correctly presented, and therefore candidate should have received a grade of 4. Dr. Welberry stated regarding the neurologic content area of the examination that the comment "disc lesion cervical cannot be upper motor neuron lesion" was a correct response since disc lesion cervical is a lower motor neuron lesion. Dr. Welberry opined that the Candidate should have had a grade 4 for this question. The Candidate proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was deserving of significantly more than the .5 extra raw score points she needed for a minimally competent overall grade.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner receive a passing grade on the physical diagnosis practical section of the chiropractic examination. ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolynn Hendricks 206 Sope Creek Lane No. 102 Marietta, GA 30068 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Suite 60 Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for the May 1988, Chiropractic Physiotherapy certification examination. The exam consists of a written and an oral part, covering various areas of chiropractic physiotherapy. The written and oral parts of the exam are graded separately and a candidate must score 75 points on each part in order to pass and be certified in Physiotherapy. Petitioner had previously passed the written portion of the exam and was attempting only the oral portion of the physiotherapy exam. Petitioner claims he was incorrectly graded on the oral exam in the areas of manual, ultrasound and galvanic therapy. At the hearing Petitioner abandoned his claim that he was incorrectly graded on the galvanic therapy portion of the exam and that claim is not considered further for purposes of this recommended order. Petitioner obtained a score of 66.6 on the oral exam. The oral practice exam for physiotherapy certification is graded subjectively according to a candidate's response to questions asked by two grading chiropractors. The graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five years in Florida and have undergone some grade standardization training prior to examining the candidate for certification. Each grader assigns his or her point score independent of the other grader. A candidate's response therefore has two scores assigned by each grader. The points given by each grader are totalled. The two totals are then averaged together for the overall score on the exam. Some difference in the points assigned often occur. However, the difference between the two scores seldom exceeds 1 point and would therefore not be an unreasonable discrepancy when consideration is given to the effects of grading a subjective test and the effects of averaging the two point scores given by each grader. The grade range is from 1-4 points with one being the lowest score and four being the highest score. A score of 4 points is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested. A score of 3 points is given when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency in the subject area tested. A score of 2 points is given when the candidate's answer is wrong but not dangerous to the patient. A score of 1 point is given when a candidate's response is wrong and dangerous to the patient. Dr. Brennan scored a 1.5 and 2.5 on the manual portion of the exam and a 1.5 and 2.5 on the ultrasound portion of the exam. In both instances Petitioner's answers to the questions covering the manual and ultrasound areas of the exam were wrong. Therefore the scores given by each grader could not exceed 2.9 points. Even if the highest allowable score is awarded for Petitioner's responses the additional points are not sufficient to raise Petitioner's score to a 75. Based on the above facts Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he should be certified in Chiropractic Physiotherapy. More importantly, however, Petitioner's answer to the ultrasound portion of the exam was wrong and dangerous to the patient. Petitioner was clearly confused by the manner in which the question was asked by the examiner. However, the confusion did not exclude the candidate's ability or opportunity to give the correct answer in order to take the safest course of therapy to the patient. To Petitioner's credit he did demonstrate competency in his responses to the other question pertaining to the ultrasound area. It was the application of that knowledge that Petitioner failed to demonstrate. The explanations given by each grader, justifying a failing score given to the candidate, reflect the above. Therefore, neither of the graders scores on the ultrasound portion of the exam can be said to be incorrect and should remain the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the two grader's scores on the manual and ultrasound portion of the exam were devoid of logic or reason for its respective assignment. Petitioner, therefore, failed to demonstrate that he was incorrectly graded on the oral exam and should be certified in Chiropractic Physiotherapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact acid Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was incorrectly graded on the Chiropractic Physiotherapy exam and should be certified in the area of Chiropractic Physiotherapy. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian P. Brennan 5828 Rawson Lan Pensacola, Florida 32503 E. Harper Field General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Kenneth Easley Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Pat Gilford Executive Director 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a chiropractor under license number CH 0000997, first issued on January 12, 1952. In mid-April, 1983, Karen Surrency, a 35-year old divorced heavy equipment operator, suffering from low back pain resulting from a hip problem, went to Respondent at his office in Ft. Meade, Florida for assistance and treatment of the condition. When she arrived at the Respondent's office, which was located in his home, Respondent and his wife were both there. Shortly thereafter, Respondent's wife went back into the house. Respondent took a 10- minute history from Ms. Surrency in which she explained her physical problem. When the history was completed, Respondent asked her to go into the examining room where, he said, he was going to take x-rays. He advised her to go into the dressing area and disrobe, removing everything, including her underwear. He gave her a hospital gown to put on. Ms. Surrency did not question his request to remove all her clothing. When she came out of the dressing area wearing the hospital gown, Respondent placed her in front of the x-ray unit and told her he could get a better picture if she would throw the gown up over her shoulder. She did this and he placed her at the machine with her back to it, facing him. In the course of doing this, he placed his hand under her right breast, jiggled it, and advised her that her muscle sagged there. After completion of the x-ray, Respondent asked Ms. Surrency to sit on the examining table. He then told her to walk around the room with the robe pulled up over her shoulder so that he could see her posture. During this period, Respondent was seated on a chair observing her and when she asked him why the gown had to be placed up on her shoulder, he replied that he could see her hip and leg better that way. When this was finished, however, Respondent sat in the middle of one side of the table and had her stand between his legs. He then put his arm around her and turned her so that she faced off to one side with her side toward him. In so doing, he touched