The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued October 2, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses in the health professions and occupations, including chiropractic physicians. See § 456.073, Fla. Stat. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing penalties against chiropractic physicians for violations of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes. See § 460.413(2), Fla. Stat. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Falowski was a chiropractic physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 5108. Dr. Falowski was first certified in Florida to practice chiropractic medicine in 1986. Dr. Falowski also is certified to administer propriety drugs. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Falowski did business as Rainbow Rehabilitation, and his address of record was 4201 North State Road 7, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33319. On or about August 25, 2997, Dr. Falowski submitted an application for acupuncture certification to the Department. He paid a fee and was certified to take the acupuncture certification examination. His application reflects that he completed 105 hours of acupuncture training at the University of Miami. Dr. Falowski took the acupuncture certification examination in November 1997, but he did not pass the examination. On or about April 15, 1998, Dr. Falowski submitted a second application for acupuncture certification to the Department. He paid a fee and was again certified to take the acupuncture certification examination. His application reflects that he completed acupuncture training at the University of Miami. Dr. Falowski took the acupuncture certification examination in May 1998 and attained a passing score. On or about July 7, 1998, the Department mailed an Examination Grade Report to Dr. Falowski, advising him that he had passed the chiropractic certification examination for acupuncture. A Request for Registration Form for the Board of Chiropractic Medicine was included with the Examination Grade Report, and the instructions stated that the form and a check or money order must be returned to the Department within 45 days. The form listed a $100.00 fee for the Chiropractic Acupuncture Certification. There is nothing in the records of the Department indicating that it received the Request for Registration Form or check in the amount of $100.00 from Dr. Falowski, nor do the records reflect that Dr. Falowski has been issued an acupuncture certification.4 On or about December 28, 2005, writing was observed on the window of the Rainbow Rehabilitation office which stated: WE DO PHYSICALS & BLOOD WORK LICENSED ACUPUNCTURE EKG No acupuncture license number was listed on the window. Dr. Falowski intended to perform acupuncture treatments for any member of the public who requested these treatments at Rainbow Rehabilitation.5
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 Finding that Francis J. Falowski, D.C., offered to practice acupuncture when he was not certified to do so, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(t); Imposing an administrative fine against Dr. Falowski in the amount of $5,000.00; and Placing Dr. Falowski on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 20th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact L. R. Fleming is a chiropractic physician licensed by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners and holds License #1239. Dr. L. R. Fleming caused to be published in the Today Newspaper an advertisement, a copy of which was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. This advertisement read as follows: CHIROPRACTORS SEEK RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS The International Pain Control Institute in conjunction with the New York Chiropractic College is presently engaged in what is the most extensive research program ever undertaken by the chiropractic profession. This research is directed toward determining the relationship between health problems and spinal misalignments and utilizes a screening process called Contour Analysis. Volunteers are being sought for screening. Contour Analysis enables taking a three- dimensional picture (called Moire photography) of the topography of the surface of the spine to detect spinal stress deviations. This analysis will be correlated with leg deficiency, patient symptomatology, and levels of tenderness. An analysis of this type can reveal such things as normal and abnormal stress patterns, spinal curvature, muscle spasms, muscle imbalance, spinal distortions and scoliosis. There is no charge to participating volunteers, since the doctors are contributing their time, service, and facilities for the program. Final processing and evaluation will be done at the New York Chiropractic College. Anyone wishing to be a volunteer may telephone participating doctors directory for information or an appointment. MERRITT ISLAND TITUSVILLE MELBOURNE (doctor's (doctor's Dr. Lyle name deleted) name deleted) Fleming Phone 254-3343 The advertisement above was published in the Today Newspaper on or about April 1, 1978. Gladys Teate, of Melbourne, Florida, read this advertisement on or about April 1, 1978, and made an appointment with dr. Fleming for contour analysis on April 11, 1978. Gladys Teate kept the appointment on April 11, 1978, and had a contour analysis performed at Dr. Fleming's office. The process of contour analysis consisted of the taking of certain personal data together with symptomatology from Gladys Teate by one of the doctor's assistants. Thereafter, the doctor's assistant took a Moire photograph of Teate's back. Teate was then seen by Dr. Fleming, who performed an elementary examination of Teate's back and explained the Moire photograph to her. Teate had no recollection of the contour analysis, Dr. Fleming's examination, or any subsequent events to include any oral representations made by Dr. Fleming. However, records reflect that x-rays were taken of Teate at Dr. Fleming's office. Thereafter, a thorough chiropractic examination was performed by the doctor, who prepared a written diagnostic recommendation, a copy of which was introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Teate was unclear as to whether she saw Dr. Fleming on one or two (2) occasions; however, she was given a bill for $10 for a chiropractic examination and a bill for $45 for x-rays upon leaving Dr. Fleming's office. There was no charge for the contour analysis. No competent evidence of Dr. Fleming's indicating that further examination and diagnosis was free was presented. No evidence was introduced that the research program described in the advertisement was not a legitimate research program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners take no action against the license of Dr. L. R. Fleming, D.C. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul W. Lambert, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis V. Cianfrogna, Esquire 308 Julia Street Post Office Drawer 6310-G Titusville, Florida 32780 Board of Chiropractic Examiners 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of making or filing a false report signed in the capacity of a licensed chiropractic physician, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed chiropractor in Florida since 1978, holding license number CH0002696. Petitioner requires licensed chiropractors to file Mandatory Practitioner Profile Questionnaire Packets (Profiles). The subject Profile was due on or before April 15, 1999. The Profile asks the licensee to supply various items of information and answer several questions. Section II of the Profile requires information concerning "medical education." In response to the question of what medical school Respondent attended, he wrote: "Logan 'Quack Con-Artist' School of Chiropractic." In response to the type of his degree, Respondent wrote: "Quack Con-Artist Chiropractic Degree." In response to questions concerning medical training, Respondent answered: "'Fraudulent' Automobile Personal Injury Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)" and "'Fraudulent' Workers Compensation Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)." Respondent also added to these responses, as well as the responses cited in the preceding paragraph, the following: "Caveat: see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director)." Section VIII of the Profile requires information concerning criminal offenses. This section asks: "have you ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal misdemeanor or felony in any jurisdiction?" The question then states: "If "YES," briefly describe the offense(s), indicate whether the conviction is under appeal, and attach copy of notice of appeal." The form supplies three lines for each of these items of information. Respondent answered "no" to the first question in Section VIII and left the remainder of the section blank. The Profile concludes, immediately above the signature line: "I affirm these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 455.624, 458.327, 458.331, 459.013, 459.015, 460.413, 461.013, 775.082, 775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes." Respondent signed on the signature line and added the date of April 7, 1999. Immediately beneath the signature line, Respondent added: "Notice: Signed under caveat--see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director." Respondent's four-page letter to Gloria Henderson dated April 7, 1999, references the Profile, notifies Ms. Henderson and Petitioner of Respondent's intent to sue, and demands that Petitioner omit Respondent's listing from a website of chiropractors because, in part, "I do NOT accept their 'valueless treatment' known as an "adjustment" (it is a waste of money and time), and because I practice health care from an "Allopathic" (medical approach) point of view, including but not limited to, surgery, drug prescription, physical therapy " Respondent states in the letter that the Petitioner's failure to incorporate his comments in all computer files listing him as a chiropractor will result in his filing a federal action under tort and constitutional law seeking $1 million plus punitive damages. The final caveat in the April 7 letter states: My (Roy A. Day) signature on the instant letter, and the associated completed questionnaire, reflects the denial of Roy A. Day to have meaningful access to so-called "licensed attorney" courts of law, and the associated denials of each and all discovery, and trial by jury, and the right to each and all appeals, and the denial to write a brief on appeals, and each and all associated "railroading" of Roy A. Day, with the overlay for "licensed attorney" courts of law to deny the law, facts and evidence existed when they pertained to Roy A. Day, since Roy A. Day is not represented by a so-called "licensed attorney" at $300.00 per hour in artificial-monopolistic legal fees. In addition, the signature reflects each and all associated "forced and coerced" action, specifically, Roy A. Day has been denied "due process and equal protection of the law." On February 6, 1995, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered an Order of Probation. The Order states that Respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking, interception of oral communication, and uttering a check with a forged endorsement. The Order withholds adjudication and places Respondent on probation for two years. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of two counts of the third-degree felony of uttering a check with a forged endorsement, in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. The checks totaled approximately $20,000, and, sometime between March 13 and May 5, 1993, Respondent passed each check knowing that the signature of his brother, Donald Day, was forged. For each count, the court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 130 days he had already served in jail, and the sentences ran concurrently. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of the third-degree felony of aggravated stalking, in violation of Section 784.048(3), Florida Statutes. The stalking consisted of repeated and harassing telephone calls that Respondent made to the house of a person who had, at one time, expressed interest in purchasing a home in which Respondent had an interest, but later decided not to pursue the purchase. The court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 133 days that he had already served in jail, and this sentence ran concurrently with the sentences for uttering a check with a forged endorsement. Petitioner lacked a copy of a judgment concerning the interception of oral communications. This offense arose out of Respondent's surreptitious recording of a conversation that he had with a police officer who was investigating the stalking charges. Absent a copy of the judgment, however, insufficient evidence of this conviction exists for the purpose of this disciplinary case. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he did not disclose these criminal convictions on the Profile because doing so would somehow implicate him as a "co-conspirator" in the injustices perpetrated upon him by the authorities involved in prosecuting these offenses. Respondent falsely failed to disclose on the Profile his convictions for aggravated stalking and uttering a check with a forged instrument. His failure to disclose this information constitutes fraudulent concealment of these criminal offenses. In a fairly straightforward case, Respondent has filed nearly 250 pleadings containing thousands of pages. He also abused the subpoena power of this tribunal by subpoenaing judges and court officials from every level of the federal and state judiciaries. Last but not least, Respondent has defamed and discredited numerous persons without apparent reason, although some question exists whether Respondent is capable of exercising consistent control over the impulses leading to at least some of these utterances. The crimes of which Respondent was convicted may have arisen out of family disagreements, possibly concerning the sale of a family home. Respondent may be obsessively preoccupied with actual or perceived injustices that he suffered as a result of this