The Issue The issues in this case, as set forth in the Prehearing Stipulation, are as follows: Whether Respondent was terminated from the State Medicaid Program; [Case No. 14-2488, Count I] Whether Respondent failed to update his practitioner profile within fifteen days of the filing of the order terminating him from the State Medicaid Program; [Case No. 14-2488, Count II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with T.J.[1/] for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with T.J.; [Case No. 14-1342, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with M.B. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with M.B.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with C.J. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with C.J.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with D.K. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with D.K.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with A.H. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with A.H.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] and Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with S.D. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with S.D. [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II]
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Medicine (the “Department”) is the State agency responsible for licensing and monitoring physicians in the State of Florida. The Department regulates the practice of medicine in accordance with section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2014 codification. Respondent is a licensed Florida physician, certified in the area of pain management, holding license number ME 97134. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was practicing medicine at one of two locations: the Back Authority for Contemporary Knowledge, (a pain management clinic known as the “Back Center” located in Melbourne, Florida); and Advantacare (in its Altamonte Springs and Daytona Beach offices). Respondent was employed at the Back Center from January 2008 through September 2011, and at Advantacare from March 2012 through April 2013. Respondent provided pain management services for numerous patients during his tenure at each of the clinics. While at the Back Center, he saw 50 to 60 patients per day in an 8-hour workday, doing about 15 medication injections per day. At Advantacare he was seeing about 30 patients per day. By all accounts, Respondent is a skilled and proficient pain management physician. At Advantacare, Respondent would see patients for regular office visits at the Altamonte Springs office on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; Wednesday would be set aside for administering injections under a fluoroscope, described as sort of a C-shaped X-ray machine, performed at the Daytona Beach office. None of the sexual behavior alleged in the Administrative Complaints occurred during injections performed under fluoroscope. A general policy existed at the Back Center that required physicians to have another facility employee (medical technician, nurse, other) present in an examination room when a physician was providing care to a patient not of the same gender as the doctor. This “chaperone” policy is standard in the health care industry. There is no credible evidence that Respondent was ever shown the Back Center’s policy in writing, although it is probable the policy was accessible on the website of the entity (Osler Corporation) that owned the Back Center for a period of time. As a practicing physician, Respondent was also presumed to be aware of and to follow the chaperone policy and he admitted knowing about the policy in general. Respondent was, however, verbally apprised of the policy by his supervisor, Dr. Hynes, by the clinic operations manager, Mr. Pachkoski, and by the chief administrative officer, Cathy Bird. Respondent acknowledged that it was best to have another person in the examination room if he was providing treatment to a female patient. If no chaperone was available, it was his stated practice to keep the door open. Respondent did not feel like assistants were always available to chaperone, but neither his supervisor (Dr. Hynes) nor a co-physician (Dr. Zaidi) remembers Respondent complaining that staff was not available at the Back Center. The testimony of all six complainants in this case contradicts Respondent’s contention; each of them said they were treated by Respondent (alone) in a room with the door closed. When asked directly whether he ever treated female patients at the Back Center in a room with the door closed, Respondent admitted that it happened on occasion. The best and most persuasive evidence in this case is that a chaperone policy did exist and that Respondent did not follow the policy. Between September 2008 and January 2013, Respondent treated six female patients who are the subjects of the Department’s Administrative Complaint. Each of the patients is identified only by their initials in an attempt to maintain their confidentiality and privacy. The six patients will be addressed in chronological order based on the dates of their alleged mistreatment by Respondent. Patient S.D. Patient S.D. was a patient of Respondent between September and December 2008. S.D.’s status as a patient was stipulated to by the parties.2/ While she was Respondent’s patient, S.D. was also an employee of the Back Center. During the period of time Respondent was treating S.D., they engaged in a series of emails which could be construed as very sexual in nature. For example, on September 23, 2008, Respondent and S.D. had the following email exchange: S.D. – “You buying Dinner….Or am I your [f***ing] dinner????”Respondent – “What do you think? I want u as breakfast, lunch and dinner. My precious love.” S.D. – Ok so what am I going to eat LOL??? Let me guess a protein shake”Respondent – “If I shake it hard enough yes.” Then, on September 25, the two had this email exchange:Respondent – “NO I WANT U TO FEED ME!!! AND NO YOU R NOT GOING THERE!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I’M UR MAN AND I SAY NO.”S.D. – “Then act like it and stop flirting with the [f***ing] skank!”Respondent – “WHY? GETTING JEALOUS SWEETHEART?”S.D. - “No I guess I have no reason to be.” Respondent – “EXACTLY, YOU HAD ME AT LUNCH AND LEFT TO GO TO WORK. SO YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING, PRECIOUS.” Respondent denies that the exchange of emails with S.D. suggests anything of a sexual nature. He said, e.g., that in his Iranian culture, talking about eating someone was tantamount to saying you cared deeply for them. Respondent’s denial of the sexual nature of the emails is not persuasive. S.D. did not testify at final hearing nor was her testimony preserved by way of a deposition transcript. The Department offered into evidence an exhibit comprised of various emails between S.D. and Respondent, two of which were discussed above. At least one co-worker, Lizamar Korfhage (a physician’s assistant at the Back Center), heard S.D. yell loudly in the office--as S.D. was being terminated from employment--that she (S.D.) and Respondent were having sexual relations. Cathy Bird, former chief administrative officer at the Back Center, had discussed the alleged affair with S.D. during several conversations before S.D.'s employment with the Back Center ended. Bird also talked with Respondent about the situation after S.D. was fired from the Back Center. Respondent was concerned that S.D. would tell Respondent’s wife about the affair and sought Bird’s guidance in the matter. Based upon the entirety of the clear and convincing evidence presented, Respondent was involved in a sexual relationship with S.D. at some point in time when S.D. was also a patient of the Back Center. Patient T.J. Patient T.J. was a 37-year-old patient when she saw Respondent at the Back Center on October 29, 2010. T.J. had seen Respondent professionally some 16 or so times previously. No inappropriate conduct had occurred on any of those visits. On the October 29 visit, T.J. was escorted into an examination room by a nurse as usual. Respondent came in and, after examining her, suggested that trigger point injections might help alleviate her pain, which she described as being a “2” on a scale of 1 to 10.3/ She agreed to the plan of treatment. Respondent had T.J. sit on an armless stool and lean her arms and head onto a desk. Respondent stood on her left side and began administering injections into her neck. As he leaned against her body, T.J. felt what she described as Respondent’s erect penis rubbing on her upper arm or shoulder. She felt like Respondent was intentionally rubbing her in what she later concluded to be a sexual manner. When he finished the injections, Respondent did not act any differently than usual. T.J. felt like something “weird” had just happened, but decided not to report it because she was not completely sure about her perceptions. Respondent, in contradiction to T.J.’s testimony, said he generally stayed four to five inches away from his patient when administering the injections, but would sometimes come into contact with them. T.J. returned for a follow up visit on November 24, 2010, receiving another injection by Respondent. She reported no misconduct by Respondent on that date. On December 23, 2010, T.J. returned to the Back Center for additional treatment. This time, her pain was radiating all the way down to her buttocks area and was described as a “3” out of 10. She was again escorted to an examination room to wait for Respondent. Respondent came in and closed the door, as was his usual practice during T.J.’s visits. After examining her, Respondent suggested injections for sacroiliac joint pain. T.J. was told to lie on the examination table on her left side. Respondent had T.J. lower her jeans to just below her knees. She had her left leg out straight and her right leg bent at the knee and across her left leg. Respondent then began to press his fingers on different parts of her inner thigh searching for the source of her pain. The pain was centered between her knee and buttocks area, and Respondent made an injection in that area. Respondent then had T.J. roll over to her right side as he pulled the table slightly away from the wall and placed himself between the wall and the table. Respondent began pushing on her inner thigh again, starting at her knee and moving upward toward her buttocks. As he did that, his tone of voice changed and he began panting. He continued to touch and probe her thighs as his hands went higher until he ultimately touched her vagina. T.J. immediately said, “That’s it” and quickly got off the examination table and pulled up her jeans. Respondent appeared sweaty and red-faced, looking to T.J. like a person who had just engaged in sex. T.J. then began to consider whether Respondent’s behavior during the October 29, 2010, visit had indeed been sexual in nature as well. She concluded that it was, and decided not to see Respondent for treatment in the future. She did not, however, report either of the incidents to the Back Center immediately. She ultimately did so, telling physician's assistant Korfhage about the incident some 10 months later. After seeing a report on television in 2013 that Respondent had been accused by another patient of sexual misconduct, she decided to make a report to the police about her own experiences with Respondent. When the police did not prosecute, she contacted an attorney in order to file a civil action against Respondent. T.J. appeared to be honest and forthright during her appearance at final hearing. Her testimony about her version of the events was credible, clear, and convincing. In his testimony at final hearing, Respondent did not specifically refute T.J.’s testimony so much as he explained how his normal process would not allow for the kind of touching T.J. alleged to have occurred. Respondent did not specifically or directly deny touching patient T.J.’s vagina, saying only that there would be no reason to do so. Patient D.K. (also known as D.W.) D.K. was a regular patient of Respondent and the Back Center. She had an appointment on January 13, 2011, to see Respondent for pain she was experiencing in her lower back and sides. On previous visits to the Back Center, Respondent had done localized injections to help D.K. deal with the pain. On those visits, she had simply rolled her pants down below her waist and leaned against the examination table in order for Respondent to do the injections. On the January 13 visit, she was told to lie on the table and pull her jeans down to her knees while Respondent went to prepare the medications. Respondent returned, closing the door as he came into the room. Respondent began injecting medications into her back and both sides. He then moved lower and administered injections into her thighs although she had not complained about any pain in that area. Respondent then moved her jeans down to her ankles and began administering injections into her calves. While he was injecting her, she felt him rubbing his erect penis against her thighs and heard his breathing get heavier. She could also feel Respondent lean closer to her and felt his breath on her thighs as he injected her calves. After the injections were complete, D.K. said Respondent was sweating, flushed, and “looked like my husband after we’ve had intercourse.” D.K. left the office and returned to her car. She immediately began to mentally process what had occurred to her, but did not immediately tell anyone at the Back Center. She was shocked and upset by the event but waited a few days before telling her husband what had happened. She then reported the events to someone at the Back Center. The Back Center asked her to come in so she could discuss the situation with Dr. Hynes, medical director of the Back Center. Later, D.K. made a complaint to local law enforcement about the incident. D.K. has also contacted an attorney to look into filing a civil lawsuit against Respondent. In response to the complaint by D.K., Dr. Hynes mandated that Respondent have a medical assistant with him during any contact with female patients. Despite the prohibition, Respondent continued to see female patients in an examination room without others present. He was confronted several times by the site operations manager about this violation, but Respondent did not change his behavior. D.K. was a credible witness. She provided a clear and unequivocal description of what transpired during her visit to the Back Center on January 13, 2011. Patient C.J. Patient C.J. presented to the Back Center experiencing pain as a result of shrapnel wounds received while she was serving in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. C.J. did not testify at final hearing so her physical demeanor could not be assessed. Her deposition transcript was admitted into evidence over objection. In May 2011, C.J. was referred to the Back Center by her treating physician at Patrick Air Force Base. She took the referral, called the Back Center, and was assigned to Respondent for pain management services. C.J. went to the Back Center on May 4, 2011. She was experiencing significant pain and was physically uncomfortable. C.J. was processed in by a receptionist and then led to an examination room by a female employee. The employee took C.J.’s blood pressure, gathered some personal information, and left the room. On that date, C.J. was wearing jeans, a blouse, and open- toed shoes. She had on “full underwear” that day. Respondent came into the room and examined C.J. as she sat on the examining table. He advised C.J. that an injection might benefit her. As C.J. remembered it, the injection was to be in the side of her neck, and then in her back or hip. Respondent left the room to obtain the medications as C.J. waited. Upon his return to the room, Respondent injected Depo- Medrol 40 mg, Toradol 30 mg, Lidocaine 2% 0.5 mL, and Marcaine 0.5 mL into the left side of her neck. After the initial injection, Respondent left the room while the medication took effect. C.J. began to feel very relaxed and sleepy. Respondent recollects that C.J. complained of feeling light-headed, but does not believe any medication he injected would have caused that to happen. Respondent later returned to the room and prepared to give C.J. another injection into her hip area. She sat up on the table as Respondent pulled one end of the table slightly away from the wall.4/ After moving the table, Respondent had C.J. lie down on her side, lift her blouse, and unbuckle her jeans. She then slid her jeans and underwear down past her hips as directed. At that point, Respondent began injecting a solution into C.J.’s hip. As the injection was proceeding, she felt Respondent slide his hand over her hip and “in my groin area.” While doing that, Respondent’s crotch was pressed against C.J.’s buttocks. C.J. felt what she believed to be Respondent’s erect penis pushing against her buttocks as he administered the injection. After the injection was completed, Respondent came around from behind the table and told C.J. she would need to come see him again in a few weeks. C.J. got up from the table and began to realize that “something was not right” about the treatment she had just received. When C.J. went to the front desk to check out, she asked a nurse to identify the medications which had been injected but was unable to get that information. C.J. then left the Back Center and immediately called her nurse case manager at Patrick Air Force Base to report what had occurred. Her nurse advised C.J. to call 911 to report the incident; C.J. did so as she walked out to her car in the parking lot. A policeman arrived some 20 minutes later and took her statement. The officer then went inside to talk to Respondent. He said Respondent appeared to be surprised and shocked by C.J.’s allegation. The police decided not to file any charges against Respondent based on C.J.’s complaint. The reporting