Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dr. Irvine K. Furman, is a licensed medical doctor having been issued license no. ME0004572. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes which concern and embody standards by which physicians are licensed in the State of Florida and permitted to maintain licensure and medical practice in the State. The Respondent received his medical training in the early 1940's and then served in the military services of the United States during and after World War II. Thereafter he worked for a time as a medical examiner and then did a four year surgical residency in Columbia, South Carolina. He came to Florida in approximately 1950 and practiced medicine for a short time in Lake City. He then moved to Jacksonville and entered medical practice, continuing that practice until 1985. Most of his years as a physician have been in the field of general surgery, with about one-third of that practice for a 25 year period in the area of gynecological surgery. He has also practiced surgery extensively in the areas of aorta transplants and artificial joint replacements. He taught surgical residents for many years in area hospitals. During the course of his practice, since approximately 1950, he has always performed any surgery required by his family members and has otherwise treated members of his family, including his wife. Over the years of his practice, he has established an exemplary reputation as a physician and surgeon with his colleagues in the medical profession, even to the extent of being chosen to teach surgery. He was the recipient of numerous accolades from his colleagues upon his departure from active practice in 1985. Prior to the action sub judice, he has been the object of no complaint or proceeding, either formal or informal, by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, or any predecessor agency, nor has any complaint been reported to such agency concerning any aspects of his practice. On approximately September, 1985, the Respondent suffered a heart attack and underwent related heart by-pass surgery. He still complains of shortness of breath on exertion and his doctor, Scott Baker, M.D., believes that the strain of active surgical practice would be too physically taxing for him at the present time, coupled with his other physical conditions involving allergies, asthma, and previous cancer surgery of the colon. The Respondent indicated that he agrees with the assessment and no longer feels that he can engage in active surgical practice. The Respondent has treated his wife, Lorena or Lori, Furman for many years for various ailments and conditions. In the mid 1950's, she suffered a toxemic pregnancy and, due to the complications associated with that condition, chose to have a therapeutic abortion. While that procedure was being performed, she lost a great deal of blood and the Respondent, (who was not performing the procedure, but was present at the time) due to, apparently, inexperience or uncertainty on the part of the physician in charge of the procedure, stepped in and "packed " her uterus to alleviate the abnormal blood loss. The next day, the uterine pack was mistakenly removed, without the knowledge of the Respondent, which resulted in more blood being lost. After a few additional days in the hospital, Mrs. Furman was discharged and went home. Following this incident, she developed health problems that the Respondent, who was treating her by that time, traced to the abnormal blood loss condition such that he diagnosed her resulting condition as "Sheehan's Syndrome." Sheehan's Syndrome is a specific disease that occurs secondary to hemorrhage associated with pregnancy. Excessive hemorrhage results in a drop of blood pressure sufficient to decrease profusion, or blood flow, to the anterior pituitary gland which results in the loss of certain essential bodily hormones. This situation occurs because an infarction or damage process to the anterior pituitary gland, due to loss of blood, causes the pituitary to cease functioning or to significantly decrease its functioning level. Thus, the hormones produced by the pituitary gland and the thyroid gland hormones, which are triggered by the action of the pituitary gland, become no longer available to the body. These hormones are not otherwise replaceable by the patient's body. The normal course of treatment for a true Sheehan's Syndrome condition is to replace the functions lost by the death of, or damage to, the pituitary gland. This treatment would include, but not necessarily be limited to, the provision of sex hormones, steroids, thyroid hormones, adrenaline hormones and, in conjunction with their replacement, the management of the potential side effects of the hormonal therapy. The physician managing a case of true Sheehan's Syndrome would, through the course of treatment, also typically compile voluminous lab work and related records reflecting investigation of steroid levels, serum cortisol levels, ATCH levels, and thyroid stimulating hormone levels. The Respondent's medical records regarding his wife's care do not reflect this type of treatment pattern. The records rather indicate that various studies were done by other practitioners, but do not reflect that any of them confirmed his diagnosis of Sheehan's Syndrome. The records largely consist of logging of medication and brief summaries regarding his wife's physical condition and changes in her physical condition. The Petitioner's expert witnesses, Doctors Wilson and Clark, examining the records of Respondent's treatment of his wife, noted the absence of any findings that she had ever suffered shock during the obstetric incident in question. Normally, blood loss would have to occur of a sufficient magnitude to produce the condition of shock in the patient in order for the requisite damage to the pituitary gland to occur so as to result in Sheehan's Syndrome; that is, an essentially total loss of function of the pituitary gland. The medical records in question do not demonstrate evidence of lost hormonal functions in the body which would normally be expected with a dead or severely damaged pituitary gland. The records do not reflect the "replacement therapy" which would be expected and required in order to replace the glandular functions lost. Thus, largely for these reasons, the Petitioner's experts concluded that the Respondent's diagnosis of Sheehan's Syndrome was incorrect. Both Doctors Wilson and Clark are family practitioners who have practiced in that area in Jacksonville for 17 years and five years respectively. Both are somewhat familiar with toxemic pregnancies and pituitary gland malfunction conditions. The treatment for Sheehan's Syndrome and pituitary gland malfunction is the essentially the same. In this connection however, although they opined that the diagnosis was incorrect, these witnesses have never actually diagnosed a case of Sheehan's Syndrome nor experienced treatment of a patient with that syndrome themselves. It is also noteworthy that neither of the witnesses had treated, diagnosed or even seen the Respondent's wife. Consequently, the evidence of record does not definitively establish whether the Respondent's wife actually suffered from Sheehan's Syndrome. Regardless of the accuracy of the diagnosis however, it has been established that the Respondent's treatment of his wife was below the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent, similar physicians, as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, even if she were actually suffering from Sheehan's Syndrome. The generally recognized treatment for that condition involves total hormone replacement which was not shown to have been done in the instant situation. The Respondent did prescribe Premarin, which is a synthetic estrogen, commonly used for post-menopausal hormone replacement. The amount and frequency with which it was given, however indicates that it may have been given only for menopausal replacement rather than as a treatment related to Sheehan's Syndrome. Additionally, that condition is generally recognized to require long term use of steroids, which was not apparently a part of Mrs. Furman's medication plan. The Respondent prescribed thyroid medication which is appropriate with Sheehan's Syndrome since the pituitary gland has ceased functioning and is no longer able to stimulate the production of thyroxen by the thyroid gland. The thyroid medication, in limited amounts, was prescribed, however, without first securing a thyroid evaluation. Instead of total hormone replacement, much of the medication prescribed by the Respondent consists of controlled substances, particularly pain medications. Between January 21, 1985 and January 21, 1986, the Respondent prescribed the following medications in the following quantities: Substance Quantity Demerol 100 mg. 405 Ampules (1cc. size) Demorol 100 mg. 51 Ampules (20cc. size) Demerol 100 mg. 45 Ampules (2cc. size) Demerol 75 mg. 29 Ampules (1.5cc. size) Demerol 50 mg. 7 vials (30cc. size) Restoril 30 mg. 2,890 Dolophine 5 mg. 1,100 PBZ 50 mg. 30 Butizol 30 mg. 685 Tenormin 50 mg. 100 Fiornal 30 Demerol is a Schedule II controlled substance and is a narcotic pain reliever. Restoril is also a controlled substance used as a tranquilizer to induce sleep. Dolophine is also a controlled substance used as a sedative. PBZ is an antihistamine commonly used to treat allergic reactions when a sinus infection is present. Butisol is a controlled substance used as a sedative which has habit forming characteristics. It is sometimes used for control of headaches. Tenormin is a "betablocker." Its main purpose is to slow down the heart rate to a certain degree and it is used to treat hypertension, and to alleviate the adverse effects of coronary artery disease. Sometimes it is used to prevent migraine headaches. It is not a controlled substance. Fiornal is a controlled substance which is a combination of Butisol and aspirin. It has some analgesic action as well as anti-inflammatory benefits. The Demerol, Restoril, Dolophine, Butisol, and Fiornal prescribed by the Respondent are addictive substances. A physician should be aware of this fact and the Respondent clearly was. The Respondent however felt in his exercise of medical judgment that his wife's pain episodes were severe and frequent enough that he had to risk addiction in order to alleviate her suffering, which he felt both professionally and humanely bound to do. Consequently, he exercised a considered decision to risk addiction and then later to attempt to alleviate the addiction, in order to bring some measure of relief, from pain and inability to sleep, for his wife. Indeed, the Respondent on occasion withdrew all medication in decreasing dosage stages and was able to successfully alleviate her addiction. Thus, it cannot be determined that the Respondent prescribed the controlled addictive substances with any wilful or negligent disregard of the addictive consequences. Rather, in the exercise of his medical judgment, he felt it was more appropriate to relieve her suffering first and be concerned about curing any resulting dependency as a secondary goal, which he apparently was successfully able to accomplish. Indeed, his wife has been off all medications since September, 1986. There is no question that the Respondent's efforts at relieving his wife's discomfort by prescribing the controlled substances noted were well- intentioned. Some of those prescribed, and some of the amounts prescribed, were without adequate justification, however. There were insufficient attempts, through testing, reference to appropriate specialists and appropriate consultations with other physicians, to address the causes of his wife's apparent chronic pain. Indeed, Mrs. Furman at times exhibited symptoms which indicate adverse side effects caused by some of these medications, such as cramping, diarrhea, vomiting, and bloody stools. Few apparent attempts were made to evaluate the causes of these symptoms by testing or evaluation by appropriate specialists. The Respondent's approach to treatment of his wife's symptoms and any new symptoms, such as those named above, (which might involve side effects to medications) was often to prescribe additional medication, rather than seek outside consultation in evaluating the cause of the symptoms. In some instances, the amounts of medication, particularly pain relievers, exceeded that which was warranted for the situation at hand. While the medications given were of a type generally appropriate to the symptoms exhibited, in some instances the amounts appear excessive for the situation with which the Respondent was confronted. In many cases, they were not justified because of the Respondent's failure to seek appropriate evaluation of the cause of his