Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been currently licensed as a physician in Florida, holding license ME 0033496. Patient 1 was a 32 year old female who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on March 24, 1988, due to upper and lower abdominal pain, vomiting, and early signs of dehydration. Respondent placed Patient 1 on intravenous fluids and administered medications to control the vomiting. Patient 1 underwent diagnostic studies, including an upper gastrointestinal series, and received medication for the abdominal pain. After five days of hospitalization and tests, the source of the pain had not yet been identified. However, the lower abdominal pain had ceased, and the upper abdominal pain had lessened considerably. In general, the patient had improved during the hospitalization. At this point, Respondent discharged Patient 1 from the hospital with a final diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. Respondent directed Patient 1 to return to his office for a follow-up visit. Five or six days after discharge, Patient 1 called Respondent and told him that her symptoms, which she now linked with taking birth control pills, had disappeared. Respondent advised her not to resume taking the pills, but to return to her gynecologist. With respect to Patient 1, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances. Patient 2 was a 37 year old male who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on May 9, 1988, after having been found by a relative in a state of semi-consciousness. The admitting diagnosis was a probable overdose of lithium and possibly Thorazine. Respondent treated the drug toxicity during Patient 2's three-day hospitalization. Respondent became increasingly lucid during his hospitalization, and Respondent successfully managed the event of drug toxicity. Respondent tried to elicit from Patient 2 a medical and psychiatric history, but Patient 2 would or could not cooperate. Respondent was unable to identify any relatives or friends of Patient 2, including the person who brought him to the hospital. Respondent could not even find out where Patient 2 obtained the lithium and Thorazine that he was taking. Respondent treated the altered mental status that Patient 2 presented. There was no need during the short period of hospitalization to obtain a psychiatric consultation. Resumption of psychotropic medication so soon after the drug intoxication would have been imprudent. Consistent with the policy of Lykes Memorial Hospital, which has no psychiatrists on staff, Respondent referred Patient 2 to the Hernando County Mental Health Center. He directed Patient 2 not to take lithium or Thorazine until instructed to do so by a psychiatrist or other physician at the mental health center. Respondent and the hospital ensured that Patient 2 got to the mental health center following discharge. With respect to Patient 2, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances. Patient 3 was a 49 year old male who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on or about February 5, 1988, with complaints of difficulty breathing. At the time, Patient 3 had been diagnosed with lung cancer that had metastasized to the spine and had undergone maximum radiation therapy. He was paralyzed from the waist down and in the last year of his life. He steadfastly refused all diagnosis or treatment involving radiation. By his own request, Patient 3's standing medical orders were "Do Not Resuscitate." He only wanted to be made comfortable. The acute illness resulting in Patient 3's admission was pulmonary congestion. There is some likelihood that the symptoms of infectious bronchitis with which he presented at time of admission were exacerbated by his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There is a possibility that some of Patient 3's discomfort was caused by mucous plugs in the lungs, whose capacity had already been diminished by the other diseases. However, mucous plugs were not affecting Patient 3 at the time of discharge. Respondent discussed with Patient 3 the possibility of cleaning out his lungs with a bronchoscope, but Patient 3 refused. Respondent treated Patient 3's discomfort with oxygen, diuretics, and increased steroids. Patient 3 had been receiving steroids due to a spinal disorder resulting from the cancer. Patient 3 was already receiving bronchodilators at the time of his admission. There is also a possibility that Patient 3 suffered from superior vena cava syndrome in which one or more tumors would block veins of the thorax. However, diagnosis of the condition would have been invasive, and Patient 3 refused such interventions. Treatment of such a condition would likely have required radiation, and Patient 3 would not tolerate additional radiation treatment. Respondent discussed with Patient 3 the possibility of superior vena cava syndrome and the possible treatment, but Patient 3 declined this intervention. Patient 3 received no EKG while in the hospital. The emergency medical services team transporting Patient 3 to the hospital performed a rhythm strip, which provides information about limited cardiac functions. Although Patient 3's potassium levels were slightly below normal at discharge, they had improved during hospitalization. With respect to Patient 3, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances. Respondent's medical records represent the bare minimum required by law to justify the course of treatment. Matters discussed with Patient 3 were not always recorded. Patient 3's decisions concerning diagnosis and treatment were likewise not always recorded. But, on balance, the medical records adequately documented the course of treatment of Patient 3 while under Respondent's care at the hospital. Patient 4 was a 68 year old male who was admitted to Lykes Memorial Hospital on or about February 14, 1988, with complaints of a persistent cough and some gastric upset. He was suffering from exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respondent appropriately treated Patient 4's conditions. Patient 4 experienced problems with certain medications, which interfered with his progress, but he was drinking and eating without difficulty prior to his discharge. X-rays taken at admission and discharge revealed no significant change in Patient 4's condition during his eight-day hospitalization. At discharge, Respondent ordered Patient 4 to return for an office visit in two weeks. Patient 4's condition continued to improve following discharge. With respect to Patient 4, Respondent practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint. ENTERED on October 11, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 11, 1993. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The pain or discomfort had lessened considerably. 14: adopted. 15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16-17: rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. and 21-23: adopted or adopted in substance. and 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted except that Respondent and the hospital ensured that the patient was referred to a mental health treatment center as soon as his condition was sufficiently stabilized to allow discharge from the hospital. 26: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 27: adopted or adopted in substance. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The record does not suggest how a psychiatrist would obtain a history from an unwilling patient. 29: adopted with respect to the period of the hospitalization through the point at which the patient could recommence active psychiatric treatment. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent duly referred the patient to an appropriate facility for the treatment of the patient's underlying mental health problems. 31: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 32: rejected as legal argument and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33-36: adopted or adopted in substance. 37-38: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 39: rejected as subordinate. 40: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41-43 (through third sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 43 (fourth sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence with respect to this patient. 44-48 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 48 (except first sentence)-50: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 51-52 and 54: adopted or adopted in substance. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 55-56: adopted or adopted in substance. 57-59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7: rejected as legal argument. 8: rejected as recitation of evidence. 9: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as recitation of evidence. 12: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (first sentence): rejected as legal argument. 16 (second and third sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (fourth sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. (first sentence): rejected as legal argument. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (third sentence)-19 (first sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. 19 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 20: rejected as recitation of evidence. 21: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 22: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as recitation of evidence. 27: adopted or adopted in substance. 28-31 (second sentence): rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 31 (third sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 32-34: rejected as legal argument and recitation of evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance. 39-43: rejected as legal argument, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Barbara Whalin Makant, Staff Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0972 William B. Taylor, IV Macfarlane Ferguson P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33618
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether the following statement was made by Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; whether the statement violates the provisions of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes; whether the statement constitutes a declaratory statement under Section 120.565, Florida Statutes; whether Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., has standing to maintain this action; and whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The alleged agency statement which is at issue in this case is: The Agency for Health Care Administration takes the position that a shared service agreement may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and the shared service contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the Agency takes the position that modifications to a shared service agreement do not require prior review and approval by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC. (hereinafter ALL CHILDREN'S), is a medical facility located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which provides pediatric hospital care. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with statutory authority to issue, revoke or deny certificates of need in accordance with the statewide and district health plans. Intervenor, BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER (BAYFRONT), is an acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT are located adjacent to each other and are connected by a thirty-yard tunnel. In 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S began operation of a pediatric cardiac catheterization program. ALL CHILDREN'S pediatric cardiac catheterization program existed prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to provide such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S cardiac catheterization program. Since 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S has expended at least $500,000 on upgrading the cardiac catheterization program. Since 1970, ALL CHILDREN'S has operated a pediatric open heart surgery program. ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program existed prior to the statutory requirement for issuance of a certificate of need to perform such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program. By letter dated May 13, 1974, HRS specifically advised ALL CHILDREN'S that modifications to the ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program were not subject to agency approval. In May of 1973, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT entered into a shared service agreement to provide adult cardiac catheterization services. In accordance with the shared service agreement, the actual catheterizations are performed in the physical plant of ALL CHILDREN'S and with equipment located on the ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult cardiac catheterization shared service program by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. Beginning in 1975, BAYFRONT has also provided adult open heart surgery services through a joint program with ALL CHILDREN'S with the actual surgeries being performed at the physical plant on ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult open heart surgery shared service by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. The shared service agreement between ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT to provide adult cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services was in existence prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to perform such services. