Findings Of Fact Respondent is a medical doctor, licensed to practice in Florida, and holds license number ME 0009310, issued by Petitioner. Respondent specializes in family practice and has been board certified by the American Academy of Family Physicians since 1974. Percodan is the manufacturer's brand name for oxycodone, which is a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, F.S. 2/ It is a drug used for the relief of pain, a synthetic analgesic, and is both a physically and psychologically dependent producing drug. It can cause drowsiness, urinary retention, nausea, vomiting, and interacts unfavorably with other sedative drugs, and is considered a depressant. On December 30, 1966, Evelyn Milstead, a 30 year old woman, came to Respondent's office complaining of nausea and a rash in her mouth. Respondent conducted a physical examination, took her medical history and thereafter prescribed tigan for the nausea. Ms. Milstead became a regular patient of Respondent's and he continued treating her for various ailments over a period of years. During the course of Respondent's treatment, Milstead developed a chronic urinary tract infection and kidney condition in which she passed kidney stones. On occasion Milstead was treated by Dr. Gillespie, a specialist in the field of urology for her kidney condition. In 1978, Respondent also referred instead to the Ochsner Clinic for evaluation of her urinary tract and kidney problems. She was evaluated at Ochsner Clinic and received prescriptions for darvocet, a pain medication, and keflex, an antibiotic, and was told that she would continue to have a chronic kidney problem. Over the years, Milstead was hospitalized several times by Dr. Gillespie for treatment of her kidney condition. The testimony of Dr. William H. Nass and Dr. Robert P. Johnson established that Respondent's initial prescriptions of percodan to Milstead were appropriate. However, Respondent's percodan prescriptions to Milstead eventually became inappropriate. Specifically, the prescriptions for 2,668 percodan tablets between August, 1980 and November, 1982, were established as excessive. On July 30, 1977, Bruce White, a 25 year old male, came to Respondent for medical treatment for headaches and thereafter returned to Respondent for treatment of various medical problems. Mr. White's wife, Vicki White, and their children were also seen by Respondent as their family doctor. On May 18, 1981, White came to Respondent complaining of neck and back pain from an automobile accident in which he also fractured his left lower leg. Respondent noted that White had been seen by a neurologist and an orthopedic surgeon for his head and leg. In addition to other medication, Respondent prescribed percodan to White for pain. White had also developed arthritis in his left leg, as a result of the car accident and fracture, and on one occasion was hospitalized for swelling of his left leg. Respondent referred White to Dr. Tippett, a neurosurgeon, concerning his headaches and to Dr. Graybiel, a rheumatologist, concerning his arthritis. However, White continued to see Respondent as his medical doctor because his work schedule on an offshore oil rig would only permit Saturday appointments with his doctor and Respondent's offices are open on Saturday mornings. White also found it difficult to pay the fees charged by specialists. Between May 8, 1981 and September 30, 1982, Respondent prescribed 780 percodan tablets for Bruce White. The testimony of Dr. Nass and Dr. Johnson established that Respondent's initial prescriptions of percodan to White were appropriate. However, the percodan prescriptions to White became inappropriate over time due to their excessiveness. The seriousness of this lapse is underscored by Respondent's failure to try other pain alleviating measures and failure to investigate abuse possibilities. On October 18, 1979, Vicki White, the wife of Bruce White, a 23 year old woman, came to Respondent's office seeking treatment. She complained of migraine headaches and stated that her father was in the hospital with cancer. She also stated that she had seen Dr. Eyser, a neurosurgeon, for her headaches. Respondent prescribed wygesic for her pain. She subsequently returned to Respondent for treatment of various complaints including chronic migraine headaches, colds, and a dislocated right shoulder. Initially, Respondent prescribed norcet for relief of this pain, and on July 31, 1981, first prescribed percodan for her migraine headaches. Respondent prescribed percodan on other occasions in response to her complaints of pain from migraine headaches and back strain. Respondent considered referring her to a neurologist for the headaches but White stated that she could not afford to see a specialist. Respondent prescribed 590 percodan tablets for Vicki White between July 31, 1981 and September 22, 1982. Percodan is an appropriate and acceptable medicine for the relief of migraine headaches, and Respondent's initial prescription of percodan to Ms. White was appropriate. However, his prescriptions became excessive over time since percodan is not to be used for long term treatment of migraine headaches. On September 7, 1982, M. D. Medlen, an Escambia County Deputy Sheriff, went to Respondent's office as an undercover police officer, under the assumed name of Donna Slay. She had been asked by Robert Powers, a narcotics officer with the Escambia County Sheriff's Department and Charles Deckard, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, to go to Respondent's office in an undercover capacity and attempt to obtain a prescription for percodan. Medlen/Slay first gave general information to the receptionist, including identification, in the name of Donna Slay, chief complaint of a backache, previous illnesses, drug allergies, address, social security number, and insurance information. Medlen/Slay was shown to an examination room where her blood pressure and weight were taken by the nurse and a urinalysis was performed. Respondent then came in and asked Medlen/Slay what her problem was. She informed him that she had been pushed into a wall during a fight, and had injured her back. Respondent checked her pulse, did a range of motion test, and checked the alleged injured area by palpation. Each time Respondent pressed on the alleged injured area, Medlen/Slay told him it hurt. Respondent did not visually inspect the alleged injured area but asked Medlan/Slay if there was a bruise and she said no. In order to get the percodan, Medlen/Slay told Respondent that she had injured her back one other time and a doctor in Louisiana had prescribed percodan for that injury. Respondent asked how long ago Medlen/Slay had taken the percodan and she said one year ago. Respondent discussed the dangers of drug addiction with Medlan/Slay and then prescribed 20 tablets of percodan for pain and 30 tablets of indocin to reduce inflammation. Upon leaving Respondent's office, Medlen/Slay did not fill the prescriptions but turned them over to Deckard. Percodan is an acceptable medicine for back and shoulder pain. However, Respondent should have considered the possibility of fracture, visually examined the area to ascertain the presence of a hematoma (blood clot) and listened to the patient's chest to determine the presence of lung injury. Respondent did not perform an appropriate examination prior to prescribing percodan, and the prescription was therefore inappropriate. Respondent used poor judgment in his excessive prescriptions of percodan to the patients discussed herein. However, there is no evidence that Respondent prescribed the percodan for personal financial gain or that any patient was injured by Respondent's prescribing practices. The testimony of the expert witness established that the records maintained on these patients were inadequate. Frequently, the only notation for a given visit was the prescription for percodan, with no evaluation of the patient's condition. Further, Respondent's patient records did not even list all the percodan prescriptions issued. Thus, these records essentially reflect partial inventories of prescriptions issued, and do not justify the course of prescribing, which is important to the safe practice of medicine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order placing Respondent on probation for a period of five years, require that Respondent practice under the supervision of another physician to be named by Petitioner during the initial year of his probation and that Petitioner restrict Respondent's license against prescribing Schedule II controlled substances while he is under such supervision. 4/ DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1984.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent is guilty of certain alleged violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes, concerning his treatment of one patient during 1984 and 1985 and, if so, what penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Samir Najjar, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. ME0041782. He has been licensed as such at all times pertinent hereto. He received his medical degree from the University of Mexico in 1978. He performed an internship and residency in internal medicine at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center, completing that in 1981. He then completed a fellowship in pulmonary medicine at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, in 1983. He is board certified in internal medicine and holds a Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from Howard University in Washington, D.C. Pharmacology is a specialized field of study in drug pharmacology. It includes the study of chemistry, the effects and uses of drugs, including their toxicology, the origin and nature of drugs, and the pharmacodynamics of drugs. A pharmacologist also studies the effects of drug combinations and their effects on various illnesses and on the body generally. The patient involved in this proceeding is an adult male, who was born on March 4, 1950. He had a long history of reactive, obstructive airway disease, beginning at the age of 17 months to approximately 14 years of age. Between the ages of 14 and 30, the condition alleviated substantially so that he only had very occasional shortness of breath, which could be treated with bronchodilator inhalers. In April of 1980, however, the patient suffered an acute onset of shortness of breath, which condition worsened. He was treated by physicians with a course of Prednisone, an oral steroid medication, for some two to three weeks. This was prior to his being treated by the Respondent. The patient’s condition improved with the Prednisone therapy, but he experienced increasing shortness of breath one to two weeks after terminating that therapy. His shortness of breath become acute, resulting in a respiratory arrest and coma in May of 1980. The patient experienced a hypoxic seizure (lack of oxygen) and was hospitalized at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, for approximately seven days. Between April of 1980 and July of 1984, he was hospitalized 12 to 15 times for exacerbations of the asthma condition. During this time, he required intubation, or the placing of a breathing tube in the trachea, due to respiratory arrest on three or four occasions, the last one being in December of 1983. The patient has clearly been steroid dependent, with outpatient doses ranging from 5 milligrams four times per day of Prednisone to 35 milligrams twice per day of Medrol through September of 1984. Between July and September of 1984, the patient was receiving 35 milligrams twice per day of Medrol, also an oral steroid. The patient was primarily treated by Edward A. Mizrahi, M.D., between June of 1984 and June of 1985. Dr. Mizrahi is an allergist in Jacksonville, Florida. Prior to that time, he was treated by Irwin Schneider, M.D., a pulmonologist in Jacksonville, Florida. Upon initial