wife's symptoms after they persisted for long periods of time in the face of continued administering of the named medications. The written medical records which the Respondent maintained, although voluminous, fail to adequately justify the course of treatment. They do not reflect repeated evaluation of the persistent symptoms; adequate evaluation and follow-up of the results of medication, either as to effectiveness or side effects; laboratory tests, to monitor the various hormonal levels or objective findings regarding her clinical condition. If anything, his records should have been more complete and adequate in treating his wife, so as to adequately justify his diagnosis and treatment, and to help him guard against the high potential for loss of objectivity risked by any physician treating his wife or a close member of his family. The Respondent's records simply do not adequately justify the course of treatment followed. The Respondent was examined by a psychiatric expert, Dr. Ernest Miller. His opinion, as well as that of Dr. Wilson, shows that the Respondent had lost his objectivity with regard to treating his wife's ailments. He developed a fixed idea that she suffered from Sheehan's Syndrome and rather doggedly pursued that idea to the exclusion of seeking or acting on other medical opinions or advice. He apparently convinced himself that he was the only physician who understood or was capable of understanding the peculiarities of his wife's condition and of treating her satisfactorily. The results of the psychiatric examination show that the Respondent had intact cognition and there were no signs to suggest any organic neurological deficits. He was found to be a very skillful physician and surgeon and generally well qualified to practice medicine, except for the finding that he was not capable of objectively treating his wife and had developed the above- mentioned fixation regarding his view of the proper course of treatment for her by himself alone. He also underwent a physical examination by a physician chosen by the Petitioner and was found to be well-developed and well-nourished with no acute distress, well oriented to time, place, person, and situation. His memory for current, recent, and remote events and his motor and sensory systems and strength appeared intact. He does not use alcohol, drugs, narcotics or other chemicals. There is not question that the Respondent has been very dedicated to his wife's care. It is clear from the evidence however, that he has lost objectivity regarding the handling of his wife's case and ailments and is not able to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety toward her because of this emotional state. It has not been shown that he is impaired in any way in practicing with reasonable skill and safety toward other patients in his practice within his physical limitations. Some of the Respondent's treatment approaches for his wife were illogical, although well-intentioned. As example, he maintained his wife had an allergy to milk products and yet later had her on a diet which included a great deal of skim milk and eggs, as well as cheese. He maintained that she retained excess fluid as a result of salt intake, and tried to restrict her diet as to salt. At other times, however, he had her on a diet which included products containing significant amounts of salt. In short, the Respondent clearly wanted to care for his wife properly, yet he did not deign to consult other physicians about her case. He claimed to only use tests when he wanted to change something in her medication regimen, despite the factual, as opposed to merely interpretive, information that he could have obtained from appropriate laboratory evaluation, i.e. whether various glands were functioning properly; at what level they were functioning and what the various hormonal levels were. Indeed, in 1963, when an endocrinologist examined Mrs. Furman and found nothing unusual in terms of glandular function and hormonal levels, the Respondent ignored that information and continued "dietary therapy" and heavy administration of medicines. In summary, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent, through his loss of objectivity, due no doubt to his understandably strong attachment to his wife and concern for her condition, is not capable of practicing medicine with reasonable skill and safety toward her. His physical limitations preclude him from the safe practice of surgery. Indeed the Respondent admits that, due to his heart attack and resultant heart by-pass surgery, with continued shortness of breath upon exertion, that he can no longer undertake the strains of surgical practice. The evidence of record however, does not demonstrate that the Respondent is unable to safely engage in the general practice of medicine with regard to patients other than his wife, so long as he does not engage in surgical practice. It has not been shown that he does not have adequate medical judgment and skill regarding the types of medications and therapies which are appropriate for given conditions or ailments which he might encounter in the general practice of medicine. Because of his loss of objectivity as to his wife's condition, he prescribed medications of a type generally appropriate, although sometimes in excessive amounts, for the conditions he perceived his wife to be suffering. His evaluation techniques were not adequate or were entirely lacking as a basis for his diagnoses and opinions, however. Thus he did not have an adequate diagnostic predicate for prescribing the medications, in many instances.
Recommendation Accordingly, having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the Evidence of Record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's medical license be restricted so as to prohibit him from performing any surgery or maintaining a surgical practice of any type and from practicing medicine in connection with his wife or acting as her physician in any way, until such time as he is able to demonstrate to the Board of Medicine that he is mentally and physically capable of practicing medicine with regard to her with reasonable skill and safety. It is, further, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, with regard to his continued general practice of medicine be required to forthwith comply with Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by maintaining at all times adequate, written medical records justifying the course of treatment for all patients, including, but not limited to, patient history, examination results, and test results. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-510 Petitioner Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings regarding this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles J. Franson, Esquire Drew W. Prusiecki, Esquire Post Office Box 10840 Jacksonville, Florida 32247 Tom Gallagher, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Manuel P. Villaflor, M.D., held a Florida license as a physician, No. ME 0020072. Since the 1970's, he has engaged in the general practice of medicine in Daytona Beach. A former president of the Volusia County Medical Society testified that Dr. Villaflor was "a very capable general practitioner" (T. 465) and that he at one time had charge of the special clinics for indigent patients at Halifax Hospital. UNTIMELY DEATH K. D., a white male, was pronounced dead at 3:59 P.M. on October 19, 1985, a few days shy of his 34th birthday. The autopsy disclosed superficial abrasions, acute blunt trauma to K. D.'s face, scalp and right hand, and acute, diffuse subdural hemorrhage. A paper bag full of prescription medicine containers accompanied the body to the autopsy. Apparently because the labels indicated that Dr. Villaflor had written pain killing prescriptions for K. D., the medical examiner's office notified DPR. Some four months later, analysis of samples of K. D.'s blood and urine revealed that codeine, oxycodone, amitriptyline, also known as Elavil, nortriptyline, also known as Pamelor, and chlordiazepoxide, also known as Librium, had been present in the corpse in quantities "beyond the reference range for therapeutic use." Botting deposition, p. 6. The pathologist amended his initial conclusion that head injuries resulting from "multi-focal blunt trauma," id., p. 7, had caused K. D.'s death, by adding "multiple drug intoxication," id., as another cause of death. As far as the record shows, Dr. Villaflor never prescribed Elavil, Pamelor, Librium or their chemical equivalents for K. D. An osteopath whom K. D. saw toward the end of his life prescribed at least two of these medications, as well as medicine containing oxycodone. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES UNCONTROLLED On November 15, 1985, Diane Rabideau, an investigator for DPR, called on Dr. Villaflor at his office. He was polite and cooperative. Ms. Rabideau had some difficulty understanding him; he is not a native English speaker, and he had recently suffered a stroke. But she understood well enough Dr. Villaflor's assertions that he did not believe K. D. to have been addicted to any drugs, and that he had not over-prescribed any medicine. Ms. Rabideau inspected the controlled substances kept in Dr. Villaflor's office. She found Tenuate Dospan, Restoril, Darvocet, Valium, Tylenol No. 4, Fiorinal No. 3, Xanax, Vicodin, Tylenol with codeine elixir, Dalmane, Anexsia, Centrax, "Tussend Ex. 1/2 oz.," Limbitrol, Equagesic, Phrenilin with codeine, Novahistine, Naldecon, Ativan, Nucofed, and "P.V. Tussin." When she saw them, they were not under lock and key. No inventory records reflected what was on hand and what had been dispensed. The parties stipulated that Dr. Villaflor "failed to maintain records of the[se] schedule controlled substances ... as required by Section 893.07, Florida Statutes"; and that he "failed to keep the[se] drugs ... under lock and key as required by 21 C.F.R. Section 1301.72." When Ms. Rabideau pointed out these omissions, Dr. Villaflor and his wife, who works with him in the office, said they would comply in the future. Mrs. Villaflor said she had not known of these requirements. A subsequent inspection by a DPR investigation found Dr. Villaflor in full compliance with reporting requirements governing controlled substances. K. D.'s PAIN On July 8, 1981, Dr. Villaflor saw K. D., apparently for the first time, at the Halifax Hospital Medical Center emergency room, and admitted him to the hospital. K. D. had sustained an electrical shock when he struck a high voltage power line with an aluminum ladder, as he was hurrying for shelter from a sudden rain. He lost consciousness "surrounded by a bluish flame." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. The electricity burned his feet and made his lower legs tender, as well. Discharged from the hospital, he visited Dr. Villaflor's office on July 15, 1981. In these proceedings, DPR does not question Dr. Villaflor's prescription of Percocet, a combination of Tylenol and oxycodone, for pain on that visit. As a teenager, K. D. had broken his collar bone in falls from motorcycles on two separate occasions. One accident involved a ride over a waterfall. When he was 21 years old, he "was smashed between a construction vehicle and a bulldozer," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, suffering "a severe crushing injury to his chest." Some ten years later he "still ha[d] very mobile ribs secondary to this injury," and persistent pain in his back and legs. In November of 1981, Dr. Kolin, a psychiatrist in Orlando, admitted K. D. to Orlando Regional Medical Center. A myelogram "revealed a mild L5 radicular lesion on the left, consistent with chronic myofascial pain and left L5 radiculitis." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. During this hospital stay, K. D.'s "narcotic medications were tapered and discontinued." Id. Dr. Villaflor sent copies of his records to Dr. Kolin, to whom Dr. Gillespie in Nashua, New Hampshire, had referred K. D. Apparently Dr. Villaflor never asked and Dr. Kolin never volunteered to forward Dr. Kolin's records to Dr. Villaflor. Gary G. Parsons, a vocation rehabilitation counselor, met K. D. on February 8, 1982. After K. D. made a perfect score on an aptitude test, a state agency subsidized his vocational training at the American Computer Institute. When K. D.'s training there concluded on January 4, 1983, Mr. Parsons tried to assist him in obtaining employment, but eventually concluded that K. D. could not hold a job because "his pain, and his limitation was greater than" (T. 283) Mr. Parsons had originally realized. K. D.'s pain or his physical condition "was primary in his conversation almost every time" (T. 283- 4) he and Mr. Parsons spoke. Even after the vocational rehabilitation file was closed on June 26, 1984, he came by Mr. Parsons' office twice. Both times K. D. seemed depressed to Mr. Parsons, who had recommended he go for counseling to the Human Resources Center, a community mental health center. Mr. Parsons saw K. D. for the last time on March 22, 1985. At least as early as August of 1984, K. D. mentioned suicide to Mr. Parsons as a possibility. In March of 1985, K. D. began weekly counselling sessions with Dr. Rafael Parlade, a clinical psychologist at the Human Resources Center. In these sessions "the two issues ... were his suicidal ideation combination with the depression, and the departure of his live-in girlfriend." (T. 273) He "still had a lot of pain." (T. 274) Dr. Parlade hoped K. D. would "increase his activities," (T. 276) so that with ... activity in his life more, he would focus away from his pain. Because for a period of time that was all he was living with. (T. 276) Dr. Parlade viewed decreasing the amount of pain medication as a secondary goal (T. 275), a result he hoped would flow from K. D.'s being less preoccupied with the pain he experienced continually. PAIN REMEDIES On January 31, 1983, K. D. visited Dr. Villaflor's office. Dr. Villaflor's notes for that day mentioned K. D.'s "Electrocution High Voltage in 7/81" and reflect a prescription for 50 tablets of Talwin. K. D.'s blood pressure, 120 over 70, is noted, and reference is made to a TENS unit, or transcutaneous nerve stimulator. Somebody at the Orlando pain clinic K. D. had visited had recommended one of these electrical devices to K. D., but it had proved ineffective against his pain. At one time or other, K. D. resorted to acupuncture and resumed wearing a corset of the kind originally prescribed for the back pain he experienced in the wake of the cascading motorcycle accident. Dr. Villaflor's office notes of April 15, 1983, record "Back Pain," a second prescription for 50 tablets of Talwin and another prescription for Xanax. On Nay 11, 1983, Dr. Villaflor's records again note K. D.'s "Back Pain" and indicate prescriptions for Xanax and Percocet. Nothing suggests Dr. Villaflor knew that Talwin had been dispensed to K. D. five days earlier, when K. D. appeared at his office on May 26, 1983. Essentially illegible, Dr. Villaflor's office notes for May 26, 1983, reflect prescriptions for Percocet and Xanax tablets, with which K. D. obtained 30 quarter milligram Xanax tablets on June 6, 1983, and 35 Percocet tablets on June 8, 1983. Xanax, a tranquilizer, is taken three or four times daily. Since Percocet in the quantity prescribed may be taken every four to six hours, it was "very much within reason" (T. 239) for Dr. Villaflor to prescribe more on June 9, 1983. When this prescription was filled on June 22, 1983, K. D. received 45 tablets. On July 7, 1983, Dr. Villaflor saw K. D. at his office for the first time in almost a month, and prescribed 35 more tablets of Percocet, also known as oxycodone with acetaminophen. The same day K. D. had the prescription filled, obtaining 35 tablets. Some three weeks later, on July 29, 1983, Dr. Villaflor again prescribed and K. D. again obtained 35 Percocet tablets. On the same day two other prescriptions Dr. Villaflor wrote for K. D. were filled, one for Atarax, an antihistamine sometimes prescribed in lieu of a tranquilizer, and one for Tylenol with codeine. This 35-tablet Tylenol prescription was refilled on September 7, 1983. With more and less potent pain medications, K. D. could take one or the other, as appropriate, depending upon the intensity of the pain. Since no other prescription for pain killing medication was written or filled until October 4, 1983, these prescriptions were, according to one of the Department's witnesses, "[w]ithin reason." (T. 243) On the October 4 visit, Dr. Villaflor noted "Back Pain from Electrocution" and recorded K. D.'s blood pressure as 138 over 70 or 80, before prescribing 45 Percocet tablets. That day, K. D. obtained the Percocet. He returned to Dr. Villaflor's office on October 13, 1983, complaining not only of back pain, but also of nausea and vomiting. Dr. Villaflor prescribed an additional 30 Percocet tablets. On October 15, 1983, K. D. acquired 50 tablets of the antihistamine Dr. Villaflor had been prescribing for him, "hydroxizine pam." On November 3, 1983, he obtained 60 Percocet tablets and 50 Tylenol No. 3 tablets. On November 12, 1983, the antihistamine prescription was refilled as was, on November 16, the Tylenol No. 3 prescription. Perhaps Dr. Villaflor wrote the antihistamine prescription two days before it was first filled. The off ice notes are difficult to decipher. He wrote the Percocet and Tylenol prescriptions when he saw K. D. on November 3, 1983, at which time he recorded his blood pressure (132 over 70) and noted "back injury." On December 2, 1983, Dr. Villaflor's office notes reflect a visit and prescriptions for Tylenol No. 3, Percocet and the antihistamine. With respect to prescriptions filled on and after November 3, 1983, but before December 2, 1983, DPR's witness testified that the amount of medication was "a little high, but it's still, you know, again, acceptable for a person in pain." (T. 246) On December 2, 1983, K. D. obtained 60 Percocet tablets and 50 Tylenol No. 3 tablets, the latter by virtue of a prescription that was refilled on December 14, 1983. On January 3, 1984, K. D. returned to Dr. Villaflor's office where he obtained prescriptions for Percocet and Tylenol No. 3. In March, Dr. Villaflor began prescribing a tranquilizer, Dalmane, instead of the antihistamine, but the new year progressed much as the old year had, in terms of Dr. Villaflor's prescriptions and documentation, and, apparently, of K. D.'s pain, as well, until early August. PHARMACIST CONCERNED On August 3, 1984, Dr. Villaflor prescribed for K. D., 200 "Sk- Oxycodone w/Apap" tablets, 200 Tylenol No. 4 tablets and 180 Dalmane capsules. K. D. had asked for them to take along to New England, where he travelled for an extended visit with his parents and others. This represented more than a two months' supply, and the prescriptions inspired a pharmacist, Paul Douglas, to telephone Dr. Villaflor's office before filling them. Mr. Douglas had called once before in the spring of the year, when he noticed that a total of 100 Tylenol (acetaminophen with codeine) No. 3 tablets and 60 tablets of Percocet (or the generic equivalent) had been dispensed to K. D. for use over a 24-day (April 2 to April 26, 1984) period. The pharmacist was concerned on that occasion because K. D. would have needed only 144, not 160, tablets during that period, if he had been taking no more than one every four hours. After his last telephone call to Dr. Villaflor's office, the pharmacist talked to K. D., telling him he would "not fill these medications again ... until the prescribed number of days." (T. 222). At no time, however, as far as the evidence showed, did the pharmacist actually decline to fill any prescription when presented. Back in Daytona Beach, K. D. presented himself at Dr. Villaflor's office on November 5, 1984, and received prescriptions for 45 tablets of Percocet, 55 tablets of Tylenol No. 3 and a quantity of Dalmane. All three prescriptions were filled the same day, and the prescription for Tylenol No. 3 was refilled on November 19, 1984. On December 5, 1984, K. D. appeared a second time after his return from up north, and Dr. Villaflor again prescribed all three drugs, this time specifying 50 tablets of Percocet and 50 tablets of Tylenol No. 3. K. D. caused these prescriptions to be filled the day he got them. The office motes for both these visits mention only electrical shock by way of explanation for the prescriptions. DOCTOR FALLS ILL On December 19, 1984, Dr. Villaflor had a massive cerebrovascular accident. He experienced "a dense hemorrhagic infarction ... sort of between the parietal and frontal temporal regions" (T. 64) of the brain. "Most people with intracranial bleeding, like Dr. Villaflor had, die." (T. 47) At least one of the physicians who attended Dr. Villaflor did not think he would survive the hospital stay. Paralyzed on his right side and unable to communicate, Dr. Villaflor did survive, and began speech and physical therapy. While Dr. Villaflor was indisposed on account of the stroke, Dr. Wagid F. Guirgis filled in for him. At no time did Dr. Guirgis and Dr. Villaflor discuss K. D. or his treatment. The day Dr. Guirgis began, K. D. came in complaining of severe pain in his lower back and legs. Dr. Guirgis prescribed Dalmane, 50 Percocet tablets and 50 Tylenol No. 3 tablets, the latter prescription being twice refillable. He suggested to K. D. that he see an orthopedist or a neurologist, and, on January 21, 1985, refused K. D.'s request to prescribe more Percocet. Later the same day K. D. went to Dr. M. H. Ledbetter's office. This osteopath prescribed 30 Percocet tablets to be taken twice daily, as well as Elavil and Tranxene. On February 4, 1985, Dr. Ledbetter prescribed the same medicines. On February 28, 1985, Dr. Ledbetter prescribed Elavil, Librium and 50 tablets of Percocet. On March 22, 1985, he prescribed the same things. On April 19, 1985, K. D. again visited Dr. Ledbetter. The same day he purchased Librium and 60 Percocet tablets at Walgreen's. Dr. Ledbetter prescribed Librium, Elavil and 60 tablets of Percocet, to be taken twice daily, when he saw K. D. on May 16, 1985. DR. VILLAFLOR RETURNS By now, Dr. Villaflor has very likely recovered from his stroke about as much as he ever will. He exercises regularly at the YMCA and has been attending medical education seminars in Orlando. (T. 76 ) Formerly right- handed, he still has a significant expressive speech disorder, walks with a cane, and has to do without the use of his right hand. His left side, however, was never affected. Dr. Klanke, the cardiologist and internist who treated Dr. Villaflor in the emergency room and for the three weeks he stayed in the hospital after his stroke, still sees him twice a year, principally as part of an effort to keep his blood pressure down. Although Dr. Klanke did not foresee his being able to, at the time of his discharge from the hospital, Dr. Villaflor returned to medical practice in May of 1985. K. D. appeared at Dr. Villaflor's office on May 21, 1985, five days after he had last seen Dr. Ledbetter. Dr. Villaflor prescribed 60 Percocet and 50 Tylenol No, 3 tablets for K. D., along with Dalmane and a vitamin (B12) injection. K. D. weighed 142 pounds that day and his blood pressure was also noted. The office notes report "same complaints." On June 18, 1985, Dr. Villaflor prescribed 60 Percocet tablets, the same number he prescribed on K. D.'s next visit, on July 17, 1985 , when K. D. limped "on left foot." In July, Dr. Villaflor also prescribed Dalmane and 50 Tylenol No. 3 tablets. On both visits K. D.'s weight (142 then 138) and blood pressure (122 then 120 over 80) were noted. On August 19, 1985, K. D.'s weight had fallen to 132 pounds but his blood pressure remained 120 over 80. Sixty Percocet tablets - one every four hours - were prescribed, as were 50 Tylenol No. 3 tablets. The diagnosis indicated in Dr. Villaflor's office notes was "electrocution." On September 16, 1985, Dr. Villaflor again prescribed Dalmane, Tylenol and 60 Percocet tablets. On October 17, 1985, K. D. limped to his last visit to Dr. Villaflor's office. His face bruised, K. D. complained that both feet were swollen, and reported that he had lost his balance and fallen down four stairs and over a concrete wall. For the last time, Dr. Villaflor prescribed Tylenol No. 3 and Percocet for K. D., 30 and 60 tablets respectively. Unbeknownst to Dr. Villaflor, K. D. had continued to visit Dr. Ledbetter, himself apparently unaware of Dr. Villaflor's renewed involvement with K. D. On June 7, July 5, July 26, August 27, September 16 and October 10, 1985, Dr. Ledbetter prescribed Librium, Elavil and Percocet. Dr. Ledbetter's office notes also reflect K. D.'s fall. REQUIRED PRACTICE Although each is "a moderate type of analgesic," (T. 324), both codeine and oxycodone are "narcotic derivatives ... [and] addictive in nature." Id. Dalmane "can be" (T. 221) "potentially addictive." Id. Because of his depression, K. D. "was not a good candidate" to entrust with several hundred pills at once. A physician who suspects addiction should limit prescriptions to "around ten to fifteen" (T. 326) tablets and "start checking with other pharmacies to make sure if a patient is getting drugs from any other source ... " Id. He should perform "very close and repeated physical exams" (T. 327) and be alert for "overdose side effects," id., such as dizziness, slurred speech, or staggering. The evidence here fell short of a clear and convincing showing that Dr. Villaflor was remiss in failing to suspect