her breast, through the material of the gown, with his left hand. After this, he told her to lay face down on the examining table and when she did, he adjusted her back with the gown open from the neck down. After completing the spinal adjustment, Respondent indicated he would like to see Ms. Surrency twice a week and set up a second visit for her two days later. When she came for this second visit, Respondent again asked her to disrobe. She asked him if it was necessary to fully disrobe and he indicated it would be better. Once she had done so, wearing a hospital gown again, Respondent had her walk around with the robe up over her shoulders as he had done on the previous visit while he observed her and then told her to do some push-ups. She got down on the floor and complied and when she did the gown, which was open at the back, fell down to her sides and she was bare. Neither at this time nor prior to this visit had Respondent indicated or instructed Ms. Surrency to exercise at home. Once she completed the push ups, Respondent advised her to again lay face down on the examining table and when she did so, he completed another spinal adjustment. While she was still laying face down, he spread her buttocks apart and told her she did not have any hemorrhoids. This struck her as odd since she had not complained to him about any problem of that nature and there was no need for him to do this. In any event, Respondent then told her to turn on to her back. When she did so, Respondent sat on one end of the table facing inward, with one of his legs over each side. This put him in a position of facing the patient. He then told her to slide down closer to him and place her spread legs one over each of his. He told her he was going to massage her muscles which he did by rubbing in a circular motion starting above the pubic hair and working down inside her thighs. At no time, according to Ms. Surrency, did he touch her in the vaginal area. Respondent then, upon completing this procedure, told her to get dressed. Ms. Surrency did not go back to Respondent for any further treatment after this second visit because, in her opinion, she did not believe Respondent should have done the things to her that he did. In the first place, she did not think it was appropriate for him to examine her nude without a witness, preferably a female present. In the second place, on one of the two occasions, while she was getting dressed, though she had not complained about having any difficulty in removing her clothing, Respondent asked her if he could help her with her bra. Ms. Surrency subsequently went to another chiropractor, Dr. Tucker, for the same physical complaints. Dr. Tucker took x-rays of her but she was allowed to wear a robe, her panties, and socks. Dr. Tucker also had her walk but in so doing, she was allowed to wear her uniform pants, her bra, and the hospital gown. Dr. Tucker never asked her to remove all her clothing or to pull the hospital gown up over her shoulders as Respondent did. He also did not touch her breasts or check her for hemorrhoids. He did not perform a massage of the pubic area. In addition to Dr. Tucker, Ms. Surrency also visited a Dr. Haig, also practicing in Ft. Meade, for the same problem. Dr. Haig, who also took x- rays and also had her walk, treated her the same as Dr. Tucker did. Ms. Surrency did not complain either to or about Respondent at the time he did the things to her which offended her as described above nor did she attempt to stop him from doing them while he was doing them. In fact, she has no quarrel with the diagnosis that Respondent made of her condition and his suggested course of treatment which included several subsequent spinal adjustments. In fact, the other two chiropractors to whom she went after leaving Respondent's care suggested the same treatment. Her complaint is more toward the method of examination; the failure to have a witness present and the requirement for nudity in the course of the examination. Ms. Surrency did not actually complain to anyone until some five or six months after leaving Respondent's care. At that time she filed a complaint with the Petitioner, Board of Chiropractic Examiners. She had in the interim, however, called Respondent on the phone on several occasions regarding securing his signature on certain insurance papers and getting a release of her records. On one of these occasions, Respondent asked her why she had stopped coming to see him. Thereafter, when she went to his office to pick up her papers, Respondent refused to give them to her until she went in to talk with him about her alleged complaint. Dr. Tucker was visited by Ms. Surrency, in June, 1983, when she complained of an unusual indentation in her left hip and pain between her shoulder blades. This pain radiated down through the lower back to her leg. On her first visit, she advised Dr. Tucker that she had seen the Respondent prior to that time for two visits but did not want to talk about what had happened. It was only after she had seen Dr. Tucker two or three times that she began to describe her problems with the Respondent and asked if the procedures he had followed were normal. Whenever she would talk of these incidents she would break down and cry. It was the opinion of Dr. Tucker and that of Dr. Walper as well, both qualified chiropractors licensed in Florida, that the procedures followed by Respondent in many respects were outside the boundaries of normal and proper chiropractic treatment. For example, when Dr. Tucker does an x-ray of a female patient, depending upon the area to be photographed, the patient is not required to be totally nude. In a situation such as Ms. Surrency's, the patient would wear a hospital gown and keep her underpants on. In Dr. Tucker's opinion, contrary to that of the Respondent, it is quite possible to get an x-ray of good quality with the patient wearing a gown and nonmetallic underclothing, and has never had a patient completely nude with the gown up over her shoulder. As to requiring the patient to walk, a patient with Ms. Surrency's complaint would do so wearing a gown with her underwear. There is no medical reason for total nudity and for the patient to have a gown up over her shoulder. Since this was a hip problem, it would be necessary to observe the hip but caution is required not to embarrass the patient as was done in this case. Dr. Tucker could see no reason for an examination of the buttocks area as was accomplished by Respondent for the complaints that Ms. Surrency had. Dr. Walper, who has practiced as a chiropractor since 1950 and in Florida since 1976, did not examine Ms. Surrency but did review the report of investigation completed by Petitioner's investigator which included the statements given under oath by the patient. Based on this review, be concluded that Respondent's techniques were totally unacceptable and did not meet community standards. As to the nudity involved in the x-ray, be was of the opinion that it was totally unnecessary because the x-rays will penetrate clothing except metal and there is no reason to require the patient to pull the hospital gown up over her shoulder. Admitting that substantial medical authority indicates that clothing should be removed for x-rays as far as possible, he contends that the operative words here are "as far as possible" and this does not envision the necessity for total nudity inasmuch as the shadow created by something as flimsy as underpants would be inconsequential to an adequate evaluation of the radiographic picture. With regard to the walk Respondent had Ms. Surrency