presentation to Dr. Mizrahi, the doctor felt that the patient had severe steroid-dependent bronchial asthma with corticosteroid side effects. Patients who have life- threatening asthma are typically treated with anti-inflammatory medications, such as corticosteroids. Severe asthmatics can have life-threatening risks from their condition and will die, on many occasions, without the administration of steroid medications. Thus, such patients must take these medications to survive. Steroids have significant adverse side effects, including “cushinoid features”, development of cataracts and the development of osteoporosis. Despite such adverse side effects, the use of corticosteroids may be necessary in order to simply allow the patient to survive. The subject patient was in such a category. The patient suffered from many of the side effects from long-term steroid use. Dr. Mizrahi noted compression fractures of the spine, cataracts, peptic ulcer disease, and weight gain during his initial evaluation of the patient on June 11, 1984; and on October 10, 1984, noted cushinoid appearance or features. This was before the patient was ever seen or treated by the Respondent. On August 20, 1984, Dr. Mizrahi arranged for the patient to be evaluated at the National Asthma Center (Center) of the National Jewish Hospital and Research Center in Denver, Colorado. This is a specialty facility for the treatment of asthma and is commonly referred to as a “court of last resort”, where pulmonologists refer patients with difficult asthmatic conditions which have not as yet responded satisfactorily to treatment regimens. Between September 12, 1984 and September 16, 1984, the patient was evaluated and treated at the Center. The Center noted the patient’s long history of severe asthma and resultant steroid dependency. Upon initial evaluation, the physicians at the Center felt that the patient would probably require continuing steroid therapy, but they did attempt to reduce the steroid dosage. The attempt to reduce the steroid dosage in the patient was unsuccessful, and the Center ultimately had to increase the steroid dosage. The patient was discharged from the Center on an oral steroid medication, Medrol, 20 milligrams, alternating with 40 milligrams, four times per day. This is considered a high dose of steroid medication and was reluctantly arrived at and prescribed by the physicians at the Center after they made bona fide attempts to wean the patient from steroids to the extent possible. During his hospitalization, the physicians at the Center noted that the patient gave a “convincing history for ischemic heart disease”. They suggested an investigation to determine the presence of this condition. Upon the patient’s return to Jacksonville, Florida, he continued to be treated by Dr. Mizrahi and continued to receive oral steroid medication in high doses. Additionally, he was receiving Halcion, Adivan, Fiorinal, and Fastin. The Respondent first saw the patient on June 13, 1985 upon a referral from Dr. Samara, a urologist in Jacksonville, Florida, who had some contact with the patient. The Respondent took an extensive history from the patient, including a list of the current medications he was receiving from Dr. Mizrahi, which then included Medrol, 24 milligrams, four times per day, with a bolus of Medrol as needed of 60 milligrams four times per day for 48 hours, followed by 30 milligrams four times per day for two weeks. The patient was also receiving Halcion at 0.25 milligrams at bedtime and Adivan at 2 milligrams. The Respondent had the impression that the patient suffered from asthma and possibly from coronary artery disease. Due to the possibility of coronary artery disease, which had been raised during the admission at the Center, the Respondent hospitalized the patient from June 17, 1985 to June 22, 1985 at St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida, to investigate the coronary situation. During this hospitalization, an extensive history and physical were performed, including a neurological examination of the patient. A cardiac workup was performed by consulting cardiologist, Joel Ferree, M.D. This included a cardiac catheterization performed by Dr. Ferree, which indicated that the patient had normal right ventricular function, no significant arteriosclerotic lesions, and no significant artery response to adrenergic agonist agents. The cardiac catheterization reported normal left ventricular function. The cardiac catheterization report ruled out any cardiomyopathy. During this hospitalization, the Respondent also ordered x-rays of the cervical and thoracic spine. The x-rays revealed “mild, old compression deformities of the eighth and ninth thoracic vertebral bodies, with no change since a previous examination on November 30, 1983”. This x-ray report was consistent with the previously- reported compression deformities, or compression fractures, which are the result of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis leaves the bones weak, with loss of trabeculation. The patient’s vertebra were already being crushed as of June of 1985, when the Respondent undertook his care. At the time of discharge from this hospitalization, the Respondent recorded that he would like to wean the patient off steroids over several months. The Respondent continued to treat the patient through April of 1989. During this period of time, the asthma was reasonably controlled with the use of steroid medications and bronchodilaters. Unlike the previous few years, the patient only required hospitalization for treatment of exacerbation of asthma symptoms on one occasion, on November 7, 1985. During this period of treatment, he never had a respiratory arrest and intubation was never required. The Respondent would wean the patient from the use of steroids during this period of treatment when the symptoms allowed. When the symptoms were exacerbated, he would provide prescriptions for corticosteroids so as to address the patient’s condition. The Respondent made numerous attempts to wean the patient off high-dose steroid medication, but the patient’s condition would not permit a cessation of it. The fact that the Respondent was unable to wean the patient from steroids is not surprising to physicians who treat such a condition. It is not a deviation from the accepted standard of care. The patient had a very significant case of asthma, which was life threatening, as demonstrated by the records of not only the Respondent, but the prior treating physicians. His asthma was so significant that he had to receive steroid medication, despite the significant side effects caused by such medication, in order to insure survival. During the course of treatment, the Respondent also treated the patient for cervical strain and low-back pain. His compression fractures were a source of great pain, justifying the prescription of narcotic analgesics. The Respondent’s treatment for these conditions included physical therapy, paralumbar trigger point injections, biofeedback, TENS Unit, ice packs, as well as drugs, including muscle relaxants and analgesics. The Respondent also referred the patient for examination by orthopedic physicians and neurologists. These efforts were appropriate and within the standard of care. The prescriptions for Flexeril, Fiorinal, Lortab and Tylox and other medications for the control of back pain and muscle spasms were appropriate and under the circumstances of this severely-distressed patient, were within the standard of care. The Respondent, on occasion, prescribed medications for control of insomnia, including Halcion. These same medications had previously been prescribed for the patient by Dr. Mizrahi for the same condition and were appropriate prescriptions. The corticosteroids and other medications used to control asthma can produce a side effect of insomnia. This manifestation must be treated for the benefit of the patient. The prescriptions for Halcion were appropriate and within the standard of care. An additional side effect of steroid medication is weight gain. The Respondent advised the patient regarding dietary control for his weight to alleviate such a problem. The patient, however, exhibited substantial weight gain. Therefore, the Respondent prescribed a limited amount of Fastin, an appetite suppressant. Physicians must use medications such as Fastin with caution on patients with significant hypertension. The patient’s blood pressure, however, was not significantly elevated; and his blood pressure was being monitored during his use of Fastin. The use of Fastin by this patient did not cause a significant increase in his blood pressure. Fastin is a sympathomimetic amine. It is not a true amphetamine. It is appropriately prescribed for weight control and this patient had exhibited an increase in weight, doubtless due to a side effect of the steroid medications. Increased weight in the patient was medically significant because he already had compression fractures of his vertebrae caused, no doubt, by osteoporosis, also attributable to side effects of steroid medications. Increased weight could exacerbate his skeletal problem and cause additional pain. Increased weight is also dangerous for patients with asthma, in any event, because it severely taxes the respiratory system and can make intubation, if necessary, more difficult. The Respondent’s prescriptions for Fastin were shown to be appropriate and within the standard of care, as demonstrated by the expert testimony of Dr. Miller and the other testimony in evidence offered by the Respondent. During treatment of the patient, the Respondent prescribed Adivan also. Adivan is a muscle relaxing drug, and it was shown to be appropriately within the standard of care for physicians confronted with a patient with the multiple problems exhibited by this one. Although there can be some concern about mood alteration under certain circumstances with the use of Adivan and perhaps to some extent with Halcion, the Respondent did perform mental status examinations and referred the patient for evaluation when indicated. During his treatment of the patient, there was never any symptom of suicidal ideation expressed by the patient. There was no reason demonstrated which would justify the referral of the patient to a psychiatrist at an earlier date in the subject situation. The testimony of Dr. Miller and the other experts adduced by the Respondent shows that under the peculiar circumstances of this patient, the use of Adivan, as well as Halcion, in conjunction with the other medications the patient was taking, was medically justified and within the appropriate standard of care. It has been demonstrated that the medical records maintained by the Respondent justify the course of treatment of the patient, as shown by testimony of record at pages 105 and 106 of the transcript of the proceedings and Respondent’s Exhibit 1 at pages 52-54. The Respondent practiced with that level of care, skill and treatment recognized as appropriate to meet the standard of care for similar physicians. Upon weighing the expert testimony adduced by the parties, it is determined that the expert testimony presented by the Respondent was more persuasive and creditable than that presented by the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kreitzer, relied upon some flawed information in developing his expert opinions, including, but not limited to, his reliance upon compilations of prescription information which was not established as accurate in the course of this proceeding, being merely computer printouts from records of pharmacists. Those records do not, for instance, even show that the Respondent prescribed all of those medications represented thereon. Dr. Kreitzer’s opinion was also flawed because his belief was based, in part, on his understanding that the patient was suffering from cardiomyopathy, when that condition had already been ruled out by cardiac tests performed upon