The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 22, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Board of Medicine is the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. See Section 458.331(2), Florida Statutes. Dr. Pliskow is, and was at the times material to this proceeding, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 0054211, and he is Board-certified in Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Forensic Medicine. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Pliskow practiced obstetrics and gynecology with three other physicians, Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Herbst, and Dr. Aqua, under the name "Advanced Women's Healthcare." In 1996, Dr. Pliskow, Dr. Ackerman, and Dr. Herbst established the Comprehensive Weight Loss & Nutrition Center ("Center") as a separate corporation. Kimberly Payne, an A.R.N.P., was the administrative director of the Center, and, in addition to administrative duties, her job responsibilities included supervision of the nursing staff working in the Center, direct patient care, and staff training. The four physicians practicing at Advanced Women's Healthcare were the designated supervising physicians for staff of the Center. Bariatrics is the subspecialty dealing with the medical treatment of obesity, and the four physicians supervising the Center, as well as Nurse Payne, were members of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. As members of this organization, the physicians and Nurse Payne received two monthly journals, a biweekly newsletter, a monthly magazine, and faxes and e-mails containing updates on standard-of-care issues, medication changes, updates from the Federal Drug Administration, and suggested treatment changes and recommendations. The organization also provided educational programs and training opportunities for its members. In accordance with the recommendations of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians, the Center's weight loss program included a behavior modification program; a diet providing between 1200 and 1400 kilocalories per day; and an exercise program designed for each of its patients. In addition, if the patient was an appropriate candidate, the Center prescribed anorectic medications, including the combination of the drugs Phentermine and Fenfluramine commonly known as "Phen/Fen." Weight Loss Protocol At the times material to this proceeding, A.R.N.P.s were allowed under Florida law to practice independently under the general supervision of a physician who was accessible to them if they needed a consultation or evaluation of a patient. See Sections 464.003(3)(c) and 464.012(3), Florida Statutes (1995); Rule 64B8-35.002, Florida Administrative Code. Among other things, A.R.N.P.s were allowed to perform physical examinations of patients, to take medical histories, to initiate treatment programs, to prescribe certain types of drugs, and to evaluate patients for signs and symptoms of side effects associated with medications. A.R.N.P.s could not, however, prescribe drugs that were classified as controlled substances. Nurse Payne, and another A.R.N.P. subsequently hired to work at the Center, practiced under the general supervision of Dr. Pliskow, Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Herbst, and Dr. Aqua and in accordance with a protocol setting forth the respective duties of the A.R.N.P.s and of the physicians in the various areas of practice at Advanced Women's Healthcare. The protocol was filed with the appropriate state agency. Section Four of the protocol dealt with weight loss. Pursuant to the general guidelines, the A.R.N.P.s working at the Center were "responsible for the assessment and management of overweight individuals in a comprehensive weight reduction program including nutritional counseling, exercise management, and use of anorectic medications when appropriate." Patient selection criteria were as follows: Any individual who is over their ideal body weight may participate in the nutrition and exercise portions of the program. In order to qualify to participate in the medication portion of the program, the individual must meet the following criteria: Between the ages of 18 and 65 (any person between the ages of 61 and 65 must have medical clearance from their PCP [primary care physician]). Minimum of 20% over ideal body weight. No present history of heart disease, uncontrolled hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, glaucoma, uncontrolled diabetes, hyperthyroidism, psychotic illness, drug or alcohol abuse, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or impending surgery requiring general anesthesia. Any deviation from these criteria requires collaboration with physician. The following was the General Condition of the weight loss protocol: The A.R.N.P. should consult with the physician on all patients exhibiting abnormal findings which might affect their weight loss management and refer for physician evaluation as needed. Patient C.B. Patient C.B. learned of the Center's weight loss program from her daughter, who had participated in the program and taken weight loss medication. C.B. had an initial consultation at the Center on October 23, 1996. At the time, as recorded on the Center's Weight Reduction Intake Form, C.B. was 62 years of age, her weight was 165 pounds, her height was five feet and four inches, she had a medium frame, her blood pressure was 138/82, and her pulse was 72 beats per minute. The intake form also included her body measurements as of October 23, 1996. As part of the initial consultation, C.B. completed the Center's Weight Reduction Program Questionnaire, in which she stated that she considered her ideal weight to be 135 pounds, that her biggest obstacle to losing weight was staying on a diet, and that she was interested in using medication in her weight loss program. C.B. indicated that she had no limitations on exercise and played tennis regularly. She disclosed her current medications, and she indicated that she did not then, nor had she ever, had the following conditions: heart disease, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure, glaucoma, diabetes, psychotic illness, or alcohol or drug abuse. Nurse Payne reviewed the Weight Reduction Program Questionnaire with C.B. and completed the intake form. She noted on the intake form that C.B.'s ideal weight was between 120 and 135 pounds, that her weight goal was 135 pounds, and that her body mass index ("BMI") was 28.1 Nurse Payne reviewed with C.B. the information C.B. provided on the questionnaire, including her medical history, current medications, and drug allergies, and Nurse Payne noted on the intake form that C.B. reported arthritis as her only significant medical history. Nurse Payne and C.B. discussed the 1200-calorie exchange diet that was part of the program, and Nurse Payne developed an exercise plan for C.B. that included walking in the pool twice each week and incorporated C.B.'s usual routine of playing tennis three times each week. Nurse Payne noted on the intake form that Dr. Ira Fine was C.B.'s primary care physician. Nurse Payne also discussed medication options with C.B., including the benefits and risks of medications. The intake form included a printed section on medications, in which the first entry was "Pondimin2 20 mg. po bid and Phentermine 37.5 mg. po qd" and the second entry was "Other." Nurse Payne indicated on the intake form that C.B. would be started on "Phen/Fen pending medical clearance [by] Dr. Fine & EKG." Nurse Payne also advised C.B. that she would need to obtain medical clearance from Dr. Fine before medication would be prescribed. During the initial consultation on October 23, 1996, Nurse Payne provided C.B. with a Consent for Diet Program form and discussed with C.B. in detail the information in the consent form. The consent form contained descriptions of both Phentermine and Fenfluramine, together with the contraindications to their use, and Nurse Payne provided C.B. with an excerpt from the Physician's Desk Reference for Phentermine and the packet insert for Pondimin.3 C.B. signed the consent form on October 23, 1996. A blood specimen was drawn from C.B. on October 23, 1996, and Nurse Payne scheduled C.B. for an EKG on October 26, 1996. Nurse Payne telephoned Dr. Fine's office on October 25, 1996, and spoke with "Betty" about medical clearance for C.B. to participate in the weight loss program; she specifically told Dr. Fine's office the program would include the use of Phen/Fen. Nurse Payne was later advised by Dr. Fine's office that Dr. Fine had medically cleared C.B. to participate in the Center's weight loss program.4 Once medical clearance was obtained for a patient and the results of the blood work and EKG were received, the standard procedure at the Center was for the A.R.N.P. to present the patient's chart to one of the supervising physicians.5 The physician would review the test results and the patient's medical history and determine whether it was appropriate to prescribe medications for the patient. If so, the physician wrote the prescriptions, which were then given to the patient. Neither Dr. Pliskow nor Nurse Payne can recall specifically that this procedure was followed in C.B.'s case, but there is nothing in the record to indicate a deviation from this procedure with respect to C.B. C.B. was cleared for participation in the weight loss program and for the use of Phen/Fen based the results of her blood work and her EKG and on the criteria set out in the weight loss protocol: Her primary care physician had given medical clearance; her weight was 20 percent above her ideal body weight; and she had reported no present history of the conditions identified in paragraph II.B.3 of the protocol. Her blood pressure and pulse were normal. The results of her EKG showed no significant abnormality, and there was nothing in the results of the blood work done on October 23, 1996, that would prevent C.B. from participating in the weight loss program or from taking Phen/Fen. C.B.'s initial prescriptions for Phen/Fen were written on October 28, 1996 and, as noted in her chart, were for Pondimin in the dosage of "20 mg. [milligrams] po [orally] bid [twice daily]" and for Phentermine in the dosage of "37.5 mg. [milligrams] po [orally] qd [daily]."6 The medications and dosage prescribed for C.B. remained the same throughout the time she participated in the Center's weight loss program, and no further notations regarding dosage was included in her chart. C.B. initially visited the Center each week; in late November 1996, the frequency of her visits was decreased to once every two weeks, and then, in early February 1997, to once every four weeks. At each visit, a member of the nursing staff at the Center would note C.B.'s blood pressure, pulse, and weight on the progress forms in her chart, together with the amount of weight lost since her last visit. The chart also contained the notes of Nurse Payne or the other A.R.N.P. working at the Center reporting on C.B.'s success in staying on the diet and exercise plans; noting that her medication was "P/F"; and summarizing C.B.'s general progress, anything unusual she reported, and the plan she would follow until the next visit. C.B. also completed at each visit a Follow-Up Questionnaire in which she was asked to report whether, since her last visit, she had experienced chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, light-headedness, visual problems, palpitations, abdominal pain, bowel changes, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, depression, irritability, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, tremors, or increased appetite. The Center's standard procedure was for the A.R.N.P. meeting with the patient to discuss the answers in the questionnaire with the patient and to question the patient regarding any problems he or she might be having with the program. Once the A.R.N.P. had examined the patient and completed the patient's progress report, the A.R.N.P. would take the chart to the supervising physician, who would review the chart and write the prescriptions for Phen/Fen. None of the prescriptions for Phen/Fen dispensed at the Center were pre-signed. Patients in the weight loss program received new prescriptions for Phen/Fen at each visit to the Center. Because Phentermine and Fenfluramine are controlled substances, there could be no refills on a prescription, so the prescriptions were written for a sufficient number of pills to last until the patient's next visit to the Center. Although the prescriptions were written and signed by one of the supervising physicians, the physicians did not sign the patient's chart. After the supervising physician wrote the prescriptions, the A.R.N.P. would take the prescriptions to the patient, who could have them filled at the pharmacy in the offices of Advanced Women's Healthcare or at a pharmacy elsewhere. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this practice was not followed with respect to the prescriptions issued to C.B.7 On November 4, 1996, her first visit after beginning the program, C.B. reported one episode of light-headedness. Otherwise, C.B. reported none of the symptoms identified in the questionnaire and reported no problems with the program. Had C.B. reported experiencing anything abnormal, Nurse Payne would have called in one of the physicians supervising the Center for a consultation. C.B. participated in the Center's weight loss program through April 7, 1997, which was the date of her last visit. C.B. lost weight on the Center's program at a slow but steady rate, usually between one and four pounds between visits, until, on April 7, 1997, she weighed 141 pounds. C.B.'s treatment with Phen/Fen ended before May 1997, when the Florida Board of Medicine published stricter limitations on the use of these medications.8 Although Dr. Pliskow was not present in the office on October 28, 1996, when C.B.'s first prescriptions for Phen/Fen were written, he was present in the office during four of C.B.'s ten visits to the Center. Because at least one other physician was also present in the office during these four visits, Dr. Pliskow may or may not have reviewed C.B.'s chart and written her prescriptions.9 Summary The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to support a finding that Dr. Pliskow practiced medicine below the level of care considered acceptable by a reasonably prudent physician under similar circumstances or to support a finding that Dr. Pliskow failed to document in C.B.'s medical records justification for the course of her treatment in the weight loss program and the dosage of the medications prescribed for her. The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the prevailing standard of care required the physician supervising the Center's A.R.N.P.s personally to perform a physical examination of C.B. prior to her being cleared for receiving medication as part of her weight loss program or personally to obtain C.B.'s medical history. Rather, it was appropriate for Nurse Payne and the other A.R.N.P. working at the Center to perform physical examinations and to take medical histories of persons seeking to participate in the Center's weight loss program. In addition, the evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that it was inconsistent with the prevailing standard of care for the Center's supervising physicians to rely on C.B.'s primary care physician to provide medical clearance for her to participate in the weight loss program. Dr. Fine was familiar with C.B.'s overall medical condition as a result of his examination of her on September 12, 1996, and he was, therefore, competent to assess the overall risks of her participation in a weight loss program incorporating the use of anorectic medications. Furthermore, the evidence fails to establish that it was inconsistent with the prevailing standard of care to rely on the verbal medical clearance conveyed to Nurse Payne through Dr. Fine's office; rather, the persuasive evidence suggests that it was the normal practice for clearance to be given in this manner.10 And, significantly, Dr. Fine's medical clearance was not the only basis for C.B.'s clearance to take anorectic medications: C.B.'s vital signs were recorded on the intake form by the Center's nursing staff, and Nurse Payne compiled C.B.'s medical history from C.B.'s answers to questions on the Weight Loss Program Questionnaire and from discussions with C.B; an EKG and extensive blood work were ordered for C.B., and a physician reviewed C.B.'s chart and the results of these tests before writing C.B. prescriptions for anorectic medications.11 The evidence is not sufficient to establish that the physicians practicing at Advanced Women's Healthcare failed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to the A.R.N.P.s who worked in the Center. A.R.N.P.s are independent practitioners, and they are subject only to the general supervision of a physician. The evidence failed to establish that the prevailing standard of care for physicians supervising A.R.N.P.s required anything more than that the physician be available for consultation. At least one physician was available in the Advanced Women's Healthcare offices at all times for consultation and/or patient evaluation if an A.R.N.P. working at the Center determined that a patient was experiencing any complications or if a patient reported any unusual symptoms. The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the type and scope of information collected during C.B.'s regular visits to the Center and the on-going care provided to C.B. were not appropriate under the prevailing standard of care for monitoring patients on weight loss programs such as C.B.'s. The prescriptions for C.B.'s weight loss medications were written by a physician at each of C.B.'s visits, but only after the physician reviewed her chart, which included the A.R.N.P.'s progress notes and C.B.'s answers on the Follow-Up Questionnaires she completed at each visit, to determine whether it was appropriate to continue C.B. on anorectic medications.12 The evidence also fails to establish that the prevailing standard of care required a supervising physician to sign a chart prepared by an A.R.N.P. to indicate that it had been reviewed.13 The evidence is not sufficient to establish that C.B. was not an appropriate candidate for a weight loss program using Phen/Fen under the prevailing standard of care in 1996 and early 1997.14 Adequate justification for the treatment of C.B. with anorectic medications was included in C.B.'s medical records: She was considered obese by 1996 standards because her weight of 165 pounds was more than 20 percent higher than her ideal body weight of 120-to-135 pounds and because her BMI was 28 and she wanted to lose weight. In addition, nothing in the medical history C.B. provided to Nurse Payne or in her tests results indicated that she would be an inappropriate candidate for anorectic medications, and she reported no complications during her follow-up visits.15 The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the dosages of Phen/Fen prescribed for C.B. were inappropriate or excessive under the prevailing standard of care in 1996 and early 1997. Rather, the dosages prescribed for C.B. were in the lower range of dosages recommended at the time by the American Society of Bariatric Physicians and in the medical literature in general for the use of Phentermine and Fenfluramine in combination.16 The dosage of both medications was printed on the intake form completed during C.B.'s initial visit to the Center, and the dosages did not change during the time C.B. participated in the Center's weight loss program; in accordance with normal practice, no further notations were made regarding dosages in C.B.'s chart. New prescriptions were written each time C.B. visited the Center, and no refills were permitted, which is also in accordance with the standard practice in dispensing controlled substances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing in its entirety the Administrative Complaint against Steven Pliskow, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2002.
The Issue The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint placed by the Department of Professional Regulation against Eduardo G. Romero, M.D., Respondent in this cause for his treatment of two patients for weight control. Those patients are D.H., and S.T. who presented herself to Respondent as patient In his treatment of these patients, Respondent, at count one, is said to have violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by gross and repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Further, he is said at count two to have violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including a controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. A third count in the administrative complaint was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing and is not to be considered. Finally, in the fourth count, Respondent is said to have violated Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.
Findings Of Fact Respondent at all times pertinent to the administrative complaint was licensed as a physician by the State of Florida and continues to hold that license at present. In 1985 Respondent discontinued his family medicine practice and started a practice for treating patients for obesity and weight control. He purchased the obesity and weight control practice from a Dr. Scheininger. The obesity and weight control practice was conducted in the area of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. As a part of this practice, on occasion, Respondent would treat persons for minimal weight loss who could not be perceived as typical of the patients that he saw in his practice, nor can they be said to have been overweight and certainly not obese. In the conduct of his weight control practice, Respondent had one other person in his employ. That person was Diane Lee Smith, medical assistant. Ms. Smith's duties involved answering the telephone, writing certain basic information on patient's charts, laboratory testing, and the conduct of EKGs, and helping Respondent in his consultations. She also would take blood pressure readings from patients, pulse rates, take their weight and height and certain measurements of the patients' arms, waists, hips and upper thighs. Respondent in his practice would discuss the nature of his diet program, and do a physical examination to include checking pulse, monitoring heart rate and observing the fundi. If the patient upon those basic clinical observations seemed to need a more complete examination, he would order blood tests, urinalysis, and an EKG. In dealing with the patients, he had these patients provide certain information concerning health history, dietary habits and any exercise regimen that the patients participated in. Respondent did not take on the treatment of patients who had significant past medical histories. Respondent would speak to his patients individually and in a group concerning his weight control program. In these conversations he spoke to them about dietary habits, exercise habits and on occasion, would employ medication as a means of assisting in weight control. One of the drugs of choice by the Respondent in his treatment was Phendimetrazine. This is an anorexic that can be, used for a short duration as an appetite suppressant. It has a potential for abuse, but only in the instance when it is over- prescribed does it present the risk of addiction. The patients who used Phendimetrazine could gain a tolerance to it, thereby needing increasing dosages to profit from the pharmacologic effect. That phenomenon develops less quickly than with amphetamines. D.H., who had been a patient of Dr. Scheininger and had received diet pills from him to treat her weight condition, by a means which is not clear in the record, was contacted about further treatment for her weight condition. The lack of clarity concerns the matter of whether the contact was through Dr. Scheininger or Respondent's offices. Nonetheless, she arranged with the Respondent's office for an appointment to address her desire to lose a minimal amount of weight. This appointment was at the instigation of the Department of Professional Regulation, who upon complaint of the activities of Respondent, utilized D.H. as a means of investigation. The appointment took place on February 26, 1986. Her explanation of her reason for being at Respondent's office, as given to Respondent, was to the effect that she felt she needed to employ the assistance of a physician to lose some weight for cosmetic purposes. Certain entries made by Respondent and his assistant, Ms. Smith, concerning the February 26, 1986 visit and a subsequent visit on April 9, 1986, may be found in the Joint Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. It also includes information provided by D.H. in the form of a medical information questionnaire. It includes dietary information as well. In the course of the initial visit of February 26, 1986, Respondent discussed D.H.'s dietary and exercise habits and suggested approaches about diet. D.H. is a woman of five foot two and a half inches tall, whose birthdate is August 18, 1947. At the time of her visit, her weight was somewhere in the range of 117 to 122 pounds. The doctor's office scale showed her to be 122 pounds. Any one of these weights were within the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company tables of what is considered to be normal weight for a woman of this height. On February 26, 1986, in the course of the visit Respondent checked the heart rate and examined the fundi and made records of these observations. No entry was in the record concerning blood pressure. Having considered the testimony it is found that the blood pressure was taken but no medical record was made of that blood pressure reading. No tests were ordered such as EKG, blood sugar, cardiac testing, blood count, urinalysis, liver and kidney studies, nor was the patient given a complete physical examination. These things were not done because Respondent was persuaded that the patient was a person who enjoyed good health and to undertake these steps would be extravagant and unnecessary. In discussion with the patient D.H. the impression was given to the Respondent that the patient had not succeeded in trying to control her weight to her satisfaction by exercise and diet. As a consequence, Respondent decided to prescribe Phendimetrazine. On February 26, 1986, D.H. was given a prescription of 35 mg. tablets, 60 in amount. The exact details of the explanation of the use of this medication by D.H. and its possible side affects is somewhat sketchy. However, enough is known to conclude that the Respondent made some explanation. He did not make a written entry in the medical records of the patient to