police officer (Middendorf) seemed to question C.J.’s veracity or truthfulness on the day of the incident. He said C.J. was upset and seemed lethargic, except when she was talking on the telephone to “one of her superiors.” According to Middendorf, C.J. acted consistent with someone who may be under the influence of drugs. He did acknowledge that C.J. had just come out of a pain management clinic. Middendorf also felt C.J. was either confused or not telling the truth concerning where Respondent had allegedly touched her. C.J., who was obviously distraught at the time, indicated both her pubic area and her outer thigh when she told Middendorf that Respondent had touched her “groin.” Middendorf challenged her about that and C.J. became defensive and argumentative. He did not provide any credible testimony as to why he believed she might be lying to him. His statement that C.J.’s voice changed when she was talking to her office on the phone is not conclusive evidence that she was not telling him the truth. C.J. never returned to the Back Center. She obtained pain management treatment elsewhere. Inasmuch as C.J.’s demeanor could not be judged because she did not appear in person, her testimony must be considered using other factors. In this case, the testimony was very similar to the facts described by other patients of Respondent concerning their treatment by him. The events as described by C.J. were believable and convincing, especially when compared to the allegations by other alleged victims. Neither C.J. nor any of the other alleged victims/complainants has talked to other alleged victims about their experiences, so there does not appear to be any collusion between the victims. Patient M.B. Patient M.B. was already a regular patient at the Back Center when she first saw Respondent on July 7, 2011. Respondent’s notes in M.B.’s chart indicate the patient was presenting for “initial evaluation” that day, but that was not correct; she had already been seen several times by other physicians at the Back Center. M.B. had chronic lumbalgia (low back pain) and lower extremity dysesthesia (a burning sensation) which was increasing progressively. Respondent examined M.B., discussed his findings, and scheduled a follow-up appointment for August 2, 2011, at which time he gave her an injection of 1% Xylocaine with approximately 30 ml of Lidocaine 1% on both of her side hips. He also injected a block with a solution containing 2 ml of Marcaine 0.5%, 2 ml of Lidocaine 2%, and 2 ml of Depo- Medrol 80 mg into M.B.’s joints. M.B. reported no suspicious or untoward behavior by Respondent during the July 7 and August 2 appointments. On August 29, 2011, M.B. returned to see Respondent. She presented with pain in her hips and left side. Nurse Bobbi McDonald escorted M.B. to the examination room and took her vital signs before leaving. Respondent came into the room, alone, and closed the door. At that visit, M.B. was wearing khaki mid-thigh cargo shorts, a blouse that tied around her neck, and bikini underwear. Respondent asked about her pain, touched points on her body to identify the exact pain locations, and adjusted her back manually. He then suggested injection of a steroid as a stop-gap measure prior to scheduling her for a fluoroscope injection later. M.B. agreed to the plan. Respondent left the examination room to get the medication. When he returned, he was alone and again he closed the door. Respondent told M.B. to pull her shorts down below her waist and to cover herself with a paper gown. She pulled her shorts and underwear down about halfway across her buttocks, which was lower than she would normally pull them for fluoroscope injections. Respondent began to clean the area for the injection and asked M.B. to pull her garments down further, below her buttocks. Respondent then pulled the table out from the wall and he went between the table and the wall. He injected M.B.’s hip about five times with a solution containing Depo Medrol 80, Toradol 60, Lidocaine, and Marcaine 1 ml. As he injected her, M.B. could feel Respondent’s groin touching her hip. She could feel what she believed to be Respondent’s erect penis rubbing against her in a back and forth motion. By this time, her paper gown had fallen off, exposing her buttocks and vaginal area. After the last injection, M.B. felt Respondent’s fingers touching her vagina. As she pushed upward to get off the table, M.B. felt Respondent touch her vagina again. She got off the table, pulled up her pants, and sat down as the doctor began talking to her. M.B. did not say anything to Respondent. She immediately believed that she had been sexually assaulted, but was too confused and shocked to say anything to anyone. M.B. did not initially report Respondent’s behavior to the Back Center. She later reported her allegations to the Melbourne Police Department and also filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and the Back Center. (M.B. would continue to return to the Back Center, but did not see Respondent again for any of her treatments.) M.B.’s testimony was not as immediately believable as that of some of the other witnesses. Based on her personality, fear of the process, or some other factor, she seemed to be fairly emotionless in describing the incident. However, inasmuch as her testimony was corroborated by what other patients had experienced, her clearly enunciated statements are convincing. Further, M.B. exhibited extreme visual cues as to her intense dislike for Respondent at the final hearing. The testimony of M.B. alone would not be clear and convincing evidence of any wrongdoing by Respondent. However, her testimony is corroboration of and support for the testimony of other victims. Respondent's employment at the Back Center was terminated shortly after M.B.'s appointment with him. There is no evidence as to Respondent's employment from September 2011 until he went to Advantacare in March 2012. Patient A.H. Patient A.H. presented to Advantacare (Daytona Beach office) on January 9, 2013, in an effort to address pain she was suffering as a result of an automobile accident that occurred in October 2012. She wanted to reduce her pain while also reducing the amount of medications she was taking. A.H. had a job which required driving, so she needed to be as drug-free as possible. A.H. was escorted to the examination room. She remembers that Respondent came in, closed the door, and propped it shut. Respondent remembers the door to that room being open, that it would open by itself unless something was placed against it. The medical technician assigned to Respondent said the door did not have any problems, but it would always be half open. There is no corroborated evidence as to whether the door to the room was open, closed, or ajar when A.H. was being examined. Respondent examined A.H. and began to show her some exercises and stretches that he thought might alleviate some of her pain. As she was sitting in a chair being shown how to stretch, A.H. felt Respondent’s erect penis pushing against her back. She quickly told Respondent “I’ve got it” in order to stop his actions. She got up quickly and moved to another chair in the office. A.H. clearly described what she had felt and had no confusion or doubt about what happened. Her testimony about the incident was credible. Respondent then told A.H. to lie on the table on her side with her arms stretched out in front of her. Despite what had just happened, A.H. complied with his directions.5/ When she got into position, Respondent had A.H. move her body over to the very edge of the table and began to manipulate her back. As his hands continued down her back, she felt his hands go down inside her panties. As this happened, she could feel Respondent “humping” her, grinding his groin area against her backside. Respondent then told A.H. to change positions on the table, moving her feet to the opposite end. Amazingly, she again complied with his instructions. Respondent began touching her upper thigh near her vagina and “did the same thing he had done before.” At that, A.H. quickly moved off the table and onto a chair, where she sat rigid and refused to move. Respondent seemed calm and relaxed, showing no sign of having acted inappropriately. A.H. did not tell anyone at Advantacare about the incident on that day because she could not fully grasp what had happened. As she began to understand the situation better, she was worried about reporting the incident because it would be her word against the doctor’s. A.H. did tell another doctor (Dr. Jacobson) about the incident when she saw him the next day for a regularly scheduled appointment. Dr. Jacobson had been an employee with Advantacare and presumably relayed A.H.’s allegations to the center. A.H. also reported the incident to the Board of Health and to law enforcement. She later contacted an attorney about filing a civil lawsuit against Respondent. A.H. did not return to Advantacare for treatment after this event because of the traumatic impact of the incident. Respondent has no independent recollection of A.H. as a patient, but said he did not touch her inappropriately. A.H.’s testimony was believable. She was a credible witness and articulated her testimony clearly. It is strange that A.H. would continue to obey Respondent even after he had touched her inappropriately, but she was obviously a compliant person, especially as it relates to physicians. Respondent’s defenses to allegations by patients Respondent claims he never saw a written chaperone policy at the Back Center but that he knew that it existed. According to him, there was insufficient staff available to make it possible to comply with the policy. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is rejected as being contrary to better, more persuasive evidence. Respondent said he was on several medications for “five or six years” prior to the final hearing, including Zoloft for mild depression, Lisinopril for hypertension, and Toprol for hypertension. One of the possible side effects of those medications is impotence or erectile dysfunction. However, during the time he was taking these drugs, Respondent fathered his two children. There is no competent evidence that Respondent suffered from impotence or erectile dysfunction during the time of any of the allegations about sexual misconduct. Respondent usually wore a lab coat when treating patients. The coat is long and had large pockets in the front, at about groin level. Respondent would keep empty syringes in his coat pocket. He suggests that female patients who said they felt his erect penis were actually feeling the syringes. His suggestion is not very plausible or persuasive. Respondent demonstrated at final hearing the normal physical stance he took when doing an injection of a patient in an examination room setting. He suggested that his body would be turned at a 45-degree angle from the patient rather than facing them directly, thus eliminating the possibility of full frontal contact with the patient. He also said that he generally stood four or five inches away from the patient, but might come into contact with the patient occasionally. Neither the statements nor his demonstration were persuasive. Respondent’s contention is that each and every one of the patients who alleged sexual misconduct was lying. He suggests that patient D.K. was overweight and thus would not have sexually aroused him. Also, he maintains that her description of the injections being performed while Respondent was rubbing against her would have necessarily resulted in horrible pain at best or a broken needle at worst. He claims that since patient M.B. was married to a policeman, she would have necessarily taken photographs of her numerous injections to preserve a record and she would have complained immediately. Her failure to do so, he suggests, impugns her testimony. Respondent contends that patient T.J.’s tardiness in reporting her allegations suggests the allegations were false. Respondent refutes A.H.’s allegations on the basis that there was a disagreement as to the physical layout of the medical office. Respondent contends there is no evidence that patient S.D. (his alleged lover) was his patient, even though there is a stipulation to that effect. Despite these speculative defenses, the evidence presented by the alleged victims is credible and accepted as fact. Failure to update practitioner profile A letter dated March 27, 2013, advising Respondent of his termination from participation in the Medicaid Program, was mailed to Respondent at two separate addresses: 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard, Suite 610, Melbourne, Florida 32901, i.e., the address of the Back Center, and 930 South Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida 32901, the address for Osler (the company with whom the Back Center merged at some point in time). The letter to 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard was received on April 1, 2013, and an acknowledgement was signed by Chandra Carrender, a Back Center employee. Respondent’s employment with the Back Center had been terminated some 16 months previously, i.e., in August 2011. The letter mailed to 930 Harbor City Boulevard was returned as undeliverable. The termination letter provided Respondent notice of his right to contest the decision. He was given 21 days from receipt of the letter to file a Petition if he wanted to challenge the termination. Respondent did not file a challenge, so on or about June 21, 2013, a Termination Final Order was filed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), setting forth Respondent’s termination from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. The termination was issued pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes. By law, Respondent was required to update his Florida practitioner profile within 15 days of receipt of the Termination Final Order. The Termination Final Order was mailed to Respondent, return receipt requested, at two different addresses: The 930 South Harbor City Boulevard address and the 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard address. Respondent denies having received the letter or TFO until just prior to the formal administrative hearing in this matter. Licensed physicians in the State of Florida are required to maintain a current address of record with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and the Department of Health. Neither Respondent nor the Department provided evidence as to what Respondent’s official address of record was at the time the TFO and the letter were sent to Respondent at the two Harbor City Boulevard addresses. According to the deposition testimony of Michael West of the AHCA Medicaid Program Integrity office, the notices were sent to Respondent’s “address of record” per section 409.913(6), Florida Statutes. West’s testimony, however, did not specify what address that was. It might be logically presumed that one or both of the Harbor City Boulevard addresses were the “address of record,” because that is where the notices were mailed. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence as to Respondent’s official address of record at the time the Termination Final Order was mailed. The statutory section referred to by West states: Any notice required to be given to a provider under this section is presumed to be sufficient notice if sent to the address last shown on the provider enrollment file. It is the responsibility of the provider to furnish and keep the agency informed of the provider’s current address. United States Postal Service proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of such notice to the provider at the address shown on the provider enrollment file constitutes sufficient proof of notice. Any notice required to be given to the agency by this section must be sent to the agency at an address designated by rule. Respondent did not update his Florida practitioner profile because he claims never to have received a copy of the TFO or the letter. Neither Respondent nor the Department provided direct evidence of Respondent’s “address last shown on the provider enrollment file” as of March 27, 2013.6/ Other factual considerations Respondent was terminated from employment at the Back Center in September 2011. The termination occurred as follows: T.J. reported the alleged October 29, 2010 incident in April 2011. Dr. Hynes was already aware of another incident (from D.K. in January 2011). Dr. Hynes met with Respondent to discuss his alleged behavior. Respondent denied the allegations, saying that people just seem to like him and take advantage of him. He said the patients were lying about the incidents. Dr. Hynes mandated at that time that Respondent have a chaperone in the examining room with every female patient. Rather than being allowed to exercise “medical judgment” like other doctors in the clinic, Respondent was ordered to always use a chaperone with all female patients. After patient C.J.’s allegations came to light in May 2011, Dr. Hynes told Respondent that three times was enough; something had to be done. The Back Center commenced preparation of a termination letter. The letter was to tell Respondent that, pursuant to his Employment Agreement, the Back Center was providing him the 180-day notice of termination of employment “without cause.” The purpose of that letter was to allow Respondent time to find a job and not have a blemish on his record. One of the bases for the termination letter was that Respondent had been referred to the Physicians Recovery Network (PRN) for counseling to address his behavior. Dr. Hynes presumed Respondent was obtaining that counseling. However, when C.J. reported the incident on May 4, 2011, Dr. Hynes found out that Respondent had not been going to PRN as he had previously indicated. At about the time the 180-day letter was being drafted, another incident (by patient M.B.) was reported to the Back Center. Upon hearing of that allegation, Dr. Hynes verbally fired Respondent, effective immediately, with cause. The 180-day letter was not actually delivered to Respondent until after the verbal termination, so the letter was moot when it arrived. Respondent did not tell his next employer, Advantacare, that he had been terminated from employment by the Back Center. He also did not advise Advantacare about the sexual allegations made by patients at the Back Center. In summary, Respondent engaged in activities of a sexual nature with patients at the Back Center in December 2010, January 2011, May 2011, and August 2011 (in addition to his relations with S.D. in 2008–2010). He engaged in sexually related touching of a patient at Advantacare in January 2013. His employment with the Back Center was terminated in September 2011; his employment with Advantacare was terminated in April 2013. Former patients of Respondent expressed dismay that he was being charged with the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. They found Respondent to be a caring and professional doctor. It is clear Respondent did not treat all his patients the same way he treated the victims identified herein. Some of his co-workers said they did not see Respondent engage in any of the alleged actions. They did not receive any complaints from other patients. Respondent obviously has a stellar reputation with some of his patients and co-workers. That status, however, does not excuse his behavior with the victims in the present cases. It is also alleged that Bobbi McDonald was a rumor-mongerer and a liar. She appeared credible at final hearing and there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the dispersions cast by others. It should be noted that several witnesses identified by Respondent were displeased with the manner in which they were questioned by Department personnel prior to the final hearing. The witnesses expressed extreme discomfort when Department employees (attorneys) suggested that Respondent was “an addict” or a sociopath. While a state agency is bound to pursue all claims against individuals which it is responsible for licensing and monitoring, it is improper to harangue or disparage such persons in order to sway potential witnesses’ testimony. Upon full review of the evidence in this case, the potential witnesses who complained about the Department’s aggressive nature did not provide substantive testimony on the issues of this case. Thus, any harm which may have resulted from the Department’s statements would not affect the final decision herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health revoking Respondent, Albert Esmailzadeh, M.D.’