the Respondent’s order during the June of 1985 hospitalization. Dr. Kreitzer’s mistaken belief that Fastin is an amphetamine, which it is not, also detracts from the weight which can be ascribed to his opinion. Further, Dr. Groble, the other expert presented by the Petitioner, cannot be relied upon because in his testimony he admits that he cannot render an opinion that the Respondent departed from appropriate standards of care in his practice with regard to the subject patient in the instances alleged in the Administrative Complaint because he had not seen all of the Respondent’s pertinent medical records. Consequently, he could not render a definitive opinion, one way or the other. The Respondent’s expert witnesses, Dr. Miller and Dr. Sharpe, are accepted as more credible than the Petitioner’s expert testimony. Both Drs. Miller and Sharpe indicated that they had reviewed, in some depth, the medical records which the Respondent maintained concerning the patient and those records and the history pertaining to treatment rendered by other physicians and the Center. Their testimony revealed an in-depth study, reflection and consideration of the concededly large doses of multiple medications, some of which have significant side effects. They regrettably agree, that confronted with a complex, life-threatened patient, such as this, the Respondent could have done little else than follow the course of treatment and medication pattern and practice which he followed. While these experts and the Respondent, in the course of treatment, recognized the risks attendant to the engendering of dependency on the steroids and the use of the other medications, they acknowledged that under the circumstances there was little else that could be done in order to keep the patient stable, accord him some quality of life, and even to save his life. In summary, it has not been established that the Respondent failed to adequately keep written medical records which justify the course of treatment of the patient. It has not been established that the Respondent prescribed legend drugs, including controlled substances, other than in the course of his professional practice, nor has it been established that he prescribed legend drugs in excessive quantities and in excessive combinations or, otherwise, inappropriately in relation to generally-accepted medical practice. It has not been established that the Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Medicine dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety.DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire SHEAR, NEWMAN, ET AL. Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33602 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not Respondent's incense to practice medicine should be suspended, revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Chapters 458 and 893, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein signed May 31, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, stipulations of the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is a medical doctor and has been issued license number ME 0017825. Respondent's last known address is 2361 N.W. 24 Terrace, Miami, Florida 33172. (Stipulation of the parties) Respondent has been licensed as a medical doctor in Florida since 1971. Respondent studied at Havana University School of Medicine and graduated in 1957. He practiced in Cuba from 1957 through 1966. During that period, he was engaged in a general practice and was also a psychiatrist at Clinica Dependiente. While at Clinica Dependiente, Respondent served as a medical director for the rehabilitation of minors and as medical director for Santa Clinica Psiquiatria. Respondent relocated from Cuba and came to Miami on or about February 15, 1967. Respondent sat for the Federation of State and Medical Boards of the United States during September of 1968, the standardized test for graduates of foreign medical schools. During 1968 and 1969, Respondent was engaged as a psychiatrist at Halifax District Hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida. During 1969, he served a rotating internship at Mount Sinai Hospital for one year. Thereafter, he served rotating internships at Doctors, Victoria, Parkway and one other hospital in the Dade County area until approximately 1974. During his tenure at Halifax Hospital, Respondent treated some parties who were drug addicts. Respondent admits to having treated the patients referred to in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Additionally, pursuant to Petitioner's Request for Admissions filed herein, Respondent has admitted the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52 and 59 of the Administrative Complaint, to wit: Between the dates of approximately January 5, 1981 and December 15, 1981, Respondent prescribed 360 Dilaudid 2/ (Hydromorphone), a controlled substance, pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Patrick Golden. Between the dates of approximately March 26, 1981 and January 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 1425 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ellen Henderson. Between the dates of approximately March 2, 1981 and November 11, 1982, Respondent prescribed 855 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Chica. Between the dates of approximately May 12, 1981 and January 9, 1982, Respondent prescribed 132 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for James Brannigan. Between the dates of approximately February 19, 1981 and February 2, 1982, Respondent prescribed 965 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Gilbert Fernandez. Between the dates of approximately November 21, 1981 and December 12, 1981, Respondent prescribed 180 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Patsy Gamlin. Between the dates of approximately January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1982, Respondent prescribed 820 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Rudolph Ferguson. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2220 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Michael Salle. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2190 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Weatherington. Dale K. Lindberg, M.D., was tendered and received as an expert in these proceedings in the area of Family Practice, Methadone and Drug Addiction. Dr. Lindberg has been instrumental in establishing a methadone detoxification program at Memorial Hospital in Hollywood, Florida. Methadone is the only legally recognized Schedule II controlled substance used in this country for the treatment of drug addiction. Private practitioners, pursuant to specific federal law, cannot legally administer methadone or any other Schedule II controlled substance for the treatment of drug addition. In order to qualify or be certified to treat drug addicts, application must be made simultaneously with the Federal Food and Drug Administration (to their Methadone Monitor Division), to the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and to the Federal Department of Mental Health and Drug Abuse. Upon certification with these governmental departments, only then can a physician prescribe methadone to a drug addict to be ingested in oral form, once a day. (21 C.F.R. 291.505) Dr. Lindberg received and reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for those patients by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2-19). Dr. Lindberg, after review, concluded that Respondent inappropriately and excessively prescribed Dilaudid to said patients. Dr. Lindberg opined that Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for those patients for "very little indication" and continued over long periods of time prescribing Dilaudid to those patients. He considered that Respondent was maintaining the patients on Dilaudid in violation of the law. (TR 148, 239). Dr. John Handwerker, M.D., testified as an expert herein on behalf of Petitioner. He has served as the first Chairman of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Florida Family and Community Medicine Programs. He is Chairman of the Family Practice Department of Mercy Hospital in Miami and is Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Miami. Dr. Handwerker is knowledgeable regarding generally prevailing and accepted standards of family practice in Dade County and was accepted, without challenge, as an expert in the field of Family Practice. Dr. Handwerker reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for each patient. Based upon Dr. Handwerker's review of those records and prescriptions, Respondent committed gross and repeated malpractice. This opinion stems from Respondent's "inappropriately and excessively prescribing Dilaudid to patient for chronic" while the Physicians Desk Reference clearly stated that Dilaudid should not be prescribed for patients with chronic pain. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) SPECIFIC PATIENTS A. Patrick Golden first visited Respondent's office on October 7, 1981. Golden complained of chronic pain arising from trauma suffered while he was involved in an industrial accident. His diagnosis was a compression of the fourth and fifth lumbar disk. He was treated for radiculitis. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain that patient Golden was suffering from and based on the fact that Golden reportedly had been receiving Dilaudid from a former physician. Respondent conducted an examination of patient Golden and prescribed exercises for him. Respondent did not take x-rays although he states that he observed x-rays which had been taken by Golden's former physician. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for Golden because it was the only drug which "killed the pain, unlike motrin and metrobromate." Nearing the end of Respondent's treatment of patient Golden, his wife began stealing Mr. Golden's drugs. Respondent referred her to a methadone program and obtained a notarized statement from Mrs. Golden to substantiate the fact that she was diverting drugs intended for her husband. Respondent observed that patient Golden was becoming addicted to Dilaudid nearing the end of his treatment although throughout the major portion of his treatment of patient Golden, he felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not "addicted." Respondent tried to reduce the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing to patient Golden without success. Respondent believed that Dilaudid was medically necessary to treat patient Golden due to the suffering he was undergoing from the chronic pain. (Respondent's testimony and Petitioner's Exhibit 20). B. Ellen Henderson was treated by Respondent during the dates of approximately March, 1981 through January, 1982. Henderson suffered with her lumbar spine. Patient Henderson took motrin tablets since her preteen years. Patient Henderson has been treated at several methadone centers and is believed to have been taking approximately 25-40 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. Upon Respondent's first treatment of patient Henderson, he advised her that she was "killing herself and that she needed to reduce that terrible dosage of Dilaudid." Patient Henderson was "treated for pain in the back and to reduce the amount of Dilaudid." In this regard, Respondent tried to reduce her intake of Dilaudid to approximately 8 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. When Respondent stopped treating patient Henderson, he had reduced the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing for her to approximately 8 four- milligram tablets of Dilaudid per day. C. Respondent treated Ronald Chica from approximately March, 1981 through November, 1982. Chica was treated for spondylolysis--a degeneration of the vertebrae. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for patient Chica because it relieved the pain. Respondent knew that patient Chica was addicted to the drug Dilaudid. D. James Brannigan was treated by Respondent from approximately May of 1981 through January of 1982. Respondent knew that Mr. Brannigan was dependent upon Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued to prescribe Dilaudid for Mr. Brannigan in an effort to treat Brannigan's addiction with Dilaudid. Respondent was attempting to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Brannigan would suffer if he were immediately cut off from his supply of Dilaudid. E. Respondent treated patient Gilbert Fernandez during the dates of approximately February of 1981 through approximately February of 1982. During that period, Mr. Fernandez suffered from compression features of the ribs and the lumbar region. Mr. Fernandez had a physical and psychological dependence on the drug Dilaudid. Respondent treated patient Fernandez by prescribing Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Fernandez had been treated at methadone centers in the past and presently was receiving methadone treatment while Respondent was treating him. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain as well as to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Fernandez would undergo if he was immediately taken from the administration of Dilaudid. F. Between the dates of approximately February of 1981 through February of 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,190 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Ronald Wetherington. Patient Wetherington was given approximately 60 tablets every 7 days. Patient Wetherington was addicted to the drug Dilaudid and Respondent ultimately referred him to a methadone center to deal with his withdrawal problems. G. During the period of February, 1981 through February, 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,220 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Michael Sallee. Patient Sallee suffered from and was treated by Respondent for a compression fracture of the fifth lumbar. Mr. Sallee was a cabinetmaker and did considerable lifting in the performance of his work. Respondent knew that Mr. Sallee was dependent upon Dilaudid and continued to prescribe the narcotic during the term of his treatment. Respondent attempted to treat Mr. Sallee's addiction with Dilaudid. H. During the period of January of 1981 through January of 1982, Respondent treated patient Rudolph Ferguson and, during that period, prescribed approximately 820 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Ferguson suffered from and was treated for back and rib problems from an auto accident. Respondent knew that patient Ferguson was dependent upon the drug Dilaudid and knew he was addicted to Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued prescribing the drug Dilaudid to patient Ferguson to reduce the withdrawal symptoms and "to continue to treat the disease." Respondent referred patient Ferguson to a methadone clinic and, in fact, drove him to a nearby clinic for treatment. I. Respondent treated patient Patsy Gamlin during the period of November 21, 1981 through December 12, 1981. During that period, he prescribed 180 tablets or approximately 60 tablets every 10-14. Respondent administered a drug screen during December of 1981 and did not treat patient Gamlin after December. Dilaudid is a narcotic analgesic; its principal therapeutic effect is relief of pain. There is no intrinsic limit to the analgesic effect of Dilaudid; like morphine, adequate doses will relieve even the most severe pain. Clinically however, dosage limitations are imposed by the adverse effect, primarily respiratory, depression, nausea and vomiting which can result from high dosages. (Physicians Desk Reference, page 1038 [1984 Edition]) The Physicians Desk Reference has this to say about drug abuse and dependence: Dilaudid is a schedule II narcotic. Psychic dependence, physical dependence, and tolerance may develop upon repeated administration of narcotics; therefore dilaudid should be prescribed and administered with caution. However, psychic dependence is unlikely to develop when dilaudid is used for a short time for treatment of pain. Physical dependence, the condition in which continued administration of the drug is required to prevent the appearance of a withdrawal syndrome, usually assumes clinically significant proportions only after several weeks of continued narcotic use, although some mild degree of physical dependence may develop after a few days of narcotic therapy. Tolerance, in which increasingly large doses are required in order to produce the same degree of analgesia, is manifested initially by a shortened duration of analgesic effect, and subsequently by decreases in the intensity of analgesia. The rate of development of tolerance varies among patients. Prior to prescribing a drug such as Dilaudid, a physician should take a full history from a patient and perform a thorough physical examination. The history should include, inter alia, the patient's chief complaint, with questions from the physician to the patient involving areas of past problems with the nervous system, ears, eyes, lungs, chest, respiratory system, GI tract and urinary tract. The physical examination should involve all body systems, including blood pressure, examination of the head, neck, chest and back regions. If patient complains of low back pain, there should be a physical examination specifically involving the low back area before prescribing the scheduled controlled substance here at issue. The past history is important to determine the duration of the problem, any previous medical treatment, examinations or tests by other physicians regarding the lumbosacral or low back area. A physical examination should be performed designed to elicit indications of neurological evolvement, including straight-leg raise tests, impairment of sensation in the extremities tests and other neurological inquiries. Such a full history and a physical examination is prior to initiating a course of treatment involving treatment of chronic pain due to the existence of a wide assortment of other treatment modalities which might treat the root of the problem, rather than merely being pain symptoms. An examination of the Respondent's records and the prescribing patterns of Dilaudid for the patients involved indicates that Respondent simply made insufficient findings upon which to base the decision to prescribe the drug Dilaudid. By prescribing Dilaudid, without an adequate physical examination, or the gathering of detailed patient medical history, would constitute a failure to conform to the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under these conditions and circumstances. By continuing to prescribe these drugs, without any involved discussion or consideration of the effect the previous course of treatment had had on the patient, other than simple inquiry by Respondent concerning, as example, how the patient was feeling, 3/ also constitutes inappropriate prescribing of scheduled controlled substances, and demonstrates a failure to conform to the generally accepted an prevailing standards of medical practice in the Dade County community. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) Respondent has never been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the past. His past professional record reveals that he has a sincere concern for his patients. Throughout these investigative proceedings and the final hearing herein, the Respondent was candid, forthright and truthful. His prescribing of the controlled substance Dilaudid was based on his mistaken opinion that it was medically necessary to prescribe Dilaudid for his patients. Throughout these proceedings, it became clear that Respondent had not kept abreast of the proper course of treatment, detection and proper prescribing patterns for scheduled drugs for the patients be treated. To Respondent's credit, he has been studying the proper prescribing of controlled substances since the initiation of the investigation and the administrative proceedings involved herein. Respondent has never "faked" exams and every prescription that he wrote was based on an office visit and an exam, though a very cursory exam. Respondent did not receive any illegal profits from the sale of drugs nor did he divert, or attempt to divert, any drugs for illegal profit. His office fees, which range from $15 to $25 were not based on the amount of the drugs prescribed but, rather, on the patient's ability to pay. Respondent operates a small general practice with his wife serving as his receptionist. He personally completes all prescription forms with his wife/receptionist. Patients receiving treatment from Respondent are free to get their prescriptions filled at any pharmacy of their choice. Respondent was unaware and the evidence does not show that any of his patients had prior criminal records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the entire evidence of record, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered imposing a written reprimand and one year's probation upon the Respondent Carlos de la Fe, and requiring that during the probationary, he enroll and complete, to the satisfaction of the Board of Medical Examiners, a continuing medical education course concerned with the appropriate indications for and prescription of scheduled controlled substances. 4/ RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since 1976, a Florida-licensed pharmacist. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed by Eckerd Corporation as one of two full-time pharmacists assigned to the Eckerd Drug Store (Store Number 3372) located at 312 North Lake Boulevard in North Palm Beach, Florida, which housed a community pharmacy that was open 14 hours a day. Respondent and the store's other full-time pharmacist worked separate, alternating shifts. At the beginning of each shift, Respondent "signed on" the pharmacy's computer system. She "logged off" the system at the end of the shift. Respondent was responsible for the supervision of all activities in the pharmacy during her shift. Among the activities it was her responsibility to supervise were those engaged in by the pharmacy technician on duty. The pharmacy technician assisted Respondent by, among other things, preparing computer-generated prescription labels and customer receipts for prescriptions that needed to be filled. The technician prepared these items by entering the required information, including the name and strength of the prescribed medication, into the pharmacy's computer system. 1/ All prescription labels and customer receipts prepared by the pharmacy technician on duty during Respondent's shift contained Respondent's initials ("MCB"). After they were prepared, the prescription labels and customer receipts were placed in bags, and the bags were put in baskets on the counter near Respondent, where they remained until the prescriptions were filled. When filling a prescription, it was Respondent's practice to examine the actual prescription written by the prescribing physician or, in the case of an oral prescription, the pharmacy's written record of such prescription, to confirm the accuracy of the prescription information on the prescription label and customer receipt and to make sure that she was dispensing what the physician had prescribed. 