the effect that he had explained how to use this medication and the possible complications in its use. Neither did he make those entries following his prescribing of Phendimetrazine, 105 mgs., 30 tablets, as a part of the April 9, 1986 visit by D.H. On the April 9, 1986 visit, basically the same procedures were followed in terms of weight which was shown on the chart as 117 pounds, heart rate and on this occasion, blood pressure was recorded. There is a note that the patient D.H. runs three to six miles three times a week. Respondent charged D.H. $50 for each visit. The medication which she obtained was turned over to the Department of Professional Regulation. As part of the Department of Professional Regulation's investigation of the Respondent, it utilized the services of S.T., who presented herself to the Respondent as patient B.B. S.T. is a Jacksonville deputy sheriff. Her visit with the Respondent occurred on April 21, 1986, and followed the basic sequence related to the prior patient D.H. A copy of certain information pertaining to the patient S.T. as kept by the Respondent may be found at Joint Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. It reflects that this patient is five foot five inches tall, and at the time of the visit weight 128-1/2 pounds, which again is within the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company tables of appropriate weight for a woman of that height. Certain measurements were made of her waist, hips, arm and upper thigh, her blood pressure was taken, heart rate and fundi. Information was given by her concerning her health condition and dietary habits. Respondent, through his office, provided dietary information to this patient as with patient D.H. Patient B.B. was a patient who enjoyed good health and who was there to seek the assistance of the Respondent for purpose of losing a few pounds so that her clothes would fit her better, according to her explanation. No evaluative actions were taken other than those items presented in the aforementioned exhibit. As with D.H., Respondent was convinced that no further testing was needed for a patient who, by his clinical observation, appeared healthy. Phendimetrazine was prescribed for this patient in the amount of 105 mgs., 30 tablets. The explanation of the use of this medication was as is described before with the patient D.H. Respondent charged S.T. $50 for the visit. As with D.H., Respondent discussed dietary practices and the need for exercise with S.T. at length. S.T.'s comment to the Respondent was that she had not been able to lose the weight that she desired by her attempts at diet and exercise. In response, Phendimetrazine was prescribed to aid in this attempt. The Phendimetrazine for the two patients was not only prescribed by Respondent, it was dispensed by him. In addition to Respondent's testimony about the propriety of his treatment of the two patients, several other physicians, who are licensed in Florida offered their opinions. Dr. Stanley Weiss, who is a Board Certified Bariatric Physician testified for the Petitioner. Dr. Samuel J. Alford, Jr. and Dr. Kenneth Lasseter offered testimony for the Respondent. Dr. Weiss indicated that he does not consider the need for cosmetic weight loss to be a medical problem per se. In addition, he stated that he would not have taken on the treatment of D.H. and S.T. who did not have medical problems. Dr. Weiss in a significant portion of his practice treats patients who clearly suffer from problems of obesity. Consequently, when he gives the opinion that in every case of weight control a battery of tests involving EKG, blood sugar, cardiac testing, blood count, urinalysis, liver and kidney studies and a complete physical should be pursued, he is referring to a class of patients different from the patients in this case, by the history of Dr. Weiss' practice. In essence, Dr. Weiss is stating that it was inappropriate for the Respondent to take on the patients and treat them when the patients did not need medical attention and at the same time is stating that a series of tests should have been employed which are common to the treatment of the truly obese patient. This runs contrary to the opinion of the Respondent and of Drs. Alford and Lasseter who do not feel that the tests were in order for persons who by clinical observation, seem to be healthy. The opinion of the Respondent and Drs. Alford and Lasseter concerning the necessity of testing is the more appropriate choice on this occasion and it was not a violation of community standards or failure to practice medicine with reasonable care for the Respondent to fail to conduct the tests that have been alluded to in the rendition of facts. Dr. Weiss believes it was violative of community standards and failure to practice medicine at an acceptable level for Respondent to prescribe Phendimetrazine for the two patients in the instances set out in these facts. The use of Phendimetrazine, according to Dr. Weiss, for these patients who were not obese, is a failure to appropriately prescribe medication. His opinion is accepted. Respondent and Drs. Alford and Lasseter believe that the use of Phendimetrazine for the two patients was appropriate. Their opinion is not accepted. The fact that the two patients indicated that they had not achieved success by diet and exercise does not alter the impression of the facts and deference being paid to Dr. Weiss on the issue of the use of Phendimetrazine. It was not inappropriate for Respondent to consult with the patients D.H. and S.T. about their perceived problems. It was inappropriate to prescribe Phendimetrazine to gain a cosmetic result in an instance where there was no medical reason to utilize that legend drug. This fact is as supported by remarks of Dr. Weiss. Dr. Weiss is critical of the Respondent's medical records, in that they do not note that Respondent explained the possible side effects of the use of Phendimetrazine, and as they are lacking in an explanation of the ongoing or continuing care and in the absence of the aforementioned tests that Dr. Weiss would have conducted on the patients. That latter circumstance is not so much a failure to keep records as an allegation of failure to practice. If the tests were not done, it is to be expected that no record would have been made of the tests. Moreover, the tests were not indicated. Respondent and Drs. Alford and Lasseter do not find Respondent's recordkeeping to be inadequate. Having considered the issue of the need to record side effects or to put more information in the record concerning ongoing and continuing care, it suffices that some explanation of side effects was made and it is not necessary to make a written indication that the explanation was given to the patients. The general nature of the care and treatment of the patients is known by reference to the records. The only failure of recordkeeping which is significant is the failure to have recorded the blood pressure reading on D.H. in her visit of February 26, 1986. This constitutes a failure to keep a written medical record of an examination result.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses Count III, and finds the Respondent guilty of violations as alleged in Counts I, II and IV, for which, in keeping width disciplinary guidelines, his license shall be suspended for a period of 30 days and he shall be directed to attend at least 21 continuing medical education course credits concerning appropriate drug prescribing unrelated to requirements for license renewal. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5055 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner' s Facts Subordinate to facts found. Accepted with the exception that reference to the necessity of conducting various tests is contrary to facts found. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Subordinate to facts found. Contrary to facts found. Subordinate to facts found. Respondent' s Facts 1.-16. Subordinate to facts found. 17,18. Are not accepted to the extent of indicating that D.H. only went there for purposes of diet pills and presented herself as only wanting diet pills is contrary to facts found, otherwise they are acceptable. 19.-21. Subordinate to facts found. Constitutes the reasoning which Respondent would have trier of fact employ to arrive at facts and is not fact finding, with exception of reference to the fact that there is no notation in the chart that D.H.'s blood pressure was taken on February 26, 1986. Same response as prior paragraph. 24,25 Subordinate to facts found. 26. Unacceptable. 27.-41. Subordinate to facts found. 42. Not necessary in its first sentence and the second sentence is contrary to facts found. 43.-46. Constitute a discussion of the testimony and not fact finding. The overall conclusions of these physicians has been reported in the fact finding in the Recommended Order. 47. Further discussion of the opinion of the witness, Dr. Weiss, and is not fact finding. The balance of that paragraph deals with the claim that the Respondent instructed the patients to return in one week which is not accepted. Nor is the conjecture of what the patient S.T. intended to do on her visit to the Respondent. Finally, the remarks attributable to Dr. Alford are again the discussion of the testimony and not fact finding. 48,49. Subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Harrison, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 south Dadeland Boulevard One Datran Center, Suite, 406 Miami, Florida 33156-7815 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Florida Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0735
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Agency is authorized to license nursing home facilities in the State of Florida and, pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, to evaluate nursing facilities and assign ratings. The Agency conducted a survey of Petitioner's facility from October 8 through 10, 2001. As a result of the survey, the Agency cited Petitioner for "fail[ing] to adequately assess and develop a plan of care to maintain acceptable parameters for a resident resulting in significant weight loss," and issued a Notice of Intent to change its licensure status to conditional. Petitioner timely challenged the conditional rating and filed a Petition for Formal Hearing. Pursuant thereto, a formal hearing was held on March 28 and 29, 2002. The Recommended Order, which was issued on August 14, 2002, recommended that the Agency enter a final order issuing a standard licensure rating to Petitioner and rescinding the conditional licensure rating. On February 18, 2003, AHCA issued a Final Order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order, ordering that a standard licensure rating be issued to replace the previously-issued conditional licensure rating, and rescinding the conditional licensure rating. As such, Petitioner was the prevailing party in the underlying case, DOAH Case No. 02-0049, AHCA 2001-071241. No appeal of the Final Order in the underlying proceeding was filed. On April 21, 2003, Petitioner filed a Petition for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Petition) with supporting affidavits. In the Petition, Petitioner sought relief under both the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, as well as pursuant to Subsection 120.569(2)(e). The Agency opposed the Petition. Although Petitioner requested an award of attorney fees under Subsection 120.569(2)(e), it presented no evidence that the Agency had filed any pleadings, motions, or other papers not properly signed or that any were interposed for any improper purpose. Accordingly, the undersigned will not consider an award of attorney fee's under Subsection 120.569(2)(e), and the focus of the evidence presented will be as to Section 57.111. The parties stipulated as to the reasonableness and amounts of the attorneys fees and costs. Reasonable attorney's fees are $21,547.50. The reasonable amount of costs is $4,183.82. The amount of attorney's fees and costs that may be awarded is limited to $15,000.00, based upon Subsection 57.111(3)(d)(2), which the parties agree is applicable to this proceeding. The Health Care Center of Naples, Inc., is a corporation with its principal office in Florida. At the time the underlying action was initiated by the Agency in October 2001, the Health Care Center of Naples, Inc., had a net worth of not more than $2 million. The net worth of Health Care Center of Naples, Inc., on October 31, 2001, was $158,048.65. The net worth of Health Care Center of Naples, Inc., for September 2001 was $190,829.22. The net worth of Health Care Center of Naples, Inc., for November 2001 was $171,726.44. The Administrative Complaint in the underlying proceeding, DOAH Case No. 02-0049, alleged that Petitioner failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status. The basis of this allegation was the result of a survey which found that a resident had a significant weight loss from the period between July 30, 2001, to August 11, 2001. The Agency's Final Order, adopting the Recommended Order in Case No. 02-0049, found that the patient's weight loss was expected due to edema or third space fluid, resulting from the patient's being over-dehydrated before her recent surgery. Moreover, in the underlying proceeding, it was found that in determining that the resident had a significant weight loss, "the Agency surveyors based their calculations on an inaccurate usual body weight for the resident." As a result of these and other findings, the Agency's decision to change the status of Petitioner's licensure rating to conditional was rescinded. Although the Agency did not prevail in the underlying proceeding, the surveyors were substantially justified in citing Petitioner for the alleged deficiency, and the Agency was substantially justified in initiating the action. The Final Order found that the usual body weight relied upon by the surveyors in determining that the resident had a significant weight loss was obtained from the records of Petitioner. Also, the record in the underlying proceeding found that many of Petitioner's staff members were concerned about the resident's weight loss and did not consider that the weight loss was caused by edema. Finally, there is no indication in the record that at the time of the survey, Petitioner's staff gave the Agency surveyors any reasonable explanation for the resident's alleged significant weight loss. The evidence, which was the basis of the findings in the Final Order in the underlying proceeding, while available at the time of the survey, was not discovered or known to the surveyors and, to some extent, to Petitioner's staff.