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order assess the cost of investigating and prosecuting this case, and that payment of such costs be assessed against Respondent, Albert Esmailzadeh, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2014.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, a physician specializing in psychiatry, on the basis of allegations that he violated subsections (j), (t), and (x) of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes, by engaging in a sexual relationship with one of his psychiatric patients.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License Number ME 0041587. The Respondent was employed by the Nova University Community Mental Health Clinic ("Nova Clinic") in Coral Springs, Florida, from about October of 1987 until September 21, 1989. The Respondent was employed by the Nova Clinic to perform initial psychiatric evaluations of Nova Clinic patients and to manage the medication of the Nova Clinic patients who required medication. In this capacity, on May 11, 1988, the Respondent performed an initial psychiatric evaluation on a Nova Clinic patient named C. P., who was at that time a 17-year- old female patient. An intake evaluation performed on May 10, 1988, and the Respondent's psychiatric examination on May 11, 1988, reveal that C. P. came to the Nova Clinic with a history of depression and a prior suicide attempt at age 14. She had been hospitalized for the previous month at Fair Oaks Hospital. At the hospital she had received treatment for severe depression which resulted from her obsession with a married high school teacher and the loss of that emotional relationship. When admitted to Fair Oaks Hospital, C. P. had experienced some auditory hallucinations, paranoia, suicidal ideation, and social withdrawal. She reported a dysfunctional family history and intense feelings of rejection by her divorced parents. The three-year obsession with her high school teacher and the realization that it would go nowhere was the precipitating factor in the depression that led to her hospitalization. C. P. consistently contended that there had never been any inappropriate physical or sexual contact between herself and the teacher who was the object of her obsession, although she had fantasies that such might eventually happen. During her hospitalization at Fair Oaks there was a remission of her psychotic symptoms and of her overt depressive symptoms, and by the time of her discharge she was gaining insight into her relationship with the teacher. Her Axis I discharge diagnosis was "Major depression, single episode, with psychotic features." Her Axis II discharge diagnosis was "Personality disorder NOS (non specified) with borderline and dependent features." Upon discharge from Fair Oaks Hospital she was to continue outpatient psychotherapy at the Nova Clinic. C. P. began weekly therapy sessions with Dana Bennett, a child therapist at the Nova Clinic, on May 23, 1988, which continued through June 6, 1989. C. P. continued therapy sessions at Nova Clinic with Mary Bertera, a clinical psychologist, from August of 1989 until February of 1990. During her therapy session with Ms. Bennett, C. P. always denied any physical contact between herself and the teacher who had been the object of her obsession. The only two hallucinations experienced by C. P. during the period of her therapy at Nova Clinic occurred while she was taking Prozac or Stelazine. The hallucinations she described were non-sexual in nature. During the period of her therapy at Nova Clinic, C. P. did not make any suicide attempts. While C. P. was seeing the Respondent for medical management at the Nova Clinic, she developed a growing attraction for him. She mentioned this to the Respondent and he suggested that she speak to Dana Bennett about her feelings. C. P. followed his suggestion. On several further occasions C. P. again mentioned to the Respondent her growing attraction for him. The Respondent told her that he was also attracted to her, but that because he was her psychiatrist he could not pursue any sort of relationship with her. On several occasions C. P. asked the Respondent if they could go out for lunch or dinner. The Respondent told her that although he was attracted to her and would like to do so, he could not. Sometime during the fall of 1988 the Respondent had a conversation with Mary Bertera (who was not C. P.'s therapist at that time) during which he discussed his attraction to C. P. During that conversation he mentioned C. P. by name, stated that she had been leaving cards and letters for him, stated that he was attracted to C. P. and that he would not mind going out with C. P. After an automobile accident on December 12, 1988, C. P. called the Respondent for some medication advice. During the course of that conversation C. P. asked the Respondent when they would be getting together. His reply was to the effect that she should not give up hope, that he was going away for the holidays, but would talk with her shortly after New Year's Day. On January 3, 1989, C. P. had a medication management session with the Respondent. Towards the end of their session the Respondent told C. P. that he was getting off work early that evening and asked if she could meet him. She agreed that she would meet him later that same day. At about 7:30p.m. on January 3, 1989, C. P. drove back to the Nova Clinic parking lot, parked next to the Respondent's automobile, and sat in the car she was driving while waiting for the Respondent. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent walked into the parking lot, got into the car with C. P., and C. P. drove the car to Margate Park. There they shared a bottle of wine C. P. had brought with her. While sitting in the car drinking wine, they kissed for the first time. Then they drove to a restaurant where they had drinks and something to eat. Eventually they drove back to the Nova Clinic parking lot where they sat in the car, talked, kissed, and eventually had sexual intercourse in the car. The sexual encounter on January 3, 1989, initiated an intimate sexual relationship between C. P. and the Respondent which continued until October 14, 1989. During the period from January to October of 1989, C. P. and the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse in a variety of settings; at the home of C. P.'s mother, at the home of one of C. P.'s friends when C. P. was house- sitting, at C. P.'s father's house, at the Respondent's rental apartment, at the Respondent's private office before it was open, and at various hotels or motels. During the time that the Respondent and C. P. were involved in the sexual relationship the Respondent also maintained a social relationship with C. P. and her family. The Respondent took C. P. out to lunch or dinner on numerous occasions. On numerous occasions the Respondent visited C. P. at her father's house and often picked her up at her father's house to take her out for lunch or dinner. On one occasion the Respondent escorted C. P. to a birthday party held at the home of one of C. P.'s aunts to celebrate the sixteenth birthday of one of C. P.'s cousins. During the time that the Respondent and C. P. were involved in the sexual relationship they were often openly affectionate in public places. They often hugged and kissed in public places. During the time that the Respondent and C. P. were involved in the sexual relationship the Respondent gave C. P. gifts of clothing, jewelry, flowers, money, and cards. The gifts of money totaled several hundred dollars. At various times during the course of the sexual relationship, the Respondent told C. P. that he loved her and discussed future plans for the two of them. On at least one occasion he told her he wanted to divorce his wife and marry C. P. Towards the end of August of 1989 the Respondent told C. P. that he had decided that he could not divorce his wife, primarily because of the Respondent's concerns about the effect a divorce would have on the Respondent's son. C. P. became very angry and upset by the information that the Respondent no longer planned to marry her. On August 30, 1989, the Respondent admitted to Carol Trick that he had been having a sexual affair with C. P. for the previous eight months. During the course of his conversation with Carol Trick, the Respondent described some details of the sexual affair that are corroborated by other evidence. A few days later, Carol Trick told the Director of the Nova Clinic that the Respondent had admitted to her that he was having a sexual affair with C. P. The Respondent and C. P. had a final sexual liaison on October 14, 1989, at a motel in Delray. On C. P.'s birthday, October 27, 1989, the Respondent sent her a gold rope chain and a dozen yellow roses. Although C. P. had been relatively happy during the spring of 1989, following the termination of the sexual relationship with the Respondent she became very depressed and developed eating disorders. C. P. discontinued therapy at the Nova Clinic and began psychiatric therapy with Joel Klass, M. D., on February 20, 1990. As of the date of the formal hearing, C. P. was still a patient of Dr. Klass. Based at least in part on her experiences with the Respondent, C. P. continues to be depressed and is distrustful of psychologists and psychiatrists. This distrust has impeded her progress in therapy. Expert medical testimony in this case establishes that sexual intercourse between a psychiatrist and his patient is a clear violation of acceptable standards of care and is explicitly prohibited by psychiatric standards of ethics. Such conduct is a violation and is prohibited even when the psychiatrist functions only in a supervisory or medical management role. Such conduct is a violation and is prohibited even when the sexual activity is initiated by the patient. Any sexual activity between a psychiatrist and a patient violates the mutual trust between the psychiatrist and the patient. There are no circumstances under which sexual activity between a psychiatrist and a patient is appropriate; such conduct is always a departure from acceptable standards of care. A competent psychiatrist should recognize the symptoms of erotic transference in a patient. Where such symptoms are present, if the psychiatrist also feels an erotic interest in the patient the psychiatrist should note the problem in the patient's records, should attempt to deal with it therapeutically, or should transfer the patient to another therapist. Social entanglement between a psychiatrist and a patient of the type described in Paragraph 11 of these findings of fact is also a departure from acceptable standards of care.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of all three of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of revocation of the Respondent's license and an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 for each of the three violations, for a total administrative fine of $15,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th 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 Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged by statute with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, license #ME 0035994. In August, 1987, the Respondent met with a married couple for treatment of the wife's (patient) recurrent ovarian cysts and pain. The couple were referred to the Respondent for the consultation by another physician. The patient was hospitalized at the time of the consultation. As part of the initial examination of the couple, the Respondent conducted a routine infertility physical and history, including questions related to sexual history and practices. During the examination, the Respondent learned that the couple's sexual activity was infrequent and that the marriage was troubled. The Respondent determined that the cause of the medical problem was related to a fertility medication prescribed by another physician. At that time, and on subsequent occasions, the Respondent advised the couple to obtain marital and sexual counseling. The Respondent did not provide marital or sexual counseling to the couple. After the patient recovered from the ovarian cysts, she consulted with the Respondent in regards to her ongoing fertility and ovulatory problems. The Respondent began administering fertility medication to induce ovulation. The medical treatment was eventually successful and the patient became pregnant. The child was born in 1989. At some point during the fertility treatment, the patient complained to the Respondent of experiencing migraine headaches. The Respondent referred the patient to a neurologist who prescribed narcotic pain relievers. After the birth of the first child, the patient returned to the Respondent for further fertility treatment (apparently in late 1989 or early 1990) in order to conceive a second child. Again, the treatment was successful and the patient became pregnant. The Respondent referred the pregnant patient back to her obstetrician by letter dated April 23, 1990. Beginning in mid-1990, the patient and her husband began to engage in social activities with the Respondent. On occasion, the three had dinner, went swimming with their children, and went to view a fireworks show. The patient had been employed as a pharmaceutical representative, but was interested in changing careers. She expressed an interest to the Respondent in establishing a medical transcription business. The Respondent provided typing work to the patient. By April 23, 1990, the patient was typing letters for the Respondent. The letter from the Respondent to the obstetrician closes, "[p]lease forgive the typographical errors, as I am sure [patient] will be typing this letter." The patient gave birth to the second child on October 26, 1990. After the birth of the second child, the Respondent employed the patient as a medical transcriptionist. She also worked for her obstetrician as a transcriptionist. Based on the suggestion in 1990 by the patient, the Respondent began to employ the patient's husband as a certified public accountant. Throughout the remainder of 1990, the Respondent continued to socialize with the couple. The Respondent was aware that the couple's marriage was troubled. The continuing marital problems of the couple eventually resulted in separation when the patient's husband moved from their home into an apartment. The evidence fails to conclusively establish the date of the separation, but it apparently occurred prior to April, 1991. By April 1991, the patient and the Respondent continued to meet on a social basis. The Respondent was divorced. The patient and her husband remained separated. At times, the Respondent and the patient discussed their marital experiences. During this period, the Respondent and the patient expressed romantic feelings for each other. They began to "date," and the Respondent paid to take the patient to dinners and movies. In April or May of 1991, and continuing thereafter for a period of approximately three and a half years, the patient and the Respondent engaged in consensual sexual activity. It is critical for an obstetrician-gynecologist, as well as for a specialist in reproductive endocrinology, to understand and respect the sexual boundaries between physician and patient. The sexual boundary between a patient and a reproductive endocrinologist must be absolute. In order to