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need to provide such services. The cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program operated by ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT was "grandfathered" in because the program existed prior to the certificate of need requirement. Because no certificate of need was issued to ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT for its shared adult cardiac service program, no conditions have been imposed by AHCA on the operation of the program. "Conditions" placed on certificates of need are important predicates to agency approval and typically regulate specific issues relating to the operation of the program and the provision of the service such as access, location, and provision of the service to Medicaid recipients. The ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT cardiac shared services program is the only "grandfathered in" shared service arrangement in Florida, and is the only shared service arrangement operating without a certificate of need in Florida. An open heart surgery program is shared by Marion Community Hospital and Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, Florida. The Marion/Munroe program operates pursuant to a certificate of need issued by AHCA. On December 22, 1995, AHCA published a notice of its intent to approve a certificate of need for a shared pediatric cardiac catheterization program between Baptist Hospital and University Medical Center in Duval County, Florida. BAYFRONT has applied for, but has not yet been issued, a certificate of need to perform cardiac catheterization services independent of the shared services arrangement with ALL CHILDREN'S. The agency receives hundreds of inquiries each year requesting information and guidance from health care providers regarding the certificate of need application process and other requirements of the certificate of need program. On more than one occasion ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT have inquired either orally or in letters to the agency regarding whether certain changes in their adult cardiac shared services program would require agency approval through a certificate of need application. In response to a 1990 written inquiry from ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT regarding modifications to the shared services agreement, the agency (then HRS) by letter dated September 18, 1990, stated in pertinent part that "the alterations you propose still constitute shared services." The agency response went on to state that it is therefore "...determined that they (the proposed changes) have not altered the original intent." On January 31, 1991, Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code, governing shared service arrangements in project-specific certificate of need applications was promulgated. The rule provides: Shared service arrangement: Any application for a project involving a shared service arrangement is subject to a batched review where the health service being proposed is not currently provided by any of the applicants or an expedited review where the health service being proposed is currently provided by one of the applicants. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: Each applicant jointly applying for a new health service must be a party to a formal written legal agreement. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service will authorize the applicants to provide the new health service as specified in the original application. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service shall not be construed as entitling each applicant to independently offer the new health service. Authority for any party to offer the service exists only as long as the parties participate in the provision of the shared service. Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termina- tion of service. If termination is approved by the agency, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. All applicable statutory and rule criteria are met. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: A shared services contract occurs when two or more providers enter into a contractual arrangement to jointly offer an existing or approved health care service. A shared services contract must be written and legal in nature. These include legal partnerships, contractual agreements, recognition of the provision of a shared service by a governmental payor, or a similar documented arrangement. Each of the parties to the shared services contract must contribute something to the agreement including but not limited to facilities, equipment, patients, management or funding. For the duration of a shared services contract, none of the entities involved has the right or authority to offer the service in the absence of the contractual arrangement except the entity which originally was authorized to provide the service. A shared services contract is not transferable. New parties to the original agreement constitute a new contract and require a new Certificate of Need. A shared services contract may encom- pass any existing or approved health care service. The following items will be evaluated in reviewing shared services contracts: The demonstrated savings in capital equipment and related expenditures; The health system impact of sharing services, including effects on access and availability, continuity and quality of care; and, Other applicable statutory review criteria. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. All statutory and rule criteria are met. By letter dated October 22, 1993, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT inquired again of the agency regarding modifications of the adult inpatient cardiac shared service program. AHCA did not respond to the 1993 inquiry, and AHCA ultimately considered the inquiry withdrawn. By letter dated February 24, 1995, BAYFRONT made further inquiry of the agency, and requested agency confirmation of the following statement: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our understanding that the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") takes the position that the shared services agreement between Bayfront and All Children's may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and that the shared services contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4) F.A.C. By letter dated March 16, 1995, the agency made the following reply to BAYFRONT from which this proceeding arose: The purpose of this letter is to confirm your understanding of this agency's position with reference to the reviewability of a modifica- tion of the shared services agreement between Bayfront Medical Center and All Children's Hospital set forth in your February 24, 1995 letter.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documented evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In General Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0016786. On February 27, 1984, Florida Medical license of the Respondent was suspended for a period of one year in Department of Professional Regulation vs. Teotimo D. Bonzon, M.D., Case Number 82-799. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was the primary care physician for Mary T. Upton, a patient with a history of bronchial asthma. Valium On January 11, 1985 the patient, Mary T. Upton, developed onset of acute respiratory distress and was seen by the Respondent, first in his office and then as an outpatient. On the second occasion, Respondent gave the patient valium, a Schedule IV Controlled Substance. On January 12, 1985, Upton was admitted to Methodist Hospital of Jacksonville, Florida, with a complaint of Acute Asthmatic Bronchitis. Bronchial Asthma is a condition that affects the respiratory drive. Valium relaxes the muscles and sedates the central nervous system and respiratory drive of a person and, as such, is not a drug to be administered in an outpatient setting under the circumstances that Respondent administered valium to Upton. Theo-Dur After admission and initial treatment, the patient continued to experience respiratory distress, and the Respondent was notified. Respondent ordered the drug Theo-Dur to be given orally. This was after Upton was given Theophylline, but before she was stabilized on Theophylline. Theo-Dur is a long sustained action form of Theophylline, which takes twelve hours to have an appreciable affect and, as such, is used primarily for maintenance and should not be used in acute situations such as Upton's until the patient is stabilized. Theophylline At the time Upton was admitted to the hospital on January 12, 1985 and Respondent started her on Aminophylline (also called Theophylline I.V.), Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline for her asthma condition and that she had a prescription to obtain such medication. Although Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline, Respondent did not inquire of Upton, or in any other manner determine, if she had ingested any form of Theophylline before administering the Aminophylline I.V. upon admission to the hospital on January 12, 1985. Upton had taken Theophylline before the Theophylline I.V. was administered. It is the recognized standard of care for a physician to obtain the level of Theophylline in the patient's body before administering Theophylline and, to periodically check the level of Theophylline to assure the best therapeutic level is achieved. Upton was on the hospital floor at approximately 11:20 a.m. on January 12, 1985 and the first time a physician ordered the Theophylline level checked was between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on January 12, 1985 after Respondent consulted with Dr. Libao. Before the Theophylline level was checked, Respondent had already administered Theo-Dur. Toxicity of Theophylline occurs when the content of the blood exceeds 20 milligrams per 100cc and any level over the 20 milligrams per 100cc may cause the patient to have gastrointestinal side affects such as nausea, vomiting and nervousness which may be life threatening. Respondent's failure to monitor the Theophylline level resulted in the patient receiving a toxic level of 24 milligrams per 100cc of Theophylline; however, there was no evidence that Upton suffered any side affects. D. Thoracostomy On January 17, 1985, routine chest x-rays confirmed a pneumothorax in Upton's left lung which was reported to the Respondent by the radiologist, Dr. Victor Saenz, by telephone between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on January 17, 1985. Without reviewing the x-rays, Respondent proceeded to treat the left pneumothorax with a chest tub (or Thoracostomy) in Upton's right lung. There was sufficient time to review the x-rays since the Thoracostomy was not performed until between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on January 17, 1985. Respondent did not order follow-up x-rays the day of the surgery to determine the effectiveness of the surgery. It is accepted medical practice for the physician, particularly a surgeon who performs an invasive procedure such as a thoracostomy, to order x- rays immediately following the surgery to make sure the procedure is working By placing the chest tub in the wrong side of the lung, Respondent created a situation wherein another pneumothorax might occur; however, by removing the chest tub from the right lung and placing it in the left lung alleviated this possibility. Respondent failed to realize that the chest tub had been placed in the wrong side of the lung (the right side) until the morning of January 18, 1985 when he was advised by the nurse that Upton had a pneumothorax on the left side rather than the right side where the chest tub had been placed by Respondent. Respondent's error was discovered as a result of routine x-rays performed by Dr. Walkett at 7:45 a.m. on January 18, 1985, the day following surgery. These follow-up x-rays also revealed Subcutaneous Emphysema throughout Upton's chest. Placing the chest tub in the right lung will not re-expand the left lung. Upon being informed of his error, Respondent proceeded to the hospital and removed the chest tub from Upton's right lung and placed it in her left lung. As a result of Respondent's error, Upton's heart beat increased around 3:00 a.m. on January 18, 1985 causing cardiac distress. Allergies At the time of the patient's admission it was noted that she was allergic to iodine. However, Respondent having treated Upton for some time prior to this admission, had