addiction, however. Dr. Ledbetter, who had similar, albeit similarly incomplete, information apparently did not suspect. The evidence did not prove the existence of side effects from the drugs Dr. Villaflor prescribed. Although, on his last visit to Dr. Villaflor's office, K. D. reported dizziness, the cause is unknown. On the other hand, his office records do not suggest that Dr. Villaflor took any steps to determine the cause of K. D.'s dizziness or of his swollen feet. Dr. Villaflor's treatment of K. D. fell below acceptable levels, if he failed to refer K. D. for periodic reevaluations of the underlying orthopedic or neurological problem, which his records suggest he did not do. His treatment was also inadequate for failure periodically to "get the medicine .. out of the system ... for a limited time" (T. 337) in an effort to learn what side effects, if any, the drugs he prescribed caused, either singly or in combination. This is so, even though the effort might have been frustrated, if K. D. had acquired the same medicines from other sources. Keeping complete medical records is important not only as a mnemonic aid for the treating physician, but also to make the patient's history available to other physicians who may succeed or assist the recordkeeper. A physician who has examined charts Dr. Villaflor kept before his stroke as well as charts he has kept since testified "that his charts, since the stroke, were in better order than they had been before he had his stroke." (T. 469). Since his stroke, his wife has assisted with the charts. Since Dr. Villaflor resumed office hours, he works no more than three hours a day. He has given up the hospital practice entirely. If he feels he is unable to treat a patient adequately he refers the patient to a specialist or, sometimes, to another family practitioner. On two or three occasions he has referred patients to Dr. Klanke, and in each case the referral has been appropriate. With respect to one of these patients, Dr. Klanke testified, "[H]e called up and told me the man had congestive heart failure and that's exactly what the man had." (T. 55). ONEHANDEDNESS Ordinarily, doctors use both hands in performing certain tasks often necessary in routine examinations. Use of a conventional sphygmomanometer requires one hand for the cuff and another for the stethoscope. "Percussion" involves placing one hand on the patient and tapping it with the other, listening carefully while, and, to some extent, feeling with the hand being tapped. Doctors usually use both hands for breast examinations. Performing pelvic examinations with only one hand "would be very difficult," (T. 82) as would be "adequate detail muscle strength testings," id., which, however, general practitioners do not do, as a rule. In case of a knee sprain, an examination to determine the range of motion is better performed with two hands. But a one-handed physician could examine the knee "and feel yes, the person is tender over the ligaments, or the joint is swollen. And in that situation he may turn around and say, `I would suggest that you see an orthopedic surgeon for treatment." (T. 86). Although the lack of the use of one hand would disqualify a physician from performing vascular surgery, for example, a general practitioner with good judgment and competent assistance can manage well enough in an office setting, with the use of only one hand. A one-handed physician can accomplish percussion with the help of an assistant who taps his hand. An assistant can support the patient's breast while a one-handed examiner palpates. Sphygmomanometers that can be operated with one hand are available. INTELLECTUAL REQUIREMENTS A physician must be able to learn if he and his patients are to have the benefit of advances in general medical knowledge, and the full benefits of the physician's own experience. Although would-be physicians are not required to attain a particular score on an I.Q. test, acquiring a medical education and passing licensing examinations require some intellectual ability. A physician "probably" (T.49) needs to be able to perform simple arithmetic. In some instances, appropriate dosages depend on the patient's weight and must be calculated; multiplication is required. Memory is essential in terms of the ability to retain medical knowledge. Although desirable, memory of a patient's history is less important, assuming adequate records are kept. Deductive reasoning is necessary in moving from a perception of symptoms to diagnosis and treatment. Pertinent questions must be formulated and communicated. Patients' answers must be understood. If patients cannot supply the answers, laboratory tests may be appropriate. It is the physician's job to make this judgment. PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS Born in Manila on March 2, 1928, Dr. Villaflor began speaking English at an early age. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, I.Q. test, administered after his stroke, put his full scale I.Q. at 82. The examiner concluded that "his general fund of information is severely impaired," partly on the basis of these questions and answers: When asked where the sun rose, Dr. Villaflor, after a long pause, stated, "in the West." When asked how many weeks in a year, Dr. Villaflor stated, "56." When asked how many days in a year, Dr. Villaflor stated, "369." When asked how many senators in the United States Senate, he responded, "200." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. There was some indication that Dr. Villaflor had suffered a loss of medical knowledge, too. Asked to name the lobes of the brain, he named the frontal, parietal and occipital lobes, but omitted the temporal lobe. When a psychiatrist asked him to identify the symbols for microgram and milligram, "he was not forthcoming, he did not do this for me at that time." (T. 452). On the other hand, Dr. Villaflor answered appropriately in response to informal questioning by Dr. Derbenwick, Dr. Villaflor's treating neurologist, "with regard to common dosages of medications that would be used in, for example, treating infections." (T. 68) Another neurologist, Jacob Green, reported: Specific studies show that he could tell me it was the 26th of February, 1987, and he said "Gasville" several times instead of Jacksonville for location. He took 7 from 100, and got 93. Asked to take 5 from that and got 87 initially, then corrected it to 88. When asked which dose of Codeine would be appropriate, 1/2 gr., 1 gr. or 3 gr., he told me that the 1/2 gr. was the only appropriate dose. I asked him about Dilantin and he said he would give three a day at 100 mg. I asked about the dose of Digoxin and he says .1 and later corrected it to .25 (both these doses are correct). I gave him several hypothetical instances, such as a 50 year old male coming in with nausea and vomiting for a day and having some arm pain and some chest pain. He immediately picked up that this could be a heart attack and stated the patient should be hospitalized for further observation, which is certainly correct. DPR retained Dr. Green to evaluate Dr. Villaflor's mental status in the wake of the stroke. When Dr. Graham, the clinical psychologist, saw Dr. Villaflor, he had difficulty in naming objects; he slurred and mispronounced words. His ability to communicate verbally was and presumably is significantly impaired. (He did not testify at hearing.) Dr. Villaflor could not pronounce rhinorocerous [sic] or Massachusetts [sic] - Episcopal correctly. Houwever [sic], he could pronounce difficult medically related words ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, p. 15. He could not recite the days of the week in chronological order, although he could recite them in reverse chronological order. When the clinical psychologist showed him a quarter and asked him what it was, Dr. Villaflor said, "nickel, coin, 25. He never could say "'quarter'" Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, p. 14. Dr. Villaflor told Dr. Graham that his mathematical ability was the same after his stroke as before, and this may be so. The psychologist reported, however: He was unable to subtract 85 from 27 [sic] giving the answer 48. He was unable to multiple [sic] 3 times 17 correctly giving the answer of 44. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, p. 10. Dr. Miller testified that, when he asked Dr. Villaflor to multiply two times 48, Dr. Villaflor answered 56. On the other hand, Dr. Derbenwick, the neurologist, reported that Dr. Villaflor "was a little bit slow on complex calculations, [but] performed simple calculations without too much trouble." (T. 68) Altogether the evidence showed that Dr. Villaflor is not good at arithmetic, but did clearly establish to what extent his stroke was responsible. It was clear that the stroke, or some other impairment of the central nervous system, has affected Dr. Villaflor's intellectual functioning in many particulars, however. "All areas of the central nervous system are dysfunctioning." (T. 134) He was unable to repeat five digits in the order they were spoken. He was unable to repeat three digits backwards. His "short term auditory memory" is such "that his ability to remember factual information reported to him is severely impaired." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, p. 9. His visual memory is also impaired. (T. 145). Any score above 50 on th[e Category Booklet T]est is indicative [of] central nervous system impairment." Id p. 10. Dr. Villaflor scored 114 on this test, designed to measure "current learning skills, abstract concept formation, and mental efficiency." Id. Except for three scales - "Reading Polysyllabic Words," "Concept Recognition," and "Reading Simple Material" - Dr. Villaflor's scores on the Luria-Nebraska tests indicated central nervous system impairment. "Any interference between memory tests results in his inability to recall material on the first test." Id p. 16. "He is unable to recall more than two or three discrete units of information on a consistent basis." Id., p. 19. Dr. Villaflor visited Ernest Carl Miller, a psychiatrist, twice at DPR's behest. While he viewed Dr. Villaflor as "obviously an intelligent man" (T. 451), he reported problems with arithmetic; and noted Dr. Villaflor's "tendency to be somewhat concrete; that is verbally." Id. Dr. Miller concluded that Dr. Villaflor "would be better not engaged in the active practice of medicine." (T. 455). As Dr. Miller sees it [A]part from any discrepancy in knowledge, medical knowledge, which he may have as a product of his massive stroke, there may be stresses imposed on him by practice, which is adversely affecting his blood pressure and his physiology. (T. 455). Dr. Miller also reported that Dr. Villaflor did not, in the case of hypothetical cases they discussed, suggest a liver enzyme study to confirm a diagnosis of cirrhosis of the liver; and, in another instance, said that chest pain might indicate mitral valve prolapse. SURVIVING PATIENTS CONTENT Dr. Villaflor's stroke does not seem to have diminished his popularity with his patients. Some of them, like Vivian Patterson, do not believe the stroke has affected his mental ability. Georgetta T. Rogers, a nurse who suffers from high blood pressure and gout is impressed with Dr. Villaflor's thoroughness. She finds him easier to understand since the stroke than he was before. Frank Runfola, who views Dr. Villaflor as "a throwback to the old time doctor" (T. 428), testified that the physical examinations Dr. Villaflor has performed on him have been no less thorough since the stroke than they were before. Marilyn McCann, a patient for some ten years, has noticed no difference in the way Dr. Villaflor practices medicine since the stroke, except as far as his using his right arm. She testified that he still looks up whatever medications he's going to give me, he looks up whatever he has to do, and checks it out thoroughly to make sure what examination I have to have in the office. If I have any complaints, he does check them very thoroughly, he makes sure. (T. 433) John Peterson, Dr. Villaflor's patient for 15 years, has not "seen too much difference in [Dr. Villaflor's] alertness" (T. 445) since the stroke. On at least one occasion since Dr. Villaflor's stroke, David Smith took his father-in-law to the doctor's office. While Dr. Villaflor was checking the patient's blood pressure, he looked up at Mr. Peterson and said "Is your throat sore?"; and I said, "No sir." He said, "Let me see"; so I opened up my mouth and he looked in there and he said, "Your throat[']s, all red," he said, "It's infected"; he said, "and that's what's causing your eye infection." I had an eye infection ... He prescribed some medicine for me, and two days later the eye infection was cleared up and my throat