receive appropriate medical treatment, the patient is requested to reveal intimate details of her sexual activities and the emotional nature of a marriage. The patient must be able to completely trust the physician. The information is and must remain confidential. From the time of the Respondent's initial examination and history of the patient, through the initiation of the sexual relationship, the Respondent was aware of the marital and sexual problems of the patient and her husband. The Respondent asserts that by the time the sexual relationship began, the physician-patient relationship had been terminated by the letter of April 23, 1990. Based on credited expert testimony, the evidence establishes that the physician-patient relationship continued to exist at the time the sexual activity began. The evidence establishes that the referral of a pregnant patient back to an obstetrician does not terminate the relationship with a fertility specialist, who may again be called upon to render assistance in treatment of continuing fertility problems. The evidence also establishes that prescribing of narcotics necessarily establishes a physician-patient relationship. Subsequent to the letter of April 23, 1990, the Respondent wrote prescriptions to refill narcotic pain medications which the patient had obtained from her neurologist. Although documentary evidence regarding the actual prescriptions is deemed to lack reliability, both the Respondent and the patient acknowledged that the prescriptions were written. The Respondent wrote the refills after the patient, with continuing migraine headaches, complained that she would have to see the prescribing physician and pay for an office visit to get them refilled. Although the Respondent claims to have reviewed an early report done by the neurologist to whom he had referred the patient, there is no evidence that the Respondent did a physical examination at the time he wrote the refill prescription. The evidence establishes that, because a physician can prescribe narcotics, there is potential for abuse by a physician who may attempt to trade drug prescriptions for sexual activity. It is unethical for a physician to induce a patient into sexual activity. Allowing an emotional relationship to begin and develop within the physician-patient relationship constitutes an inducement of the patient into sexual activity. The Respondent failed to maintain sexual boundaries with his patient. He allowed and encouraged an emotional and sexual relationship to develop, and as such, used the physician-patient relationship to engage and induce the patient into sexual activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that Stephen Ward Weldon has violated Sections 458.329 and 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, reprimanding the Respondent and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6032 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 19-20. Rejected, not established by clear and convincing evidence. 22. Rejected, cumulative. 29. Rejected, cumulative. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact frequently refer to an alleged termination of the physician-patient relationship. Such references are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Otherwise, the proposed findings are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. Rejected. The prehearing stipulation filed by the parties does not address certification. 9. Rejected as to patient's desire for her marriage to continue, and as to the assertion that her marital difficulty was "unrelated" to the eventual development of her relationship with the Respondent, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not a finding of fact. 16-17. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not a finding of fact. 18-20. Rejected, irrelevant. DOAH CASE NO 94-6032 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Joseph S. Garwood, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Grover Freeman, Esquire 201 East Kennedy, Suite 500 Tampa, Florida 33602-5829
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 456.072(1)(u), 458.331(1)(j), and 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2002 and 2003); Subsection 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2004)1; and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.008, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine under Florida law pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes (2002-2004). At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Medina was licensed to practice medicine within the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2002-2004), having been issued license number ME 74141 on September 9, 1997. Dr. Medina is board-certified in orthopedic surgery. In April 2003, S.C., who at that time was 15 years old, went to Jewitt Orthopedic Center in Orlando, Florida, regarding her collarbone. She was advised that she could have surgery or, due to her young age, she could wait to see if the problem resolved as she grew older. S.C. desired another opinion from an orthopedic surgeon. With her parents' permission, she went on the Internet and located the e-mail addresses of three orthopedic surgeons using the membership directory of America Online (AOL). One of the doctors she found in the membership directory was Dr. Medina. She sent an e-mail to each of the three orthopedic physicians, telling him of her ailment, the opinion that she had received from the Jewett Orthopedic Center, and requesting a second opinion. Two of the three doctors responded to her e-mail. One of these doctors was Dr. Medina, who advised S.C. that her bones were still growing and that due to her age she should wait and see if her collarbone healed by itself. In responding to her inquiry, Dr. Medina used the e-mail address of luvortho@aol.com. A few days after Dr. Medina gave S.C. his medical opinion, he sent S.C. another e-mail, inquiring further about her symptoms in more detail. S.C. provided Dr. Medina with additional information along with her instant messaging name. Dr. Medina continued to send e-mails to S.C. and to chat with her using instant messaging. The communications became friendly and included discussions regarding friends, music, and school. S.C. provided Dr. Medina with a link to her online live journal, which contained personal information, including her name, age, and location and a photograph of her. The online journal site also contained a link to her poetry site at Geocities. Dr. Medina would leave comments on the poetry site. After viewing S.C.'s photograph on her live journal, Dr. Medina began to make flirtatious comments to S.C. such as "AWW you're cute." Dr. Medina also offered to buy S.C. clothing and a compact disc player. Dr. Medina told S.C. about his work as an orthopedic surgeon, including that he frequently traveled to foreign countries to study new technology in orthopedic surgery, that he performed consulting work in Orlando, that he was rich, and that he was located in Springhill. He sent photographs to S.C., including a photograph of himself with his son. On Sunday, September 21, 2003, Dr. Medina sent S.C. a message that he was going to Orlando that day. S.C. told him that she would be studying at a local book store in a shopping center in Orlando that same day. S.C. was now 16 years old. Dr. Medina went to the book store and found S.C. studying. They talked a short while, and Dr. Medina offered to take her to lunch. S.C. agreed to go, and they got into his vehicle. Dr. Medina gave S.C. some roses, drove to downtown Orlando, and parked on the street. Prior to going to a local restaurant, Dr. Medina gave S.C. a kiss and tried to hold her hand as they walked down the street. His actions made S.C. feel awkward and confused. They ate lunch and made small talk. At the end of the meal, Dr. Medina told S.C. that he had left his wallet in the car, and he left to retrieve the wallet. He came back and paid for the meal, and they left the restaurant. Dr. Medina told S.C. that he had moved the car closer to the restaurant. They went to a parking garage and took an elevator to an upper deck where Dr. Medina had relocated the car. S.C. did not see anyone else on the parking deck where his car was parked. When they reached the vehicle, Dr. Medina kissed S.C. and she turned away. He opened the back door of the car and asked S.C. to get in the backseat while he got something. She did as he requested. Dr. Medina got into the backseat with S.C. and tried to kiss her. She told him that she did not want to kiss. He then placed his hands on her stomach, lifted up her shirt, moved his hands under her bra and touched her breasts, and then unzipped her pants. S.C. told him that she did like what he was doing, but he continued. Dr. Medina put his fingers inside S.C.'s panties and digitally penetrated her. He then pulled off his clothes down to his underwear, put on a condom, and partially inserted his penis in her vagina. S.C. kept trying to scoot away from Dr. Medina, telling him that she did not want to do anything and that she needed to be somewhere to meet her friends. He stopped and drove her back to the shopping center, where he left her. Following her encounter with Dr. Medina, S.C. put a block on her computer to prevent Dr. Medina from communicating with her via instant messaging. However, she did continue to receive e-mails from Dr. Medina. The content of his communications changed drastically after the incident in the parking lot. He began to send pornographic pictures to her, including an image of a male genitalia, which he told S.C. was of him. Sometime prior to January 2004, the block which had been placed on S.C.'s instant messaging was removed, and Dr. Medina started to communicate with S.C. again via instant messaging. In early January 2004, S.C.'s stepmother, Mrs. S.E.C., accessed S.C.'s e-mail account and discovered that pornographic photographs and sexually explicit comments were being sent to S.C. from luvortho@aol.com. Mrs. S.E.C. researched the e-mail address and learned that the address belonged to Dr. Medina. Mrs. S.E.C. contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and reported that someone was sending her teenage daughter e-mails containing pornographic photographs and sexually explicit comments. Denise Nevers, an agent for FDLE, responded to Mrs. S.E.C.'s complaint. Ms. Nevers subpoenaed records from AOL and confirmed that the e-mail account of luvortho@aol.com belonged to Dr. Medina. A background check on Dr. Medina revealed that he had an internet web site for his business, Medina Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. The web site listed the office e-mail as luvortho@aol.com. On January 7, 2004, Mrs. S.E.C. logged on to her computer to check her step-daughter S.C.'s e-mails and signed onto the AOL instant messenger. While she was logged on, Mrs. S.C. received an instant message from Dr. Medina as luvortho and decided to pose as S.C. and chat with the message sender. Dr. Medina asked her why S.C. was home from school, and Mrs. S.E.C. replied that she was sick. Dr. Medina told her that she needed an antibiotic and volunteered to call in a prescription for her. During his conversation with Mrs. S.E.C., Dr. Medina wrote: "i can still feel uuu, from the last, was the besttt, I know you were scaredd, but u felt so good, did u feel me a lil...too" and "was in u for a lil while, did you know that, yeahh u have tooo, ill make sure of it k, u are too precious to me, to get u hurt." Ms. Nevers interviewed S.C. on January 8 and 9, 2004. S.C. told Ms. Nevers that she and Dr. Medina had had sexual contact in September 2003 and that he had been sending her sexually explicit material. Between January 9, 2004, and January 18, 2004, Dr. Medina continued to send S.C. e-mails and instant messages containing sexually explicit comments and photographs. Ms. Nevers was present when these e-mails were being opened by S.C. and was present while S.C. drafted her responses and sent them back to Dr. Medina. A search warrant was issued to search Dr. Medina's office, and Dr. Medina gave permission to have his home computer searched. Dr. Medina's computers showed that he had been sending the sexually explicit e-mails to S.C. from his home and office computers. A search of the computers also revealed links to a multitude of web sites which appeared to cater in pornography, including teen pornography. On or about December 1, 2004, in case number 48-04-CF- 871-O/A in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, Dr. Medina pled guilty to engaging in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age, and was sentenced to one year in jail, followed by five years of sex-offender supervised probation, to be followed by ten years of administrative probation. In addition to providing S.C. with medical advice concerning her collarbone in June 2003, Dr. Medina also gave S.C. medical advice during his communications with her between June 2003 and January 2004. He answered S.C.'s questions concerning a cyst on her neck that was found when a MRI was done; and gave advice about being a blood donor; and provided directions on getting over what he suspected were S.C. allergies, including drinking fluids, taking Nyquil, using a nasal spray, taking Vitamin C, and drinking orange juice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Medina violated Subsections 456.072(1)(u), 458.331(1)(c), 458.331(1)(j),and 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.008 and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Susan B. Harrell 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 4th day of January, 2007.
The Issue When the hearing commenced, the parties through counsel agreed that sufficient facts would be presented to sustain a finding of violations of Counts One, Two, and Three a. and b., within the Administrative Complaint drawn by the State of Florida, Department of Health, Case No. 1999-53281. It was left for the fact finder to portray those facts consistent with the agreement. The parties presented their cases and facts have been found on the record which promote findings of violations of the aforementioned counts. In addition, as envisioned by the parties and accepted by the undersigned, determinations concerning recommended sanctions for the violations have been made on the record presented at hearing.1
Findings Of Fact Respondent's History At all times relevant, Respondent has been licensed as a physician in the State of Florida in accordance with license No. ME:0061141. His practice has been in the field of psychiatry. Respondent is Board-certified in psychiatry. Respondent has a Bachelor's of Science degree from the University of Michigan. He holds a Masters' degree in Clinical Social Work from Tulane University and a Medical Degree from Louisiana State University Medical School. Respondent did a four-year residency at Ochner Foundation Hospital in Psychiatry. Respondent has been married to Brenda Schenthal for 25 years. The Schenthal's have two sons, ages 10 and 12. The family resides in Destin, Florida. Respondent began private practice in the Fort Walton Beach, Florida, area in 1993 with Dr. Victor DeMoya. Respondent was affiliated with that practice when circumstances arose for which he stands accused. Respondent practiced in the group known as Emerald Coast Psychiatric Care, P.A., in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Respondent does not have a prior disciplinary history with the Board of Medicine. M.B.G. M.B.G. was born July 23, 1981. Respondent first saw M.B.G. on March 21, 1996, when she was 14 years old. M.B.G. presented with issues of uncontrollable behavior, running away from home, anger, rage, drug use, suspected alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity. M.B.G. did not have a history of acting out until she was 13 or 14 years old. Respondent had been treating M.B.G. for approximately two months, when in May 1996, M.B.G. was involved in a physical altercation with another student in her school. The evaluation Respondent performed at that time revealed that M.B.G. was extremely angry, presenting sufficient risk that Respondent determined to involuntarily commit M.B.G. to Rivendell Hospital in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. At the time M.B.G. remained hospitalized for a couple of weeks. Following her hospitalization M.B.G. was seen by Dr. Deborah Simkan, an adolescent psychiatrist. Dr. Simkan was associated with Respondent's clinic. M.B.G. remained in treatment with Dr. Simkan until August of 1996. At the time M.B.G. was also being seen by Betty Mason, a mental health counselor affiliated with Respondent's practice. There was some concern about the progress M.B.G. was making under Dr. Simkan's care and the family determined to move M.B.G. from the Fort Walton Beach, Florida, area to live with an aunt in Charleston, South Carolina. M.B.G. had been sent to live with her aunt because M.B.G. was defiant, would not follow the rules in her household, and was difficult to control. After living with her aunt in Charleston, South Carolina, for several months it became apparent that the aunt was unable to control M.B.G. There was some suspicion that M.B.G. was using drugs while residing with her aunt. When M.B.G. returned from Charleston, South Carolina, she ran away from home as she had before. When she was found she was sent to live in a treatment facility in Trenton, Alabama. That facility was Three Springs. The reasons for her placement related to the inability to control her conduct, suspected alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity. M.B.G. remained at Three Springs from January 1997 until her return home in April 1998. Her stay in that facility was in accordance with a very structured environment. While at Three Springs M.B.G. revealed for the first time that she had been the victim of sexual abuse by a male YMCA counselor when she was nine years old. As a means to express her feelings, while at Three