perform, Dr. Walper agrees that it would be appropriate for a patient with Ms. Surrency's problem to be asked to walk so that the physician might observe the gait. However, the technique used here, requiring the patient to walk nude with the gown up over her shoulder, was inappropriate and unnecessary. There was, in his opinion, no need whatever for the patient to be naked. Dr. Walper can also see no medical reason for Respondent to touch the patient's breasts, even though the second touching was done through the gown and to do so would be inappropriate. As to the buttocks examination, this would not be medically necessary for the type of complaint this patient had. It would be appropriate if the patient had complained of hemorrhoids or if it were accomplished during a routine physical. However, Ms. Surrency had not complained of a hemorrhoid problem and had come in with a specific complaint, not for a routine and general physical examination. Walper is unable to understand any reason for requiring the patient to do push-ups. Admittedly there are some exercises to be done for Ms. Surrency's condition after the symptoms have been relieved, but certainly not push-ups and not in the nude during a physical examination. As to the pubic and thigh rubbing accomplished by Respondent when he had Ms. Surrency place her legs over his, this type of touching for this patient's complaint, in his opinion, would be most inappropriate. Dr. Walper indicated, and it is so found, that practice standards for chiropractors are reasonably similar throughout the State of Florida. In his opinion, the treatment afforded Ms. Surrency by Respondent in the incidents set out in the Administrative Complaint, were outside the scope of chiropractic and Respondent did not perform here with reasonable skill or in a manner which would be followed by a reasonably prudent doctor of chiropractic under the circumstances. What Respondent did here, in Dr. Walper's opinion, constitutes sexual impropriety and misconduct. Respondent has been a chiropractor since 1952 when he graduated from the Lincoln Chiropractic College and has practiced in Florida since 1953. He located his practice in Ft. Meade in 1960. Chiropractic education is divided into two schools of thought. One is made up of "mixers" and the other is made up of "straights." Respondent attended a "mixer" school. The difference in his education was that he was taught to (a) take a good case history, (b) treat for any problem found; and (c) treat to cure the problem rather than the symptoms. He defines chiropractic medicine as dealing primarily with the skeletal system, the joints, and adjacent tissues. Respondent recalls the first visit he had from Ms. Surrency and basically confirms her comments regarding it. While he indicates that it is routine for him to require total nudity under the gown on a first x-ray, from that point on, be says, the patient is allowed to keep their underpants on. He requires the patients to remove the clothing so that it does not get into the way of the x-ray and also because he wants to cut down on the strength of the x- ray required to accomplish the picture. Respondent contends that synthetic fibers such as found in women's underwear are metal and require the use of stronger x- ray. There is no evidence, save Respondent's allegations, to support this theory and it is rejected. Respondent denies that when he spread Ms. Surrency's buttocks he was examining the rectum. Instead, he claims, he was palpating the large muscle of the buttocks area during the examination of everything as he was taught. His examining table has a pelvic roll, he says, which would present the buttocks of a patient on her stomach more prominently than would a table used by graduates of a Palmer school of chiropractic medicine. There is a substantial difference between palpating of muscle and the spreading apart of a buttock and the comment which Ms. Surrency made regarding her hemorrhoids supports a finding that he did in fact spread her buttocks since it would be impossible to see hemorrhoids were the buttocks not spread apart. Respondent admits that he may have touched Ms. Surrency's breast and if he commented on it, he claims, it was merely a casual observation of something he saw. He meant nothing by it. As to the requirement that Ms. Surrency walk nude in front of him, he contends he wanted to observe her feet, knees, and shoulders to see how she looked all over. He again wanted to see her walk after he had performed the adjustment to see if the treatment had done any good. He admits having required the patient to pull the gown up over her shoulder contending that it was just some procedure he picked up during his practice. It works for him and as far as he is concerned, that's all that matters. When Ms. Surrency returned to him the second day before the examination he sat with her and discussed what he had found on the x-rays he had taken during the first visit. He told her that her spine was off center and there were five areas in it that required adjustment. He also told her he could not tell her how long it would take to resolve the problem because the numerous variables involved made it impossible for him to accurately predict a course of treatment. He also admits that he had Ms. Surrency place her legs over his as described in her testimony but defends it on the basis that because he suffers from phlebitis and cannot stand long on his legs, this being the end of the day and since he was tired and his leg was hurting, he utilized this procedure so that he could be sufficiently comfortable to apply equal pressure to the area he was massaging. He applied the "goading" technique of accupressure to various areas above and on the pubic bone to get the patient's muscles to relax and to prompt the lymphatic system to start flowing. Respondent contends this method of treatment is a long standing and accepted practice. The massage technique may well be an accepted practice but the method applied here by Respondent in having the nude patient's legs draped over his with her genital area facing him was not. Respondent then had the patient do the push-ups to determine her muscle balance, a factor important in relationship to the adjustment of the spine. This was related to the pain in between the shoulder blades, not for the low back. Respondent's testimony was not based on his actual recollection but instead is primarily his speculation as to what happened based on his normal practice. He does not recall a majority of the events on either day he saw Ms. Surrency. She is quite sure of her testimony. There is little equivocation and even less speculation. On balance, then, it is clear that the story as told by Ms. Surrency is more credible and worthy of belief. Consequently, it is found that her allegations as to the actual occurrences are accurate. Respondent's explanations do not deny the occurrences, but tend to present some self justification for it. In 1977, a Final Order of the Board of Chiropractic revoked Respondent's license to practice in the State of Florida based on an administrative hearing which resulted in findings that Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct the circumstances of which we are not concerned with here. An appeals court subsequently sustained the findings of fact but reduced the revocation to a suspension for six months and Respondent's license was subsequently reinstated after he had served the period of suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, IVAN C. ROSS' license as a chiropractor in the State of Florida, Number CH 0000997, be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 18th day of February, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Hill, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas H. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 1145 Lake Alfred, Florida 33850