wasn't red. (T. 485-6) On another occasion, after the stroke, Mr. Smith complained to Dr. Villaflor of dizziness. Dr. Villaflor diagnosed an ear infection and prescribed medicine. The dizziness abated. Like her husband, Sharon Smith believes Dr. Villaflor seems unchanged intellectually by the stroke. Liliosa Bohenzky, who suffers from hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis, believes the examinations Dr. Villaflor performs twice or four times a year on her back, neck, arms and shoulders, have been as thorough since the doctor's stroke as they were before. Rene Stenius, who has been a patient of Dr. Villaflor's for 12 years, "was very pleased when he did come back to work, even in a somewhat diminished capacity." One day in January of last year, Ms. Stenius stopped by Dr. Villaflor's office, although she had no appointment and had not indicated beforehand that she was coming. She had not seen Dr. Villaflor for three or four months. Nobody was in the waiting room until she arrived. When she was taken into an examining room, her chart accompanied her. Before he examined the chart, Dr. Villaflor inquired, "`Are you still taking a half a pill every six days?'" (T. 517) This was a reference to medicine for her hypothyroid condition that he had in fact prescribed some months back for her to take at the rate of a half pill every six days. It was on this same visit that Dr. Villaflor prescribed Tranxene for Ms. Stenius. Since the stroke he dictates prescriptions to his wife, then signs with his left hand. "Most physicians have the nurses fill out the prescriptions, if you really want to know the truth." (T. 51) When she wrote 375, he said, "`No, no, point'" and he was hitting the ... decimal point, and he was saying, `point, decimal,' `telling her where the decimal should be." (T. 519) Once the decimal point had been supplied, he signed Ms. Stenius' prescription for 3.75 milligram doses of Tranxene. Mrs. Villaflor, trained as a nurse but not licensed in Florida, began assisting her husband when he resumed practicing after his stroke. He asks the patient what his complaint is and she writes down the complaint. In measuring patients' blood pressure, she attends to "the cuff and he would read it," (T. 507) and tell her the reading, which she would write down. After he checked a patient's lungs, he might say, "`[C]lear, very good,'" id., which Mrs. Villaflor would write down. Mrs. Villaflor assists in examinations. For example, Ms. Stenius reported that she "helped with the insertion of the tool for the pap test, but Dr. Villaflor actually took the culture for the examination." (T. 515). When Dr. Villaflor examined patients' breasts, the patients themselves generally assisted. Under his direction, Mrs. Villaflor draws medicines from vials, swabs skin with alcohol and sometimes holds the skin while Dr. Villaflor administers intramuscular, intradermal and subcutaneous injections. A SAMPLE OF TWO DPR's own experts, Dr. Miller, the psychiatrist, and Dr. Green, a neurologist, agreed with a number of Dr. Villaflor's witnesses that the most appropriate means for determining whether Dr. Villaflor could practice reasonably skillful medicine reasonably safely would be to monitor his practice -- Dr. Green suggested monitoring for a week -- and to have physicians review the ... actual office records to check the appropriateness and quality of care. Dr. Green's letter to Mr. Coats dated February 14, 1986. Despite their consultant's advice, over a year before the final hearing took place, to do so, DPR never monitored Dr. Villaflor's practice nor caused any review of his charts to be undertaken. A family practitioner and an internist, both of whom practice in Daytona Beach, did monitor Dr. Villaflor briefly one afternoon, at Dr. Villaflor's lawyer's request. They observed him interview and examine two patients. He "would ask the patients questions which appeared to be adequate, as far as their complaints were concerned." (T. 470) If a patient could not understand him, his wife "interpreted." Dr. Villaflor examined each patient's "head, the heart, the lungs, their abdomen, their extremities." (T. 473). In the opinion of one of the doctors who monitored Dr. Villaflor's examination and treatment of these two patients, Dr. Villaflor's medical judgment "was quite adequate for the complaints they had and for the findings of his physical examination." (T. 470) At least one of the doctors examined an unspecified number of Dr. Villaflor's charts that afternoon and found them to be "quite adequate." The other monitor did not testify. SKILL AND SAFETY Dr. Villaflor has indicated and the evidence showed that he referred patients he felt he could not treat adequately himself. But there is a question how well he succeeds in identifying such patients. To some extent people can be counted on to recognize a medical emergency on their own and to seek out an emergency room, of which there are a number in the Daytona Beach area. A cardiologist testified he sees only about two seriously ill patients a year in his office. (T. 59) Nor are all medical problems difficult to diagnose. "Anybody in medicine can be right ninety-five percent of the time." (T. 55) But symptoms as familiar as fever and headache can be manifestations of the most serious disorders. A physician in private practice cannot prevent seriously ill people from presenting themselves in his office. Jacob Green, the neurologist DPR retained, testified that Dr. Villaflor is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Green deposition, p. 11. He was the only witness who so testified. When DPR sought to adduce the clinical psychologist's opinion as to Dr. Villaflor's ability to practice medicine safely and skillfully, objection was sustained on grounds that, Dr. Graham not being a medical practitioner, his opinion was not competent. Dr. Green posed a hypothetical case to Dr. Villaflor, when he saw him on February 26, 1987: [A] 60 year old male ... with a history of a fever of 101 degrees, achiness all over and a headache for two days. Dr. Villaflor said such a patient's blood pressure should be checked, and that he would prescribe "Tylenol for migraine." But fever does not necessarily accompany migraine headaches, and might, in conjunction with a persistent headache, be a symptom of encephalitis or meningitis. Green Deposition, p. 8. The record does not show how, frequently encephalitis or meningitis occurs either in the general population or among feverish 60-year old men with two-day- old headaches. Dr. Klanke, the cardiologist to whom Dr. Villaflor has referred two or three patients since resuming his practice, testified he had not noticed "any change [as a result of the stroke] in [Dr. Villaflor's] medical perception, or judgement, [sic] in dealing with the patients" he referred to Dr. Klanke. Dr. Derbenwick, like Dr. Miller, offered no opinion on how skillfully or safely (to others) Dr. Villaflor is able to practice medicine. Dr. Carratt, the only witness who had examined Dr. Villaflor's charts and watched him practice, albeit briefly, since he had suffered his stroke, testified that Dr. Villaflor could practice "reasonable medicine" as "long as he realizes his limitations." (T. 471.)
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0020248. Respondent is a board- certified pathologist who completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in Venezuela and practiced in the field of obstetrics and gynecology in South America for almost five years before coming to the United States. On April 20, 1991, patient J. B., a 27-year-old female, came to A Woman's Care, where Respondent was then employed, for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy. She indicated on a patient history form that the date of her last menstrual period was January 30, 199l. According to the medical records from A Woman's Care, she did not express any uncertainty or equivocation with respect to that date. One method of determining gestational age is based on calculating from the last menstrual period, assuming that the patient's history is reasonably reliable. With a history of a last menstrual period on January 30, 1991, the gestational age of the fetus on April 20, 1991, based upon a calculation by dates, was seven weeks. After obtaining a history from the patient with respect to the date of the last menstrual period, the physician needs to perform a bi-manual examination of the patient in order to assess the size of the uterus and to confirm the history given by the patient. Although the bi-manual examination is a reasonably reliable method of assessing the stage of pregnancy, it is a subjective examination and can sometimes be difficult. There is an acknowledged inaccuracy with respect to that clinical evaluation. The most accurate method of determining the gestational age of a fetus is through ultrasound examination. An ultrasound is performed when there is uncertainty as to the gestational age, such as when the patient does not know the date of her last menstrual period or when there is inconsistency between the patient's disclosed date and the physician's bi-manual examination. There is a general correlation between the size of the uterus in centimeters on bi-manual examination and gestational age in weeks. It is important to determine the gestational age of the fetus before performing a termination of pregnancy because the gestational age is the determining factor in deciding the size of the instruments to be used in the procedure and the amount of tissue to be removed. Respondent performed a bi-manual examination of the patient and recorded that his examination revealed a uterus consistent with an approximately seven-week gestation. Because the gestational age by dates and the results of the bi-manual examination both indicated a seven-week pregnancy and were consistent, Respondent did not order an ultrasound examination for the purpose of determining gestational age. On April 20, 1991, Respondent performed a termination of pregnancy on patient J. B. after the patient was informed of the possible risks of the procedure and after the patient signed a Patient Informed Consent Form. That Form detailed the possible risks, including infection and incomplete termination. Based upon the patient's history and the bi-manual examination and his conclusion that the patient was approximately seven-weeks pregnant, Respondent used an 8 mm Vacurette to terminate patient J. B.'s pregnancy. An 8 mm Vacurette is an appropriately-sized device to terminate a seven-week pregnancy. After completing the procedure, Respondent submitted the tissue obtained to a pathologist who determined that three grams of tissue had been submitted, consisting of products of conception and chorionic villi. The pathology report revealed what would reasonably be expected as a result of the termination of a seven-week pregnancy. After the procedure, the patient was given written instructions for her care and was discharged from A Woman's Care at 10:35 a.m. On April 21, 1991, at approximately 6:30 a.m., the patient's grandmother telephoned A Woman's Care to advise that the patient was complaining of dizziness and pain. The patient was advised to take Tylenol and call back if she continued to feel sick. At approximately 7:30 a.m., the patient's grandmother called again to advise that the patient was going to go to the hospital. On April 21, 1991, at 1:25 p.m., patient J. B. arrived at the Emergency Room at North Shore Medical Center with a temperature of 104.3 degrees, an elevated white blood cell count, chills, lower abdominal pain, and spotting. The patient was seen during her North Shore admission by Dr. Ramon Hechavarria, a physician certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and by Dr. Tomas Lopez, a general surgeon. Dr. Lopez noted in his consultation report that a pelvic bi-manual examination that he performed on April 21 showed an enlarged uterus corresponding to approximately 11-12 weeks' gestation. An ultrasound examination done on April 21 revealed a uterus measuring 11.0 x 7.8 x 7.8 centimeters and a viable intra- uterine pregnancy which was estimated by the radiologist to be 13-14 weeks' gestational age. On April 22, the patient underwent termination of her pregnancy by Dr. Hechavarria who noted in his operative report that both the pelvic ultrasound and a bi-manual examination revealed an intra-uterine pregnancy of about 11 weeks with a live fetus. An ultrasound performed intra-operatively confirmed that all fetal tissue had been removed and that there were no perforations. Infection and an incomplete termination are two of the recognized complications resulting from terminations of pregnancy. The fact that a patient suffers an infection or an incomplete termination does not, per se, indicate any negligence on the part of the physician. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by failing to perform an ultrasound on patient J. B. His examination revealed a gestational age consistent with the date identified by the patient as the date of her last menstrual period. Accordingly, there was no need to perform an ultrasound. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by misjudging the gestational age of the fetus. It is not uncommon for a physician to misjudge the length of gestation by several weeks. For example, Drs. Lopez and Hechavarria concluded the fetus had a gestational age of 11 weeks; yet, the ultrasound reported 13-14 weeks. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by using the wrong size of equipment to perform the termination of pregnancy. He used the proper equipment consistent with his judgment as to the length of gestation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jonathon P. Lynn, Esquire Stephens, Lynn, Klein & McNicholas, P.A. Two Datran Center, Penthouse II 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaints; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Florida law. The Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME 0043628. In September, 1987, J.B., a patient at Hialeah Hospital, underwent exploratory surgery and was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer. At the time of the surgery, it was estimated that J.B. had six months to live. Dr. Roberto Cruz, J.B.'s doctor at Hialeah Hospital, recommended that the patient undergo chemotherapy; however, J.B.'s wife rejected that proposal. She did not want J.B. to know of the diagnosis. J.B. had told his family that if he had cancer, he would commit suicide. J.B.'s father and brother had had cancer, and the latter had committed suicide. J.B.'s wife and sister believed his threat to be sincere. Based upon the foregoing, J.B.'s wife implored J.B.'s doctors not to disclose his true condition. The families of J.B. and Respondent had been friends for many years going back to their common home in Central America. Respondent knew of J.B.'s diagnosis, and agreed to become his treating physician in November, 1987. Respondent did not tell J.B. of his true medical condition. Instead, Respondent let J.B. presume discomfort and other symptoms were the result of years of heavy drinking. In November, 1987, Respondent had been in private practice only a short time and was unfamiliar with office practices and billing procedures. Respondent did nothing to become familiar with billing practices, and relied on an employee who he mistakenly believed was competent to complete billing from the patient charts. When J.B. first presented at Respondent's office, he complained of abdominal pain. Further J.B. had discovered lumps which concerned him. To pacify J.B., Respondent suggested that a lymph node be removed and biopsied. J.B. and his wife discussed the removal of the lump and agreed that such removal would be appropriate. J.B. wanted to know that the lump was not cancer, and his wife wanted to know that the cancer had not spread or metastasized beyond the original sites. Respondent performed the lump removal in November, 1987, and billed J.B.'s medical insurance for same. At the time of this surgery Respondent was fully aware of J.B.'s medical condition, and knew that the procedure would not affect the medical condition, treatment, or life expectancy of the patient. The only medical result of the procedure was the uplifting of J.B.'s mental attitude since the lump was not cancer. In March, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy with biopsy on J.B. This procedure was suggested as Respondent had presented with rectal bleeding, a symptom common in terminal cancer patients, and was desirous of some diagnosis as to the medical origin of the bleeding. Instead of advising J.B. that the bleeding could be consistent with the known medical condition, Respondent went ahead with the colonoscopy after less intrusive examinations did not establish the origin of the blood. At the time of the colonoscopy, Respondent knew that the procedure would not affect the medical condition, treatment, or life expectancy of the patient. Again, the only beneficial effect from the colonoscopy was an uplifting of J.B.'s mental attitude since the colonoscopy results, which were medically inconclusive, did not disclose cancer to J.B. Even if the colonoscopy had revealed some medical condition which could be treated, it would not have been medically necessary given J.B.'s other, overriding, condition. Anemia, a condition resulting from the loss of blood which is common in terminal cancer patients, could be treated without the colonoscopy procedure. Respondent did not refer J.B. to a psychiatrist for mental evaluation or confirmation as to the suicidal ideation but accepted J.B.'s wife's representations regarding his mental state. Respondent did not allege J.B. had expressed suicidal thoughts to him and did not report same in his medical notes. At all times material to the treatment of J.B., Respondent performed medical services through a company owned by his wife. This company, Sigma Medical Center, submitted bills for the services afforded J.B. on the standard billing forms known as "HCFA 1500." Respondent, as the treating physician, was required to sign all HCFA 1500 forms submitted regarding services for J.B. By executing the HCFA 1500 form Respondent certified that the information was correct and the procedures billed for were medically necessary and appropriate. In this case, Respondent has admitted that numerous billing errors occurred, that the HCFA 1500 forms were incorrect, and that an over-billing regarding services provided to J.B. resulted. For example, consultation visits are billed at a higher rate than regular office visits. Respondent routinely billed J.B.'s visits at the consultation rate even though there was no consultation to be given. Second, Respondent billed post-operative visits which should have been included in the surgical charges separately. Third, J.B. returned for office visits more frequently than would be expected because of the pain management Respondent employed. Because J.B.'s wife would not allow Respondent to prescribe any pain medications which J.B. might associate with cancer, he ended up taking quantities of other prescriptions to manage the pain and to return to Respondent frequently due to the unexplained (to him) reoccurrence of pain. Despite an admission that he reviewed the HCFA 1500 forms before signing them, Respondent maintains he did not, at the time, know that the billing was inaccurate. This assertion has not been deemed credible As to various tests ordered by Respondent for J.B., it is concluded that the following tests were medically unnecessary: the RPR test designed to detect syphilis infection (a STD was the least of this patient's worries), the FTA (a follow-up test to the RPR), and thyroid studies. Given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent's care and treatment of the patient, J.B., fell below the standard of care and skill which a reasonably prudent physician under similar circumstances and conditions would recognize as acceptable. As to DOAH case no. 94-0778 L.G. was an employee in Respondent's office. Unbeknown to Respondent, L.G. took samples of aerobid and proventil without a prescription for the drugs. An aerobid inhaler is used to control the symptoms of bronchial asthma. Proventil is also used to control bronchospasm which may be associated with asthma. L.G. took the samples with the intent that she would forward them to a relative in Cuba who suffers from asthma. L.G. had access to the samples. Respondent had never treated L.G. and there would have been no medical justification to dispense the samples to her. Although somewhat incredulous, Respondent's admission that he had dispensed the samples to L.G. was given, to his understanding, to end the investigation of the matter. He mistakenly believed that if he made the admission the matter would be closed. L.G.'s account as to the events of her removing the samples without Respondent's knowledge has been accepted. Nevertheless, the statement Respondent gave to the Department in connection with this incident was false.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine, enter a final order determining the Respondent violated Sections 458.331(1), (n) and (t), Florida Statutes, in the care provided to patient, J.B., suspending his license for a period of one year, placing him on probation for a period of two years thereafter, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount $10,000. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of December, 1996. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 17, 19 through 39, 42 through 46, 48 through 52, 54 through 65, 69, 70, and 74 are accepted. Paragraph 18 would be rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence IF J.B. had been sincerely suicidal; however, in this case Respondent did not refer J.B. to a psychiatrist, did not make an independent confirmation of J.B.'s mental state, and did nothing to which J.B.'s wife did not agree--therefore, it is impossible under the facts of this case to know whether or not J.B. should have been told. Under most circumstances, J.B. should have been told, and it is accepted that the care afforded to J.B. fell below the standard of care a reasonably prudent similar physician would have provided. Respondent's whole theory of this matter fails because Respondent never independently confirmed and had J.B. properly assessed, by a physician competent to make such assessment, as to whether this major hoax was appropriate. With all due respect to Dr. Blaustein, he merely relied on factual conclusions which are unsupported by medical records in this case. Paragraphs 40 and 41 are rejected as irrelevant because the examination was medically unnecessary regardless of how performed. Paragraph 47 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence; this procedure, like others, was medically unnecessary and below the standard of care but its primary purpose was to pacify the patient and his wife regarding the rectal bleeding. Had Respondent been forthright this procedure would not have been performed. The overbilling for the procedure was for financial exploitation of the patient's insurance. Paragraph 53 is rejected as irrelevant because the studies were medically unnecessary anyway. Paragraphs 66 through 68 are rejected as irrelevant since the diagnosis would have always been subservient to the primary diagnosis and Respondent's services in this regard were medically unnecessary. Paragraph 71 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. L.G. was not Respondent's patient. L.G. stole the drugs and Respondent covered for her with the misguided idea that it would solve the problem and the investigation would be over. Paragraphs 72, 73, 75, 77, and 78 are all rejected since L.G. was not a patient they are irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 38 through 48, 51, 55 through 64, 68 through 74, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 89 through 92, 100, 107 through 120, 122, and 123 are accepted. Paragraph 7 is rejected as speculation or irrelevant given the overriding issues of this case; further rejected as not credible. Paragraph 9 is rejected in part as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence as to the issue of money; otherwise, as to the families' long- standing friendship accepted. The credible evidence in this case supports the conclusion that Respondent was overpaid for unnecessary services until J.B.'s insurance ran out; that he did not require payment thereafter is irrelevant. It may also have been Respondent's motive for overcharging the insurance before it ran out. Paragraphs 13 through 17 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Respondent was not authorized to delegate the medical decisions regarding J.B.'s care to his wife or family. As the physician he was responsible, regardless of how difficult the situation, to either practice within the standard the care or refer the patient to a physician able to do so. Obviously, any physician would want to keep J.B. comfortable, that is why unpleasant procedures such as the colonoscopic examination were, in part, medically unnecessary. Respondent's highest obligation was to the patient not that person's family or their perceived (and uncorroborated by Respondent) notions as to the patient's mental state. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 25 through 30 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 34 through 37 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 49, 50, 52, 53, and 54 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The fact that J.B. was encouraged by the false or meaningless services performed by Respondent does not justify the performance or billing for same. Respondent could have listed a textbook full of conditions which J.B. did not have to encourage him but it would not have been based on medical reality any more than the colonoscopy was. Lying to a patient to make him fell better and for financial gain is not acceptable practice. Paragraphs 65, 66, and 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 75, 76, 78, 79, and 80 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. 13. Paragraphs 83, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Respondent was responsible for all insurance billing for Sigma Medical Center. Paragraph 106 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as to whether or not L.G. was a patient at the time of the incident complained of, or irrelevant if stating such relationship was at a prior time. Paragraph 121 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 124 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's proposed treatment, fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis, is experimental.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Douglas J. Phillips, Jr., D.D.S. (Dr. Phillips), is a licensed dentist in the State of Florida. Sometime in January, 1993, Dr. Phillips proposed using the procedure, fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis to treat a patient. This procedure involves destruction of tissue by the application of high heat, at approximately two hundred degrees Fahrenheit. A probe or cannula (insulated needle) is placed through skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle to reach into where the tendon or ligament inserts to the bone or to where there is a small nerve root. An electrode goes through the insulated needle. Heat is then applied at approximately two hundred degrees. The treatment causes a small scar on the bone or destroys the nerve. The purpose of the procedure is to treat head and facial pain. The patient has been diagnosed with the degeneration of the temporomandibular joint on the left side, advanced degenerative osteoarthritis, and fibrous ankylosis with osteroarthritis of the left temporomandibular joint. She experiences head and facial pain. Dr. Phillips had performed fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis on the patient in September, 1991. CIGNA approved and paid for the procedure. The patient experienced relief from the pain for almost two years after the procedure was done. The patient is now experiencing pain again, and Dr. Phillips proposes to treat her again with fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. By letter dated January 29, 1993, Intervenor CIGNA, informed Dr. Phillips that his request to perform the proposed treatment was not authorized. CIGNA'S basis for denial of approval was that the procedure was experimental and was not recognized by the American Dental Association. On or about August 27, 1993, Dr. Phillips requested that Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation (Division), review the procedure pursuant to Section 440.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1993) and Rule 38F-7.0201, Florida Administrative Code. On November 22, 1993, the Division issued a determination that fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis was experimental. Dr. Phillips was taught the proposed procedure eight years ago by Dr. Ernst, a dental practitioner in Alabama. Dr. Phillips spent four days observing Dr. Ernst in Dr. Ernst's office and one week of training in a hospital under the direction of Dr. Ernst. The first procedure performed by Dr. Phillips was two years after his training with Dr. Ernst. Prior to performing the procedure, Dr. Phillips also attended a one hour lecture on the procedure given by another dentist. No other dentist in Florida practices this procedure. The American Dental Association has not endorsed the procedure. Radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is not on the American Dental Association's list of approved dental therapeutic modalities. It is not taught in any dental school or school of oral surgery. Dr. Phillips is not aware of any mention of the proposed procedure in any dental or oral surgical textbooks. Only four other dentists in the United States practice this procedure. There is no published written protocol regarding this procedure except for an article written by Dr. Wilk, which consists of a two paragraph treatment of the subject. Fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is not listed in the American Dental Association's Current Dental Terminology, nor does the proposed treatment have a code assigned to it. Donna M. Reynolds is a supervisor of the policy section in the Rehabilitation and Medical Services Unit of the Division. When she received the request from Dr. Phillips to review the proposed procedure, she contacted three consultants for the Division: Dr. Richard Joseph, Dr. Martin Lebowitz and Dr. Davis. She received responses from Drs. Joseph and Lebowitz indicating that they considered the procedure to be experimental. Dr. Davis did not respond to her request. Dr. Joseph is a board certified oral and maxillofacial surgeon. When asked by the Division to review the proposed treatment, he reviewed all the documentation submitted by the Division, which included the documentation that Dr. Phillips had submitted in support of his request. Dr. Joseph also did a medline search. Medline is a computerized medical library search that is commonly performed by physicians to research or review all of the current medical literature. The medline search of 301,000 articles revealed only two or three articles relating to the use of radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. Dr. Joseph also consulted with Dr. Gremillion, the chairman of the Department of Facial Pain at the University of Florida, College of Dentistry. Based on his research, Dr. Joseph opined that the proposed procedure was experimental. It was Dr. Joseph's opinion that radiofrequency thermoneurolysis was outside the practice parameters in the general practice of dentistry. Dr. Lebowitz, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and former co-director of the Facial Pain Clinic at the University of Florida, reviewed the documentation sent by the Division with its request to review the proposed treatment. The documentation included articles which had been supplied by Dr. Phillips to the Division. It was Dr. Lebowitz's opinion that none of the articles submitted by Dr. Phillips were scientifically acceptable based on the lack of blind studies, the quantity of patients being studied, and the lack of studies performed in different locations. In researching the issue, Dr. Lebowitz contacted Dr. Jim Ruskin, the head of the residency program in the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Department at the College of Dentistry, University of Florida. Dr. Ruskin is considered a world authority on the management of facial pain. Dr. Lebowitz also spoke with Dr. John Gregg, a Virginia dental practitioner who previously ran the facial pain clinic at Chapel Hill at the University of North Carolina. Additionally, Dr. Lebowitz spoke with Dr. Castellano, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon in Tampa, Florida. Based on his research, Dr. Lebowitz concluded that radiofrequency thermoneurolysis was experimental. Dr. John Roland Westine is board certified in oral maxillofacial surgery and is a licensed dentist. He has studied the use of electrical energy in destroying tissue and has used electro-surgical equipment for thirty years. Dr. Westine is familiar with radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. Prior to the final hearing, he had reviewed the records of forty patients who had been treated with radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. It was his opinion that the proposed procedure was not safe and could cause the following problems: irreparable damage to vision, stroke, motor deficiencies, damage to facial nerves, nerve deficits, sensory deficits, abscess formations and parotid fistulas. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Dr. Phillips has not demonstrated that the fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is widely accepted by the practicing peer group, that the procedure is based on scientific criteria, or that the procedure is reasonably safe. Radiofrequency thermoneurolysis, including fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis, is an experimental procedure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is experimental and denying approval for the procedure. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-762 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Petitioner did not designate which portion of his proposed recommended order contained the proposed findings of fact and which portion contained the proposed conclusions of law; thus, I am unable to address the paragraphs which Petitioner may contend are his proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-5: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 6-7: Accepted that that is what the statutes and rule say. Paragraph 8: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted to the extent that the Division does submit the documentation to consultants. The evidence established that the proposed treatment is not for use in the aid or confirmation of a diagnosis; therefore, the Division would not be required to submit the documentation to four consultants based on Rule 38F-7.0201, F.A.C. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 12-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting argument. Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 8-9: Accepted to the extent that Dr. Phillips desires to use the proposed treatment. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 12-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 17: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: The first four sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 20-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 22-31: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 32-35: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 36: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 37-39: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 40-41: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert R. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Michael Moore, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Labor & Employment Security 2012 Capitol Circle Southeast, Suite S-307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Nancy Lehman, Esquire Neil J. Hayes, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion Department of Labor and Employment Security General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the license of Allen B. Erde, M.D., should be disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine based upon actions he is alleged to have taken, or failed to have taken, between August and November, 1986, in the care and treatment of his patient, C.W.