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Stephen L. Watson, M.D., has been practicing medicine in Lakeland, Florida, since 1945. Since 1950, he has been board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Until this case, he has not been the subject of any Board of Medicine disciplinary proceeding. He recently closed his practice of medicine due to his own poor health. The Respondent saw B. D., as a gynecology patient, for the first time in December, 1983. She was 33 years old at the time and was obese, weighing 184 pounds and standing only approximately five feet, four inches. She also had borderline high blood pressure, at 140/90. On the patient's second visit in July, 1984, the Respondent discussed her weight and gave her a book on diet and weight loss entitled, "The Lighter Side of Life, the Doctor's Program that Really Works." He discussed the contents of the book with her, emphasizing certain parts of it. He also prescribed a month's supply of an appetite suppressant called Fastin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient's next visit was a weight conference on January 2, 1987. On this visit the patient weighed 212; her blood pressure was 140/90. The Respondent again discussed weight and diet with the patient and prescribed a month's supply of another appetite suppressant called Didrex, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. Didrex contains the anorectic agent benzphetamine hydrochloride. It is a sympathomimetic amine with pharmacologic activity similar to the prototype drugs of this class used in obesity, the amphetamines. Actions include some central nervous system stimulation and elevation of blood pressure. Didrex is contraindicated in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, and caution is to be exercised in prescribing amphetamines for patients with even mild hypertension. At the visit on January 2, 1987, it also was arranged that the Respondent would have blood work done on January 6, a pelvic examination on January 7, and another weight conference on January 29, 1987. As often would happen during the long doctor-patient relationship, the patient missed all three appointments and did not request a refill of her medications. The patient's next visit was for another weight conference on February 10, 1987. She had lost 12 pounds (down to 200), and her blood pressure reading was down to 130/88. The Respondent's course of treatment seemed to be effective. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Didrex, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. Ten days later, the patient came in complaining of "nerves" after taking her medications. The Respondent discontinued the Didrex and the diuretic and scheduled the patient for another weight conference for March 10, 1987. The patient missed the March 10, 1987, appointment as well as the next two rescheduled appointments, and she did not request a refill of her medications. Finally, the patient kept the third rescheduled appointment for a weight conference, for May 6, 1987. By this time, the patient's weight was back up to 208. Her blood pressure reading was 120/80. The Respondent prescribed a month's supply of another appetite suppressant called Ionamin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient missed her weight conference scheduled for June 3, 1987, and did not request a refill of her medications. The patient kept her rescheduled appointment for a weight conference, for June 11, 1987. This time, her weight was back down, to 197, and her blood pressure reading was 120/80. The Respondent's course of treatment seemed to be effective. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Ionamin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient again missed her next scheduled weight conference, for July 9, 1987, and did not request a refill of her medications. The patient kept her rescheduled appointment for a weight conference, for July 13, 1987. This time, her weight was down further, to 187, and her blood pressure reading again was 120/80. The Respondent's course of treatment continued to seem to be effective. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Ionamin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient's next weight conference was on August 17, 1987. Her weight was down a little more, to 183.5, and her blood pressure reading remained at 120/80. The Respondent's course of treatment continued to seem to be effective, although the patient's rate of weight loss was decreasing. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Ionamin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, but discontinued the diuretic apparently due to a bladder problem. The patient missed her next scheduled weight conference, for September 15, 1987, and did not request a refill of her medications. The patient's next rescheduled weight conference was on October 9, 1987. Her weight was up a little, to 184.75. Her blood pressure reading again was 120/80. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Ionamin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient missed her next scheduled weight conference, for November 6, 1987, and did not request a refill of her medications. The patient's next rescheduled weight conference was on December 7, 1987. Her weight was down a little, to 183. Her blood pressure reading again was 120/80. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Ionamin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient missed her next scheduled weight conference, for January 5, 1988, and did not request a refill of her medications. The patient's next rescheduled weight conference was on February 18, 1988. Her weight was up a little, to 187.5. Her blood pressure reading was 130/80. The Respondent prescribed a month's supply of another appetite suppressant called Tenuate Dospan, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. Tenuate Dospan contains the anorectic agent diethylpropion hydrochloride. Like Didrex, it is a sympathomimetic amine with some pharmacologic activity similar to that of the prototype drugs of this class used in obesity, the amphetamines. Actions include some central nervous system stimulation and elevation of blood pressure. It is contraindicated in patients with severe hypertension, and caution is to be exercised in prescribing it for any patient with hypertension. The Respondent did not see the patient again for weight control, or prescribe any more medication, until May 3, 1988, when the patient was seen for bladder problems. Her weight was down a little, to 181.5, and her blood pressure reading was 120/80. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Ionamin, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, but discontinued the diuretic again apparently due to a bladder problem. The patient preferred Tenuate Dospan, and the Respondent changed the prescription to another month's supply of Tenuate Dospan. The patient missed the next two conferences, scheduled for August 8 and rescheduled for August 9, 1988, and did not request a refill of her medications. She did not see the Respondent or get any more medications from him until a weight conference on December 2, 1988. Her weight was up a little, to 185. Her blood pressure reading was 130/80. The Respondent prescribed a month's supply of Tenuate Dospan, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient missed her next four scheduled appointments and did not request a refill of her medications. She did not see the Respondent or get any more medications from him until a blood pressure conference on June 28, 1989. Her weight was up significantly, to 200, and her blood pressure reading was up significantly, to 140/100. Although the patient still was relatively young (approximatly 39), and the Respondent believed there was a causal connection between the patient's weight and blood pressure, the Respondent prescribed only a month's supply of Enduron, a medication for hypertension. The patient missed her next two scheduled blood pressure conferences and did not request a refill of her blood pressure medications, or request any other medications. She did not see the Respondent or get any more medications from him until she saw him for blood in the urine on October 3, 1989, and had a urinalysis and conference. At the time, her weight was up a little more, to 203, and her blood pressure reading was 140/90. The Respondent prescribed an antibiotic and, for reasons not apparent from the evidence, a month's supply of a mild antidepressant, called Elavil. On or about October 23, 1989, the patient telephoned for a refill of her Enduron prescription, which was about to run out, and the Respondent prescribed another month's supply. The patient again missed her next weight conference scheduled for October 30, 1989, and did not request any other medications. She did not see the Respondent or get any more medications from him until a rescheduled weight conference on December 11, 1989. By this time her weight was up to 217, and her blood pressure reading was 140/98. The Respondent was aware that amphetamine-like appetite suppressants should be used with caution with patients having moderately high blood pressure, as the patient had by December 11, 1989. But he also continued to believe that there was a causal connection between the patient's weight and blood pressure and that, given the patient's relative youth and the past success with the treatment, it was worth trying appetite suppressants, in conjunction with diet recommendations, to help reduce both the patient's weight and her blood pressure. He prescribed a month's supply of Tenuate, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. (Tenuate is essentially the same drug as Tenuate Dospan but is shorter lasting.) On January 5, 1990, the patient telephoned the Respondent with a complaint of "nerves." The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Elavil, with authority for two refills. The patient's next weight conference was on January 24, 1990. Her weight was up a little more, to 220, and her blood pressure reading was 160/98. At that point, it seemed that perhaps the Tenuate Dospan was not effective. Although there could be other explanations why the patient was not losing weight, and it was possible that all appetite suppressants had become ineffective, the Respondent decided to switch the patient to Didrex, which seemed to have been effective in the past, and prescribed a month's supply, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. He also changed her blood pressure medication to Wytensin. The patient missed her next weight conference, scheduled for January 31, 1990, and did not request any additional medications. The patient did not see the Respondent again, or get any additional medications from him, until March 21, 1990, when she saw him to get a letter for employment purposes certifying that she was disease-free. Her weight was up to 226, and her blood pressure was 164/96. The Respondent prescribed another month's supply of Didrex, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic and another month's supply of Wytensin. The patient did not see the Respondent again, or get any additional medications from him until August 28, 1991, when she saw him to complain of blood in the urine. At this time, her weight was 234, and her blood pressure reading was 140/90. In addition to treating the urine problem, the Respondent prescribed a month's supply of Tenuate, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic and a month's supply of Wytensin. The patient missed her appointment for a pelvic examination on September 5, 1991, and did not see the Respondent, or get any additional medications from him until she went to a weight conference on December 11, 1989. Her weight was 234.5, and her blood pressure reading was 140/94. The Respondent prescribed a month's supply of Tenuate, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. (It is not clear from the evidence why no blood pressure medication was prescribed.) The patient missed her appointment for a pelvic exam on December 17, 1991, and missed scheduled weight conferences for February 10, 11, and 19, 1992. She did not request any additional medications during this