2/ The pharmacy was a "very busy" one. As a result, at the end of her shift, there were sometimes prescriptions for which labels and receipts (bearing her initials) had been prepared, but which Respondent had not had the opportunity to fill, and it was not until the following shift, when she was off duty, that these prescriptions were actually filled. Respondent was on duty on June 18, 1998, when a computer-generated prescription label and customer receipt for a prescription (Prescription Number 6071853) for Patient H. V. were prepared. The computer-generated prescription label and customer receipt, which had Respondent's initials on them, indicated, among other things, that the prescription was for 15 180 milligram tablets of Thyroid and that the prescribing physician was Dr. H. Pomeranz. It is unclear when, and by whom, Prescription Number 6071853 was filled. On or about October 9, 1998, Patient H. V.'s son, R. V., filed a complaint with Petitioner alleging that "the prescription [his mother] was suppose[d] to [have] be[en] taking was 15 mil[li]grams," but she instead "was given 180 mil[lli]grams per day by [the] Eckerd Drug Store [on North Lake Boulevard]." David Dimon, a Medical Malpractice Investigator with the Agency for Health Care Administration, investigated the complaint. As part of his investigation, Mr. Dimon contacted Respondent, who advised him that she did not want to make a statement regarding the complaint. Mr. Dimon also spoke with the prescribing physician, Dr. Pomeranz, who told him that she "prescribed Thyroid, 15 milligrams, for the patient, and not the 180 milligram dose given by Eckerd Pharmacy." 3/ Dr. Pomeranz further indicated to Mr. Dimon that H. V. 4/ suffered "side effects" as a result of taking the 180 milligram tablets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of March, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Alexander G. Toth graduated from medical school in 1943 and migrated to Miami in 1948. He took his three-year residency in general surgery at the V. A. Hospital in Miami starting in 1951 and thereafter practiced general surgery until 1976 when he had a serious accident. This accident plus additional health problems caused him to give up surgery and he has practiced family medicine since 1976. His office hours have been limited from 9 until 12 each week day since 1976. Approximately 10 patients per day were seen by Respondent during the period involved in these charges. At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a physician. Richard Hatcher was a patient of Respondent in 1975 at which time he complained of headaches and low back pain. Respondent prescribed Percodan, Doriden, Dilaudid and Placidyl during a one-year period Hatcher was a regular patient. At this time Hatcher had a suit pending to recover damages for injuries received in an automobile collision. Hatcher did not see Respondent with any regularity again until 1978. Respondent's patient records of Hatcher (Exhibit 5) show he treated Hatcher on 11-20-78 on complaint of can't sleep, low back pain and spasm of lower back, by prescribing 100 Valium and 100 Percodan. Exhibit 6, which is a copy of prescriptions written by Respondent for Hatcher, shows the following prescriptions were written for Hatcher on dates indicated: 6/2/78 - 30 Valium 10 mg; 8/8/78 - 50 Seconal and 30 Fastin 30 mg; 10/11/78 60 Tuinal 3 grs, 60 Fastin 30 mg, 50 Valium 10 mg and 100 Percodan; and 11/20/78 - Valium 10 mg, 30 Fastin 30 mg and 100 Percodan. Exhibit 5 shows in 1975 Hatcher was 6 feet and 180 pounds. The entry dated 12/18/78 opposite Fastin is (Wt 205). During the period 12/18/78 to 2/27/79 Respondent prescribed for Hatcher on numerous prescriptions the following: 300 Percodan, 250 Valium, 230 Tuinal 3 gr, 60 Fastin, 60 Demerol 100 mg, one 30 cc vial Demerol 100 mg per cc, and 30 syringes (Exhibit 6) . Exhibit 5 contains an entry dated 3/2/79 "(Wants Demerol) Refused - refer to JMH", and a final entry (3-19) Deceased." Hatcher voiced the same or similar complaints of pain on each visit to Respondent. Richard Hatcher was found dead in his apartment on or about 21 March 1979 some 24 to 36 hours after he died. Cause of death was acute intravenous narcotism. The syringe with which the fatal narcotic was injected was still in his arm when his body was found. Due to the rapid clearing of many drugs from the blood the autopsy failed to reveal which of the opiate drugs caused Hatcher's death. About one week later Mrs. Hatcher, the mother of Richard, received from her ex-husband and father of Richard a page from a notebook found in Richard's apartment after his death signed by Richard which indicates some concern by Hatcher that he might overdose on drugs given him by Dr. Toth, the Respondent (Exhibit 12). Richard Hatcher became seriously involved with drugs in 1967 when he was 21 years old. By 1975 his mother noted a personality change where he would quickly go from normal to extremely agitated. In the fall of 1978 Hatcher committed himself to Village South, a drug rehabilitation program in Dade County, for some 4 or 5 months. After release from Village South Hatcher continued to take drugs. To his mother's knowledge he overdosed several times before his death. Three times she found him unconscious on the floor of her apartment and on numerous other occasions he was "spaced out". Respondent testified that Hatcher showed no indication he had abused or misused the medications Respondent prescribed. If so, it is evident that Respondent did not closely observe Hatcher or do more than hear his litany of pain. On the other hand, Exhibit 5 shows that some 2-1/2 weeks before Hatcher's death Respondent refused to prescribe the Demerol wanted by Hatcher. Unless Respondent recognized the seriousness of Hatcher's addiction it is not conceivable that he would suddenly refuse drugs so freely prescribed in the past. Michael Kavney was a patient of Respondent from June 1979 until his death from an overdose of Placidyl on 14 or 15 January 1980. On June 11 1979 Kavney complained of pain in his shoulder and Respondent prescribed 50 Tylenol. Kavney was 6 feet tall, weighed 189 pounds, and told Respondent he wanted to lose weight. Respondent on June 11, 1979 also prescribed 50 Fastin. On 8-16-79 Respondent, at Kavney's request, called in a prescription for 50 Valium. On 9/7/79 he called in a prescription for 50 Tylenol. Both of these prescriptions resulted from a phone call to Respondent. On October 29, 1979 Kavney visited Respondent, told him the shoulder pain persists and he would like some more weight reducers. By this time Kavney's weight was down to 185 pounds from 189 four months earlier. Respondent prescribed 50 Tylenol, 50 Valium (Exhibit 4) and 30 Fastin (Exhibit 3). By script dated 11/21/79 Respondent prescribed 50 Fastin for Kavney and by script dated 11/26/79 he prescribed 50 Tylenol (Exhibit 4). No record of these is contained in Exhibit 3. By entry on Exhibit 3 dated December 17, 1979 Respondent recorded "pain left shoulder, using heat at home, can't take codeine, Percodan 50". The Tylenol, which had been prescribed on four previous occasions, contains 1 grain of codeine per tablet. On January 14, 1980 Kavney visited Respondent, told him of disturbed sleep patterns, that he had taken Placidyl on prior occasions with good results and Respondent prescribed 60 Placidyl (750). Kavney was found dead in his automobile with an empty bottle with Placidyl label on the floor. An autopsy done on January 15, 1980 shows Kavney died from an overdose of Placidyl. Terry McGarey grew up in Miami and played in bands with Kavney as early as high school days. He had also known Hatcher since 1963. McGarey first visited Respondent in 1970 with an arm injury. He next saw Respondent near the end of 1976 and he complained of headache and leg pains from an earlier motorcycle accident. McGarey received a prescription for Percodan. McGarey, who appeared as a witness, testified that he had visited Respondent every three or four weeks in 1976 complaining of headache and during these visits he also received Placidyl, Demerol, Parest and Valium. These visits continued in 1977 with the same frequency and results. Respondent's patient records for Terrance McGarey (Exhibit 1) commence 3/28/78. The first entry is not dated but states "cc severe headaches - nausea - at JMH March `78. Neuological dept. - treated for organic brain syndrome - at JMH 1976 migraine - no allergies - only relief Demerol. Rx demerol 100 mg #5 fiorinal tabs." Thereafter Exhibit 1 shows entries 7-31-78, 8-7-78, 8-28, 9-1, 9-6, 9-11, 9-27, 10-9, 10-20, 10-29, 10-31, 11-16, 11-22, 12-18, 12-22, 12-29, 1-3, 1-8, 3-21 and 4-19-79. Most of these entries resulted from office visits but some entries recorded prescriptions as a result of phone calls. During this period prescriptions were issued to McGarey for Percodan, Emperin, Doriden Parest, Tuinal, Demerol, Placidyl, Dalmane, Darvon, Seconal and Valium (Exhibit 2) On May 7, 1979 McGarey called the Cardella Pharmacy saying he was Dr. Toth, gave the correct DEA number and authorized the delivery of 18 Placidyl 50 mg to patient Jerry McGaret. The pharmacist called the doctor's office, which was closed, and then issued the drugs to McGarey. A subsequent try was unsuccessful when the pharmacist was told by Respondent's office that this man was no longer a patient of Respondent. Respondent testified that he treated McGarey for migraine headaches, insomnia, nervousness, and low back pain. He found no evidence of abnormal conditions in his examination of McGarey. Through mid-October Respondent had no indication McGarey was in a methadone program or addicted and the drugs were continued with each visit or phone call. On December 29 Respondent learned from McGarey that he had been admitted to JMH for seizures and the resident recommended Seconal. On this basis Respondent prescribed Seconal but did not learn the cause of the seizures. On January 8, 1979 McGarey's mother called Respondent to advise that her son was a drug abuser and had been on a methadone program for 18 months. Following this entry is the notation "No more Rx's - back to JMH". Respondent's next entry on Exhibit 1 is "Called records at JMH patient admitted 2-9-79 - overdosed - discharged 2-14 Signed out - mother took him home." Although Respondent testified it never entered his mind that McGarey might be a drug abuser he also testified that the symptoms of narcotic addiction are agitation, nervousness, slurred speech and poor equilibrium. On the witness stand McGarey exhibited traits of nervousness and agitation. He appeared hyperactive rather than calm and sedate. His movements were jerky rather than fluid and he did not give the impression of a normally relaxed person under tension because he was testifying. On 11 January 1980 Kirk Kratz, a 29-year-old male, visited Respondent's office as a patient. He had a cast on his right upper arm and stated it was fractured some two weeks earlier. Also he had received a gunshot wound in the abdomen before Christmas and a laparotomy had been performed. He complained of pain in the right arm. He was given a prescription for 100 Percodan for pain and 60 Tuinal 3 gr for sleep. Kratz returned 12 February with same complaints and was given prescriptions for 100 Percodan, 60 Tuinal and 30 Valium. On 2/29 Kraft appeared without the cast, told Respondent the police had broken the cast, held him in jail for 3 days and confiscated his medication. He was given prescriptions for 100 Percodan and 60 Tuinal. On 4/8/80 Kratz still complained of "pain in the shoulder and arm and can't sleep." Prescriptions for 100 Percodan, 60 Tuinal and 100 Valium were given him. Finally on 6/13, with complaint of pain in hand and shoulder, Kratz was given prescriptions for 100 Percodan and 30 Doriden (Exhibit 9). Hatcher and McGarey were drug addicts before and during the time they were being treated by Respondent. At one time or another both of them had been enrolled in the methadone program at Jackson Memorial Hospital and/or other withdrawal programs for addicts. In addition to getting drugs from Respondent, they were also obtaining drug prescriptions from other doctors. Also from the quantity of drugs prescribed for Kavney and Kratz it is evident that both of these individuals were also addicts. During the period between 1 January 1980 and 14 June 1980 Respondent, with an active practice of some 700 patients prescribed approximately 28,000 Percodan and 2,000 Percocet tablets to various patients. Exhibit 16 shows a breakdown of the 