Springs, M.B.G. was encouraged to write in journals, in that she found writing about her feelings an easier means of expression then verbalizing her feelings. M.B.G. could share or refuse to share the things that she had written in the journals. Upon her release from Three Springs M.B.G. asked that Respondent resume her care. It was anticipated that Respondent would treat M.B.G. for the sexual abuse that had occurred earlier in her life and as a means to transition from the very structured environment at Three Springs into greater freedom she would have living at home. In April 1998, when Respondent again undertook M.B.G.'s care, his response to his duties was initially appropriate. However, upon reflection Respondent questions the decision to undertake the care following his former decision to place M.B.G. in Rivendell Hospital under the Baker Act. In April, M.B.G. was being seen by Respondent in his practice twice a week for one hour each visit. A couple of months later the schedule changed from two one-hour sessions per week to one two-hour session per week. Around August or September 1998, Respondent began to see M.B.G. three or four times a week in his office. By January of 1999, Respondent was seeing M.B.G. almost on a daily basis, not always in his office. Some of the increases in contacts between M.B.G. and the Respondent were associated with group therapy sessions involving M.B.G. and other sexual abuse patients under Respondent's care. One of the persons in the group was considerably older than M.B.G. It was not shown that the inclusion of the older patient in the therapy group was designed to advance some inappropriate purpose in the relationship between Respondent and M.B.G. Nonetheless, Respondent now questions the appropriateness of placing M.B.G. in the group with such divergence in ages among the participants. Upon her return from Three Springs M.B.G. became pregnant as was manifest in May 1998. She informed Respondent of her pregnancy. Reluctant to tell her parents about her condition, M.B.G. expressed the belief that an abortion was a better choice in responding to her pregnancy. Respondent left it to M.B.G. to inform her parents or not concerning the pregnancy. Respondent arranged for M.B.G. to talk to a patient who had gone through a somewhat similar experience. Ultimately M.B.G. told her mother of the pregnancy and the desire to terminate her pregnancy. Her mother was supportive of that choice and arranged for the abortion procedure. Respondent offered to go with M.B.G. and her mother M.G. when the abortion was performed. Respondent now concedes the error in the choice to offer to accompany and the accompaniment of M.B.G. and her mother to the place where the abortion was performed. This was not an appropriate response for a care-giver. Upon her return from Three Springs M.B.G. had a better relationship with her family than before. But the cordiality did not last. Over time their relationship became strained. M.B.G. was especially irritated with her mother. As before, M.B.G. maintained journals upon her return from Three Springs, portions of which she shared with Respondent. M.B.G. considered the journals to be private. Her mother was aware of the issue of privacy. Without permission M.G. read her daughter's journals. Being aware that the mother had read the journals, Respondent brought M.B.G. a safe to help maintain the journals in privacy. This purchase constituted involvement with the patient M.B.G. beyond the provision of appropriate care and into the area of problem solving in which Respondent should not have been involved. Respondent has come to understand that the purchase of the "lock-box" was not an appropriate decision. Another indication that Respondent was deviating from the normal physician-patient expectations in treating M.B.G. occurred in September 1998, in a meeting between M.B.G. and her parents. Rather than maintain his professional objectivity, Respondent sided with the patient M.B.G. in a setting in which the parents were attempting to impose rules and restrictions on her conduct. In retrospect Respondent feels that he should have handled that appointment differently, realizing his conduct indicated that something was going on within him that was not desirable, as evidenced by his starting to side with the patient. In November 1998, in response to one of the therapy sessions Respondent was engaged in with M.B.G., Respondent provided the patient with a can of Spaghettios and a poster board that he sent home with her mother. With these items he wrote a note that indicated that the Spaghettios were a reward for her efforts and he signed the note "your protector" and the name "Steve" in informal reference. As Respondent acknowledges, this was "an indication there was certainly more going on with myself," referring to feelings he was developing for the patient that were not proper conduct for a physician. M.B.G. and her family took a Christmas holiday in 1998. M.B.G. did not enjoy the trip. In explaining the lack of enjoyment, M.B.G. indicated that she did not enjoy spending time with her family on the vacation. Upon the return home M.B.G. went to stay with a friend from school. The friend with whom M.B.G. was staying upon the return from the vacation was being visited by some students from Florida State University. It was decided that M.B.G.'s friend, M.B.G., and those students would go to M.B.G.'s house to play pool. The next morning, M.B.G.'s mother found evidence that beer or other forms of alcohol had been consumed in the basement where the pool table was located. D.G., M.B.G.'s father also saw this evidence. M.G. confronted M.B.G. with the evidence. M.B.G.'s response was to leave her home and return to her friend's home. Later M.B.G. called her home and left a message that she was going to spend the night with her friend. Beyond that point Respondent became aware that M.B.G. and her mother had a disagreement about what had happened in the basement at their home. M.B.G. denied being involved in drinking. Respondent became involved in what he considered to be a stand- off between M.B.G. and her mother concerning terms acceptable for M.B.G.'s return home from her friend's house. As Respondent described it, he was allowing himself to get stuck in between M.B.G. and her mother on this subject. During the time that M.B.G. lived away from her home with the friend, Respondent spoke to M.G. about a contact which M.G. had with Three Springs, in which it was stated that M.B.G. might be returned to that facility or that M.B.G. might possibly be emancipated. Respondent spoke to Dr. Ellen Gandle, a forensic child/adolescent/adult psychiatrist, expressing his feelings of responsibility to help M.B.G. other than in the role of psychiatrist. Dr. Gandle strongly suggested Respondent not abandon his role as psychotherapist in favor of that of guardian for M.B.G. The possible guardianship was another subject that had been discussed with M.G. Respondent also tried to contact Dr. Charles Billings who had been the Respondent's residency director at Ochner to discuss this situation concerning M.B.G. In conversation, Dr. Victor F. DeMoya, Respondent's partner in the practice, advised Respondent that Dr. DeMoya considered it to be a conflict in roles for Respondent to be a therapist to M.B.G. and her guardian and that Respondent should seek the "feedback" of other colleagues about that prospect. Given the schism that existed between M.B.G. and her mother, the mother expressed a reluctance to provide continuing financial support to her daughter, the mother wanted the daughter to return the car the daughter was allowed to drive, and the mother wanted the house keys and credit cards returned. These views were made known to Respondent. Respondent went with a member of M.B.G.'s therapy group to M.B.G.'s home to remove her belongings. This retrieval of the patient's belongings was a boundary violation of conduct expected of a physician. Beyond that point Respondent continued to pursue a course of conduct involving boundary violations in his relationship with M.B.G. While M.B.G. was living with her friend from December 1998 until February 12, 1999, Respondent saw her frequently outside the treatment setting. In these instances Respondent discussed with M.B.G. her living circumstance. Respondent was involved with paying rent to the family of the friend with whom M.B.G. was living. Respondent was involved with shortening M.B.G.'s school day as a means to assist her in getting a job. Respondent helped M.B.G. to fill-out applications for college. Although Respondent had the expectation that M.B.G. would eventually repay the money expended, Respondent and his wife purchased an automobile and gave it to M.B.G. Respondent opened a joint checking account in which M.B.G. had access to monies that had been placed there by Respondent. Respondent provided M.B.G. a pager which was used by Respondent in contacting M.B.G. at her friend's residence after curfew hours that had been imposed by the friend's parents. Sometime around the latter half of January 1999, Respondent became convinced that he was falling in love with M.B.G. He gave expression to these feelings both verbally and in cards that he sent to M.B.G. In addition, Respondent had sexual fantasies about M.B.G. Respondent went so far as to discuss with M.B.G. the possibility of marrying her and the consequences of that choice. Eventually, Respondent made his wife aware of his feelings toward M.B.G. On February 11, 1999, while seated in the car Respondent had purchased for M.B.G., they kissed briefly. On February 12, 1999, M.B.G. and the friend in whose house M.B.G. was living, had an argument and M.B.G. left the home. After leaving she called Respondent early on February 13, 1999. She explained to Respondent that she had left the friend's home and was planning to drive to Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In response Respondent offered to meet M.B.G. They met at a parking lot at a Walgreens store. While seated in the car they talked for a while and kissed. Respondent invited M.B.G. to stay at his residence. She declined. Respondent then offered to get her a hotel room. On February 13, 1999, Respondent paid for a room in a local motel for M.B.G. to use. Respondent carried her belongings into the room. They sat on the bed in the room and talked, kissed, and hugged. In the course of the hugging Respondent placed his hand inside the band of M.B.G.'s sweat pants that she was wearing. Respondent touched M.B.G.'s breast on the outside of her clothing. Respondent then left the lodging and returned home. When at home he explained to his wife what had transpired with M.B.G. Following the encounter on February 13, 1999, in the motel, Respondent discussed the situation involving M.B.G. with his partner in the clinic. His partner told Respondent that Respondent needed help. Respondent contacted Dr. Henry Dohn, an adult psychiatrist practicing in Pensacola, Florida. This visit took place on February 14, 1999. They discussed the situation with M.B.G. An arrangement was made for a return visit which occurred on February 19, 1999. Respondent reports that Dr. Dohn told Respondent that the Respondent was not thinking clearly and needed to stop practicing and to attend to whatever issues needed attention in association with the boundary violation pertaining to M.B.G. Respondent was told by Dr. Dohn that if he did not report himself, Dr. Dohn would make a report concerning the conduct. In turn Respondent called a Dr. Dwyer, the on-call doctor at the Physician's Resource Network. Consistent with the discussion held between Respondent and Dr. Dohn, Respondent determined to admit himself for treatment at the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas. Respondent was admitted to the clinic on February 22, 1999. He had told his partner Dr. DeMoya that he was going to the clinic. Respondent admitted himself to the Menninger Clinic on a voluntary basis. While under treatment at Menninger Clinic Respondent was cared for by Dr. Richard Irons. Respondent also consulted with Dr. Glenn Gabbard, who specializes in boundary violations. Respondent was treated at the Menninger Clinic from February 22, 1999 through February 24, 1999, on an in-patient basis. He continued his treatment on an out-patient basis from February 24, 1999 until March 19, 1999. Respondent was released from the Menninger Clinic on March 19, 1999, and returned to Florida. Without justification and contrary to appropriate conduct for a physician, especially when recognizing his past indiscretions with M.B.G., Respondent made an arrangement to meet M.B.G. in person. This was contrary to any of the advise he had been given either medical or legal. While it had been suggested that Respondent offer assistance in placing M.B.G. in therapy with another care-giver, it was not contemplated that the arrangements would be made in person. Moreover, Respondent had a more expansive agenda in mind when meeting M.B.G., beyond acknowledging his responsibility for what had transpired between them, the offer to assist in finding a therapist and the possibility of paying for the therapy. Broadly stated, Respondent believed at that point-in-time that he could "fix things between them." Respondent was unaware that M.B.G. had contacted the authorities after their encounter in the motel room and complained about his conduct. She agreed to assist the authorities in investigating Respondent, to include taping telephone conversations between M.B.G. and Respondent while he was in Topeka, Kansas, undergoing treatment and upon his return. As well, M.B.G. was wearing a transmitter when she met Respondent in a park in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on March 22, 1999, that would allow the authorities to record the meeting. The meeting was also video-taped. When the meeting concluded Respondent was arrested by Okaloosa County, Florida, Sheriff's deputies upon charges of battery, attempted sexual misconduct by a psychotherapist and interference with child custody. As a consequence, Respondent was charged in State of Florida vs. Stephen Schenthal, in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County, Florida, Case No. 99-497-CFA. The case was disposed of by entry of a plea of nolo contendere to Count One: attempted interference in custody, Count Two: attempted sexual misconduct by a psychotherapist. In response an order was entered by the Court withholding the adjudication of guilt and placing defendant on probation on September 2, 1999. Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years under terms set forth in the court order. These criminal offenses relate to the practice of medicine or the ability to practice medicine. In his testimony Respondent acknowledged that he committed boundary violations with M.B.G. that are depicted in the fact finding. Whether Respondent recognized the damage he was causing while he was engaged in the misconduct, he does not deny that he violated the fiduciary relationship with his patient by betraying M.B.G.'s trust and participating in the re- traumaterzation of her past. No independent evidence from a person treating the patient was presented concerning M.B.G.'s mental health following Respondent's transgressions. But Respondent recognizes the potential for significant damage to his patient by making it hard for M.B.G. to trust other physicians, therapists, authority figures, or to trust relationships in general and the possible re-enforcement of the trauma that had occurred in her childhood. Dr. Peter A. Szmurlo, a psychiatrist who practices in Florida, was called upon to review the circumstances concerning Respondent's relationship with M.B.G. Dr. Szmurlo has not had the opportunity to examine M.B.G. However, in a report dated November 1, 2000, concerning Respondent's actions, Dr. Szmurlo stated, "I believe that the patient's relationship with Dr. Schenthal was nothing but destructive and may preclude her ability to ever be able to develop a trusting relationship with another male and/or with another psychotherapist." In his deposition Dr. Szmurlo expressed the opinion that the issue of potential harm to M.B.G. was clear and that the potential harm was in association with "further undermining of the patient's sense of safety and, therefore enhancing or recreating the original trauma (assuming it really occurred), and that's the sexual trauma which occurred in early years." Dr. Joel Ziegler Klass, practices psychiatry in Florida. Dr. Klass reviewed information concerning Respondent's relationship with M.B.G. Dr. Klass did not personally assess M.B.G., however, within his knowledge of the facts concerning the relationship between Respondent and M.B.G. and the patient's prior history; Dr. Klass did not think a lot of damage had been done by Respondent to M.B.G. He did express the opinion that M.B.G. lost out on valuable time to get help for her mental health based upon Respondent's indiscretion. As of November 27, 2000, when M.B.G. gave her deposition, she was attending the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. She explained that she had been seen by a mental health care provider, Dr. Carol Ware, a psychologist in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The purpose for seeing Dr. Ware was basically pertaining to "things that had happened with Dr. Schenthal." M.B.G. last saw Dr. Ware in July or August 2000. M.B.G. expressed an interest in seeing a psychiatrist and indicated that she had called three different doctors. She wishes to see a female psychiatrist and she understands that only one or two female psychiatrists were practicing in Tuscaloosa when she inquired. She provided information to facilitate being seen by one of those psychiatrists but has not heard back from either practitioner concerning their willingness to treat M.B.G. In her deposition M.B.G. expressed the feeling of depression "just ups and downs and it comes as fast as it goes and it’s getting a lot worse