transaction. Undoubtedly, Respondent compulsively litigates everything that has the most remote bearing upon this transaction, using court files as archives for materials that he believes will vindicate him, despite an ardent and often- expressed repulsion for judges, lawyers, and others connected with the legal system. No penalty but revocation is suitable under the circumstances, absent a showing by Respondent that he has commenced or is continuing therapy and that the prognosis is reasonably good. The record lacks such evidence. Respondent is not unintelligent, nor is he entirely devoid of insight. His thinking, although at times disordered, is capable of impressive organizational efforts, as best revealed by his meticulous organization in his proposed recommended order of what otherwise seemed to be a bewildering variety of materials that Respondent has seen fit to file in this case. Although his behavior seems at times compulsive, Respondent was capable of a certain level of self-restraint, at least during the hearing and when not directly confronting the underlying transaction or crimes. If they occur at some point in the future, successful diagnosis and treatment of Respondent should inform Petitioner's interpretation of the events and behaviors described in this Recommended Order, if Respondent seeks relicensure as a chiropractor.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, 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 19th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr. Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Wings S. Benton, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Office of General Counsel Medical Quality Assurance Practitioner Regulation--Legal Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Roy A. Day Post Office Box 33 Tarpon Springs, Florida 34688-0033
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case as follows: The Respondent, Clifford Fruithandler, D.C. is and has been at all times material hereto [sic] the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 89-7036, (DPR Case Number 0094598) a chiropractor licensed in the State of Florida having been issued license number CH 0004149. The Respondent's address is 5417 West Atlantic Boulevard, Margate, Florida 33063. The Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed chiropractor caused to be published an advertisement in the North West Medical Guide in Broward County. The advertisement was published on September 16, 1987. The advertisement identified the Respondent's chiropractic practice as "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control Center". The Respondent has been subject to discipline by the Board of Chiropractic in DPR Case Number 44292, 40777, and 28914. On or about March, 4, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation wrote a letter to Respondent which stated "Please be advised that the Department has received a complaint based on the enclosed advertisement. The allegations are: (1) Advance Chiropractic implies that you possess skills and or other attributes which are superior to other chiropractors..." Within one week following the receipt of such letter by Respondent, the Respondent changed the name of the clinic and stopped using the name "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control". Prior to the receipt of DPR's letter of March 4, 1988, Respondent had received no complaints from DPR, the Board of Chiropractic, or from any patient regarding the use of such name.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, issuing a reprimand to the Respondent and assessing a fine against Respondent in the amount $750.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 29th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Roger W. Calton, Esquire Qualified Legal Representative 30131 Town Center Drive Suite 177 Laguna Niguel, CA. 92677-2040 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure exam should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a chiropractic doctor who has been licensed to practice in the state of Ohio since 1993. He maintains an active practice in Ohio, and he currently sees approximately 190 patients per week. Petitioner filed an application with the Department for a Florida chiropractic license. Applicants for licensure are required by statute and rule to take the licensure exam developed by the Department. Petitioner took the exam in May 2001. The exam consists of four parts, three practical and one written. The practical parts test the applicant on physical diagnosis, X-ray interpretation, and technique; and the written part tests the applicant on the Florida laws and rules regulating chiropractors. An applicant for licensure must receive a score of 75 on each part to pass the examination. Petitioner passed the written part of the exam as well as the X-ray and technique practical parts; however, on the physical diagnosis part, he received a failing score of 70. As a result, he failed to pass the exam and may not receive a Florida chiropractic license.2 The physical diagnosis part of the exam consisted of 26 tasks which the applicant was required to perform within the allotted time of 70 minutes. The physical diagnosis part of the chiropractic licensure exam is developed by a team of consultants retained by the Department. The team consists of licensed chiropractic doctors with varied practices and at least ten years of experience. The team derives the exam questions from case studies from prior administrations of the exam. The team meets on several occasions to refine the case studies and rework the questions. The team also develops and refines the answers to the questions based upon their research and a consensus reached after debate. After the exam questions are finalized and before the administration of the exam, the Department holds standardization sessions which all of the examiners are required to attend. The purpose of the standardization sessions is to ensure that each examiner knows what is a correct answer and what is an incorrect answer for each question. This, in turn, ensures consistency in the evaluation and grading of all applicants. The examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis exam attended all of the standardization sessions. The applicant's performance of each task in the physical diagnosis part of the exam is independently graded by two examiners. The purpose of the independent grading is to eliminate any potential bias in the grading and to increase reliability in the scoring of the exam. The examiners independently assigned a letter score -- A, B, or C -- to the applicant's performance on each task. A score of "C" represents full credit for the task. A score of "B" represents partial credit for the task. A score of "A" represents no credit for the task. Where the examiner awards less than full credit, he or she provides a notation on the score sheet regarding what the applicant failed to do properly. The letter score was translated into a numerical score based upon the pre-determined point value for the task. Each of the tasks at issue in this proceeding -- numbers 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 -- were worth 4 points each. A grade of "C" for these tasks translates into a raw score of 4 points; a grade of "B" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 2 points; a grade of "A" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 0 points. The raw scores resulting from each examiner's grades are totaled separately and, then, those totals are averaged. The averaged score is what is reported to the applicant as his or her final score on the physical diagnosis part of the exam. As noted above, Petitioner received a score of 70 on that part. Task 13 (S1 Dermatome) Task 13 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 13, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the S1 dermatome, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 13. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. A "dermatome" is an area of the body surface served by a particular spinal nerve. The S1 dermatome is the area of the body surface served by the S1 nerve. The S1 dermatome encompasses an area which begins on the back of the leg below the calf, runs down the back of the foot over the heel, along a portion of the bottom of the foot to the toes, and then around the outside (lateral) portion of the foot. The expert testimony and the scientific texts introduced in this case vary on the exact portion of the bottom of the foot included in the S1 dermatome. Some indicate that it encompasses only that area from the outside of the foot to the fourth or fifth (little) toe, while others indicate that it extends from the outside of the foot all the way to the midline of the foot at the third (middle) toe. The common element in all of the expert testimony and the scientific texts is that the location of the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot is towards the outside of the foot rather than the inside (arch) of the foot. The S1 dermatome is tested by touching the dermatome with an instrument to determine whether the patient exhibits any sensory reaction, i.e., whether and to what degree the patient feels the touch. The dermatome can be tested without tracing its entire area; however, in order to map out the entire dermatome, its entire area would be tested. On the video tape of Petitioner's performance of Task 13, it appears that he is attempting to test the S1 dermatome, rather than demonstrating its area as the task requires. Petitioner can be heard telling the patient that he is going to "test" the dermatome level by touching the patient's foot to see if the patient can feel it. Immediately after these comments, one of the examiners (Dr. Weiss) can be heard on the video tape telling Petitioner to "trace the path of S1." Dr. Weiss also can be heard asking Petitioner to show the examiners where S1 starts and where it goes. Petitioner performed Task 13 by making a single straight-line motion starting on the back of the leg below the calf, then proceeding downward and under the foot, and ending near the big toe. Petitioner repeated the movement, again ending near or even slightly to the inside (arch side) of the big toe. By making only a single straight-line motion along the bottom of the foot, Petitioner failed to demonstrate the area of the S1 dermatome. At most, Petitioner demonstrated the line separating the S1 dermatome from the L5 dermatome, which is adjacent to the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot. As noted above, however, the S1 dermatome extends no further than the mid-line of the foot and therefore the line demonstrated by the Petitioner could not have been the boundary of the S1 dermatome. Even if Petitioner understood the task as "test the S1 dermatome" rather than demonstrate its area, the weight of the evidence shows that Petitioner did not correctly test the dermatome along the bottom of the foot. As discussed above, Petitioner's instrument appeared to travel along the inside (arch) of the bottom of the foot rather than the outside of the bottom of the foot. The S1 dermatome does not extend inward on the bottom of the foot beyond the mid-line and it certainly does not extend to the big toe. The notes written by the examiners on the grading sheets indicate that the "B" grade that Petitioner received on Task 13 was based upon the his tracing of an incorrect area on the bottom of the foot. The notes written by Dr. Weiss, the examiner who testified at the hearing, stated "traced wrong area under foot." The notes written by the other examiner similarly stated "S1 under foot incorrect." The notes were corroborated at hearing by the videotape and the testimony of Dr. Mathis. Because Petitioner failed to properly demonstrate the S1 dermatome, the examiners properly gave him only partial credit on Task 13. Task 14 (Acquilles Reflex Test) Task 14 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 14, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the Achilles reflex test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 14. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. Petitioner tested the Achilles reflex by lying the patient face down (prone) and then tapping a reflex hammer directly on the Achilles tendon of each foot. Petitioner did not dorsiflex either foot before striking the tendons. The taps elicited a reflexive response which can be clearly seen on the video tape of Petitioner's exam. Had the tap not elicited a response, Petitioner testified that he would have pursued alternative means of testing the reflex. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at the hearing show that there are several alternative ways to test the Achilles reflex, all of which are professionally accepted. One way is to tap directly on the Achilles tendon as Petitioner did. This can be accomplished with or without dorsiflexing the foot. The Department was looking for the candidate to pre-stress the tendon by dorsiflexing the foot prior to striking the tendon with the reflex hammer. The evidence does explain why dorsiflexing the foot would be the preferable method of testing the Achilles reflex under the facts of the case study. Another way to test the Achilles reflex is for the doctor to dorsiflex the foot by pressing his or her fingers against the ball of the patient's foot and then tap his or her fingers with a reflex hammer. Where the ankle is swollen or it is too painful to strike the tendon itself, this method of eliciting the reflex is preferred. The case study on which Task 14 was based indicated that the patient had "severe pain and swelling in the right calf, ankle, and heel." The case study did not indicate that the patient had a ruptured Achilles tendon, but that injury could not be ruled out based on the case study. In such circumstances, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the preferred method of checking Achilles reflex would not be striking the tendon itself. Task 18 (X-Ray of 5-year Old) Task 18 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 18, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to answer the question of whether he or she would X-ray a 5-year-old child with certain symptoms, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 18. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The question required applicants to answer "yes" or "no." They were not permitted to explain their answer. The question provided only limited information regarding the child and his medical history. The question did not state whether the parent had signed a consent form authorizing treatment of the child. Without parental consent, it would not be proper for the doctor to render any medical treatment to the child. It would have been reasonable for Petitioner to assume that any necessary consent forms had been signed. Petitioner did not request any clarification on this point from the examiners nor did his response during the exam mention the lack of a signed parental consent form. Instead, Petitioner explained that he would not X-ray the child because of the apparent severity of the child's injury and a concern that the child may have an injury "that wouldn't be chiropractic in nature." Based on these concerns, Petitioner stated during his exam that he would refer the child to his family physician. At hearing, Petitioner indicated that his concern regarding the severity of the child's injury was based upon the case study which indicated that the child was holding his neck. Petitioner considered this to be Rust's Sign. Petitioner did not request any clarification from the examiners regarding the manner in which the child was holding his neck. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing indicate that Rust's Sign is most commonly exhibited by the patient supporting his or her head by holding the chin, rather than the neck. The patient holds his or her head to compensate for some muscular, ligament, or disk damage, which causes the neck to be unable to support the head. Even if Petitioner construed the limited case history provided to be evidence of Rust's Sign, the proper course of treatment would not have been to refer the patient to a family physician as Petitioner stated during his exam. Instead, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the proper course of treatment would have been to immediately stabilize the neck with a cervical collar or something similar and immediately perform imaging (e.g., X-ray) to determine the source of the injury. Petitioner is not entitled to additional points for Task 18. Task 21 (Gluteus Maximus Test) Task 21 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 21, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the second sub-task. Only the first sub- task, which required the applicant to perform the gluteus maximus muscle test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 21. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The gluteus maximus muscle is the largest muscle in the body and is largely responsible for the shape of the buttock. It extends and laterally rotates the hip joint. The muscle is tested by having the patient lie face down (prone) with his or her knee bent 90 degrees or more. The importance of bending the knee is to isolate the muscle. While the doctor holds the patient's hip to stabilize it and applies downward pressure to the back of the thigh, the patient attempts to raise his or her leg. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that Petitioner had the patient in the prone position. Petitioner did not have the patient bend his knee. Nor did Petitioner have the patient lift his leg up. Instead, the tape shows Petitioner pulling the leg outward as the patient attempted to move the leg inward. Petitioner did not rotate the leg. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing show that the test performed by Petitioner was the proper test for the gluteus medius or gluteus minimus rather than the gluteus maximus. This evidence corroborates the notation on one of the examiners' score sheet which stated "did gluteus med[ius]?" And see Endnote 1. Indeed, it appears from the video tape that Petitioner misunderstood the task he was to perform. When Petitioner first read the question for Task 21, he correctly read the two tests he was to perform, gluteus maximus and soleus. Petitioner then performed the soleus test. Then, he could be heard saying "gluteus medius" as if to remind himself what test he was to perform. Immediately after that comment, one of the examiners suggested that Petitioner reread the question. He did so, correctly reading "gluteus maximus." Petitioner then set up the table and got the patient situated. Then, one of the examiners asked which muscle test Petitioner was going to perform. He stated "gluteus medius." Petitioner then stood over the patient for a minute or so, apparently thinking to himself, and then performed the test as described above. Any confusion regarding the test to be performed was not a result of the form of the examination or the conduct of the examiners. The examination clearly indicates that the test to be performed is gluteus maximus. The words "gluteus maximus" are in bold type. The examiners attempted to clarify Petitioner's confusion by giving him an opportunity to correct himself after he first misstated the test to be performed. Task 22 (Trendelenburg Test) Task 22 required the applicant to perform two distinct tests and state what he or she is looking for in each test. To receive full credit for Task 22, the applicant was required to properly perform each test and state what he or she is looking for in each test. The only dispute in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's statement of what he was looking for in the Trendelenburg test was the correct response. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 22. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The Trendelenburg test is used to evaluate the ability of the hip abductors, primarily the gluteus medius, to stabilize the pelvis on the femur. The test is performed by having the patient stand facing away from the doctor. The patient then lifts one of his or her legs. A positive sign is where the pelvis/hip of the lifted leg tilts downward instead of rising. Reference to the pelvic/hip tilt was what the Department considered to be a correct answer for Task 22. When performing the Trendelenburg test, the doctor should stand behind the patient with his or her hands on the patient's hips. This placement of the hands serves two purposes. First, it allows the doctor to feel even slight movement of the pelvis/hip in order to detect even a mildly positive sign. Second, it allows the doctor to stabilize the patient in the event that the patient loses his or her balance. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that he correctly performed the Trendelenberg test. He was positioned behind the patient with his hands on the patient's hips. He directed the patient to raise his right leg. Then, he stated that if the patient were to fall over, there would be a gluteus medius problem. Dr. Weiss requested clarification from Petitioner, specifically asking him what he was looking for. Again, Petitioner stated that the patient would fall over or lose his balance. Petitioner never used the word "lurch." The Trendelenberg test could cause the patient to lose his or her balance and "lurch" in the direction of the lifted leg or even fall over, but only in cases of severe weakness in the gluteus medius muscle. Such a response would be a positive Trendelenburg sign. The most common positive sign, however, is a downward tilt of the pelvis/hip on the side of the lifted leg. All of the scientific texts, including that offered by Petitioner, identify the tilt as the positive sign which the doctor should be looking for. The tilt is what causes the "lurch" that occurs in more severe cases. If the doctor is looking only for a "lurch," he or she might miss the tilt and thereby miss the most common positive sign of the Trendelenburg test. Because Petitioner stated that he was looking for the patient to fall over or lose his balance, rather than looking for the pelvis/hip tilt, his response to Task 22 was incomplete at best. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for Task 22. Disruptive Noise During Petitioner's Examination The physical diagnosis part of the May 2001, licensure exam was administered in several conference-type rooms of a hotel. Approximately five or six applicants were administered the exam in the same room as Petitioner. Several of those applicants went before Petitioner and several went after him. While Petitioner was taking the examination, loud noises could be heard. On the video tape of Petitioner's exam, the noises sounded like loud scraping, scratching, and rumbling of metal, as if a large piece of equipment or furniture was being moved in a nearby area of the hotel. At other points, the noises sounded like thumping or banging. In his testimony, Petitioner described the noise as sounding like a mechanical tool or jack-hammer. Dr. Weiss, one of the Department's examiners who graded Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis part of the exam, testified that he heard the noise as well and described them as construction noises outside of the room. The noise was not continuous throughout the exam. The noise first could be heard on the video tape near the end of Petitioner's performance of Task 1. It was very loud, but lasted only for several seconds before subsiding. It could also be heard at a very loud level during Tasks 2, 4, 7, and 17, again for only a few seconds each time. The noise could also be heard during Tasks 6, 8, and 16, but at a much lower level. Immediately after the noise first occurred during Task 1, one of the examiners asked Petitioner if the noise was bothering him. Specifically, the examiner asked, "Is that distracting you?" To which Petitioner responded "No, it’s okay." Had Petitioner indicated that the noise bothered him, Dr. Weiss testified that the examination would have been stopped until the source of the noise problem could be addressed. Neither Petitioner nor the examiners mentioned the noise during the remainder of the exam. The video tape does not show any significant difference in Petitioner's demeanor during the tasks where the noise could be heard than the remainder of the tasks. Throughout the test, Petitioner looked somewhat uncomfortable, but not any more so than would be expected under the pressure of this type of exam. At most points where the noise could be heard, Petitioner appeared to be oblivious to it because he was so deep in concentration on the task at hand. Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis exam with more than 17 minutes of the allotted 70 minutes remaining. After he completed his exam, Petitioner filled out a Candidate Concern Form on which he stated that the noises made it hard for him to concentrate. The form was provided to Adrian Washington who was the Department employee in charge of administration of the exam. Mr. Washington informed the two examiners who evaluated Petitioner that a concern had been filed and requested that they independently describe the incident. Dr. Weiss' written comments on the incident referred to the noises as "distracting to me." However, Dr. Weiss' comments, as well as the comments of the other examiner, stated that Petitioner was asked during the examination whether the noises were distracting to him and that he said "no." The comments of the other examiner confirmed what the undersigned witnessed on the video tape, i.e., that "he [Petitioner] did not appear to be visually upset during the examination." The examiners comments also noted that even with the distraction from the noise, Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis part of the exam with time remaining. Based upon the responses of the examiners, primarily the fact that Petitioner stated during the exam that the noises were not bothering him, Mr. Washington determined that no further action was warranted with respect to Petitioner's examination. He did notify the hotel staff about the distractions around the testing area. No other candidate or examiner expressed any concern to Mr. Washington regarding noise problems during the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for a chiropractic license based upon the failing score that he received on the physical diagnosis part of the May 2001 licensure exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 15th day of March, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, should receive a passing grade on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, applied for examination and licensure as a chiropractor and arranged to take the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. She received passing grades on two sections of the examination (Florida Laws and Rules, and X- ray Interpretation) but failing grades in Physical Diagnosis and Technique. During the pendency of this proceeding, it was stipulated that Petitioner should receive a passing grade in Technique, leaving only a failing grade of 74 (with 75 passing) in Physical Diagnosis. Since 75 was passing, Petitioner would pass the examination either if she is given credit for an additional answer, or if a question for which she did not get credit is eliminated. On July 24, 1998, Petitioner telephoned Respondent, the Department of Health, to request that a "review form for Chiropractic" be sent to her address in Dunedin, Florida. On July 30, 1998, Petitioner requested a post-examination review, which provided the same address in Dunedin, Florida. Respondent arranged for the review on September 10, 1998, and attempted to notify Petitioner of the review by letter dated August 21 and postmarked August 25, 1998, and addressed to Petitioner at her address in Dunedin, Florida, certified mail, return receipt requested. Not long after asking for the review, Petitioner moved to Georgia. Petitioner gave the United States Postal Service (USPS) a forwarding address in Cartersville, Georgia, but never notified Respondent of a change of address. When the USPS received Respondent's letter to Petitioner, it placed a postal stamp dated August 30, 1998, on the envelope, bearing the Cartersville address and a request addressed to Petitioner to notify the sender (Respondent) of Petitioner's Cartersville address. The USPS attempted to deliver the letter to Petitioner at the