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a physician in the State Of Florida, having been issued license number ME-0008625. Respondent was C.W.'s obstetrician during her pregnancy in 1986, and initially examined her on August 26, 1986, when she was six weeks pregnant. During this initial visit, C.W. was informed by Respondent that her pregnancy was progressing normally. At her second visit, on September 23, 1986, Respondent detected no fetal heartbeat. However, he informed C.W. that this was not a problem. He requested that she bring her husband with her for her third visit so that they both could hear the heartbeat. Prior to her third visit, C.W. saw Respondent in his office on October 6, 1986, complaining of urinary problems, and a stiff neck and back. Respondent treated her for a urinary tract infection. Later that same day she began to bleed vaginally, passed clots and experienced cramping pains. She then saw Respondent at the Winter Haven Hospital emergency room, but was told that nothing seemed wrong. Respondent advised her simply to go home, put her feet up, and rest. There were several other occasions during October, 1986, when C.W. experienced cramping and vaginal bleeding. She called Respondent each time to express her concerns, but was told simply to lie down, and keep her feet up. On October 22, 1986, C.W. and her husband visited Respondent for her third scheduled visit. No heartbeat was heard. Respondent again told C.W. that there was no cause for concern, the baby was just small and probably behind her pelvic bone. C.W. was presumably 14 weeks pregnant at this time, but Respondent's office records indicate that the fetus was decreasing in size, there was no weight gain, and no heartone. C.W. continued to experience pain and bleeding, sometimes accompanied by clots. She was not gaining weight, and had none of the other indications of pregnancy which she had experienced in her prior pregnancies. C.W. continued to express concern to Respondent, but his advice remained simply to lie down, and keep her feet up. In response to a five day episode of bleeding, C.W. saw Respondent in his office on November 12, 1986. Although she was 17 weeks pregnant at that time, Respondent's office records indicate a fetus 14 weeks in size. Respondent did not order any fetal viability tests, and there is no evidence in his office record that he considered any testing of the fetus. C.W. saw Respondent for her fourth scheduled visit on November 19, 1986, and, again, no fetal heartbeat was detected. She was still experiencing vaginal bleeding. Her uterus was only 10-12 weeks in size, although she was presumably 19 weeks pregnant at this time. C.W. was distraught, and expressed great concern to Respondent that she was presumably almost five months pregnant and no fetal heartbeat had ever been detected. C.W. demanded that Respondent do something. He then ordered a quantitative Beta-subunit Human Chorionic Gonadotropin blood test to determine her hormone level. On November 2l, 1986, Respondent called C.W. at her place of employment, and informed her that her hormone levels were extremely low, and that she might not have a viable pregnancy. He told her she should keep her next regularly scheduled appointment with him, but if she experienced any severe bleeding or cramping to call him. C.W. left work and became increasingly upset. She contacted him later on that same day for a more complete explanation of what she should expect. Respondent told her that the fetus was "reversing itself and was losing weight instead of gaining." C.W. was not informed by Respondent that the fetus was not viable, and she took his advice to mean that if she was extremely careful there was still a chance of carrying the pregnancy to term. Respondent admitted to the Petitioner's investigator, Jim Bates, that he knew the fetus was dead at this time, but he was trying to let nature take its course, and if she did not abort in two or three months, he would take the fetus. Because she was extremely upset and her friends were concerned about the advice she was receiving from the Respondent, an appointment with another obstetrician, Dr. Vincent Gatto, was made for C.W. by one of her friends. Dr. Gatto saw C.W. on or about November 21, 1986, and after examining her he immediately diagnosed her as having had a missed abortion. A sonogram confirmed this diagnosis. A dilation and curettage was performed on C.W., and subsequent pathological reports revealed remnants of an 8-week fetus. The medical records which Respondent maintained of his care and treatment of C.W. are incomplete and contain discrepancies concerning his evaluation of the patient. They do not reflect C.W.'s numerous telephone calls, or that she was increasingly upset over the course of her pregnancy. There is no delineation of a plan of treatment in these records, or any explanation of the type of treatment he was pursuing for her. There is no explanation or justification in these records of Respondent's failure to order a sonogram or test, other than the one Beta-subunit Human Chorionic Gonadotropin, for C.W., although she repeatedly reported vaginal bleeding and cramping, and there was a continuing inability to detect a fetal heartbeat. Respondent failed to carry out the correct tests on C.W., and therefore, he failed to make a correct diagnosis of missed abortion, or to treat her correctly. He allowed her to carry a dead fetus for almost two months. Retention of the products of a non-viable pregnancy can lead to several complications, including infection, blood clotting and psychological trauma. In fact, this experience caused C.W. severe emotional anguish. In his care and treatment of C.W., Respondent failed to meet the standard of care that is required of a physician practicing under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license to practice medicine for a period of five years, and imposing an administrative fine of $3,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 88-4785) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding l. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. 6-7. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding 13. 18-21. Adopted in Finding 12. 22. Adopted in Finding 14. The Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary B. Radkins, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Allen B. Erde, M.D. P. O. Box 1817 Winter Haven, FL 33883-1817 Allen B. Erde, M.D. 198 First Street, South Winter Haven, FL 33880 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the medical license issued to the Respondent, Manuel Escobar, should be revoked or otherwise penalized based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician having been issued license number ME002062A, by the State of Florida. Sometime in the fall of 1984, the patient, L.T., went to a clinic where the Respondent had an office to discuss having a lipectomy. The clinic is owned by Julio Ceaser. While there is hearsay testimony that Julio Ceaser is not a licensed physician, there is no competent substantial evidence indicating whether or not Julio Ceaser is a licensed medical professional. The Respondent had an office at the clinic and frequently performed facelifts there. However, lipectomies were not performed at this clinic. During the patient's first visit to the clinic, Julio Ceaser explained to her that a lipectomy would have to be done outside the clinic by another doctor and discussed the possibility of the patient having a full face lift at the clinic. During this first visit to the clinic, the patient decided to have the facial surgery. The patient did not meet with the Respondent during this visit. Prior to having facial surgery, the patient paid $3,000.00 to Julio Ceaser. The Respondent was not involved in the financial negotiations with the patient and there is no evidence establishing how much money the Respondent was paid for his services. While the patient claims that she understood the $3,000.00 she paid to Julio Ceaser would cover both the facial surgery and a lipectomy, there is no evidence that the Respondent ever agreed to perform a lipectomy for this patient nor that he was aware of the financial arrangements that had been made between the patient and Julio Ceaser. Moreover, it is not clear that the patient's belief regarding the services she was to receive for the $3,000.00 was justified or that she was in any way misled in this regard. Prior to having facial surgery, pre-operative photos were taken of the patient. However, these photos cannot be located and are not included in the patient's medical records. On the day of the surgery, the patient signed an informed consent form. However, while the patient had some discuss ions with Julio Ceaser prior to the surgery, the exact nature of those discussions was not established. It is not clear whether Julio Ceaser ever discussed with the patient the potential complications and risks of the surgery. In any event, the Respondent did not explain to the patient the surgical procedures that he was going to employ nor did he discuss with her the potential complications and risks of the surgery. Respondent's failure to speak directly with the patient regarding the potential complications and risks of the surgery falls below the standard of care expected of plastic surgeons in this community. On November 2, 1984, the Respondent performed a face lift operation on the patient, L.T. Julio Ceaser assisted with the surgery and gave the patient an intravenous injection and an IV. In performing the facial surgery, the Respondent used straight-line pre-auricular incisions which were approximately three quarters of an inch in front of the patient's ears. While the location of these incisions would be acceptable for a male patient because they can be hidden along the facial hair of the patient, such incisions on a female patient fall below the standard of care to be expected of a plastic surgeon in this community. As a result of the Respondent's placement of the incisions, the patient's pre-auricular scars are more visible than they would have been if the incisions had been properly placed. Respondent's expert witness testified that there are some surgeons in this community who utilize a straight pre-auricular line of incision for a full facelift. However, Petitioner's expert, whose opinion is credited, testified that such an incision has been obsolete since at least the mid-1970's and does not comport with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. After the first surgery was completed on November 2, 1984, the patient was left with very noticeable scars below her ears and on her neck. The evidence did not clearly establish the cause of these scars which were an unacceptable complication of the surgery. While all facelifts result in some scarring, the location, size and visibility of the scars below the ear were a bad result and needed to be corrected. Respondent performed a second operation on the patient on May 10, 1985 in an effort to excise these scars. In this second procedure, Respondent did not properly address the problem of excess scarring and caused substitute scarring instead. As a result of the second operation, the patient has folds of skin underneath her ear which are very noticeable and unsightly. By virtue of Respondent's actions, the patient has suffered permanent scarring. To what extent this condition can be hidden or corrected by further surgery or other efforts has not been established of record. Prior to the second surgery the patient attended some therapy sessions that were intended to reduce the scarring. However, she was not satisfied with the results and refused to attend any more sessions. There is no evidence establishing the impact of the failure to attend any further sessions. The patient has suffered permanent nerve damage in her face which is most likely the result of the accidental cutting of a nerve during one of the facial surgeries performed by the Respondent. The cutting of a facial nerve reflects an incision that was much too deep for this type of surgery and falls below the standard of care expected of a plastic surgeon in this community. After the first surgery, the Respondent did not see the patient during the 10 day period immediately following the surgery. However, Julio Ceaser did visit the patient and change her bandages in the days following the surgery. As set forth above, Julio Ceaser's medical training or lack thereof was not established by competent substantial evidence. The patient has scars behind her ears which could have been the result of the sutures not being timely removed. However, the sutures were removed approximately one and one half weeks after the surgery. The removal of the sutures within this time frame was not below the standard of care. Therefore, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the scars behind the ears were the result of substandard care by Respondent. There was very poor recording of the patient's vital signs during the surgical procedure. The patient's blood pressure and heart rate were noted in 15 minute intervals. While such intervals may be acceptable under normal circumstances, there is evidence that the patient's blood pressure dropped very significantly during the surgery. In view of this occurrence, more frequent notations of the patient's vital signs should have been included in the medical records. Pre-operative photographs of the patient were taken prior to the first surgery. Pre-operative photos are an essential part of the documentation that is expected to be included in the medical records of a patient seeking plastic surgery. However, the pre-operative photographs of patient L.T. are not included in her medical records, and no competent proof was offered to explain why these photographs were not included. Although the patient signed a form referred to as an "informed consent", that form cannot be located and is not contained in the patient's medical records.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order which finds Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts One and Four of the Administrative Complaint, dismisses Counts Two and Three, imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500, and suspends Respondent's license for a period of one year followed by a three (3) year term of probation. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1989.