time. The patient made her next scheduled appointment on March 16, 1992, when the Respondent discussed her weight, blood pressure and complaint of headaches. Both her weight and her blood pressure were at their highest: weight, 237; blood pressure reading, 150/110. At this point, there was a real question whether the appetite suppressants still were effective in controlling the patient's weight and thereby helping reduce the patient's blood pressure. On the other hand, the patient continued to miss weight conferences and not follow through on the Respondent's instructions, and it was not clear whether the patient ever had followed the Respondent's weight control treatment long enough to give it a fair chance to work. The patient's blood pressure now was moderately to severely high; on the other hand, she still was only about 42 years of age, and her weight still could have been contributing to her high blood pressure. Nonetheless, the Respondent decided to prescribe only Wytensin on March 16; he also scheduled a complete physical for March 20, 1992. On March 20, 1992, the Respondent had the patient undergo a complete physical. Her weight still was 237, and her blood pressure reading was 160/120. He switched her blood pressure medication to Accupril and decided not to prescribe any appetite suppressants at that time. He scheduled the patient for a weight conference on April 3, 1992. On April 3, 1992, the patient's weight still was 237, but her blood pressure reading was 150/110. Although the patient's blood pressure still was moderately to severely high, the Respondent decided to try an appetite suppressant to reduce her weight in the hopes of, together with the blood pressure medication, effecting a lasting reduction in her blood pressure. He prescribed a month's supply of Tenuate Dospan, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. On April 14, 1992, the patient telephoned the Respondent to report that her blood pressure still was up and that she continued to suffer from headaches. The Respondent decided that it was time to refer the patient to a specialist in internal medicine and made an appointment for her. The patient missed her next scheduled weight conference on April 16, 1992, and missed the appointment with the internist which the Respondent had scheduled for her. She never saw the internist. The patient's next appointment was on May 6, 1992. The Respondent discussed the patient's weight and her hypertension. Her weight was 236, and her blood pressure reading was down to 144/100. The Respondent decided to prescribe a month's supply of Tenuate, to be taken in conjunction with the diet recommendations, along with a diuretic. The patient overdosed on a pain medication (not the appetite suppressant) and was hospitalized on June 4, 1992. She missed the next scheduled weight conference on June 15, 1992. She did not request any additional medications. The patient's next appointment with the Respondent was on June 18, 1992. She weighed 230, and her blood pressure reading was 140/110. The Respondent prescribed only Accupril and an iron supplement. The Respondent only saw the patient once more, on July 17, 1992, for gynecological problems, and referred the patient to a specialist. He did not prescribe any medications. The patient's blood pressure was 130/100. Her weight was not recorded. The evidence does not reflect that the patient, B. D., grew progressively dependent on the appetite suppressants the Respondent prescribed for her. There was no evidence that the patient ever asked for a refill or new prescription early. She often missed scheduled appointments, resulting in gaps of time between prescriptions when the patient presumably had no appetite suppressants available to her. There also were extended periods of time between visits during which time the patient presumably had no appetite suppressants available to her. Some reputable physicians now seriously question the use of appetite suppressants. There is some evidence that patients lose as much weight and maintain as much weight loss without them as with them. The trend in the late 1980s and early 1990s has been to treat patients for obesity with behavior modification (essentially, diet and exercise) only. But there is no evidence that it is below the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances to treat patients for obesity by prescribing appetite suppressants in conjunction with diet recommendations. It is true that the Respondent prescribed appetite suppressants for longer periods of time than recommended in the medical and pharmaceutical literature. The literature recommends using appetite suppressants only during the early weeks of a weight reduction program. The reasons are twofold and related: first, the patient generally builds a tolerance to the appetite suppressant, making them less effective; second, the patient can become dependent on them. The goal is to use appetite suppressants to begin reducing caloric intake for initial weight loss, while changing eating habits for long term reduction in caloric intake and weight. The problem confronting the Respondent in this case lay in the nature of the patient's noncompliance. She would begin the program but not follow it or continue with it for long. When she returned to the Respondent after a long hiatus, it was like starting the program over again. The evidence did not prove that it was below the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances for the Respondent to repeatedly restart his treatment for obesity, namely by prescribing appetite suppressants in conjunction with diet recommendations. There were occasions when the Respondent prescribed an appetite suppressant when the patient's blood pressure reading was high. According to the medical and pharmaceutical literature and the expert medical testimony, caution should be exercised in prescribing these medications for patients with high blood pressure. But the exercise of that caution is a matter of medical judgment, based on an overall knowledge and understanding of the patient and circumstances involved. Only once, on April 3, 1992, did the Respondent prescribe an appetite suppressant (Tenuate Dospan) when the patient's blood pressure reading was so high (150/110) as to clearly contraindicate the use of the appetite suppressant. On all other occasions, the patient's blood pressure would be considered mildly or moderately high, requiring the Respondent to exercise caution, which he did. In all cases, the Respondent believed that there was a causal connection between the patient's weight and blood pressure and that, given the patient's relative youth and the past success with the treatment, it was worth trying appetite suppressants, in conjunction with diet recommendations, to help reduce both the patient's weight and her blood pressure. Although some physicians would disagree with the Respondent's medical judgments, except for April 3, 1992, it was not proven that the Respondent's medical judgment in this case fell below the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. However, it is found that it was below the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances for the Respondent to prescribe Tenuate Dospan on April 3, 1992. It was not proven that it was below the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances for the Respondent not to refer the patient to a specialist for hypertension before April 14, 1992. The first evidence of severe hypertension appeared on her visit on March 16, 1992. But the Respondent had not seen the patient since December, 1991, due to missed appointments, and it was reasonable at that point for the Respondent not to refer immediately. It could be argued that he should have referred the patient after one of the next two visits, but the delay until April 14, 1992, was fairly short. It was not the Respondent's fault that the patient did not keep the appointment with the specialist which he made for her. It should be noted that the patient does not complain about the level of care and treatment given by the Respondent. Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent's care and treatment harmed the patient. Apparently, while the patient was hospitalized for overdosing on pain medication unrelated to the Respondent's care and treatment, the patient's medical records were brought to the attention of the predecessor of the AHCA, and it appeared to that agency (and to the AHCA) that the Respondent was guilty of worse practice of medicine than ultimately was proven in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of a single violation, on April 3, 1992, of Section 458.331(1)(t), which also resulted in a technical violation of Section 458.331(1)(q), Fla. Stat. (1993); (2) requiring the Respondent to notify the Board or the AHCA if he reopens his practice of medicine; (3) placing the Respondent on probation on appropriate terms in the event the Respondent reopens his practice; and (4) fining the Respondent $500. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2375 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. (The Respondent testified.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate to facts contrary to those found; second sentence, subordinate to facts found. Rejected as not proven that the patient's hypertension was severe. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 14.-19. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven, except for patients with severe hypertension. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (He believed it permissible because the patient's blood pressure was not stable.) Second sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Third sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. First sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. First sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Second sentence, rejected as not proven as to Didrex after 1990; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. (The AHCA did not charge inadequate records.) 27.-29. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (The question is not whether a referral would have been appropriate but rather whether not referring was inappropriate.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that referral was required in 1984 or that the patient's weight and blood pressure did not respond to treatment before 1988. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (The question is not whether a referral would have been appropriate but rather whether not referring was inappropriate.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected. They knew it to the extent that it is the same as for an internist. 37.-38. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 39. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to the facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 5. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 6.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 23.-28. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Other than evidence that she may have become nervous on occasion from the appetite suppressants, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted. The second occasion is irrelevant, having occurred after the events in issue in this case. The first is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31.-32. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 36.-37. Accepted and incorporated. 38.-40. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted (that it is not necessarily inappropriate) and incorporated. Accepted. First two sentences, incorporated; second, subordinate to facts found. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Rejected as to April 3, 1992, as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found. 46.-47. Accepted and incorporated. 48. Rejected as to April 3, 1992, as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Alex D. Barker, Esquire Elaine Lucas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7466 John A. Naser, Esquire 1401 South Florida Avenue Suite 201 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director, Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Beverly Health Care of North Okaloosa violated certain regulations at the time of two surveys conducted on July 16 and November 29, 2001, so as to justify the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision to issue Beverly Health Care of North Okaloosa Conditional licenses and administrative fines.