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Jens Emilio Valle, is entitled to licensure by virtue of a passing grade on the May 1988 Chiropractic examination, specifically on the technique portion of the examination.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Valle was an unsuccessful candidate for the May 1988 Chiropractic examination. As part of the practical examination, Dr. Valle took the technique portion and received a score of 73.9. A score of 75 is required for certification for licensure. The technique portion is part of an oral practical examination and is subjectively graded by two independent graders. All graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida for at least five years and have received several hours of standardization training prior to serving as graders on the practical examination. The grade range on each section is one to four. A score of three is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency and a score of four is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge. These scores are then added with other factors and scores to produce a total. Dr. Valle claims that he was underscored on the technique portion of the examination. His scores were as follows: Grader 27--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (3.5). Grader 37--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (3), rib (3), and soft tissue (3). Dr. Valle presented the expert testimony of Jim Terrell, D.C., who has been licensed in Florida for less than five years. Dr. Terrell has received no training in grading practical examinations. He has never participated in the administration and grading of a chiropractic examination for licensure. Dr. Terrell based his testimony solely on his observation of the videotape. His opinion was that Dr. Valle's performance in the pelvic technique was "essentially" correct. Dr. Terrell's opinion related solely to the mechanical performance. Steven M. Ordet, D.C., is a chiropractic physician licensed in Florida since 1974. He is the past Chairman of the Peer Review Committee of the Florida Chiropractic Association, a Director of the Florida Chiropractic Association, and has been an examiner for the chiropractic examination for the last seven years. He was not an examiner on the May 1988 examination. Dr. Ordet also reviewed the videotape. In his opinion as a trained grader, he would have awarded the following scores based on Dr. Valle's performance: Cervical (3), thoracic (2.5), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (2.5). Dr. Ordet would have given these scores in part because Dr. Valle failed to describe the technique he was demonstrating. The preliminary instructions given for the examination and shown on the videotape require, in part, that the candidate describe the technique as it is demonstrated. The opinion of Dr. Ordet is persuasive based on his experience as a grader and on his explanation for the grades he would give.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the request for relief filed by Jens Emilio Valle and dismissing the petition for relief. DONE and ENTERED this 17th of August 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 17th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0886 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4 (1-7). COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jens Emilio Valle, D.C. 901 Cedar Canyon Square Marietta, GA 33067 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for her response to Question 36 or for her response to Question 41 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the Chiropractic Licensure Examination administered in November 2000.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a Final Order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the X-ray portion. The X-ray portion consists of 60 multiple-choice questions, with each question having four possible answers. A chiropractic or pathology film is displayed for each question. The candidates are instructed to select from four possible answers the best answer to the written question pertaining to the accompanying film. The candidates are given 90 seconds to answer each question. The X-ray portion of the examination tests minimal competency and does not provide the candidates a certification or specialty in the field of radiology. Petitioner received a failing score on the X-ray portion of the examination. A candidate must correctly answer 45 of the 60 scores to pass. Petitioner received credit for correctly answering 44 questions. If Petitioner is awarded credit for correctly answering Question 36 or Question 41, she will be entitled to a passing score on the X-ray portion of the examination as well as the over-all examination. The written portion of Question 36 described certain symptoms being experienced by a 60-year-old female. The X-ray depicted a patient whose trachea was deviated to the left of its usual position. Candidates were asked to select the answer that best responded to the question "what is your impression of the radiograph." The parties agree that two of the four answers were incorrect. The other two answers will be referred to as Answer A and Answer B. Answer A, the answer Respondent considered the correct answer, was that the radiograph showed the trachea was deviated to the left of its usual position. Answer B, the answer selected by Petitioner, is a possible reason the trachea was deviated to the left. Petitioner agrees that the radiograph showed that the trachea was deviated to the left, but argues that because the question asks for the candidate's impression, she should attempt to answer why the body part was deviated. 2/ The written portion of the question and the radiograph do not provide sufficient information for a candidate to determine that Answer B was the reason the trachea was deviated to the left. Additional testing would be required before a practitioner could reach a correct diagnosis for the cause of the deviation. Answer A was the best answer to Question 36. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for her answer to Question 36 because her answer was not the best answer to the question. The written portion of Question 41 advised that the candidate's examination of a patient did not find a reason for the patient's mild back pain. The candidate was required to select the best answer to the question "[w]hat does the X-ray disclose." The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the only correct answer was the answer selected by Respondent as being the correct answer. Petitioner concedes that the X-ray disclosed what Respondent asserted was the correct answer, but chose another answer because Respondent's answer would not account for the patient's pain. Petitioner chose the answer that the X-ray disclosed a bilateral fracture. There was a dispute among the experts as to whether the X-ray contained jagged lines, which would indicate a fracture. Respondent's expert testified that there were no significant jagged areas. Dr. Stern testified that there may be some jagged areas, but that further testing would be necessary to reveal a fracture. Dr. Richard Santo testified that there were jagged areas that disclosed a severe fracture. The conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that the X-ray did not clearly disclose an area that had been fractured and did not disclose a bilateral fracture. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for her answer to Question 41 because her answer was not the best answer to the question. Respondent's psychometrician evaluated the responses to Question 36 and Question 41, and found that both questions performed at an acceptable level. For Question 36, 77% of the candidates who took the examination with Petitioner chose Respondent's correct answer, while 17% of the candidates choose Petitioner's answer. For Question 41, 74% of the candidates chose Respondent's answer, and 24% chose Petitioner's answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for her responses to Questions 36 and 41 of the X-ray portion of the Chiropractic Licensure Examination administered in November 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of October, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 13-16, 1992, petitioner, James S. Moore, a chiropractic physician, was a candidate on the chiropractic licensure examination. Doctor Moore is a recent graduate of Life Chiropractic College and was taking the examination for the first time. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Chiropractic (Board). On July 2, 1992, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that while he had received passing grades on the X-ray interpretation and technique portions of the examination, he had received a score of 70.5 on the physical diagnosis portion of the test. A grade of 75.0 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated September 23, 1992, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Dr. Moore generally contended that he had been denied licensure without any reason or explanation, and that during the review process his contentions were not given meaningful consideration. As further clarified at hearing, petitioner contended that he should have received higher scores on procedures 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination, and thus he should have received a passing grade. That portion of the test is a practical examination requiring the candidate to give verbal and demonstrative responses to a series of questions designed to test the candidate's diagnostic skills. Among other things, the candidate is required to perform certain tests and procedures on a volunteer patient. To memorialize a candidate's performance, the examination is videotaped, and a copy of petitioner's performance is found in joint exhibit 1 received in evidence. Petitioner generally contends that he should have received a higher grade on the above questions. To support his position, petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his uncle-employer, a chiropractic physician in Jacksonville, Florida, who has seven years experience in the field. Respondent offered the testimony of a Miami chiropractic physician who has been a grader on the examination for the last twelve years and was accepted as an expert in the field of chiropractic. It is noted that both physicians reviewed petitioner's examination prior to giving testimony. However, respondent's expert did not regrade the examination but rather evaluated the questions, petitioner's responses and the grades of the two examiners who graded petitioner to determine if the scores were within acceptable guidelines. As might be expected, the two physicians offered conflicting opinions regarding petitioner's examination scores. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and this testimony is embodied in the findings below. There are two independent chiropractors who grade each candidate on the physical diagnosis part of the examination. Each examiner is given one hour of standardization training prior to the examination, there is no discussion by the examiners during the examination itself, and they grade independently of one another. There is no evidence to support a finding that the two examiners who graded petitioner conferred with each other prior to assigning a grade or otherwise acted improperly in the performance of their duties. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the examination, the questions or information given to a candidate will not be repeated verbatim here but rather only a general description will be given. As to question 1, petitioner was penalized one point (or given a grade of three out of four points) because he stated that the normal range for a particular joint was at 100 degrees. He derived this answer from the American Medical Association Guidelines for Impairment, which is the standard used for disability evaluation. Because impairment standards are not synonymous with a normal range of motion, petitioner's response was incorrect and his score of three should not be changed. In procedure 2, the candidate was given a hypothetical case history of a female patient and was required to choose four appropriate orthopedic tests that related to her condition and to then perform each test. The question noted that if an incorrect test was selected, no credit would be given even if the test was performed correctly. Petitioner selected only two correct tests and accordingly received a grade of two out of four possible points. Respondent's expert confirmed that only two correct answers were selected, and thus petitioner's grade should not be changed. Among other things, procedure 7 required the candidate to use and interpret the Wexler scale, a reflex scale used by chiropractic and orthopedic physicians. Petitioner contended that the Wexler scale is considered zero to five, and he used this range to fashion his answer. Although at hearing respondent asserted that the scale is actually zero to four, it now concedes that petitioner's response was correct and that his grade on this question should be adjusted upward by 1.5 points. Procedure 10 related to diagnostic imaging and generally required the candidate to select the appropriate x-rays to be taken for a given set of facts. Because petitioner failed to take a necessary spot hip x-ray, he did not receive full credit on the question. At hearing, petitioner contended that the omitted x-ray would over-radiate the patient and that the large views taken of the patient would give sufficient detail of the primary complaint area. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Therefore, the request to change the grade on this procedure should be denied. In procedure 15, petitioner was given certain information concerning a patient and was required to make a specific diagnosis to be written in the patient's records. The question also provided that if an incorrect diagnosis was selected, the candidate would receive no credit. In this case, petitioner failed to select the proper diagnosis. His response that the patient suffered from a "sprain/strain" of a particular muscle was incorrect since there is no such thing as a sprain of a muscle. Indeed, only joints and ligaments can be sprained. Although respondent's expert conceded that the correct answer was not "easy" to ascertain, all candidates faced the same level of difficulty on the question and thus no change in petitioner's grade is warranted. Petitioner next contends that he was given an incorrect grade on procedure 17, which required him to identify which physical examination procedures (more than one) he would use based upon a hypothetical patient history. The question provided that unless all procedures were identified, no credit would be given. Because petitioner did not state that he would take the patient's vital signs, a necessary procedure for a new