Cartersville, Georgia, address on September 2 and 7, 1998, but could not and had to leave notices for Petitioner to claim the letter. When Petitioner did not claim the letter, the Postal Service "X"-ed out the postal stamp with the Cartersville address and returned the letter to Respondent on September 17, 1998, with a notation that Petitioner had not claimed the letter. The USPS "X"-ed out the postal stamp to signify that the Cartersville address was not a good address. Respondent received the returned letter on September 23, 1998. Because the review notice could not be delivered, Petitioner never received notice. Not having received notice, Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled examination review and was recorded as a "no-show" even though the post office had not yet delivered a return receipt to Respondent. Ten to fifteen percent of the 200 examination reviews a year do not "show." Respondent treats them the same way as it treated Petitioner in this case, which is the same way Respondent treats examination "no-shows." It is not Respondent's practice to attempt to contact either examination or review "no-shows." Petitioner did not re-contact Respondent until August 1999. Initially, Petitioner applied to re-take the Chiropractic Examination in November 1999 but withdrew her application on September 27, 1999, when she realized that her national board part I score expired on December 31, 1998, and her national board scores for parts II and III were going to expire on December 31, 1999. On December 31, 1999, Petitioner attempted to "lock-in" her national board scores but was told that it was too late. When Petitioner realized that there was no way to preserve her national board scores, she renewed her request to review the May 1998 examination. With the assistance of her new attorney, Petitioner persuaded Respondent to agree to an examination review, which was scheduled for February 2000. In its proposed recommended order (PRO), Respondent contended that examination review in February 2000 was "for the sole purpose of preparing for the next examination." (Emphasis in PRO.) Respondent cited no evidence to support this contention, and none is found in the record. Petitioner's examination challenge was filed on March 15, 1998. Respondent also contended in its PRO that Petitioner should be barred from challenging the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination under the doctrine of laches. But not only was laches not raised as a defense in the Joint Response to Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions or at any time prior to Respondent's PRO, there was no evidence that the delay in the examination challenge made it difficult for Respondent to defend against the challenge. Petitioner's examination challenge blamed Respondent for the delay in reviewing the May 1998 examination and for the expiration of her national board scores. It also complained of alleged lack of anonymity and erasure marks on the answer key as well as on "the visceral portion of physical diagnosis." It then challenged two specific physiotherapy questions: one dealing with ultrasound (Question 23); and another dealing with cryotherapy (Question 24). As to the ultrasound, Petitioner essentially complained that she should not have been tested on ultrasound because, as a "straight" chiropractor (as opposed to a "mixer"), Petitioner did not use ultrasound in her practice and did not study it in school. As to the cryotherapy, Petitioner also complained that the answer she gave on the examination was correct and should have received credit. Finally, Petitioner challenged the Technique section of the examination (which Respondent eventually conceded). Like Question 23, Question 24 was worth 5 points on the 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Question 24 consisted of two parts, A and B, each worth 2.5 points. Question 24 dealt with the use of cryotherapy. Part A required a demonstration, which Petitioner clearly failed. (Petitioner did not challenge part A.) After Petitioner attempted her demonstration, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but was somewhat different from the actual first subpart of Question 24B. It does not appear from the evidence that Petitioner herself read the first subpart of Question 24B; she clearly did not read the question aloud. But it does not appear that Petitioner was confused by the way in which the examiner asked the first subpart of Question 24B. Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B varied from (was more conservative than) the accepted answer for time and length of cryotherapy treatment using ice packs. Petitioner testified that she answered conservatively because the hypothetical patient was 60 years old. Petitioner's proposed, more conservative treatment may be appropriate for 60 year-olds with diabetes, fragile skin and blood vessels, or other hypersensitivity to cold due to aging. But for most other 60 year-olds, normal cryotherapy protocol is not contraindicated. Question 24 was silent as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated in the hypothetical patient. During the examination, Petitioner did not ask for clarification as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated. It could not be ascertained from the videotape of the examination whether Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B was adjusted to take into account possible contraindications due to age of the hypothetical patient. The authoritative source for the accepted answer (Applied Physiotherapy, Second Edition, by Jaskoviak and Schafer, p. 249) stated: Cold packs are usually applied for 20-30 minutes when maximum effect is to be achieved. After 30 minutes, the packs lose their necessary degree of therapeutic coolness and must be returned to the refrigerated tank. The point of the authoritative source appears to be that cold packs do not remain cold enough for maximum therapeutic effect for longer than 30 minutes, not that cold packs must be used for 30 minutes for maximum therapeutic effect. It also does not rule out more conservative treatment for a 60 year-old, even assuming no contraindications. Respondent's expert testified persuasively that the authoritative source supported and bolstered his independent knowledge from personal education and extensive experience that the accepted answer was correct, not only generally but also in the case of a 60 year-old female with no contraindications. Petitioner's two experts testified to the contrary. But one had virtually no education, training, and experience in physiotherapy, and the other's education, training, and experience in physiotherapy was far less than Respondent's expert. When Petitioner finished her answer to the first subpart of Question 24B, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but differed significantly from the actual second subpart of Question 24B. The second subpart of Question 24B asked for a listing of physical sensations related to cryotherapy, in sequential order. But the examiner did not initially ask for them in sequential order. The evidence was clear that Petitioner herself did not reread