knowledge that she was not allergic to iodine. Prior to the Thoracostomy and Tracheostomy, Respondent used Betadine scrub on Upton. Betadine contains iodine. Other solutions are readily available at Methodist Hospital that are not iodine-based. Tracheostomy On January 17, 1985 at or about the same time he performed the Thoracostomy, the Respondent performed a surgical procedure known as a Tracheostomy on Upton. Following the Tracheostomy, performed by the Respondent, the patient's condition did not improve and she continued to experience complications, including Subcutaneous Emphysema. Subcutaneous Emphysema occurs when air pockets form under the patient's fat tissue layer which cause swelling and can compromise the patient. On January 18, 1985, the Respondent's temporary admitting and consultation privileges at Methodist Hospital were suspended in a letter from Dr. Wallace Walkett, the president of the Medical and Dental Staff. The treatment of Upton was turned over to other physicians. Dr. Frederick Vontz, a Board Certified Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeon was called in by Dr. Walklett to repair the problems with Upton's trachea. When Dr. Vontz first saw Upton she was in moderate to severe distress and her body was swollen from the Subcutaneous Emphysema. On January 26, 1985, Dr. Vontz performed a Bronchoscopy on Upton that showed granulation tissue, which is scar tissue that may be an obstacle to breathing. The cause of this granulation tissue was the tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent. Due to Upton's difficulty in breathing and the continuing Subcutaneous Emphysema, she was taken to the operating room on January 31, 1985. In the operating room, Dr. Vontz discovered a tear in the trachea that extended to six and one-half centimeters above the carina. Dr. Vontz also discovered that the air causing the Subcutaneous Emphysema was escaping from a false channel in the trachea. The damage to the posterior wall of the patient's trachea was caused by the improper tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent on January 17, 1985. Upton died at 12:00 noon on March 6, 1985 and, although there is evidence that the tear in Upton's trachea may have contributed to Upton's death, there is insufficient evidence to show that it was clearly the sole cause of Upton's death. The record is clear that the level of care, skill and treatment provided Upton by the Respondent, fell below that which would be recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances by a prudent similar physician.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and Rule 21M- 20.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent, Teotimo D. Bonzon's license to practice medicine in the state of Florida for a period of two (2) years with condition for reinstatement determined by the Board as it deems appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-3022 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner In General 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Valium 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 8, 7 and 6, respectively. Theo-Dur 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Theophylline 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 13, respectively. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 16. 7.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 17, respectively. Thoracostomy 1.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. 15.-l6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Allergies 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. 3. Rejected as not being material or relevant. Tracheostomy 1.-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31-39 Unnecessary in reaching a conclusion in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 12.-13. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent A. General 1.-3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 1 and 4, respectively. B. The Use of Betadine 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but clarified. Theophylline Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13 that Respondent had ordered Theophylline intravenously before checking the Theophylline level in the patient. Theo-Dur Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Valium Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Thoracostomy Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18-27, otherwise rejected. Tracheostomy Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 32 and 33, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. The first sentence and the first phrase of the second sentence are adopted in Findings of Fact 38 and 39. The balance is rejected as being a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact. However, even if the last sentence was stated as a finding of fact, it would be rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: MARK A. SIERON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 855 ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32067 JOHN R. WEED, ESQUIRE 605 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET PERRY, FLORIDA 32347 STEPHANIE A. DANIEL, ESQUIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 KENNETH D. EASLEY, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 DOROTHY FAIRCLOTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF MEDICINE 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Dr. Gans is a chiropractor licensed in Florida on the basis of examination. Dr. Gans prepared and filed an application for examination and licensure with the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Do you have a chiropractic license in any state?" by stating: "Ohio - Mechanotherapy." The Ohio authorities recognized several professions whose functions would be included under the practice of chiropractic in Florida. Mechanotherapy generally would be limited to the practice of manipulation only. Dr. Gans was licensed in Ohio as a mechanotherapist. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Have you ever been refused licensure in any state?" by stating, "No." Dr. Gans had applied for, taken, and failed the Ohio chiropractic examination whereupon he was not issued a license as a chiropractor by the State of Ohio. Dr. Gans was eligible to reapply to take the Ohio examination. At the time of his application to Florida, Dr. Gans had appealed the determination by the Ohio authorities that he had failed the Ohio examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners revoke the license of Ray E. Gans. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Sutton, Esquire 250 Bird Road, Suite 310 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Paul Lambert, Esquire 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. A. Hartley, Director Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners Suite 202, Building B 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issues in this case for determination are whether Respondent Samuel Cox, M.D., committed the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health on November 18, 2006; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Samuel Cox, M.D., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 77851 on April 22, 1999. Dr. Cox's mailing address of record at all times relevant to this matter is 2438 East Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. Dr. Cox is a board-certified general surgeon who has specialized his practice to bariatric surgery. He has performed bariatric surgery since 1985, performing approximately 3,000 such surgeries since that time. Dr. Cox has performed approximately 214 Roux-en Y procedures in Florida. No evidence that Dr. Cox has previously been the subject of a license disciplinary proceeding was offered. Bariatric Surgery. Bariatric surgery, also known as gastro-bypass surgery, is a type of surgery performed on morbidly obese patients to assist them in losing weight. In order to be found to be morbidly obese and, therefore, to be considered a candidate for the procedure, a patient must be found to have a Body Mass Index greater than 40. Body Mass Index is a measure of body fat based on height and weight (weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters). For example, a six-foot-tall individual weighing 296 pounds would have a Body Mass Index of 40.1. See http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/. A patient with a Body Mass Index of 35 may also be considered a candidate for the surgery if they present with certain comorbidities associated with obesity. Comorbidities are physical problems associated with obesity and include diabetes, lung problems, heart problems, and high blood pressure. The more comorbidities a patient has, the higher the risk is to that patient from bariatric surgery. While there is more than one type of bariatric surgery, at issue in this case is a procedure known as Roux-en-Y gastric- bypass surgery (hereinafter referred to as "RNY Surgery"). RNY Surgery is a surgical method of creating a reduced-sized stomach. This reduced-sized stomach is created by removing a small portion of the stomach, where the esophagus (which brings food from the mouth to the stomach) attaches to the stomach, from the larger remaining portion of the stomach. The small portion of the stomach attached to the esophagus is then formed into a pouch, creating a much smaller stomach. The remaining larger portion of the stomach is completely by-passed. Often a device called a silastic ring is used at the bottom of the newly created stomach to help the pouch maintain the desired size and prevent it from stretching into a larger pouch. A portion of the small intestine is attached to the bottom of the newly created stomach. Approximately 150 centimeters down the small intestine, the excluded or removed portion of the stomach, the liver, and the pancreas are connected back to the intestine. This allows digestion of food to continue, but reduces the amount of digestion that previously occurred in the 150 centimeters of the intestine which are bypassed. RNY Surgery allows a patient to lose weight in two ways: first, by limiting the amount of food the patient can eat; and secondly, by reducing the absorption of nutrients by bypassing part of the intestine. The most common and serious complication of RNY Surgery is a leak at the gastrojejunal anastomosis, or the point where the newly created stomach pouch (the gastro) is connected to the intestine (the jejunal)(a gastrojejunal anastomosis leak will hereinafter be referred to simply as a "Leak"). This complication may be evidenced by several symptoms exhibited by a patient. Surgeons performing bariatric surgery must look for these symptoms. The typical symptoms of a Leak include left shoulder pain (caused by pooling of the leakage under the diaphragm which causes irritation which manifests as left shoulder pain), decreased urine output, fever, shortness of breath, and high heart rate. Some manifestations of a Leak, such as atrial fibrillation, are indirect signs of a Leak in that they are associated with the stress on the body caused by the Leak. Dr. Cox's Treatment of Patient W.T. Patient W.T. presented to Dr. Cox for bariatric surgery. W.T., a male, was 47 years of age at the time and was morbidly obese. W.T. weighed 458 pounds and had a Body Mass Index of Because his Body Mass Index exceeded 50, he was considered "super" morbidly obese. He also had the following comorbidities: high blood pressure, sleep apnea, congestive heart failure, thrombophlebitis, pulmonary eboli, diabetes, and gatroesophageal reflux disease. There is no dispute that W.T. was an appropriate candidate for bariatric surgery. W.T. underwent RNY Surgery on August 31, 2005. During the surgery, Dr. Cox experienced difficulty seeing, due to the size of W.T.'s liver, the staples which he used to connect the intestine to the bottom of the newly formed stomach. Instead of confirming the placement of the staples, he was required to assess the staples with his fingers. This should have made him more sensitive to the possibility of a Leak. Before ending the surgery, Dr. Cox performed a test called a methylene blue test. To perform this test, an anesthesiologist puts medicine down a tube which passes through the patient's nose and into the new stomach. The physician then looks for any sign of a leak where the physician has sewn or stapled the small intestine to the stomach. With W.T., the methylene blue test did not disclose any leaks. The day after W.T.'s bariatric surgery, September 1, 2005, W.T. began to complain of pain in his left shoulder which is an important symptom of a Leak. W.T. also experienced decreased urine output during the night (he had, however, "responded well to fluid increases and diuretics"), and a low- grade fever, which are also indicators of a Leak. Although pain is a normal response to any operation, pain in the shoulder for the type of non-laparoscropic bariatric surgery performed by Dr. Cox should have made Dr. Cox more concerned than he apparently was as to the cause. The