Findings Of Fact North Okaloosa is a licensed nursing home located in Crestview, Florida. On July 16, 2001, AHCA conducted a survey of North Okaloosa’s facility. In its survey AHCA found one alleged deficiency relating to Resident No. 5. The deficiency was cited under Tag F-324. Tag F-324 relates to whether a facility has provided sufficient supervision or assistive devices to a resident to prevent injury from falls. The tag does not address assessment, the failure to assess, or maintenance of a care plan. These deficiencies are covered by other tags. Specific to Resident No. 5, the agency surveyor suggested that Resident No. 5 should have been provided a different type of footwear from that which he was wearing or that the facility should have provided additional assistive devices to prevent falls. Resident No. 5 was admitted to North Okaloosa’s facility around April 16, 2001. At the time of admission, he was assessed as being at high risk for falls. Interventions included monitoring medications, laboratory values, steadiness and balance. Resident No. 5 resided on the secured ward at the facility. Resident No. 5 had pain in both feet, but could ambulate. He walked with a shuffling gait due to his foot pain, and he wore slip-on house shoes without non-skid soles. He refused to wear other types of shoes because other types of shoes caused more discomfort. He was also cognitively impaired and refused to sit down or lie down to rest but would ambulate continuously. Restraints were not appropriate for him. Resident No. 5 had been assessed to be at risk for falling and had a care plan in place. He was on the facility’s "Falling Star" program which meant that he was checked on by the staff at least every half hour. The general standard of observation in nursing homes is every two hours. The nurses’ notes contain many entries regarding monitoring the resident while he walked. Since admission, Resident No. 5 fell on June 12, June 25, July 8, and July 14, 2001. The only falls charged as violations by AHCA concerned the falls on July 8 and July 14, 2001. The resident was found on the floor outside the shower on July 8, 2001. He sustained some injury which caused him to be taken to the local hospital. However, there was no indication of inappropriate supervision or that his shoes were involved or contributed to the fall. Indeed, there was very little evidence regarding how Resident No. 5 got down on the floor of the shower. Resident No. 5 fell again on July 14, 2001. On that date, he was being observed by staff who saw him bend over and then lose his balance. At that time, he was being supervised closely, but even so, the fall could not be prevented. Again, there was no indication that the shoes contributed to his fall. Unfortunately, falls are a common occurrence in nursing homes and cannot always be prevented. The goal is to balance the need to prevent falls and the need to keep residents free of restraints given physical, cognitive, and treatment limitations. Falls can result regardless of adequate supervision. There is no standard of care which requires one-on-one supervision of any resident. However, such one-on-one supervision would not necessarily prevent all falls. Although AHCA suggested the resident should have had shoes with non-skid soles, such shoes would have increased the risk of falls, given the resident’s shuffling gait. Non-skid soles were not appropriate footwear for Resident No. 5. There was some indication in the evidence that the facility at times had one C.N.A. on duty for the ward. No schedules or testimony from the facility confirmed this fact. There was insufficient evidence on this point to address the adequacy of the facility's staffing. Moreover, the evidence did not demonstrate any appropriate measures which could have been added to protect Resident No. 5 from falls. Beyond agency speculation, there was no evidence that the standard of care for supervision of a resident in order to prevent falls was violated and no Class II deficiency occurred in relation thereto. On November 29, 2001, AHCA again conducted a survey of North Okaloosa’s facility. In its survey AHCA found several violations related to various residents. The deficiencies cited by AHCA involved Resident No. 3 (Tags F-157 and F-324); Residents No. 2 and 22 (Tag F-221); Resident No. 19 (Tags F-221, F-324 and F-325); Resident No. 7 (Tag F-279); Residents No. 10 and 12 (Tags F-279 and F-325); Resident No. 15 (Tag F-279); Resident No. 16 (Tags F-279 and F-324); Resident No. 24 (Tag F-279); Resident No. 25 (Tag F-324); and Residents No. 1 and 17 (Tag F-325). Tag F-157 represents 42 C.F.R. Section 483.10(b)(11), which in pertinent part requires a facility to immediately inform a physician "when there . . . is a significant change in the resident’s . . . status . . . (i.e., a deterioration in health . . . status in either life threatening conditions or clinical complications) . . ." Not all changes in a resident’s condition trigger the notification provisions of Tag F-157. Notification is required only where the change is significant as outlined above. Resident No. 3 required assistance with her activities of daily living and was cognitively impaired. Resident No. 3 required assistance with ambulation. There was no evidence that she required assistance with toileting. She was diagnosed with dementia and had severe osteoarthritis. Resident No. 3 often complained of back pain and was prescribed Darvocet as a medication for her back pain. She also often refused to ambulate and would remain in her bed. She was prescribed Zyprexa and Haldol. Nursing notes indicate that at 7:23 p.m. on August 31, 2001, Resident No. 3 was assisted to the bathroom and seated. A few minutes later she was found "on the floor no injuries noted." Nurses are trained to assess patients after an accident to determine whether there has been an injury. This is a regular part of practice in a nursing facility. A notification was faxed to the doctor regarding the incident, with the notation that there was no injury, but that the resident had experienced a decline in ability to ambulate. However, the staff did not think the decline was a significant change in status since Resident No. 3 often would stay in bed. AHCA asserts that this notice was insufficient, as it was sent after office hours prior to a weekend. AHCA’s position assumes the doctor would not have received the fax. The nursing notes over the weekend note that the resident complained of back pain, that she had a small bruise on her left shoulder, that she remained in bed but displayed no effects from the fall. Nursing staff continued to monitor her. On Saturday and Sunday, the C.N.A. did range of motion and ambulation exercises with the resident. There was no complaint of pain or "guarding." On the following Tuesday (Monday was Labor Day), while in therapy, the therapist noted pain while doing exercises. The physician was called and an X-ray was ordered which revealed a fracture of the tibia. In this case, the complaint of back pain did not constitute a significant change in condition, as the resident’s record is replete with continuing complaints of back pain prior to August 31, 2001, and a medication prescribed for that particular problem. The resident had also had episodes of staying in bed and a recent decline in ambulation, of which the doctor was aware. Given this history, the clinical records do not reflect any significant change in condition which would warrant an immediate notification of a physician prior to Tuesday, when the doctor was called. Therefore, no Class II violation occurred in relation to Resident No. 3 under Tag F-157. Tag F-324 was also cited as a violation in relation to Resident No. 3. As indicated earlier, Tag F-324 relates to the provision of adequate supervision or assistive devices to prevent falls. The record reflects that the resident had been able to ambulate independently with a recent decline in ambulation and need for some assistance. She could follow instructions. She had a care plan for falls and was on the Falling Star program. She was seen by a neurologist and a physical therapist. Nothing in the record indicated insufficient capacity to be allowed to use the bathroom in private. AHCA's surveyor did not know what the usual routine was for this resident as it related to toileting but suggested that she should not have been left alone while toileting. The evidence does not support this conclusion and there is no other basis under this tag in relation to Resident No. 3, which demonstrates a violation. Tag F-221 corresponds to 42. C.F.R. Section 483.13(a) and prohibits the use of restraints "imposed for discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident’s medical condition." Again, the tag does not include assessment, failure to assess or maintenance of a care plan. AHCA asserted that three residents had restraints which were not used to treat a medical condition, Residents No. 2, 19, and 22. Resident No. 2 had a history of falls, and a care plan to address his risk of falls. On October 17, 2001, he fell for the third time since September 30, 2001, causing a 3.5 cm laceration to the back of his head. He had been experiencing a decline in cognitive status and disease progression, of which the doctor was aware. The resident had severe mental impairment which caused him to not be aware of safety. As a result of this history and his injury, the doctor assessed and ordered the use of a lap belt while he was in a wheelchair, along with an alarm to notify staff if he attempted to stand. The records reflect a medical need for the restraint to prevent injury to this resident. Resident No. 19 used a front opening lap belt while she was in her wheelchair. The lap belt was assessed and ordered by the physician on August 14, 2001. The clinical record contained an assessment of the device and approval from the family, but the assessment clearly noted that the device was used "for positioning. Not as a restraint." The resident had a care plan for falls, which also stated that the seat belt was for positioning to "prevent her from sliding out of the chair," not to prevent her from getting up. According to the notes of her assessment, the belt also acted as a reminder for her to seek assistance when getting up. AHCA acknowledged that the device was not a restraint because the resident could, and did, open it. Even if it were considered a restraint, however, the record reflects that it was used to address her history of falls and poor safety awareness due to her dementia. In short, the belt was used because of her medical condition and, therefore, had a medical reason underlying its use. Resident No. 22 had a physician’s assessment and order for a roll belt while in bed. A roll belt is attached to either side of the bed and keeps the resident from getting up or out of bed. It is a restraint. The roll belt was ordered because, as acknowledged by AHCA in the survey report, the resident had sustained a fall in which she broke her hip, and then, upon return to the facility, fell from her bed and re-injured her hip. The second fall necessitated a complete hip replacement. She had poor safety awareness, and any further fall would have resulted in severe limitations. The doctor had also ordered cushions to be attached to her legs to keep her hip aligned properly, so that any attempt to get up would necessarily have resulted in a fall. Clearly, this restraint had a medical purpose. As to Tag F-221, there was insufficient evidence that North Okaloosa used restraints in an inappropriate manner. It was clear from the evidence that AHCA’s main concern was a perceived lack of assessment or reassessment of the devices used on these residents. However, assessment is not covered by this tag. Moreover, the record demonstrated some assessment was done by the doctor in ordering the use of these devices for medical reasons. The facility is entitled to rely on that expert's decision. Tag F-279 encompasses 42 C.F.R. Section 483.20(k), which requires a comprehensive care plan for each resident to meet needs identified in a comprehensive assessment. AHCA asserted that the care plans for six residents were defective in varying ways. AHCA's surveyor asserted that the care plan for pressure sores for Resident No. 7 was deficient because it did not mention that the resident was at high risk for pressure sores, that he had sores that opened and healed, or included the changes in the doctor’s orders regarding those sores. A "care plan" as opposed to a "plan of care" is developed pursuant to an assessment called a Minimum Data Set or MDS, which is conducted on admission, then annually with quarterly updates for significant changes. It is not an all- inclusive document and cannot be all-inclusive. As set forth in Rule 59A-4.109, Florida Administrative Code, the overall "plan of care" includes not only the care plan, but physician’s orders and other information relating to the resident. Physician orders are not required to be included in the formal care plan required under Tag F-279 and such orders are not typically reflected on a care plan document. Resident No. 7 was admitted with Stage IV pressure ulcers in February 2001. Resident No. 7 was diagnosed with leukemia, as well as other debilitating conditions. A care plan was developed in March pursuant to an MDS on admission which stated that he had pressure sores and was at high risk for developing such. The plan was amended several times, most recently before the survey on November 14, 2001. Contrary to the surveyor’s assertion, the care plan did mention the resident was at increased risk for pressure sores and noted that, in spite of the resident’s conditions, the pressure sores healed by May and did not reoccur. The care plan was kept in effect to prevent further problems and was obviously effective. Clearly, Resident No. 7 had a care plan which reasonably addressed his needs. AHCA asserted that Resident No. 10 required a care plan for weight loss. However, the resident was admitted at 80 pounds, and at the time of the survey weighed 93.6 pounds, indicating that there was not a weight loss problem. A physician’s assessment in September described her as a "petite, well-developed" 87-year-old, which indicates no problem with her weight. She was within her ideal weight range. She had some history of up and down weights, but the evidence did not demonstrate a need to change or update Resident