130 patients treated by Respondent during this period. While Exhibit 16 shows Kirk Kratz received 100 Percodan only on 2/29/80, Exhibit 8 indicates he received 500 Percodan between 1 January and 14 June 1980. Assuming all other entries on Exhibit 16 to be accurate, a spot check shows the following patients were given Percodan or Percocet during the period 1 January - 14 June in the following quantities: Steven Arnold - 300; Cathy Blauk - 450; Bill Davis - 500; Kirk Decker - 300; George Fernandez - 300; Sidney Ford - 600; Ron Jangie - 300; Jerome Johnson - 300; Patty La Fortuna - 310; Vincent La Fortuna - 200; William Leonard - 350; Mary Leslie - 300; Gus Melquezo - 400; Michael Pravioski - 225; Debbie Saey - 250; Robert Sandifer - 400; James Setters - 300; Alvin Terrell - 300; Mike Thill - 300; Mark Wolfson - 200; Joe Worth - 300; and Harvey Zemaster - 200. Exhibit 16 also shows that most of these prescriptions were written for quantities of 100. It also lists almost 18,000 Percodan issued to 130 patients during this period, or an average of 140 per patient. Percodan, Tuinal, Parest, Demerol and Seconal are Class II drugs. One hundred Percodan taken in a one-month period will cause addiction in the taker. After 48 hours taking Percodan every 4 to 6 hours the patient will have withdrawal symptoms. Although Placidyl, Valium, Doriden, Empirin and Dalmane are not Class II drugs, they are dangerous and therefore controlled. Fifteen Placidyls taken at one time can be fatal. Many of the drugs prescribed by Respondent, when taken in combination, create a synergistic effect which makes the combination greater than the sum of its parts. Similarly a synergistic effect is created when some of these drugs are taken in conjunction with alcohol. Fastin is used for weight control. Neither Hatcher nor Kavney at 6 feet and 180 - 185 pounds should have been a candidate for weight loss. Further, prescriptions for Fastin and Seconal (for sleep) at the same time are incompatible as one is an upper, the other a downer. Tuinal in combination with Valium will increase depression. When Fastin is added, a pharmacological jungle can result. Respondent acknowledged that he relied more on the statements of his patients than upon an examination to determine when to prescribe medications. If the patient said he hurt, Respondent would prescribe a pain killer. A two- week-old fracture properly set and in a cast should cause little pain. If pain persists two weeks after casting something is wrong that will not likely heal itself. Therefore, painkillers to mask the symptoms are contraindicated. Similarly, a persistent pain in the shoulder is likely to be caused by inflammation and an anti-flammatory agent is indicated. Neither Tylenol nor Percodan are anti-inflammatory agents. Dr. John V. Handwerker, M.D. was accepted as an expert in family practice medicine. After reviewing Respondent's records of Hatcher, Kavney, Kratz and McGarey he expressed the strong opinion that the complaints of the patients did not justify the narcotics prescribed; that much larger quantities of each drug were prescribed at one time than was medically indicated or prudent; that drugs were prescribed in dangerous combinations due to the synergistic effect if taken together, plus some of these drugs such as Fastin and Valium are mutually exclusive; that issuing a prescription to take these drugs "as needed" was improper and dangerous; and that narcotics were frequently prescribed for alleged ailments for which more effective non-narcotic drugs were available. This witness was particularly critical of the prescription for liquid Demerol, as this should be prescribed only when the patient can't take the drug orally. After reviewing Exhibit 7 Dr. Handwerker expressed the opinion that prescribing 28,000 Percodan tablets during a 5-1/2 month period could only be justified with a large practice limited to trauma patients and that the records and prescription schedules show a practice harmful to the public. This opinion was based partially on Dr. Handwerker's practice in which, during the same period, he saw 2,081 patients and wrote 73 prescriptions for 1,996 Percodan tablets. Exhibit 7 contains 291 prescriptions issued by Respondent during this period, and recovered by Petitioner's investigator from pharmacies in the vicinity of Respondent's office. These coupled with Respondent's patient records show some 28,000 Percodan and 2000 Percocet tablets were prescribed. Valium is the most commonly prescribed drug in the United States and one of the most abused drugs. If a patient is emotionally stable 60 Valium is too many to prescribe for a patient at one time. If a patient is emotionally disturbed there is even greater reason for not prescribing 60 Valium. Dr. Roderick Palmer, M.D., testified as an expert in clinical pharmacology. He opined that prescribing 100 Percodan for a patient at one time was not appropriate because if the pain results from a traumatic injury, such injury will normally cease being painful in 4 or 5 days, and 100 Percodan is enough to commit suicide or become addicted. Dr. Palmer described Percodan and Placidyl as widely abused drugs. Sixty Placidyl in one prescription is too many because of suicide potential. Further, if one Placidyl is taken every day for 60 days the patient would probably become addicted. Taking more than one Placidyl per day could impair coordination enough to result in an industrial or automobile accident or other injury. With respect to Exhibit 7, Dr. Palmer cited instructions for Percodan or Percocet that the physician should not prescribe enough to result in addiction (not more than 30) nor prescribe enough for patient to commit suicide. It is necessary for patients to return to the physician before the patient can become addicted to the drugs prescribed. In this way the doctor will not lose control over the patient which could result in the patient becoming addicted. With respect to the 28,000 Percodan prescribed in a 5-1/2 months period Dr. Palmer viewed that quantity as more than he would prescribe in a lifetime. Dr. Murray Sims, M.D., is a Board certified surgeon who testified on behalf of Respondent. He found the prescriptions issued to Hatcher, Kavney, McGarey and Kratz to be proper for the complaints of the patients. Sims has known Respondent for many years, and has worked, studied, and taken examinations with Respondent. Dr. Sims prescribes Percodan in quantities of 100 and even 200. He does not believe 100 Percodan taken in a 30-day period is addictive. He has one 93-year old patient to whom he mails prescriptions for 100 Percodan per month (40 to 60 days) because, as she told him, "It makes my day start off right." (Tr. Vol. II, p. 102). When asked if Percodan and Tuinal taken together would have a synergistic effect Dr. Sims said no (Tr. Vol. II, p. 67) but on p. 119 he testified "I guess it would, you get a relief of both, yes. Don't hold me too much about pharmacy." Dr. Sims practice is 99 percent devoted to surgery patients and if he has a patient with a non-surgical related disorder he usually refers the patient to another doctor. This witness's testimony regarding the various drugs prescribed by Respondent and the appropriateness thereof was not deemed as credible as was the testimony of Drs. Hardwerker and Palmer. This was so because the latter had more expertise in this area of medicine and demonstrated greater credibility on the witness stand.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Walter Deryk is a pharmacist licensed in the State of Florida, License No. 12139. On or about July 30, 1980, while in his employment as chief pharmacist at St. Joseph's Hospital in Port Charlotte, Florida, the Respondent took or converted to his own use, without prescription or permission of his employer, the legend drugs described in attachment one to the administrative complaint, and incorporated by reference herein, which were the property of St. Joseph's Hospital. On or about that same date the Respondent packaged the drugs and delivered them to the United Parcel Service in a package marked "souvenirs shells" for shipment to Kenneth J. Moffa in Long Island, New York. Kenneth J. Moffa is a pharmacist licensed in the State of New York. On a number of other occasions prior to July 30, 1980, while in his employment as chief pharmacist at St. Joseph's Hospital and without permission of that employer nor proper prescription, the Respondent similarly converted legend drugs belonging to the hospital to his own use and shipped them to New York. During a routine inspection for proper packaging by the United Parcel Service, it was discovered that the box shipped to New York on July 30, 1980, contained legend drugs which had been taken from St. Joseph's Hospital pharmacy. The Respondent was arrested for theft shortly thereafter and admitted taking the drugs from the pharmacy. Criminal charges were instituted against the Respondent and the Respondent made a motion to suppress the physical evidence based upon allegations of improper search and seizure. The motion was denied in Circuit Court and the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere, but reserving the right to appeal the court's ruling on the suppression issue. That appeal is still pending. The Respondent was convicted in Circuit Court for the theft and this administrative prosecution resulted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of Walter Deryk authorizing him to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing, Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Hooker, Esquire Suite 100, The Legal Center 725 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter Alagona, Jr., is licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. He is board-certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty in cardiology and has practiced cardiology since 1981. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been the subject of professional discipline except for this proceeding. In 1989, the Respondent became acquainted with V.P., who worked as a receptionist at a hospital where he had practice privileges. Their work relationship became friendly and, although the Respondent was married and had children, he and V.P. responded to each other's friendly manner by mutual flirtation. At first, their flirting was discrete but later became more open and romantic. The Respondent began to write V.P. notes and greeting cards and send her flowers. In approximately May, 1989, V.P. indicated her willingness to begin an intimate and sexual relationship. The Respondent did not hesitate to oblige her. There is no evidence that the Respondent used a doctor-patient relationship to induce V.P. to engage in sexual activity with him, as alleged. When the sexual relationship began, there was no doctor-patient relationship between them. During her tenure at work at the hospital, V.P. from time to time complained of a rapid heart beat, and one of the four cardiologists at the hospital would respond to her complaint. The Respondent was one of the several doctors who had occasion to respond. No treatment ever was required. V.P.'s heart beat would soon return to normal, and everyone would return to work. No true doctor-patient relationship was established, and neither the Respondent, the other doctors nor V.P. ever thought one had been established. The allegation that the Respondent essentially intentionally used drugs he prescribed for V.P. during the course of their affair to control her and prolong the sexual relationship with V.P. against her will hinges on the following reference in V.P.'s deposition transcript: Q. Just so that I'm clear, did Alagona ever tell you that if you did not have sex with him, he would not write prescriptions for you? A. Those aren't the words. He has made comments about, "Where are you going to get your prescriptions?" Q. When did he make those comments? A. I don't know. During the relationship, at