the second subpart of Question 24B; again, she clearly did not read the question aloud. Petitioner began to answer the examiner's question, naming second and fourth sensations in the sequence. As Petitioner paused in her response, one of the examiners told Petitioner that there were four sensations and that Petitioner was required to name all of them in sequential order. The examiner then repeated the sensation mentioned by Petitioner as the first in the sequence. Petitioner continued her response by repeating only the second sensation in the sequence, adding the third sensation in the sequence, and not repeating the fourth sensation in the sequence. Petitioner never named the first sensation in the sequence. At the end of her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B, she commented: "I'm sorry. That's the best I can do. I guess this is why I should have taken physiotherapy." Petitioner argued that the examiner(s) violated the Examiner Manual for the Chiropractic Examination May 1998 (the Examiner Manual) and, in so doing, may have misled Petitioner into thinking that the first sensation mentioned by Petitioner in her answer to the second subpart to Question 24B was the first sensation in the sequence and may have caused Petitioner to omit the actual first sensation in the sequence. The Examiner Manual stated in pertinent part: During the examination If necessary, remind the candidate to read the questions out loud for the video. Do not read the questions to the candidate or ask the candidate for additional information. (Emphasis in original.) We have agreed on the following solutions to possible problems: * * * The answer is incomplete: ask for a complete answer. * * * Avoid Giving Clues DO NOT ask any additional questions, and DO NOT provide any feedback about the correctness of the answers. When the candidate gives a wrong answer, do not ask the candidate to answer it again. You may think you are doing the candidate a favor, but most of the time candidates do not think that way. While the examiner(s) may have misled Petitioner as to the first sensation in the sequence, Petitioner also never gave the last three sensations in proper order. The evidence did not prove that the examiner(s) misled Petitioner in regard to those sensations. In addition, Petitioner more or less conceded to the examiners that she was guessing throughout her attempted answers to Questions 23 and 24. She told the examiners that she had no education in or knowledge of cryotherapy and did not use it in her practice. While correct guesses count as correct answers, Petitioner's admitted guessing supports the finding that she did not answer the second subpart to Question 24B correctly. Petitioner also argued that she should be given partial credit for her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B. But while partial credit was given for a completely correct answer to either subpart of Question 24B, partial credit was not given for a partially correct answer to a subpart. Petitioner did not prove that the it was arbitrary or unreasonable not to give partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart. To give Petitioner partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart of Question 24B would give Petitioner an unfair advantage over other candidates. Question 23 also was worth 5 points on a 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Petitioner clearly did not answer Question 23 on the use of ultrasound as physiotherapy. Petitioner asserted that it was unfair and improper for Respondent to ask questions on physiotherapy on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination because she had no education, training, or experience in it. Petitioner learned "straight" chiropractic at Life University in Georgia and practiced "straight" chiropractic for 12 years in Georgia. "Straight" chiropractic is limited to identification and correction of skeletal subluxations by direct manipulation. It does not use physiotherapy techniques, such as ultrasound and cryotherapy (icing). But, contrary to Petitioner's position in this case, it is found that Petitioner did have the opportunity to study physiotherapy during and after college, but she chose not to. Petitioner also asserted that Respondent gave her inadequate notice that physiotherapy questions would be on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. The Candidate Information Booklet for the May 1998 Chiropractic Licensure and Certification Examination (the Candidate Information Booklet) advised candidates approximately what areas would be covered in the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination, namely: Orthopedic and Neurological 30-35%; Diagnostic Imaging 20-25%; Case History and Physical 15-20%; Laboratory 5-10%; Diagnosis 15- 20%; and Clinical Judgment 5-10%. But it also included the following statement: Based on the Board of Chiropractic's approval of a proposal made by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, starting with the May 1998 examination, the Physical Diagnosis portion of the examination will include questions relating to the practice of Physiotherapy. The inclusion of these questions does not alter the percentage of areas to be tested on the Physical Diagnosis portion [of] the examination, as stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. The only other evidence as to whether inclusion of the physiotherapy questions (i.e., Questions 23 and 24) caused the percentage of areas to be tested to depart from the approximations in the Candidate booklet or the percentages stated in the pertinent Board rule was the testimony of Respondent's psychometric expert. It was her general understanding that inclusion of the physiotherapy questions did not alter the percentages because: "They are covered all through the exam I believe." But she conceded that her expertise does not extend to examination content, and she could not testify specifically as to how inclusion of the physiotherapy questions affected the percentages in the Candidate Information Booklet and in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. No "content expert" addressed the issue. It is found that the only place where physiotherapy possibly might fit under the Candidate Information Booklet's description of Physical Diagnosis would be under "clinical judgment." If the physiotherapy questions were assigned to "clinical judgment" under Physical Diagnosis, the ten points assigned to those questions would have to be added to the six points assigned to "clinical judgment" on other parts of the Physical Diagnosis examination, for a total of 16 points, which exceeds the maximum percentage in the Candidate Information Booklet. (As reflected in the Conclusion of Law 42, infra, the same holds true for the percentages stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Health, enter a final order that Petitioner passed the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Post Office Box 37094 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-7094 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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