patient, he properly received a zero score. Finally, procedure 18 used the same hypothetical patient history given in procedure 17 and required the candidate to demonstrate on a volunteer patient the necessary examination procedures. Of particular significance was the requirement that the candidate not only correctly perform the procedures, but also demonstrate those procedures in the usual and customary order. Unfortunately, petitioner performed the first of four procedures last, which would affect the reliability of the findings, and thus he received no credit. Therefore, petitioner's grade on this question should not be changed. In summary, with the exception of procedure 7, the scores given to petitioner on each of the challenged procedures are supported by logic and reason, and there is no justification in changing the overall score to a passing grade. In addition, the test was fairly administered in every respect to all candidates, including the provision in some questions that unless the entire question was correctly answered, no partial credit would be given. Thus, petitioner's contention that he should have received partial credit instead of no credit on several questions is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order raising petitioner's grade on the physical diagnosis part of the May 1992 chiropractic licensure examination from 70.5 to 72.0 but denying his petition in all other respects. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of January, 1993. Respondent: APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6162 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 3-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dr. James S. Moore P. O. Box 229 Doctor's Inlet, FL 32030 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752
The Issue Has Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the November 1988, chiropractic licensure examination been rendered moot by virtue of his having retaken and passed the examination? If not, should his challenge be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: The licensure examination administered by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners in November 1988, consisted of a written examination on Florida laws and rules and a practical examination. There were three parts to the practical examination: x-ray interpretation; technique; and physical diagnosis. To pass the practical examination, a candidate needed to receive a passing grade on each of the three separate parts of the examination. Mathesie passed the written examination on Florida laws and rules, as well as the x-ray interpretation and technique portions of the practical examination. He received a failing grade, however, on the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination. The physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination is conducted orally. To facilitate review of this portion of the examination, it is videotaped. The videotape of the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination in controversy in the instant case was played during the course of the hearing. Each candidate taking the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination is asked a series of questions by two examiners who also independently grade the candidate's answers. The examiners are experienced chiropractors who have been licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida for at least five years. First-time examiners receive three hours of training in testing and grading procedures and requirements. Examiners who have previously participated in the examination process are given a one or two hour refresher course. In questioning a candidate on the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination, the examiners must cover at least four and no more than six of the following subject areas: case history; chiropractic examination; general physical examination; orthopedic examination; neurological examination; x-ray technique and diagnosis; laboratory diagnosis; nutrition; differential diagnosis; and clinical judgment. In addition, they are directed to ask practical questions designed to test the candidate's ability to function competently as a beginning chiropractor. Within these parameters, the examiners are expected to use their professional judgment in selecting the particular questions to ask the candidate. Examiners are not provided with any specific questions that they are required to pose. The examiners are also expected to exercise their professional judgment in evaluating the candidate's answers to their questions. The grading of these answers therefore is a "subjective" process reflecting the examiners' opinions as to the quality of the candidate's answers. For each of the subject areas covered during the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination, the candidate receives a separate grade from each of the two examiners conducting this portion of the examination. A 4 is the highest grade the candidate can receive from an examiner for a covered subject area. This grade is reserved for answers which reflect exceptional expertise in the subject area. A grade of 3 out of a possible 4 (or 75%) is to be given where no more than adequate expertise is demonstrated. Where the candidate's answers demonstrate expertise that is more than adequate but less than exceptional, a grade of 3.5 (or 87.5%) is to be given. Where the candidate, through his answers, displays inadequate expertise, depending on the extent of the inadequacy, either a grade of 2.5 (or 62.5%), 2.0 (or 50%), or 1.5 (or 37.5%), is to be awarded. The lowest possible score a candidate can receive from an examiner is a 1 (or 25%). This grade is warranted where the candidate's knowledge of the subject matter is so lacking as to present a danger to the public. The candidate's overall average score on the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination is obtained by dividing the candidate's total number of grade points by two (representing the number of examiners) times the number of subject areas covered by the examiners. To pass this portion of the examination, the candidate's overall average score must be at least a 3 (or 75%). If the candidate fails to attain such a score and contends that the examiners unfairly or erroneously evaluated his performance, the videotape of this portion of the examination is reviewed by other chiropractic experts. Based on the recommendation of these experts, adjustments may be made to the candidate's score. Mathesie was tested on six subject areas on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1988, examination: case history; general physical examination; orthopedic examination; neurological examination; x-ray technique and diagnosis; and laboratory diagnosis. He received a failing overall average grade from the two examiners of a 2.75 (or 68.75%). Following expert review, adjustments were made which raised Mathesie's overall average grade to a 2.875 (or 71.875%). This was still less, however, than the 3 (or 75%) he needed to pass. Mathesie was awarded a 3 by both examiners for his answers pertaining to case history. Both examiners' grades were subsequently increased to a 3.5 after expert review. Mathesie was asked by the examiners "the basic headings and things that [he] would be interested in having in the case history." In responding to the question, Mathesie mentioned that he would do a "general survey of their whole body," but he failed to specify that he would inquire about urinary incontinence or genital problems, specific inquiries that are routinely