the end of the relationship. Q. Give me some of the circumstances surrounding those comments. A. It was, I'm sure, during an argument or something. I don't know. In view of all the evidence, that allegation is rejected as not proven. It is factual that, in another poor judgment that flowed from the poor judgment in initiating and conducting the affair in the first place, the Respondent began to act as V.P.'s personal physician for limited purposes during the course of the affair. When she complained of migraine headaches, he prescribed pain medication such as Tylox, a Schedule II controlled substance containing oxycodone, and Inderal, a beta-blocker and a legend drug. For stress, he prescribed Valium, which contains diazepam, also a legend drug. Although the Respondent clearly was acting as the doctor in a doctor-patient relationship when he prescribed these drugs, he still did not view himself as acting in that role and did not keep a written record of the drugs or the course of treatment in connection with those prescriptions. The allegation that the Respondent failed to practice medicine in accordance with required standards of care by not ordering the patient to receive mental health counseling but instead inappropriately allowing the patient to remain on Tylox also depends in large part on the testimony of V.P. In view of all the evidence, V.P.'s testimony pertinent to this allegation is rejected. The evidence was that the Respondent repeatedly advised V.P. to seek counseling, albeit not for drug abuse. Until April, 1990, the Respondent was not aware that V.P. was abusing drugs. The Respondent's Tylox prescriptions were not excessive and would not, in and of themselves, have indicated to the Respondent that V.P. was abusing Tylox or inappropriately remaining on Tylox; nor did V.P. exhibit clear signs of drug abuse or addiction prior to April, 1990. However, V.P. apparently was obtaining Tylox and other legend drugs from other sources without the Respondent's knowledge. She was seeing other physicians for the purpose of obtaining prescriptions, and she also was forging the Respondent's and other doctors' names to prescriptions to obtain additional drugs illegally. (One of the doctors whose name she forged predeceased the date of the forged prescription.) In April, 1990, the Respondent was notified that V.P. had been hospitalized for a drug overdose. In response to the request for advice from the attending physician, the Respondent recommended a psychiatrist for counseling. However, V.P. did not cooperate. She attended only one counseling session and refused further counseling. After the overdose hospitalization, the Respondent did not prescribe any more Tylox. However, again without the Respondent's knowledge, V.P. continued to obtain Tylox and other drugs from her other sources. The Respondent's judgment continued to be distorted and poor as a result of his intense sexual and romantic relationship with V.P. He continued to urge V.P. to obtain counseling for several reasons but, again, not specifically for drug abuse. By mid-1990, V.P. had dissolved her marriage, and she began putting pressure on the Respondent to divorce his wife and marry her. She began acting erratically, and her judgment also was poor. During a week- long visit to her family's home during the summer of 1990, she contacted an old boy friend, married him, changed her mind, and began annulment proceedings. By late 1990, V.P. started dating another doctor, and the pressure on both V.P. and the Respondent increased. The Respondent was unable to decide what to do, and the stress got ever greater as V.P. threatened to end the affair with the Respondent. While probably genuinely concerned for V.P.'s welfare, the Respondent probably also believed that, if V.P. got counseling, she would "see the light" and decide not to end their affair. Finally, the Respondent himself felt the need for counseling due to the stress of the affair, and he probably believed that she felt the same stress. Eventually, in early 1991, V.P. followed through on her threat and made it known to the Respondent that she was dropping him and choosing the other doctor. For some time, the Respondent was devastated and continued to try to persuade V.P. to return to him. Meanwhile, V.P. remained less than resolute, holding out to the Respondent some hope that she would return to him if he divorced his wife. Finally, practically an emotional wreck and despairing of any other way to get over his affair with V.P., the Respondent checked himself into an out-of-town residential psychiatric program. He purposely did not tell V.P. where he was, but she found out and, on the day of his discharge, sent him flowers with a card saying that she would never let him go. Eventually, the affair ended, and V.P. married the other doctor soon after.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent not guilty under Counts I and II but guilty under Count III; (2) placing him on probation for two years; (3) requiring him to take appropriate continuing medical education, if available, dealing with the physician-patient relationship and the prudence of avoiding the dual sexual/physician-patient relationship; and (4) imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, 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 7th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2467 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, as to second sentence of 5., although he cannot now remember when he prescribed Tylox, the Respondent's testimony is accepted that, at the time, and for this extraordinary patient, he was able to bear in mind adequately approximately when and what he last prescribed so as not to expose V.P. to a health risk. 6. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, as to the last sentence, although he cannot now remember his prescriptions, the Respondent's testimony is accepted that, at the time, and for this extraordinary patient, he was able to bear in mind adequately when and what he last prescribed so as not to expose V.P. to a health risk. 7.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that patients need to be kept under "surveillance." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. As to last sentence, rejected as not proven that all "drugs," in all doses, "control a patient's emotional state and level of pain." Accepted that some can, in certain doses, and otherwise accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted that it is not the only indication; subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. 13.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the Respondent "did not follow through with V.P.'s medical problems." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First two sentences, rejected as not proven; third, accepted that she said it, but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. First sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted that she said it, but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Rejected as not proven that he reviewed all of the prescription and hospital records. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. To the extent not conclusion of law, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven; second, cumulative; third, in part cumulative and in part rejected as not proven (that he had no justification); fourth, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found (he did some diagnostic testing); and last two rejected as not proven in that the evidence was that V.P. rejected the Respondent's repeated recommendations to her that she seek mental health counseling, but otherwise accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, accepted but not necessary; rest, rejected as not proven. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-22. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. 26.-27. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In large part, argument and conclusion of law; in part, accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear . . . that V.P. feels that Alagona left her." (Much of their behavior is difficult to explain, such as why V.P. would act as if she did not want to let Alagona go, while chosing Palay over Alagona.) Otherwise, accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence of C), rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to infer that V.P. forged these prescriptions." (The evidence raises the question and possibility of forgery, especially in the absence of testimony on the subject from V.P. and Palay, but it is not "safe to infer.") Otherwise, accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. First four sentences, argument and subordinate. Rest, generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, while V.P. may have been "in the emotional driver's seat," it does not appear that she knew where she was going.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the Respondent did not suggest psychiatric counseling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the Respondent did not suggest psychiatric counseling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the Respondent did not suggest psychiatric counseling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. As to the third and fourth sentences, there was no evidence as to the nature of doctors' "orders." But, based on the evidence, the Respondent did not "order" counseling. He suggested or recommended it and offered to help her get it, and V.P. declined. If the Respondent had "ordered" counseling, the patient still may or may not have followed his "order." In either case, it would appear that the critical decision is what a physician does in the face of the patient's failure to comply. It would seem that the only thing a physician reasonably can do in this situation is stop prescribing and, if necessary, terminate the physician-patient relationship. As to the rest, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 39.-42. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Rothenburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Regional Office VI-Legal Division 9325 Bay Plaza, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 L. D. Murrell, Esquire 319 Clematis Street, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4618 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a medical doctor on the basis of alleged violations of paragraphs (m), (q), and (t) of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. The violations charged relate to allegations that the Respondent improperly prescribed legend drugs, including controlled substances, and that he failed to keep certain records.