No. 10’s care plan. Resident No. 10 had also been flagged by the facility as being at risk for weight loss and sometimes refused her meals. However, these facts demonstrate an appropriate ongoing monitoring and assessment of Resident No. 10 by the facility. These facts do not demonstrate a need to immediately amend the formal care plan for Resident No. 10. Resident No. 12 was a Hospice patient. He had metastatic prostate cancer which was likely to result in death within six months. For Hospice residents, the focus is on comfort as opposed to aggressive care. The Hospice agency is a separate entity from the nursing home, and when Hospice comes in to care for a resident, it becomes the care manager and determines the approaches to care. AHCA's surveyor asserted that there did not appear to be coordinated care plans between Hospice and North Okaloosa for Resident No. 12, but the basis for this concern was not made clear. AHCA's surveyor acknowledged that the facility and Hospice had care plans and did not identify any specific concerns except that the facility did not appear to be doing weekly weighings of the resident. However, Resident No. 12 had been assessed to be likely to lose weight due to his medical conditions. He received nutritional supplements, and the family had declined tube feedings, which is consistent with Hospice care. The facility records reflect that the resident did receive the nutritional supplements, and that, while he gradually lost weight as expected, he did not decline significantly in the period prior to survey. The facility did not shirk its duty to continue to monitor Resident No. 12. It coordinated its care with that of Hospice and AHCA’s concerns over such were not born out by the evidence. AHCA’s complaint about Resident No. 15 was that the care plan for weight loss was discontinued when the resident was admitted to Hospice care. At that time, however, the resident continued to have a Hospice care plan regarding nutrition, and a facility care plan regarding hospice care which noted that the resident was to be monitored for abnormal weight loss, appetite, and skin breakdown. Additionally, as a result of an assessment completed November 26, 2001, it was determined that there were concerns about skin breakdown. A separate care plan for nutritional status was to be developed. This assessment demonstrates that the care planning process was working appropriately for Resident No. 15. It also demonstrates coordination between Hospice and the facility. Again, AHCA's concern of coordination of Hospice care with facility care was not born out by the evidence. Resident No. 16 was diagnosed with various dementias, anxiety and depression. The resident had frequent episodes of dizziness with a history of falls. AHCA's surveyor asserted that the care plan for Resident No. 16 should have had particular mention of dizziness and a method of addressing that condition. The care plan did appropriately plan for fall prevention and addressed the reasons for her falls, i.e. vertigo, under that section. The resident’s record demonstrates that the resident received frequent physician attention due to her spells of dizziness or vertigo and that the nurses continuously monitored for that condition. The assessment which resulted in the development of the resident’s care plan indicates that the resident has dizzy spells causing falls. The care plan lists monitoring of the resident for "steadiness and balance." As "dizziness" is a subjective state, it cannot be monitored, and the care plan, which was updated on many occasions, adequately addressed the problem even if it was not in terms AHCA thought should be used. Resident No. 24 was also a Hospice resident. The resident was in a vegetative state. AHCA's surveyor suggested that the Hospice care plans and facility care plans were not "integrated." The resident’s record reflects, however, that the facility developed a care plan noting that the resident was on Hospice care and that Hospice attended care plan meetings. AHCA also suggested that the care plan for pressure sores was deficient because it noted a "risk of" pressure sores and was not updated to reflect actual pressure sores which the resident acquired while in the hospital. AHCA suggested no way in which this would have changed the care given. However, as noted above, physician orders are not typically reflected on the care plan document. Furthermore, Hospice had a care plan for pressures sores as well, and the record reflects that there were numerous physician orders for treatments. The care plans for all the residents cited were developed pursuant to the comprehensive assessment process. The evidence did not demonstrate any Class II violations of Tag F-279. Indeed the evidence demonstrated that confusion by AHCA over a resident’s formal care plan with an ongoing and changing plan of care. Again, in the November survey AHCA charged that North Okaloosa failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for three residents under Tag F-324. The allegations relating to Resident No. 3 were covered earlier. As indicated earlier, Resident No. 16 experienced dizziness or vertigo. She also had a high risk for falls. AHCA's surveyor speculated that alarms should have been attached to her chair or increased supervision. However, the resident regularly got up and walked, which would render the alarms useless. Indeed, the evidence did not demonstrate that rising from a seated position was the cause of her falls. In fact, the resident had not experienced any falls from August 22 until November 27, 2001, in spite of her episodes of vertigo and dizziness. She received frequent physician evaluations and the nurses’ notes reflect frequent monitoring. The record reflects that there was no warning of her attacks of vertigo. There was no evidence of inadequate supervision or of assistive devices which would reduce the resident’s risk of falling. Resident No. 19 had a history of falls and had been assessed several times for the problem. He was in a wheelchair with a front opening seat belt. A TABS monitor was used while the resident was in bed. The resident had a care plan in place to address such, including restorative care to assist with transfers. She received therapy to address her problem with balance. AHCA's surveyor suggested that her seat belt did not operate as an effective restraint but did not suggest the resident should have been restrained, agreeing that residents generally have the right to be free of restraints. Indeed, restraints were not appropriate for this resident. AHCA also noted that no measures other than a seatbelt and chair alarm had been put in place since August. Those measures had been reviewed through assessment in September, however, and had been effective in preventing falls until November 23, 2001. There was no evidence that there was any lack of supervision of Resident No. 19. Additionally, the resident was in the process of being reassessed to determine if further interventions were appropriate after her fall of November 23, 2001, and that review, though underway, had not been completed at the time of the survey. The evidence did not demonstrate that AHCA failed to adequately supervise or provide assistive devices to these residents. Therefore, no Class II violation under Tag F-324 was established. Tag F-325 requires a facility to ensure that a resident "maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status" insofar as possible given a resident’s clinical conditions. 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25(i). Guidelines used by AHCA in interpreting this regulation are found in the State Operations Manual and suggest that there are levels of "significant" weight loss which would be unacceptable, if not explained by a resident’s medical circumstances. Weight loss is to be determined by looking to the resident’s usual weight, and significance is measured at one month, three month, and six month intervals, recognizing that a shorter term could be a temporary aberration. Generally, a 5 percent total body weight loss in 30 days or a 10 percent total body weight loss in 180 days is considered significant by AHCA. However, these are simply guidelines and do not necessarily demonstrate a violation of this tag. Other considerations, such as the resident’s medical condition and obesity, must be considered. AHCA asserted that Resident No. 1 had a significant weight loss, from 249 to 222 pounds from September 16 through October 9, 2001. The selection of this time period is inappropriate, however, for two reasons. One, the weight of 249 is clearly, by the weight records, not a usual weight and appears to be a mistake. The resident’s prior weight was 238, and the resident’s usual weight was between 220 and 230 pounds. The resident was obese, which can make weighing difficult and cause inaccuracies. Moreover, it is physically impossible for the resident to have lost 27 pounds in three weeks. The second reason that the noted time frame was inappropriate was that it spanned less than a one month’s time and, therefore, was not necessarily indicative of any trend or condition. The surveyor also opined, though she was not a dietician or physician, that the facility should have increased the resident’s tube feeding level prior to October 9, 2001. The level had been reduced on physician orders on September 24, 2001, due to nausea and vomiting. The resident had metastatic breast cancer and was on Hospice care, making comfort the primary goal of treatment. From that date until October 9, 2001, the clinical record reflects continuing reasons not to increase the feeding level, irrespective of the dieticians recommendations. Medications had been added, and monitoring for their effectiveness would take time. The resident also had a distended abdomen indicating a failure to absorb the feedings she was receiving. Even if there had been a weight loss, it was not inadvisable given the resident’s obesity. There was no evidence that the resident’s nutritional well-being was not being monitored appropriately by the facility. AHCA cited Resident No. 10 under Tag F-325, but did not identify any "parameter of nutritional status" which was not maintained. Again, the surveyor identified a short term (one week) weight loss, which was not significant. The resident was within her ideal range. The surveyor suggested only that she had a history of varying weights and that, during the survey, she did not eat some of her meals. The weight record reflects, however, fairly consistent weights and an overall increase from the time of the resident’s admission. It was not disputed that Resident No. 12 experienced a significant weight loss; however, it was also undisputed that weight loss was to be expected with his metastatic prostate cancer, other medical conditions, and Hospice status. The surveyor was concerned that the resident was seen with a regular meal, rather than a "mechanical soft" meal, as ordered, and that the meal tray did not contain a sugar free shake, as ordered. The description of the meal in the survey report identified a meal which is considered "mechanical soft" by dietary standards. Further the clinical record (medication administration record) demonstrated that the shakes were provided. The shakes were not required to be on the meal tray, as there was a one-hour window around mealtime in which they could be served. Furthermore, the resident’s weight in October and November was relatively stable. The resident’s weight loss and protein levels were the result of his medical condition and the resident was on an adequate diet given the parameters of the resident’s treatment and condition. Resident No. 17 was cited under this tag, though there was no evidence of any significant weight decline or other nutritional deficit. The resident was within her ideal body weight and gained weight during her stay at North Okaloosa. AHCA disputed the tube feeding provided to the resident, but was unaware the resident also received food orally. Resident No. 19 lost weight since her admission in August 2000, to North Okaloosa. However, the trend was noted by the facility when it became significant. The concern was addressed and the weight stabilized after June 2001. The resident remained in her ideal body weight range, so there was no need to recapture the lost weight. In July, a physician review noted that the resident was "well-nourished." The surveyor acknowledged that there had been no significant weight loss from March to September 2001, and that weights were stable from June until the survey. In September, the resident’s psychiatrist noted that there had previously been a weight loss concern but that it had been resolved. The weight loss had occurred due to his medical condition and his need for 15 different medications which affected his appetite and condition. Resident No. 25 had a diagnosis of failure to thrive and was placed on Hospice care. Failure to thrive means an accumulation of factors trending to weight loss. Eating more does not affect weight loss as there is an inability to utilize nutrients. AHCA's surveyor objected to the fact that there was a dietary recommendation on October 23, 2001, for double portions, which had not resulted in an order. A physician’s order is required to make a diet change, and there is no indication of failure to notify the physician. However, the resident already received 3,300 calories, far in excess of her assessed needs, consumed 100 percent of her meals, and continued to lose weight. From a dietary standpoint, there was no reason to believe the addition of more calories would have affected the trend caused by her failure to thrive. The evidence did not demonstrate any Class II deficiencies related to these residents under Tag F-325.