made by chiropractors. In view of Mathesie's failure to specifically mention these matters, it cannot be said that it was arbitrary or unreasonable to score his answer on case history no higher than a 3.5. Both examiners gave Mathesie a 2.5 for his performance on the general physical examination segment of the test. Neither of their grades was raised following expert review. On this part of the examination, Mathesie was asked to list "the vital signs." He responded, "blood pressure, pulse, respiration rate, and temperature and some sources add height and weight." Mathesie was then asked to take the blood pressure of one of the examiners, a man approaching 40 years of age. He did so and discovered that the examiner's blood pressure was 165 over 70, which Mathesie remarked "is very high blood pressure." When asked what he would tell a patient whose blood pressure remained at this level for three consecutive days, Mathesie replied that he would advise the patient that he "had an elevated blood pressure and that he should be seen by a medical doctor for further evaluation." Blood pressure of 165 over 70 is only slightly higher than normal for a man approaching 40 years of age. Contrary to what Mathesie indicated to the examiners, it is not "very high blood pressure" and, without more, is no cause for alarm. Accordingly, Mathesie's failure to receive a grade higher than a 2.5 on the general physical examination segment of the test was not without reason or logic. On the orthopedic examination segment of the test, Mathesie was awarded a 3.0 by both examiners. Expert review did not result in a change of either of these grades. On this segment of the test, Mathesie was asked to evaluate the right knee of one of the examiners. In conducting his evaluation, Mathesie failed to examine both knees, although during the next segment of the test he did indicate, with some prompting by the examiners, that he "would compare bilaterally all the orthopedic tests." Bilateral examination is a standard, routine chiropractic practice which assists the chiropractor in determining whether the patient has a developmental or pathological problem. Inasmuch as Mathesie did not conduct such a bilateral examination when asked to assess the condition of the examiner's knee, he did not deserve to receive a grade higher than a 3.0 on the orthopedic examination segment of the test. On the neurological examination segment of the test, Mathesie received a 2.5 from one examiner and a 3.0 from the other examiner. After expert review, the 2.5 grade was raised to a 3.0. No change was made to the other examiner's grade. During this segment of the test, Mathesie initially failed to perform the patella reflex test bilaterally as he should have. It was only after one of the examiners suggested that it was necessary to determine a patient's normal reflexive action that Mathesie indicated he would "compare bilaterally all the orthopedic tests, all the neurological tests and reflexes." Mathesie further stated on this segment of the test that, in attempting to neurologically assess the patient, he would administer a cardinal gaze examination during which he would have the patient cover one eye and follow his finger with the other eye. Although a cardinal gaze examination may be administered in this fashion, the better method is to have the patient follow the moving object with both eyes. In view of the foregoing, a 3.0 was not an unreasonably low grade to give Mathesie on the neurological examination segment of the test. Mathesie received a 3.0 from both examiners on the x-ray technique and diagnosis segment of the test. Neither grade was changed following expert review. Mathesie was asked on this segment of the test to "set up a right [anterior] oblique." In describing how he would do so, Mathesie failed to give information concerning the film size and central ray. Given these omissions, Mathesie's failure to receive a grade higher than a 3.0 on this segment of the test was not without justification. Mathesie received a 2.0 from one examiner and a 2.5 from the other examiner on the laboratory diagnosis segment of the test. No adjustments were made to either of these grades. On this segment of the examination, Mathesie was asked what conclusions he would reach concerning the condition of a patient based on the results of blood tests revealing a hemoglobin of 8, a hematocrit of 25, and a RBC of 3.5. As Mathesie should have been aware, such test results reflect that the patient has suffered a severe loss of blood and therefore requires immediate medical attention. Mathesie, however, did not immediately recognize the seriousness and urgency of the matter. Having failed to do so, he cannot persuasively argue that the grades he received on this segment of the examination were unreasonably low. After receiving notification that he had failed the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1988, licensure examination, Mathesie retook and passed the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a final order dismissing Mathesie's challenge to the failing overall average grade he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1988, licensure examination on the ground that such challenge is now moot. Should the Board decline to dismiss Mathesie's challenge on the ground of mootness, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order rejecting such challenge as without merit and denying Mathesie the relief he has requested. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3255 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Mathesie's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, but not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated by reference; Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of legal argument than a finding of fact. Moreover, in order to be qualified as an expert witness in the field of chiropractic, Dr. Ordet did not have to meet the "continuous practice" requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 21D-11.007. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that the Department failed to substantially comply with any prehearing discovery order issued by the Hearing Officer or that the Department otherwise engaged in improper conduct prejudical to Mathesie, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is more in the nature of commentary on the quality of Ordet's testimony than a finding of fact. Furthermore, while it is true that Ordet's opinion regarding Mathesie's performance was necessarily subjective in nature, based on Ordet's credentials and qualifications, it appears that the opinion he gave was an informed and educated one, notwithstanding his failure to cite any specific authoritative writing supporting his opinion. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated by reference (It should be noted, however, that although Ordet "has been out of school [as a student] for many years," he is currently on the faculty of two chiropractic colleges); Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of commentary on the quality of Ordet's testimony than a finding of fact. Moreover, the Hearing Officer finds no persuasive support for the statement that Ordet "undoubtedly has not kept up with the advances in the chiropractic education." Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the last two sentences, which have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the last sentence, which has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the last two sentences, which have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Mathesie should not have had points taken off for indicating that he would tell a patient with a blood pressure reading of 165 over 70 to see a medical doctor, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. First sentence: Rejected because it constitutes a statement of the law rather than a finding of fact; Second sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated by reference. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance. (It should be noted, however, that although Mathesie did state "on the video that all tests would be done bilaterally," he made this statement following the orthopedic examination after one of the examiners suggested, through his questioning, that it was important to determine what was "normal" for the patient.) To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Mathesie should have been awarded a grade higher than a 3.0 on the neurological examination segment of the test, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Mathesie should have been awarded a higher overall average grade on the physical diagnosis portion of the November, 1988, licensure examination than a 2.875 (or 71.875%), it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a request for relief than a finding of fact. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a request for relief than a finding of fact. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it indicates that "[c]ase history was raised to a 2.5 by both examiners." The uncontradicted evidence reveals that Mathesie originally received a 3.0 from both examiners on case history and that both of these grades were subsequently raised, following expert review, to a 3.5. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated by reference. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Mathesie 8933 Northwest 51st Place Coral Springs, Florida 33067 E. Harper Field, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Pat Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Frank Giampietro (Petitioner) should be awarded additional credit for answers given on the chiropractic physical diagnosis practical licensure examination administered in November, 1989, and based thereon, whether he should be licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Rhode Island since March, 1986. He took the diagnosis portion of the chiropractic practical examination administered by the Respondent on November 9, 1989, for purposes of being licensed in the State of Florida. Petitioner received a grade of 68.7% on this portion of the exam. The minimum passing grade on this practical exam was 75%. Thereafter, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he should be granted additional credit on this practical exam, and based thereon, whether he should have passed this examination. It was established that the physical diagnosis practical exam was properly administered, appropriate standardization procedures were followed, and each examiner independently graded Petitioner's exam and was qualified to serve as an examiner. At hearing, the Petitioner disputed the score he received in the areas of neurology, orthopedics, and differential diagnosis. A four point scoring system is used on the practical examination. A score of 4 means that the candidate demonstrated an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject area; a score of 3 represents an adequate understanding; a score of 2 indicates an inadequate knowledge of the subject area; and a score of 2 indicates that the candidate would be a danger to the public if allowed to practice in that particular subject area. If a grader feels that the candidate's answer demonstrates a degree of knowledge that is between two of these scores, a .5 credit can be given. This is a subjective, rather than an objective, scoring system that requires each examiner to use his own judgment in evaluating the completeness of a candidate's response; generally, there are no simple right or wrong answers to practical exam questions. In arriving at a candidate's overall percentage score, a score of 4 equals 100 points, a score of 3 equals 75 points, 2 equals 50 points, and 1 equals 25 points. A .5 score equals 12.5 points. For example, a score of 3.5 would equal 87.5 points. Each content area of the practical exam is weighted equally, and there were 4 content areas in the November, 1989 physical diagnosis practical exam. Two examiners are used to score each candidate's practical examination, and the scores given by each examiner are then averaged to give the candidate's overall grade. In this instance, one examiner gave Petitioner the grades of 2.5 in orthopedics and 3 in both neurology and differential diagnosis, while the other examiner gave him 2 in orthopedics, 2.5 in neurology and 3 in differential diagnosis. If Petitioner received two additional raw points on these three content areas which are under challenge, he would receive an overall passing score of 75%. Regarding the practical exam content area of orthopedics, the Petitioner improperly performed Apley's test, according to the expert testimony of Dr. Ordet, and incorrectly responded that the medial and lateral meniscus could not be differentiated using Apley's test. The Petitioner also improperly performed McMurray's test, as well as muscle testing of the hamstrings and quadriceps. The Petitioner's witness, Dr. Hoover, confirmed that he did not properly perform Apley's test, and did not make a determination as to the medial or lateral meniscus by rotating the patient's foot, as he could have. Regarding the neurology portion of the exam, Petitioner incorrectly identified the location of the upper motor neuron track, and according to Dr. Ordet, the Petitioner also incorrectly stated that pathologic reflexes which would actually be for a lower motor neuron lesion were the pathologic reflexes for an upper motor neuron lesion. This was a very significant error, according to Dr. Ordet, whose testimony is credited. Regarding the differential diagnosis portion of the exam, the Petitioner's response to the patient's bowel blockage was not precise or specific. Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had more than an adequate understanding of this subject area due to the nebulous answers he gave. Even the Petitioner's witness, Dr. Hoover, agreed with the grade of 3 which Petitioner received on this portion of the exam. Based on the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner was correctly graded on the orthopedics, neurology and differential diagnosis portions of the practical examination. It was not established that the grades given were contrary to fact or logic, and in fact, competent substantial evidence supports the grades which he received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to his grades on the orthopedics, neurology and differential diagnosis portions of the November, 1989, chiropractic examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX (D0AH CASE NO. 90-3399) The Petitioner did not file specific proposed findings of fact, but did file a letter dated September 28, 1990, on October 1, 1990, addressed to the undersigned. This letter does not evidence that a copy was provided to counsel for the Respondent, and therefore, it has not been considered. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-3. Rejected as unnecessary. 4. Adopted in Finding 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 7. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 8. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Giampietro 1704 Adair Road Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