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 0026758 by the State of Florida. During 1988 and 1990 the Respondent wrote five prescriptions for a person named V. L. R. The prescriptions were dated 7/9/88, 8/23/88, 9/27/88 11/18/88, and 2/12/90. As of October 22, 1990, the Respondent did not have any medical records in his possession regarding V. L. R. The Respondent has never had any medical records regarding V. L. R. The prescriptions the Respondent gave to V. R. L. included a prescription for 100 tablets of Eskalith CR, 450 milligrams each. Eskalith is a brand name for Lithium. The prescriptions the Respondent gave to V. L. R. also included a prescription for 500 tablets of Lithobid, 300 milligrams each, which is another brand name for Lithium. Before prescribing Lithium, a physician should establish the existence of a mood disorder as a diagnostic basis for the prescription. The diagnosis should be reflected in medical records. When prescribing Lithium, a physician should also monitor the concentration of the drug in the system of the person to whom the drug is prescribed, because the therapeutic level of Lithium is very close to the toxic level of Lithium. If the concentration is too low, the drug is not effective. If the concentration is too high, there can be toxic effects including vomiting, diarrhea, unsteady gait, and the possibility of falling. The prescriptions the Respondent gave to V. R. L. included a prescription for 30 tablets of Ativan, 100 milligrams each. Ativan is a controlled substance which is habit forming. It is a tranquilizer. A physician should not prescribe Ativan without a diagnosis of a sleeping problem or anxiety. The diagnosis should be documented in the medical records of the person to whom the prescription is given. The name of the drug, the dosage, and the times the drug should be taken should all be included in the medical records. The prescriptions the Respondent gave to V. R. L. included a prescription for 100 tablets of Tegretol, 100 milligrams each. Tegretol is an anti-seizure medication that is also used as a mood stabilizer in people who have a major mood disorder. When prescribing Tegretol, a physician should also monitor the concentration of the drug in the system of the person to whom the drug is prescribed, because the drug has the potential for adverse side effects, including inhibition of blood cell production and the production of platelets leading to the risk of infection or bleeding. A physician should not prescribe Tegretol unless a diagnosis of a mood disorder has been made. The diagnosis should be reflected in medical records. A physician should not prescribe Tegretol and Lithobid to the same person unless there have been some difficulties in the treatment of the person and a need for simultaneous prescription of both drugs has been established by the physician. The name of the drug, the dosage, and the times the drug should be taken should all be included in the medical records. The prescriptions the Respondent gave to V. R. L. included a prescription for 100 tablets of Anafranil, 25 milligrams each. Anafranil is a drug prescribed to treat obsessive/compulsive disorder with or without depression. A physician should not prescribe Anafranil without a diagnosis of an obsessive/compulsive disorder. The diagnosis should be documented in the medical records of the person to whom the prescription is given. Any symptoms of depression should also be noted in the medical records. The name of the drug, the dosage, and the times the drug should be taken should all be included in the medical records. When prescribing Anafranil, the physician should monitor the effect of the drug by observation of the person to whom the prescription is given. Such observations should be noted in the medical records. The prescriptions the Respondent gave to V. R. L. included a prescription for 10 tablets of Endep, 25 milligrams each. Endep is a commercial name for amitriptyline, which is an antidepressant. It is used to treat depression. A physician should not prescribe Endep unless a diagnosis of depression has been made. The diagnosis should be included in the medical records. The name of the drug, the dosage, and the times the drug should be taken should all be included in the medical records. The prescriptions the Respondent gave to V. R. L. included a prescription for 15 tablets of Halcion, 25 milligrams each. Halcion is a controlled substance that is used to treat sleeping disorders. A physician should not prescribe Halcion unless a diagnosis of a sleeping disorder has been made and the need for the drug is established. When prescribing Halcion, the physician should monitor the effect of the drug by means of observations of and discussions with the person to whom the prescription was given. The diagnosis of sleeping disorder and the observations and discussions should all be noted in the medical records. The name of the drug, the dosage, and the times the drug should be taken should also all be included in the medical records. The Respondent prescribed quantities of medication that represented a potential danger to V. L. R. The Respondent prescribed excessive or inappropriate quantities of drugs to V. L. R. The Respondent, by providing the prescriptions described above to V. L. R., prescribed legend drugs, including controlled substances, outside the scope of his professional practice.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charges alleged in Counts One and Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Three of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty comprised of (i) an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), (ii) a requirement that the Respondent attend one or more continuing education courses on the subject of legal and ethical issues associated with the prescription of controlled substances, and (iii) a public reprimand of the Respondent for the violation described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Adminsitrative Hearings this 28thday of June, 1994. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. (It is clear that the Respondent did not make any records of any such examinations or tests, but it is not clearly established that he did not perform the examinations or tests.) Paragraph 6: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 7: Accepted in part and rejected in part. It is clear that the Respondent failed to keep medical records regarding V. L. R.; it is not clear that he "treated" her or that she was a patient. Paragraphs 8 through 36: Accepted. Paragraphs 37 and 38: Rejected for several reasons, including the following: These two paragraphs are to some extent arguments, rather than proposed findings of fact. The opinions described in these two paragraphs are both based on an assumption that was not proved; the assumption that V. L. R. was a patient who was being treated. There is no clear and convincing evidence that V. L. R. was the Respondent's patient. Paragraph 39: Rejected as an invalid and incorrect opinion. The issuance of a prescription does not always constitute treatment of the person for whom the prescription is written. (A classic example of when prescription writing does not constitute treatment is when a prescription is written for a drug to be used for recreational purposes, rather than for a legitimate medical purpose.) Paragraph 40: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. (It is clear that the Respondent did not make any records of any history, psychiatric evaluation, or diagnosis of V. L. R., but it is not clearly established that he did not do those things.) Paragraph 41: Accepted. Paragraph 42: Rejected for several reasons. First, the facts proposed in this paragraph were not established by clear and convincing evidence. (McKenzie's testimony about who wrote the notes was hearsay that would not meet one of the recognized hearsay exceptions; Norwich's testimony about who wrote the notes was limited to an unquantifiable "probably.") Paragraph 43: Rejected for several reasons. First the evidence is insufficient to establish what kind of relationship the Respondent had with V. L. R. Second, there is no clear and convincing evidence of a sexual relationship between the Respondent and V. L. R. Third, there is no clear and convincing evidence that V. L. was a patient of the Respondent. Fourth, any findings about a sexual relationship would be irrelevant because there is no allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint regarding any sexual relationship. Paragraph 44: Rejected because this opinion is based on at least one fact that was not proved at the formal hearing. Paragraph 45: Accepted. Paragraph 46: First three lines and first word of fourth line are accepted. The reference to the sexual relationship is rejected as not charged and as not proved by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 47: Rejected because this opinion is based on at least one fact that was not proved at the formal hearing. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary procedural details. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 8 through 10: Accepted in substance, with some subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as incorrect dates; the correct dates are 1988 to 1990. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Francesca Plendl, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire, and Tania Therese Wong, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay, General Counsel General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent has been licensed as a pharmacist having been issued license number 0015784. Respondent's license was previously suspended for a period of five (5) years by Final Order of the Florida Board of Pharmacy on June 15, 1984 in Case Number 0036893. In that prior case Respondent admitted to self medicating herself with controlled substances in violation of Section 465.016(1)(d)2, Florida Statutes. Respondent's license is therefore currently under suspension and has been suspended since June 15, 1984. Respondent was hospitalized at Shands Teaching Hospital in June, 1984 by George W. Sypert, M.D., for back and chest pains resulting from an automobile accident in May, 1983. This was Respondent's second hospitalization for treatment resulting from the accident. While hospitalized Dr. Sypert performed surgery on Respondent who was also attended by J. Marc Simard, M.D., a resident at the time. It was Dr. Simard who prepared the discharge summary on Respondent on June 19, 1984 and also wrote a discharge prescription for 10 Percodan which were to be taken one every six hours for severe pain remaining from the surgery which Dr. Sypert had performed. Both Respondent and her husband, George W. Bowen, were under the belief that Respondent would be "adequately medicated" for pain after her operation and upon her discharge. Mr. Bowen was formerly a licensed pharmacist in Florida, but his license has been revoked due to violations involving controlled substances. Mr. Bowen was extremely frustrated and concerned about the pain his wife was suffering and did not feel that 10 Percodan would be sufficient for her discharge. The Percodan prescription was given to Mr. Bowen who admitted during his testimony that he altered the prescription by adding a zero so that the prescription was then for 100 Percodan. Respondent never saw the prescription before or after it was altered, and her husband did not tell her what he had done. Mr. Bowen took this action out of concern for his wife and the pain she was suffering, and he did not take any of the Percodan himself. He had attempted to contact Dr. Sypert to request an increase in the prescription when he saw that Dr. Simard had written it for only 10 Percodan, but he was unsuccessful. Mr. Bowen presented the altered prescription at Eckerd's Drugs on June 20, 1984 and Russell Blaser, a licensed pharmacist, filled the prescription with 100 Percodan, which was paid for by Mr. Bowen and given to Mr. Bowen. Respondent was with her husband when he filled the prescription, but was almost immobile, having just been discharged. Blaser called Dr. Simard after he had filled the prescription to advise Dr. Simard that, due to Respondent's previous drug dependency, he felt that any further prescriptions should be for a lesser amount. It was at this time that Dr. Simard said the prescription he had written was for only 10 Percodan, not 100. Respondent was arrested on or about June 22, 1984, for obtaining a controlled substance by fraud. Following the arrest she learned for the first time that her husband had altered the prescription, and she thereupon destroyed the remaining Percodan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Pharmacy issue a Final Order dismissing these charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1985.' APPENDIX Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 6. Rejected in Findings of Fact 3, 4 and 7. Rejected as a conclusion of law which is not based on evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Presnell, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Deborah S. Bowen 1033 N.E. 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