normal pain response to the type of operation Dr. Cox performed would be expected where the incision was made, but not in the shoulder. Dr. Cox treated W.T.'s shoulder pain with narcotic analgesia by a patient-controlled analgesia pump. He treated the decreased urine output with increased fluids and a diuretic (Mannitol). The fever was treated with Tylenol. Although the left shoulder pain, decrease in urine output, and low-grade fever could have been indicative of a Leak, Dr. Cox made no note in the patient records that he had considered the possibility that W.T. had a Leak, prematurely ruling out the possibility of a Leak. Dr. Cox suggested that the left shoulder pain was related to a diaphragmatic irritation caused by the use of surgical instruments on the diaphragm and that the urine output decline could have been attributable to the impact on W.T.'s kidneys by his diabetes. While these might have been appropriate considerations at the time, Dr. Cox could have not known for sure what was causing W.T.'s symptoms and, therefore, should have considered all the possible causes of these symptoms, especially the possibility of a Leak. On the second post-operative day, September 2, 2005, W.T. exhibited an abnormal heart rhythm, called atrial fibrillation. With a normal heart rhythm, the atrial (the first two of the four heart chambers) contracts, followed by contraction of the ventricles (the other two heart chambers). Atrial fibrillation is an abnormal heart rhythm characterized by a failure of the atria to completely contract. The fact that W.T., who had no prior history of atrial fibrillation, was evidencing atrial fibrillation on post-operative day two should have raised a concern about what was happening to W.T., including, but not limited to, the possibility of a Leak. W.T. was also experiencing an abnormally high heart rate of 148, which could have also been indicative of a Leak. Dr. Cox continued to treat W.T.'s shoulder pain with narcotic analgesia and the decreased urine output with increased fluids and Mannitol. He treated the elevated heart rate with Cardizem, a medicine used to slow the heart. W.T.'s shoulder pain appeared to decrease, which was to be expected given the course of treatment ordered by Dr. Cox. Dr. Cox had not, however, appropriately determined the cause of the pain. Again, nothing in Dr. Cox's medical records indicates that he considered the possibility that W.T.'s various symptoms might be indicative of a Leak. Nor did he take any action, such as an upper gastrointestinal test, to rule out the possibility of a Leak. To perform a gastrointestinal test, a patient drinks a water-soluble contrast called Gastrografin and a radiologists takes serial pictures of the patient, which show the contrast as it moves down the esophagus and then crosses through the anastomosis of the pouch and intestine. From these pictures, it can be determined whether the anastomosis is open and functioning properly and whether any of the contrast leaks outside of the new stomach-intestine path. The test is not fool-proof, but it is an appropriate diagnostic tool for Leaks. Dr. Cox suggests that the atrial fibrillation and high heart rate could have simply been a recognized complication of any stress W.T., with his borderline cardiac status, was experiencing. Again, while these might have been appropriate considerations at the time, Dr. Cox could have not known for sure what was causing W.T.'s symptoms and, therefore, should have considered all the possible causes of these symptoms, especially the possibility of a Leak. On the third post-operative day, September 3, 2005, air and serosanguinous fluid were observed seeping from W.T.'s abdominal incision. The existence of air may be evidence of a Leak. Although some air gets into the abdominal cavity during surgery, it is usually absorbed by the body very, very quickly. Air coming from an incision on post-operative day three suggests a hole in the intestine. Dr. Cox responded to the finding of air coming from the abdominal incision by ordering a methylene blue swallow, where W.T. swallowed a small amount of blue dye. Blue dye was then seen either coming out of the incision or drains placed in W.T.'s abdomen. Either way, the test was "positive" indicating a leak in W.T.'s intestine. Dr. Cox correctly took W.T. back into surgery. He discovered and corrected a Leak which had been caused by failure of the staples used in W.T.'s surgery. Although much was made as to when the staples failed, that evidence was not conclusive nor is it necessary to resolve the dispute. Whether the staples failed immediately after surgery or at some later time does not excuse Dr. Cox's failure to appropriately react to signs exhibited by W.T. which could have indicated that W.T. had a Leak. This case does not turn on whether a Leak actually existed. It turns on whether Dr. Cox appropriately considered the possibility of a Leak and took the steps medically necessary. With W.T., he did not. Dr. Cox's error was not in failing to find the Leak earlier; it was in failing to properly consider the possibility of a Leak when W.T. exhibited signs that should have prevented Dr. Cox from, with reasonable medical certainty, ruling out the possibility that a Leak was present. For this reason, the fact that a Leak was ultimately found is of little importance in deciding whether the charges leveled against him in the Administrative Complaint are accurate. Even if no Leak had ultimately been found, Dr. Cox's failure to properly respond to the potential of a Leak evidenced by W.T.'s symptoms was inconsistent with the standard of care. Dr. Cox's Treatment of Patient J.L. Patient J.L. presented to Dr. Cox for bariatric surgery. J.L., a male, was 35 years of age at the time and was morbidly obese. J.L. weighed 417 pounds and had a Body Mass Index of Because his Body Mass Index exceeded 50, he was considered "super" morbidly obese. He also had the following comorbidities: high cholesterol, stress incontinence, depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and shortness of breath on exertion associated with asthma. There is no dispute that J.L. was an appropriate candidate for bariatric surgery. J.L. underwent RNY Surgery on August 4, 2005. Dr. Cox also removed J.L.'s gallbladder. Before ending the surgery, Dr. Cox performed a methylene blue test. The methylene blue test performed on J.L. did not disclose any leaks. On the first post-operative day, August 4, 2005, J.L.'s heart rate was as high as 155 (anything over 120 is problematic), was