and I need somebody to help me with it." Dr. Szmurlo expressed the opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Respondent used information gathered from the physician/patient relationship during the therapeutic sessions to establish trust and exercise influence over M.B.G. thereby engaging in a course of conduct for purposes of engaging a patient in a sexual relationship. That opinion is accepted. Dr. Szmurlo also expressed the opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Respondent in his treatment of M.B.G. practiced medicine with a level of care, skill, and treatment, which would not be recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. That opinion is accepted. Respondent: Diagnosis, Care, and Practice Opportunities Respondent returned to the Menninger Clinic on March 29, 1999, and was seen on an in-patient basis until May 14, 1999. Dr. Richard Irons was Respondent's principal treating physician at the Menninger Clinic. Upon his release from the Menninger Clinic, Respondent has been routinely treated by Dr. Roberta Schaffner, who practices psychiatry in Pensacola, Florida. Her treatment began July 9, 1999, and was continuing upon the hearing dates. Her treatment involves psychotherapy and the use of medications. As Dr. Schaffner explained in correspondence to counsel for Respondent, Dr. Schaffner's treatment does not involve the role of making specific recommendations about the timing and details of Respondent's possible return to practice. The treatment provided by Dr. Schaffner was in agreement with the treatment plan from the Menninger Clinic and was discussed with Dr. Irons and Dr. Gabbard who had cared for Respondent at the Menninger Clinic. Dr. Schaffner does not oppose the recommendations of Dr. Barbara Stein, a psychiatrist who has evaluated Respondent concerning his fitness to return to practice and under what circumstances. With this knowledge, Dr. Schaffner has indicated that were she persuaded that the suggestions by Dr. Stein for restrictions on Respondent's possible return to practice were ideas that were dangerous or inappropriate, Dr. Schaffner would be active in expressing her opposition, recognizing Respondent's difficulties. This is taken to mean recognizing Respondent's underlying mental health which needs attention. As Dr. Klass explained in his testimony, Respondent's present physician Dr. Schaffner would not offer her specific observations concerning Respondent in the interest of maintaining the physician/patient relationship. Using the diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV, Mental Disorders, Dr. Irons identified Respondent's condition as follows: Axis I: 296.22 Major depressive episode, single, in full remission V. 62.2 Occupational problem associated with professional sexual misconduct Axis II: 301.9 Personality disorder NOS, a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic, histrionic, compulsive and dependent features. Dr. Irons expressed this diagnosis in correspondence dated March 24, 2000, directed to Dr. Raymond M. Pomm, Medical Director for the Physician's Resource Network. In addition to the prior treatment described, Dr. Irons has seen Respondent for internal review of Respondent's progress and rehabilitation. On November 29 and 30, and December 1, 1999, Dr. Irons noted that: The patient continued to show progress and understanding in appreciating boundary- related issues, as well as problems of potential vulnerability associated with professional re-entry. The patient shows incremental improvement in understanding dynamics of boundary violations and appears to have gained some insight into the nature of his own transgressions. I concur with opinions presented by Dr. Schaffner, as well as Dr. Gabbard that ongoing and continuing work should be strongly encouraged. Collectively, Dr. Gabbard, Dr. Schaffner, and myself believe that this individual has the potential to practice psychiatry but only with the use of a carefully structured and monitored professional re-entry program. view: We would support professional re-entry into a psychiatric practice that involves males and females if the site provided for direct supervision with regular reports to appropriate regulatory authorities in Florida. In the correspondence Dr. Irons went on to express his It is my professional opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Steven Schenthal has made sufficient progress to be able to return to the practice of psychiatry with reasonable skill and safety on the following conditions: The patient will return to practice serving an all-male population. The patient will not serve females professionally under any circumstances. Dr. Schenthal will not engage in marital therapy or couples therapy or work with groups involving males and females. Dr. Schenthal will engage in a program that will involve monitoring of his practice through a sexual boundary violation contract with the Physicians Recovery Network. The patient will enact practice modifications which include appointments only during office hours with support staff in attendance, limitation of office hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., office policies and office practice to be monitored by a psychiatrist agreeable to Dr. Schenthal and the Physician Resource Network, ongoing individual psychotherapy with Roberta Schafner, [sic] M.D., twice weekly at this time and a frequency agreeable to Dr. Schafner [sic] and other concerns [sic] parties. The patient will practice in an office which includes other therapists if not other physicians, and will arrange for clinical supervision with the supervisor having regular contact with Roberta Schafner [sic]. Dr. Barbara N. Stein, is Board-certified in psychiatry and practices in Florida. She was requested by Respondent to provide a second opinion on what parameters would allow Respondent to practice medicine with reasonable skill and with safety to patients. Reportedly, this request was made by Respondent who was dissatisfied with Dr. Irons' recommendations concerning the circumstances under which Respondent might return to practice. Based upon a review of the history of Respondent and the treatment provided to M.B.G. and an interview conducted on August 22, 2000, Dr. Stein concluded that Respondent suffers from Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, without psychotic features, Mild DSM-IV 296.21; Dysthymic Disorder, DSM- IV 300.4; and that there is evidence that Respondent suffers from personality disorder, not otherwise specified with narcissistic, histrionic, and anti-social personality traits, DSM-IV 301.9. In her report Dr. Stein went on to express her opinion on how Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients and stated that within her opinion with reasonable medical certainty Respondent can practice safely as long as certain restrictions were in place to include: Dr. Schenthal continues at least weekly (and preferably twice a week) therapy as recommended with Dr. Schaffner. Dr. Schenthal continues in weekly PRN Caduceus group. Dr. Schenthal continues to have regular, indirect physician monitoring of his cases directed by the Board. Dr. Schenthal works only in an institutional or group practice setting and does not treat (with psychotherapy) any female patients under 30 for at least two years or until which time he is deemed safe to do so. Dr. Schenthal may do medication management with females under 30 if and only if he has a licensed female health care worker in the room at all times and he does not have any call responsibilities that would cause him to treat these patients after hours without a chaperone. He should not ever treat female adolescents again. Dr. Schenthal takes a series of professional boundary/risk management courses on an annual basis. Patient survey and physician survey forms are employed quarterly and results are satisfactory. Dr. Schenthal has appointments only during regular office hours. Dr. Schenthal continues taking his antidepressant medication until his depressive symptoms have remitted for a minimum of six months and/or Dr. Schaffner recommends discontinuation. Dr. Schenthal and his wife participate in marital therapy if recommended by Dr. Schaffner. Dr. Schenthal is fully compliant with the above and with his long-term PRN contract. With the above recommendations for continued rehabilitation, supervision and monitoring in place, it is my medical opinion that Dr. Schenthal can begin his re-entry into professional practice with the reasonable skills and safety to patients. Dr. Raymond M. Pomm is a psychiatrist. He is the Medical Director of the Physician's Resource Network. Dr. Pomm was aware of Dr. Stein's findings concerning Respondent when Dr. Pomm prepared his own report on October 27, 2000. Based upon Dr. Stein's evaluation, Dr. Pomm's knowledge of the case and with the recognition that restrictions on Respondent's return to practice would be monitored by the Physician's Resource Network, in part and by the Agency for Health Care Administration otherwise, Dr. Pomm described the nature of restrictions he would recommend, should Respondent be allowed to return to practice. They were as follows: Dr. Schenthal should continue at least weekly psychotherapy. This will be a requirement of his PRN contract. Dr. Schenthal should continue his weekly PRN Caduceus group. This also will be a part of his PRN contract. Dr. Schenthal should have indirect physician supervision. This supervision would entail Dr. Schenthal meeting with a physician who is Board-Certified in his specific specialty of Psychiatry on a monthly basis. Each visit will require the supervisor to review with Dr. Schenthal a randomly selected ten percent of Dr. Schenthal's charts pertaining to his treatment of female patients. Therefore, every quarter, a minimum of thirty percent of his charts should have been reviewed. The review would be looking at the appropriateness of evaluative techniques used, therapeutic and psychotropic medication management issues, as well as, countertransferential issues. Also, this review will determine the appropriateness of the ongoing treatment plan and Dr. Schenthal's follow-up with said treatment plan. Dr. Schenthal should only work in an institutional or group practice setting. Dr. Schenthal should not treat any female patient under thirty years of age with psychotherapy for at least two years, and until such time he is deemed safe to do so. Dr. Schenthal may do medication management with females under thirty years of age, if an only, if, he has a licensed female health care worker in the room at all times. Dr. Schenthal should never have any call responsibilities that would cause him to treat the restricted population after hours without a chaperone. Dr. Schenthal should never treat female adolescent patients again (any female patients under twenty-one years of age). Dr. Schenthal should receive annual CME credits in boundary violation and risk management. Patient survey forms, which will be supplied by PRN, should be distributed to his patients by his office manager for one entire week every quarter. These completed forms would then be sent to his indirect physician supervisor for review. Dr. Schenthal should only have appointments with patients during regular office hours. Dr. Schenthal should continue to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis as required by his PRN monitoring contract. Dr. Schenthal will be required to inform his office staff of the difficulties he is experiencing, the terms of his agreement with the Agency for Health Care Administration, as well as, the terms of his agreement with his PRN contract and give his staff the PRN phone number. The tenure of the PRN contract will be license-long. Dr. Klass was called upon by Respondent to offer an opinion concerning Respondent's conduct, in relation to the care Respondent provided M.B.G. After familiarizing himself with the circumstances, to include the reports of Dr. Schaffner concerning treatment provided Respondent and the forensic psychiatric examination performed by Dr. Stein, Dr. Klass arrived at his opinion concerning Respondent's status. Dr. Klass also spoke to Dr. Schaffner by telephone concerning her opinion and attitudes about Respondent. Implicit in Respondent's request was the intent that Dr. Klass speak to the issue of Respondent's future opportunities to practice and under what conditions. In arriving at his conclusions Dr. Klass performed an assessment of Respondent. Dr. Klass expressed the opinion that if Respondent were allowed to return to practice, Respondent could do so acceptably if the following restrictions were in place: 1) No treatment of a female patient younger than 21 years of age until Respondent completes his therapy, as attested to by two sources, one of whom is his treating psychiatrist and the other psychiatrist who is selected; 2) Supervision of all female cases not just young females; Respondent would have to take the charts of his female patients to a qualified Board-certified expert and go over those cases so that it can be determined whether Respondent is significantly affected by his problem in that it is not resolved; 3) Marriage counseling; 4) Participation in group therapy; 5) Medication as necessary; 6) Urine checks that Respondent would have to consent to on an unscheduled basis to determine if he is taking prescribed medication; 7) Further psychiatric/psychological testing if deemed necessary by treating therapists or the Board of Medicine; 8) Literature review on the subject of countertransferance which was in evidence in Respondent's conduct directed to M.B.G.; 9) No patients seen before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.; 10) Contact with Physician's Resource Network professionals who have similar problems to those experienced by Respondent; 11) Allowing assessment by a third- party through a psychological or psychiatric evaluation; Allowing communication with female consenting patients concerning limited questions about their therapy; and Maintaining a "dream journal." With these restrictions in mind, Dr. Klass believes, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, that Respondent could practice psychiatry safely. The restrictions which the physicians have recommended recognize that Respondent has yet to achieve a level of improvement in his condition that would not require close monitoring of his practice and their belief that he not be allowed to treat young female patients. These opinions are held while recognizing Respondent's improvement and willingness to continue with treatment. The opinions concerning restrictions on practice are accepted as well informed and meaningful. Dr. Madison Haire is a practicing internist and nephrologist in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. In the past, Dr. Haire referred patients to Respondent and was persuaded that Respondent provided those patients with excellent supervision, monitoring, and care, prior to the incident with forms the basis for this case. Dr. Haire was unaware of any complaints against Respondent. Dr. Patricia Harrison is a Board Certified psychiatrist who is practicing in the Fort Walton Beach area and has had the opportunity to observe Respondent in the performance of his duties. Dr. Harrison has observed that Respondent exercised professionalism and good judgment in rendering good care and treatment to his patients, aside from the present case. Other physicians have offered favorable opinions concerning Respondent's practice as evidenced in Respondent's Exhibit No. 8.