experiencing decreased oxygen saturation of 89 percent (95 percent to 98 percent are considered normal saturation levels), had increased BUN and creatinine levels, and his urine output was borderline low. The increased BUN and creatinine, indicative of a problem with the kidneys, were are not being perfused well. J.L. was also complaining of right shoulder pain. Dr. Cox's note concerning the right shoulder pain specifically notes that it was not the "left" shoulder, which suggests that Dr. Cox was aware of the significance of left shoulder pain. J.L.'s high heart rate and low oxygen saturation level were considered significant enough to return him to the intensive care unit. On the second post-operative day, August 5, 2005, J.L.'s BUN and creatinine levels rose higher. That evening J.L. had a high heart rate. His urine output level, which Dr. Cox had treated with a diuretic and increased fluids, had improved. J.L. also became agitated and restless. He began to constantly request water. Dr. Cox eventually ordered, however, that J.L. not be given water. Dr. Cox failed to note in his records that he considered the possibility that J.L. had a Leak. Instead, Dr. Cox focused on the possibility that J.L. was suffering from rhabdomyolysis, a malfunction of the kidneys caused by the breakdown, as a result of surgery, of muscle tissue into cells too large in size for the kidneys to process. Dr. Cox ordered a CK test which found elevated creatine phosphor kinase or CPK, a marker of muscle death. Dr. Cox then consulted with a nephrologists. While the symptoms evidenced by J.L. could have very well been a result of rhadbodmyolysis, they also could have been symptomatic of a Leak. Dr. Cox did not have adequate information on August 5, 2005, to conclusively find that J.L. was suffering from rhadbodmyolysis and, more importantly, not from a Leak. As of the second post-operative day, J.L. was exhibiting a high heart rate, low urine output, pain in his right shoulder, a worsening oxygen saturation level and hunger for air, and a changed mental status (anxiety and combativeness). Due to these symptoms, Dr. Cox should have considered the possibility of a Leak, rather than merely concluding that J.L. was suffering from rhabdomyolysis and treating J.L.'s individual symptoms. On the third post-operative day, August 6, 2005, J.L.'s condition worsened. His agitation and combativeness due to his thirst and air hunger worsened. J.L. was treated with Haldol, a psychiatric medication. Dr. Cox continued to suspect rhadbdomyolysis and to ignore the possibility of a Leak. On the fourth post-operative day, August 7, 2005, at approximately 15:30, pink-tinged fluid was seen draining from J.L.'s incision. A pulmonologist consulting on J.L.'s case was the first to suggest the possibility of a Leak, questioning whether the entire clinical picture pointed to intra-abdominal sepsis due to a Leak. It was not until the drainage from J.L.'s incision that Dr. Cox first considered the possibility of a Leak. Even then, Dr. Cox did not return J.L. to surgery until August 7, 2005, where a Leak was found and repaired. Dr. Cox's error in his treatment of J.L., like his error in his treatment of W.T., was not in failing to find the Leak earlier, but in failing to properly consider the possibility of a Leak when J.L. exhibited signs which should have prevented Dr. Cox from, with reasonable medical certainty, ruling out the possibility that a Leak was present. For this reason, the fact that a Leak was ultimately found is of little importance in deciding whether the charges leveled against him in the Administrative Complaint are accurate. Even if no Leak had ultimately been found, Dr. Cox's failure to properly respond to the potential of a Leak, evidenced by J.L.'s symptoms, was inconsistent with the standard of care. Dr. Cox's explanation at hearing as to why he waited from August 5, 2005, when it was apparent that J.L. had a Leak, until August 7, 2005, to repair the Leak, is not contained in Dr. Cox's medical records. The Standard of Care. The Department's expert, Christian Birkedal, M.D., credibly opined that Dr. Cox failed to practice medicine in accordance with the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health care licensure in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard of Care"), in his treatment of W.T. and J.L. In particular, it was Dr. Birkedal's opinion that Dr. Cox violated the Standard of Care as to W.T. by failing to recognize W.T.'s signs and symptoms of a Leak and by failing to perform a post-operative upper gastrointestinal test on W.T. once he evidenced those signs. Dr. Birkedal's opinion is credited and accepted. As to J.L., Dr. Birkedal's opinion that Dr. Cox violated the Standard of Care by failing to recognize the signs and symptoms of a Leak for two days post-operatively is credited and accepted. The opinions to the contrary offered by Dr. Cox and his witnesses as to W.T. and J.L. are rejected as not convincing and as not addressing the issue precisely enough. The opinions offered by Dr. Cox and his witnesses with regard to both patients were essentially that the various symptoms pointed to by Dr. Birkedal were not "evidence" of a Leak. Those opinions do not specifically address the issue in this case. Dr. Cox and his witnesses based their opinions on whether Dr. Cox should have "known" there was a Leak at the times in issue. That is not the charge of the Administrative Complaint or the basis for Dr. Birkedal's opinion. The question was, not whether Dr. Cox should have known there was a Leak, but whether he should have considered a Leak as a possible cause for the symptoms exhibited by W.T. and J.L. Additionally, and finally, Dr. Birkedal based his opinions, not by looking at the record as a whole, as did Dr. Cox and his experts, but by looking at only those records in existence at the times relevant to this matter. In this way, Dr. Birkedal limited himself to a consideration of what Dr. Cox knew about his patients at the times relevant in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Samuel Cox, M.D., has violated Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint; issuing a reprimand; placing his license on probation for two years, with terms to be established by the Board; and imposing a fine of $15,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Nelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3250 Jonathon P. Lynn, Esquire Marci Strauss, Esquire Stephens, Lynn, Klein 301 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