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which imposes the following penalties: Count One: Imposition of a $5,000.00 administrative fine; Count Two: A suspension of one year from the date upon which the final order is entered; Count Three: Placement of Respondent on two years probation following the service of his suspension, subject to such conditions as the Board may specify and restriction of Respondent's practice consistent with those recommendations that have been made by the treatment specialists, as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October 18, 1977, a physician authorized to practice medicine in the State of Florida under license number ME 0013979. He is a board certified dermatologist and dermapathologist. Respondent's practice is located in St. Lucie County. He is the only dermapatholgist in the county. E.M. is a former patient of Respondent. He is a fair complected retiree with red hair who has lived his entire life in areas that have warm and sunny climates. Fair complected individuals are more prone to develop skin cancers as a result of exposure to the sun than are their darker complected counterparts. E.M. had been treated for skin cancer on several occasions, dating back to some time between 1954 and 1960, before becoming Respondent's patient. In June of 1988, E.M. became concerned about two lesions that he had in a dime-sized area on his left forearm below the elbow. The lesions were scaly and crusted in texture, pea-sized in diameter, irregularly shaped, reddish in color and sensitive to the touch. E.M.'s concern led him to make an appointment to see Respondent. His initial visit to Respondent's office was on June 29, 1988. Because he was a new patient, E.M. filled out a medical history form before going into the examining room. Respondent did not give E.M. a complete physical examination. He examined only E.M.'s left forearm. His examination revealed the lesions about which E.M. was concerned. These were not the only lesions Respondent discovered on E.M.'s left forearm, however. By all appearances, the lesions on E.M.'s left forearm were pre- cancerous growths. There was no evidence of any ulceration, discharge, bleeding or other indication that these lesions were malignant. Having no reason to suspect that these lesions were cancerous, Respondent determined that they were solar keratoses, which are pre-malignant growths that appear on the superficial layers of sun damaged skin. E.M. had told Respondent before the examination that he had previously used Efudex, which is a chemotherapeutic drug used in the treatment of solar keratoses. Accordingly, at the time he made his diagnosis, Respondent knew that E.M. had a history of pre-cancerous growths. As a general rule, Respondent treats growths of the type he found on E.M.'s left forearm with cryosurgery1 and cauterization.2 If, after two or three such treatments, sufficient progress has not been made, he will then perform a biopsy to determine if there are cancerous cells in the deeper layers of the skin. In accordance with his usual practice, Respondent, during E.M.'s first visit on June 29, 1988, treated the lesions on E.M.'s left forearm, which Respondent reasonably believed to be pre-cancerous growths, with cryosurgery and cauterization. He then gave E.M. a cortisone cream to apply to the treated areas to aid the healing process. An appointment for a follow-up visit was made for July 13, 1988. Respondent next saw E.M. on July 13, 1988. His examination of E.M.'s left forearm on July 13, 1988, did not reveal any evidence of a malignancy, however, he did determine that there was a need to, and therefore he did, perform additional cryosurgery. Respondent sent E.M. home with a cream that contained not only cortisone to aid in healing, but an antibiotic as well to prevent against infection. An appointment for a second follow-up visit was made for July 27, 1988. E.M.'s next visit to Respondent was on July 27, 1988. Respondent's examination of E.M.'s left forearm on July 27, 1988, revealed that the treated areas were slowly healing. Based upon his examination, he had no reason to suspect a malignancy. Nor was there any indication that further cryosurgery was necessary. Respondent noted a flat, pigmented lesion in close proximity to the areas on E.M.'s left forearm that had been treated during his two previous visits. Respondent was not particularly concerned about this lesion,3 but he nonetheless mentioned to E.M. that it might be a good idea to have it biopsied to be on the safe side. E.M. responded that he preferred that such a biopsy not be performed. Respondent did not pursue the matter any further during the visit. Once again, Respondent gave E.M. a different cream to apply to the areas that had been treated. This time it was a pure antibiotic ointment. An appointment for a third follow-up visit was made for the morning of Wednesday, August 10, 1988. Respondent typically schedules biopsies and excisions on Wednesday mornings. E.M. cancelled his August 10, 1988, appointment with Respondent. He did not make another appointment. Accordingly, Respondent did not see E.M. as a patient again. In failing to biopsy the lesions on E.M.'s left forearm, which he had no reason to suspect were cancerous, Respondent did not act in a manner that was inconsistent with what a reasonably prudent physician with his training and experience would have done under like circumstances. More than a year later, in September, 1989, E.M. noticed that a lesion on his left forearm had opened and was draining. E.M. went to see Dr. Gary Marder, an osteopathic physician who specializes in dermatology. Marder suspected a malignancy. Accordingly, he performed a biopsy and scheduled E.M. for surgery. The initial biopsy report indicated an "invasive moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma." After Marder surgically excised the area, the pathologist revisited the matter and changed his diagnosis to an amelanotic melanoma, which is a rare type of melanoma4 that is characterized by an absence of pigmented cells. Pigmented lesions, like the one Respondent noticed on E.M.'s left forearm during E.M.'s July 27, 1988, visit, are not precursors of amelonotic melanomas. It was subsequently determined that the cancer had spread. Cancerous lymph nodes were removed from E.M.'s axilla in April, 1990, and from his elbow in November, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1992. 1/ Respondent uses liquid nitrogen to freeze and destroy the unwanted tissue. 2/ The cautery device that Respondent uses is battery-operated and produces a low current. It is particularly effective in removing rough, hard-crusted areas of skin. 3/ It did not even appear to be a pre-cancerous condition. 4/ Melanomas are one of the three types of skin cancers. Basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, which together account for 98% of all cancers, are the two other types. Of these three types of cancers, melanomas are the most destructive and the most likely to metastasize. 5/ Respondent has not been charged with failing to keep adequate medical records. 6/ Precisely what information E.M. provided on this form is unclear. 7/ The issue is not whether the practice described in this proposed finding is common, but whether it is acceptable. 8/ As noted above, the adequacy of Respondent's medical records are not at issue in the instant case. 9/ The Department did not advance this theory in the Administrative Complaint. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-3696 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Department: Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and fourth sentences: Rejected because they are more in the nature of summaries of testimony than findings of fact; Third sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that there was also a "pigmented lesion" on E.M.'s left forearm that Respondent observed during E.M.'s first visit to his office, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.5 First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance;6 Second sentence: Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence, fragment before comma: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence, fragment after comma: Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. 11-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. 14-17. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.7 First sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony than a finding of fact; Third sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Respondent believed that the pigmented lesion was a squamous cell carcinoma, it is rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony than a finding of fact; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: Rejected because it constitutes argument regarding the credibility of testimony rather than a finding of fact. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.8 First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony than a finding of fact; Second sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that "E.M. had had several prior biopsies . . . [and therefore] was aware of the reasons for a biopsy," it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that Respondent never recommended to E.M. that a biopsy be performed on the pigmented lesion that Respondent observed on E.M.'s left forearm during the July 27, 1988, visit and that, if such a recommendation had been made, E.M. "would have willingly submitted," it has been rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence; Second and third sentences: Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a recitation of testimony than a finding of fact; Second sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 28-29. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 30-34. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in subst ance; Remaining sentences: Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.9 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary B. Radkins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Shamsher Singh, M.D. 1701 Hillmoor Drive, #A-3 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The ultimate issues for determination are whether Respondent, Dr. Lieberman, committed the violations as alleged, and if so, what license discipline is appropriate. More specifically, did the following violations of Chapters 893 and 458, Florida Statutes, regulating the practice of medicine occur as alleged: As to Patient, M. A. Sections 893.05, Florida Statutes, and Section 458.1201(1)(k), Florida Statutes, (1977) reenacted as Section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes, (1987) -- by inappropriately prescribing certain drugs classified as controlled substances. Section 458.1201(1)(m), Florida Statutes, (1977) reenacted as Section 458.331(1)(j) and (t), Florida Statutes, (1987) -- by utilizing examinations for his own sexual gratification, by making inappropriate remarks during examinations and by engaging in sexual activity with the patient within the patient-physician relationship. As to Patient, L. I. Sections 458.329, Florida Statutes, and Subsections 458.331(1)(j), [formerly (k)], (t) and (x), Florida Statutes, -- by forcibly engaging in sexual intercourse with a patient and by inappropriately using the examination for his own sexual gratification. As to Patient, D. B. Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, and Subsections 458.331(1)(j), [formerly (k)], (t) and (x), Florida Statutes, by engaging in sexual conduct with a patient and using the examination for purposes of obtaining sexual gratification. As to Patient, B. J. (Case NO. 88-3334) Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain appropriate tests on a patient who was later diagnosed as having cervical cancer.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Robert A. Lieberman was a physician licensed to practice medicine pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and holding license number ME 0023165. After two years in the U.S. Navy, serving as a physician with the rank of Lt. Commander, Dr. Lieberman opened a private practice in Orlando, Florida in 1976. At all times relevant to the allegations of the complaints, Dr. Lieberman has been Board Certified in obstetrics and gynecology and maintained his practice at 615 East Princeton Street, in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Lieberman's practice includes approximately 6500 patient visits per year and the delivery of approximately 180 infants per year. M. A. Patient M. A., also known as M. Q., was treated by Dr. Lieberman from February 1, 1977 until May 31, 1979. She also visited the office on October 24, 1979 for a pregnancy test, but was not seen by Dr. Lieberman on that date. During the course of her visits she was treated for a variety of complaints including difficulty in adjusting to birth control pills, gynecological infections, post-coital bleeding and a spontaneous abortion. She underwent an induced abortion on February 7, 1977, and later became an obstetric patient of Dr. Lieberman. She delivered a live birth on June 29, 1978. During the course of her treatment M. A. was an extremely stressed and disturbed young woman. In January 1978, She reported having been beaten by her boyfriend. She also reported heavy usage of cocaine and "sopors" (methaqualone) In January 1979, she reported she was raped. At one point, during a divorce, she wrote an anguished letter to Dr. Lieberman asking that he be her "shrink" (her term, which in the context of the letter meant counselor). (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) During the course of his treatment of M. A., Dr. Lieberman's office notes and copies of prescriptions reflect the following controlled substances that he prescribed for her: Date 2/7/77 Type Percodan Dosage (not indicated) Number 12 2/22/77 Valium 10 mgs 30 3/1/77 Percodan (not indicated) 30 3/1/77 Quaaludes (not indicated) 10 3/10/77 Valium 10 mgs 30 3/18/77 Valium 10 mgs (not indicated) 5/6/77 Valium 10 mgs 60, plus one refill 5/20/77 Quaaludes 300 mgs 15, plus one refill 5/27/77 Valium 10 mgs 60, plus one refill 8/11/77 Tranxene 7.5 60 1/4/78 Phenobarbitol 1 gr 60, plus one refill 1/4/78 Darvocet N100 60 5/17/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 7/13/78 Fiornal No. 3 20 7/17/78 Seconal 100 mgs 10 7/20/78 Fiornal No. 3 20 8/4/78 Quaaludes (not indicated) 30 8/7/78 Fiornal No. 3 15 8/24/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 9/18/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 9/19/78 Quaaludes (not indicated) 30 9/25/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs (not indicated) 10/10/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 11/1/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 11/6/78 Valium 10 mgs 30, plus two refills 11/6/78 Valium (not indicated) 30, plus two refills 12/15/78 Percodan (not indicated) 20 12/26/78 Quaaludes 300 mgs 30 1/2/79 Quaaludes 300 mgs (not indicated) 1/15/79 Placidyl 500 mgs 30 2/1/79 Valium 10 mgs 30 5/31/79 Placidyl 750 mgs 30 The medical records also reveal that M. A. was given a single injection of Demerol at the time of her abortion procedure on February 7, 1977. No evidence supports the allegation that this use of the drug was inappropriate. Quaaludes are a depressant and were prescribed for sleep, primarily. They have an effect comparable to barbiturates. They are highly addictive and, while legal at the time that Dr. Lieberman was prescribing them for M. A., they were removed from the market around 1982 because of their abuse. Placidyl is also a sleeping pill, although in a different class of drugs than Quaalude. Tranxene is similar to Valium and both are used as tranquilizers. Dr. Lieberman's office notes did not reflect the basis for the wide array and sometimes frequent prescriptions. In several instances he prescribed Quaaludes without any notation in his office records. This occurred on August 24, 1978, September 18, 1978 and October 10, 1978. Nevertheless, the testimony of the agency's physician witnesses lacked specificity with regard to the propriety of Dr. Lieberman's prescriptions to this patient. Dr. Curry felt that the prescriptions for Quaaludes were "excessive" and that it was "unwise" for a physician to prescribe this quantity of a popular street drug to a known drug abuser. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, pp. 6 and 10.) He offered no opinion on the other controlled substances. Dr. Rudolph had a close family member who had a problem with Quaaludes and he would never prescribe this drug. He was concerned generally with regard to the variety of drugs, but could conclude that only the Quaaludes were absolutely, totally, unnecessary. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, P. 71.) Neither physician was qualified as an expert in pharmacology and neither was particularly familiar with M. A.'s records, as they had difficulty reading the office notes. M. A.`s testimony with regard to her experiences as Dr. Lieberman's patient was vague and confused. Ten years ago she was, as she described, a different person, under substantial stress and thoroughly habituated to drugs. She claims that Dr. Lieberman knew that she was a substance abuser and willingly provided her with the prescriptions she sought. She also claimed that he made embarrassing "joking and filthy" comments about the appearance of her genitalia during her pelvic examinations. She also claims that on one occasion, when she had gone to his office seeking drugs, he required that she perform oral sex on him. The dates and specifics of these charges were not provided. M. A. admitted that during the period in question, she was on tranquilizing drugs all of the time and that she was not aware of all that Dr. Lieberman had done to her until 1982 or 1983. Prior to her testimony in this proceeding she had given sworn statements in deposition or otherwise with regard to her relationship with Dr. Lieberman. In one such statement given on November 9, 1984, she testified that she was a patient of Dr. Lieberman in the early 70's and that he prescribed drugs for her for a period of about eight years. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) The patient records and prescriptions substantiate that M. A. was a patient for approximately two years (1977-1979). Dr. Lieberman was not in private practice until 1976, and M. A. concedes that she first met him when she visited his office at East Princeton Street. In addition to discrepancies in dates, M. A. at various times claimed that Dr. Lieberman made advances or fondled her prior to the oral sex incident and, in contradiction, claimed that she was surprised by the incident as sex had never come up at all other than verbal teasing. (Transcript, pp. 52 and 68, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, P. 10.) In summary, M. A. was an earnest and emphatic witness. However, the lavish and unspecific charges she has made cannot alone form the basis of proof of the violations related to this patient in the Administrative Complaint. In spite of the ten years time that has elapsed since these violations allegedly occurred, the agency failed to produce written records, prescriptions, and corroborating testimony from the other patients through whom M. A. claimed Dr. Lieberman was supplementing her drugs, to substantiate her charges. L. I. L. I. was Dr. Lieberman's patient from July 1978 until November 1982. She was initially treated for conditions requiring a total abdominal hysterectomy. She had follow-up visits and was seen intermittently for other non-related complaints through April 1980. Two years later she again visited Dr. Lieberman on June 8, 1982, when she presented complaints of pain in her left side. On June 17, 1982, she was hospitalized and Dr. Lieberman performed an exploratory laparotomy with lysis of adhesions. That is, abdominal surgery was performed and adhesions or scar tissue attached to the ovary were broken apart, without complications. She was discharged after some further tests related to digestive and vision problems, on June 25, 1982. On July 2, 1982, L. I. returned to Dr. Lieberman's office for a post- operative examination and for removal of her bandages. At the time of the examination, as instructed, L. I. kept her clothing on, except for her underpants, which she removed. She was given a paper sheet which she used as she lay an the examining table. Dr. Lieberman conducted the examination without a chaperone, pulling the sheet up and pressing around the abdomen area. After the examination, he said she could get up and reached out to help her when she had difficulty. Instead of moving away, he stood and stared at L. I. as she sat on the table with her legs outstretched. This made her uncomfortable. He told her to scoot forward and when she did not, he pulled her forward and unzipped his pants. L. I. protested verbally with, "Don't do this, and "this is not right." He then leaned forward and quickly had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards L. I. sat and cried. He turned to the sink and handed her tissues and asked if he had hurt her. He said that he did not want her to be upset, that it was important that she not say anything and that he would see her again in two weeks. (Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 79-86.) L. I. did not report the rape. She was profoundly embarrassed and felt that she was at fault for not struggling. In order to return to work after her surgery, L. I. had to have a release from her attending physician. She returned to Dr. Lieberman's office on July 20, 1982, as he was the only person who could provide the release insisted on by her employer. The nurse instructed her to get undressed for a pelvic examination. She questioned why a pelvic examination was necessary, but did undress. The nurse left and Dr. Lieberman entered the examining room. As he walked toward her, L. I. put her hand up and said, "No, not until the nurse comes'. He turned, and L. I. thought he had pushed a call button for the nurse. She stretched back on the table positioned for the examination, with her feet in the stirrups. Dr. Lieberman stood next to her at the side of the table, rather than at the end of the table between the stirrups, where a pelvic examination is usually conducted. He touched her between the legs with his bare hand and L. I. heard him undoing his pants. She said, "Oh, not this again," and the phone rang in the examining room. As he turned to answer the phone, she sat up and wrapped herself with the sheet. After the call, he walked out. As L. I. was getting dressed, he walked back in. She said, Just give me my release and I'll go". He told her to sit down and calm herself; she sat on the stool where her clothes had been and asked again for the release. He told her it was important not to say anything about what happened, that it had never happened before; he wrote her release on a prescription pad and left. (Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 90-94.) L. I. returned to Dr. Lieberman's office for one final visit in November 1982. She had received a card in the mail reminding her that it was time for a Pap test. By then she had thought about what had happened and felt that, given another opportunity, she could struggle or scream and someone would believe her. Otherwise, she was concerned it was just her word against the doctor. On this occasion, she undressed fully for the exam. A nurse was in the room almost the entire time and no improper advances or comments were made. The examination and discourse afterward were uneventful. Although, she told him that she was still upset about what happened. He didn't respond. L. I. never returned to Dr. Lieberman or to any other gynecologist. In March 1983, L. I. began seeing a mental health counselor through her employee assistance program when she was having trouble with one of her children. At some point in the counseling process, L. I. began discussing her experience with Dr. Lieberman. As a result of the counseling she gained some insight into her own reactions to the incident. She is intimidated easily and is compliant. She tries to let things go and handle matters in her own way. In his testimony at hearing, Dr. Lieberman agreed that L. I. was reticent and a subdued and submissive type of individual. (Transcript, Vol. IV, P. 138.) She obtained legal counsel civil brought a civil suit against Dr. Lieberman, which suit has since been settled. D. B. D. B. was a patient of Dr. Lieberman from June 1978 until September 1981. She first became his patient when he was the OB/GYN physician on call at Florida Hospital where she had been referred by a family practitioner. He performed emergency surgery, and she continued to see him on a regular basis for routine check-ups and a variety of gynecological services, including two abortions, treatment for infections, and birth control. On September 1, 1981, D. B. visited Dr. Lieberman's office for the purpose of being fitted for a diaphragm, a birth control device. At the instructions of the nurse, D. B. completely disrobed, and draped the paper vest and sheet. She was sitting on the examining table when Dr. Lieberman entered the examining room. They exchanged brief pleasantries with regard to his having been up all night delivering babies. He then approached her, attempted to push her down on the table, and french kissed her while fondling her left breast. She resisted physically by pushing forward, and the incident lasted only ten to fifteen seconds. As he wiped lipstick from his mouth, he told her that she wasn't cheating on her husband. She dressed, left the office and returned to her own office. (Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 52-58.) At the office she talked to a friend who suggested that she do something. The friend called the police and arrangements were made for her to meet them at her apartment. After she made her report to the police, D. B. was contacted by a female police detective, Sgt. Alana Hunter. D. B. decided not to press charges because she had two abortions prior to her marriage and had never told her husband. She was told that the abortions might be disclosed during the prosecution. She later retained the services of an attorney and a civil action is pending. B. J. B. J. was an OB/GYN patient of Dr. Lieberman from September 1979 until May 1984. Her medical care and treatment by Dr. Lieberman included obstetrical deliveries in June 1980 and November 1982, with intervening gynecological care. Part of that care included a test called a Pap smear. This procedure involves the taking of a sample of cells from the patient's cervix which sample is sent to a laboratory for a cytological/pathological examination to determine the presence of abnormal, precancerous or cancerous cells. It is a routine gynecological procedure with the primary purpose of early detection of cancer. The findings of examination of a Pap smear are reported in levels, ranging from I, which is considered normal; to II, considered abnormal or denoting inflamed or damaged cells; to III, inferring cancerous consideration; to IV and V, where carcinoma is more clear and definite. B. J. had Pap smears taken by Dr. Lieberman on September 26, 1979; June 23, 1980; December 18, 1980; July 28, 1981; and May 7, 1982 -- all Class I, although the laboratory reports for the latter three tests noted mild and moderate inflammation. On December 21, 1982, her Pap result was Class II. She was treated with a vaginal suppository and was appropriately directed to return for a follow-up test in one month. The repeat test on January 25, 1983, was still Class II. On February 8, 1983, Dr. Lieberman performed a cryocauterization of B. J.'s cervix. This is an office procedure involving the use of a probe-like instrument which is inserted flush up against the cervix. Nitrous oxide is released to the probe, freezing the atypical cells. This results in a discharge over the next six to eight weeks, during which time the entire surface of the cervix is sloughed away. Dr. Lieberman next saw B. J. on September 14, 1983, when another Pap smear was taken. This returned from the laboratory as a Class I. At that point he was satisfied that the cryocauterization had been successful. Sometime between September 1983 and February 1984, B. J. began experiencing bleeding during and after intercourse. She returned to Dr. Lieberman with that complaint on February 23, 1984. He found the cervix bled when touched and he took another Pap smear. This test returned as a Class II. Since he felt that the procedure had worked in the past, Dr. Lieberman performed another cryocautery procedure on B. J. on March 8, 1984. On May 8, 1984, she came back to his office still complaining of bleeding. Her cervix appeared beefy red and Dr. Lieberman saw very small points of bleeding. He applied a coagulent to attempt to stop the bleeding. She returned two days later and more coagulent was applied to her cervix. On May 30, 1984, Dr. Lieberman applied hot cauterization to her cervix. B. J. never returned for further treatment from Dr. Lieberman. Instead, B. J. changed her Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) family practitioner and was referred to another OB/GYN physician, Dr. Grace Sarvotham. During her pelvic examination B. J. bled profusely and was referred to Dr. Robert DeMaio, a Board-certified OB/GYN, practicing in Winter Park, Florida. Dr. DeMaio examined B. J. on September 5, 1984. Utilizing a colposcope, which is a microscope-type instrument, to magnify the cervix, he found areas of abnormal blood vessels and abnormal white epithelium. Because of these abnormalities, he took a biopsy. The report on the biopsy was returned on September 6, 1984, with the finding exophytic squamous cell carcinoma -- in lay terms, cancer of the cervix that had shown evidence of spread. B. J. was referred to Dr. Thomas Castaldo, a gynecological oncologist, who admitted her for surgery on September 17, 1984, and performed a radical abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic node dissection. That means her uterus and cervix were removed, along with the supporting tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. She is still being followed by Dr. Castaldo and has received radiation therapy from Dr. John Looper, a Board-certified radiation oncologist in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Lieberman claims that by May 1984, he was beginning to feel that a biopsy should be done on B. J.'s cervix. This procedure involves the surgical removal of a small amount of tissue and its examination under a microscope. He was familiar with this procedure and was trained in it, as well as in the cotoposcopy procedure utilized by Dr. DeMaio. Except with a Class V Pap smear, which undeniably indicates cancer, a diagnosis cannot be made from a Pap smear. The abnormalities or inflammations noted with a Class II Pap smear are symptoms of some condition which must be diagnosed before they are treated. Dr. Lieberman's use of the cautery procedures prior to diagnosis served to temporarily mask the symptoms. His failure to diagnose B. J.'s condition prior to treatment, or to rule out cancer or precancerous condition was a departure from the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS One of the most sensitive but essential functions of a fact finder is the resolution of conflicting testimony by weighing the credibility of witnesses. Disposition of the issues in this case involves almost exclusively that function. M. A.'s rambling and confused account of her life as a drug abuser in the 1970's, indiscriminately consuming vast quantities of controlled substances, was either zealous hyperbole or a candid revelation of her tortured former existence and mental state. Neither construction recommends the credibility of her allegations of Dr. Lieberman's wrongdoing. The agency failed to prove the specifics of those allegations. There were a few prescriptions, some of which were never recorded in Dr. Lieberman's office notes for this patient, contrary to his avowed practice. But those prescriptions in no way fully corroborated M. A.'s testimony. Likewise, the expert opinions based on review of office notes, medical records and the prescription forms were too equivocal to outweigh contrary opinions offered by Dr. Lieberman's experts. L. I. and D. B., in contrast, were convincing and competent witnesses. L. I. credibly explained how she could return twice to the scene of her rape. Her unwillingness to immediately report the incidents was also explained. D. B. stated at hearing that she did not receive any treatment in Dr. Lieberman's office on September 1, 1981. In an earlier, out-of-hearing statement, she established that she had been fitted with a diaphragm during the visit and prior to Dr. Lieberman's untoward conduct. The earlier statement is consistent with the office notes in records maintained by Dr. Lieberman. The inconsistent statements do not, however, impeach her allegation that Dr. Lieberman kissed and fondled her on that occasion. Dr. Lieberman claims that he has no independent recollection of the visits by these patients on the dates in question. He denies that he is a violent person who could have assaulted these women. Although sexual assaults are generally considered acts of violence, in these instances little force was required. He had established a relationship of trust and took advantage of that trust. His testimony that coitus is anatomically impossible with the woman in a seated position, likewise begs the question. L. I. described her position as seated on the examining table with her legs dropped, when the extension of the table was dropped by Dr. Lieberman. He positioned her, as she described, with his arm around her buttocks, moving her forward. A simple rotation of the anatomical chart, received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 12, demonstrates how entry could have been accomplished under those circumstances. Uncontroverted expert testimony established that the sexual activities by Dr. Lieberman with L. I. and D. B. were outside the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of a patient. With regard to Patient B. J., the solid weight of expert evidence established that the failure to obtain appropriate tests was an unacceptable deviation from the standards of reasonable medical care. The wrongdoing was not, as argued by counsel for Respondent, the failure to diagnose B. J.'s cancer. The violation was the persistent treatment of symptoms whose etiology had not been established. The testimony of Dr. William Russell, one of Respondent's experts, regarding the use of Pap smears in the detection of cancer, was informative, but his opinion that a colposcopy or biopsy of B. J.'s cervix during Dr. Lieberman's treatment was unnecessary is not persuasive in the face of the overwhelming competent evidence presented by the agency's witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding Robert A. Lieberman, M.D., guilty of sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine and failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and revoking his license to practice medicine. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 13th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX Subsection 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, requires that if a party submits proposed findings of fact, the order must include a ruling on each. Counsel for Petitioner submitted a 101-page "proposed recommended order", with 599 separately numbered paragraphs styled "proposed findings of fact". The vast majority of these paragraphs are not proposed findings of fact, but rather are a summary statement of testimony of the witnesses, taken from the transcript of hearing and the two depositions of Petitioner's experts. The statements are not organized by issue or subject matter but faithfully follow the order in which the testimony was given at hearing. Although these statements have been read, no rulings need be made. Any rulings would be mere commentary on the testimony as summarized by Petitioner. Specific Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Case NO. 88-3333) Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraphs 4, 14 and 23, with the exception of the last sentence which is not addressed in the record. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 5, except that the number of months is 15, not 12. 7.-9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 10. 10.-12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13.-17. Adopted in summary in paragraph 6. 18.-45. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 5, 7 and 10. 46.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. 55.-60. Rejected as unnecessary. 61.-62. Adopted in paragraph 23. 63. Adopted in paragraph 24. 64.-65. Rejected as unnecessary 66. Adopted in paragraph 24. 67.-69. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 15. 74.-75. Rejected as unnecessary. 76. Adopted in paragraphs 18 and 19, except that the record does not establish that a pelvic examina- tion was conducted on July 20, 1982. (Case NO. 88-3334) 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraphs 37 and 39. Adopted in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in paragraph 31, except that the record established that the condition is not unusual after a vaginal delivery. B. J.'s delivery was a Caesarean section. 11.-12. Adopted by implication in paragraphs 30 and 31. Adopted in paragraph 31. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. Rejected as unnecessary, but still implied in the finding in paragraph 34. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 35. 25.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 38. 29.-30. Rejected as unnecessary, except the fact that she underwent radiation therapy, addressed in paragraph 38. COPIES FURNISHED: PETER FLEITMAN, ESQUIRE ONE DATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1409 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 THOMAS M. BURKE, ESQUIRE RICHARD A. SOLOMON, ESQUIRE 11 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1873 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 DOROTHY FAIRCLOTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF MEDICINE 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