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, there was no basis upon which AHCA could have issued Conditional ratings to North Okaloosa on July 12, 2001, or November 29, 2001 or impose a fine. It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 12, 2001, and November 29, 2001, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F-157, F-221, F-279, F-324, and F-325, and issuing Standard ratings to North Okaloosa to replace the previously issued Conditional ratings, and correcting all other records to reflect the absence of any proven deficiencies at North Okaloosa during either survey, and dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jodi C. Page, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was the victim of discrimination by the Respondent because of an alleged disability and whether the Respondent retaliated against the Petitioner for filing a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Gregory L. Stubbs, was employed by the Respondent Department as a maintenance yard Welder for approximately five and one-half years. In 1993, he suffered a back injury on the job, resulting in chronic pain. On January 28, 1997, the Petitioner accepted a position with the Department's Office of Motor Carrier Compliance (MCC) as a Weight Inspector. The Weight Inspector position accepted by Mr. Stubbs was an open, advertised position at the time, for which the Department accepted applications and conducted interviews, including that of Mr. Stubbs. He applied for the position, was interviewed and selected for the position. When Mr. Stubbs was offered the Weight Inspector position, he was advised that appointment to the position would amount to a demotion from his current position with the Department, in the sense that he would have to accept a base rate of pay of 5 percent less than he had been earning. He voluntarily accepted that position and the reduction in pay. The pay for the position was set when the position was released for hire and was not changed because Mr. Stubbs elected to apply for the position and became the selected candidate hired for the position. Weight Inspectors work at fixed-scale weigh stations where trucks are weighed. Mr. Stubbs was assigned to the "Northbound scales" on Interstate 95 near Yulee, Florida in Nassau County. Weight Inspectors are responsible for enforcing the motor vehicle weight laws, writing citations for violations, as well as writing citations for fuel tax violations and enforcing the dimensional limits on motor vehicles. The job involves weighing and measuring vehicles, writing citations, answering the telephone, operating a computer and checking vehicle tags and registration numbers. The job does not involve any heavy lifting, loading or any physically demanding tasks. Weight Inspectors employed by MCC work alone at the scale houses, except when a new inspector is present for training. Mr. Stubbs was able to perform these duties and, when present for work, performed them well. Mr. Stubbs was supervised by Sgt. Robert Bryan. Sgt. Bryan participated in interviewing Mr. Stubbs and in selecting him for the position. During the interview process Sgt. Bryan informed Mr. Stubbs of the Weight Inspector's job duties. Mr. Stubbs never informed Sgt. Bryan that he would have any trouble performing the job duties. Mr. Stubbs also did not tell Sgt. Bryan, at that time, that he had trouble with his back or that he would have trouble reporting for work on time. Sgt. Bryan later learned that Mr. Stubbs had trouble with his back, but did not consider the problem to restrict Mr. Stubbs' ability to perform the Weight Inspector job. Weight Inspectors are required to report for work on time. The failure to report for work timely, results in closure of the scale facility. When a Weight Inspector has to be late or is unable to report for work before the beginning of a shift, he is required to advise the supervisor before the scheduled time for the shift. This requirement is contained in the Department's published Conduct Standards. Copies of the Department's published Conduct Standards are provided to all Weight Inspectors that work for MCC, including the Petitioner. Department employees are advised that unexcused tardiness or absences will be grounds for disciplinary action and the Petitioner was so informed. On October 19, 1997, Sgt. Bryan counseled Mr. Stubbs about failing to notify him of an absence from work. Sgt. Bryan stressed the need for Mr. Stubbs to contact him as soon as he became aware that he would not be able to timely report for work. On October 12, 1998, Sgt. Bryan counseled Mr. Stubbs for failing to report to work on time. Sgt. Bryan again stressed the need for Mr. Stubbs to timely report to work. On December 31, 1998, Mr. Stubbs acknowledged receipt of a Memorandum from Lt. Vicki D. Thomas concerning tardiness and the use of leave. Lt. Thomas is the Jacksonville Field Office supervisor for MCC and is Sgt. Bryan's immediate supervisor. Lt. Thomas' Memorandum requires Weight Inspectors to contact both the main MCC office and the inspector who they are scheduled to relieve whenever they will be tardy or absent. On January 13, 1999, Sgt. Bryan again counseled Mr. Stubbs about failing to report to work as scheduled In 1998, Mr. Stubbs filed a grievance through his union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The subject of the grievance was the reduction in pay Mr. Stubbs' sustained by accepting employment with MCC. He sought re-instatement of the pay he had received as a Welder. Lt. Thomas received the AFSCME grievance on August 17, 1998, and responded to it by noting that the grievance was untimely and that Mr. Stubbs had voluntarily accepted the Weight Inspector position and attendant reduction in pay. Although the grievance was unsuccessful Mr. Stubbs continued his employment with MCC. On or about February 9, 1999, the Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging that the Department had discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability by reducing his pay when he accepted the Weight Inspector position. On May 13, 1999, the EEOC advised the Petitioner that it could not investigate his charge because it was not filed within the time required by law. A copy of the EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights was provided to the Department. A copy of the EEOC Notice was also sent to Mr. Stubbs at the Department's address. This copy was mistakenly opened by the Department and then forwarded to Mr. Stubbs. Sgt. Bryan became aware of the complaint when the letter was opened in the Department offices, but the complaint was not a factor in his supervision of Mr. Stubbs. On April 2, 1999 through June 25, 1999, the Petitioner was absent from work. He exhausted all of his sick leave and was authorized additional, unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. On June 25, 1999, Mr. Stubbs returned to his Weight Inspector assignment. He was scheduled to work on July 2, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 16, 1999. He did not report for work on those days. On July 8, 1999, he failed to advise Sgt. Bryan that he would not be reporting for work. Sgt. Bryan checked with other supervisors to see if Mr. Stubbs had advised anyone else that he would be absent, and learned that Mr. Stubbs had not contacted them. Lt. Thomas issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner for these absences. The reprimand was issued because he was absent from work without authorized leave and failed to follow the Department's rules concerning advance approval for leave. Neither the Petitioner's prior complaint to the EEOC or his back problem motivated Lt. Thomas to issue the reprimand. On July 20, 1999, Sgt. Bryan spoke with Mr. Stubbs about a cash penalty that Mr. Stubbs had collected on a "load report." Weight Inspectors who collect cash penalties are required to convert the cash funds to a money order or cashier's check within 48-hours after the date the report is issued. Weight Inspectors are allowed to use work time to convert cash penalties to money orders or cashier's checks. Sgt. Bryan asked the Petitioner about the cash because the load report involved was apparently issued six days earlier. The Petitioner told Sgt. Bryan that he had not converted the cash to a money order, that he had the cash with him and that he believed the inquiry was ridiculous. Sgt. Bryan then had to go to Mr. Stubbs's doctor's office to retrieve the cash penalty. Mr. Stubbs received a suspension for his handling of the cash penalty and related behavior. Lt. Thomas investigated the allegations contained in the suspension letter and believed them to be correct. She prepared the letter for signature. Neither Mr. Stubbs' prior complaint to the EEOC or his back problem motivated Lt. Thomas to issue the suspension. During the period from July 21, 1999 to August 6, 1999, the Petitioner was repeatedly absent and late to work. At 12:25 p.m., on August 1, 1999, the Petitioner advised Lt. Thomas that he had not worked as scheduled on July 31, 1999, and had not reported for work on the morning of August 1, 1999. On August 26, 1999, the Petitioner received a suspension for his unauthorized and excessive absences. Lt. Thomas investigated the allegations contained in the suspension letter, believed them to be correct and prepared the letter for signature. Neither the Petitioner's prior complaint to the EEOC or his back problem motivated Lt. Thomas to issue the suspension. The Petitioner was advised that any further violations of the Department's Conduct Standards would result in more severe discipline, up to and including dismissal. The Petitioner was scheduled to work from October 11 through October 15, 1999, but did not report for work on those days. He did not contact Sgt. Bryan or Lt. Thomas to advise them that he would not be at work. Lt. Thomas and Sgt. Bryan checked with other MCC supervisors and staff but were not advised that Mr. Stubbs had contacted anyone. Sgt. Bryan and Lt. Thomas did not hear from Mr. Stubbs from October 11 through October 15, 1999, and had not authorized his absences. The Department dismissed Mr. Stubbs from employment for those unauthorized absences. The Petitioner was apparently ill during that period but did not provide the Department with a doctor's note until approximately six weeks after the absences. The doctor's note does not indicate that the Petitioner was unable to call his supervisors to report his anticipated absence. The Petitioner did not establish that he was unable to report to his supervisors as required. The Department's discipline of the Petitioner and the ultimate decision to dismiss him from the Department were not motivated by Mr. Stubbs' prior complaint to the EEOC. Although some of his absences from work may have resulted from his back injury, the evidence does not establish that all of his absences were related to his injury. He was absent for material amounts of time in excess of his available leave. In 1999, he exhausted his accrued leave and used twelve weeks of unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. After returning from family medical leave, he continued to be absent for a significant period of time. There was no showing that additional leave would enable Mr. Stubbs to return to work on a regular basis. Additionally, he failed to notify his superiors in advance of his absences as required and instructed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gregory L. Stubbs 3563 North Hampton Cove Court Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Shady Rest Care Pavilion, Inc. failed to maintain the nutritional status of one of its residents so as to justify the imposition of a conditional license rating upon the facility and an administrative fine of $2,500.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Shady Rest is licensed by the Agency as a skilled nursing facility. Shady Rest's license number is SNF1497096. The Agency conducted an on-site survey of Shady Rest from July 30, 2001, to August 2, 2001. At the time of the survey, Shady Rest's licensure status was standard. The survey was conducted by a "team" that included dietitian Lori Riddle and other health care professionals. The survey team identified several deficiencies at the facility. The deficiencies were detailed on the Form 2567 which was provided to Shady Rest by the Agency. The only deficiency still at issue in this proceeding is the Tag F325 which was summarized on the Form 2567 as follows: Based on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that nutritional needs were met for 3 (Residents 11, 21 and 22) of 5 active sampled residents receiving tube feeding who were at high risk for malnutrition as evidenced by significant weight loss, low albumin and total protein levels and recurring pressure sores. The survey team classified the Tag F325 at Level "G" (i.e., isolated actual harm) on the federal scope and severity matrix, which corresponds to an isolated Class II deficiency under the Florida classification scheme. Based upon the cited Class II deficiency, the Agency issued a notice of intent to change Shady Rest's licensure status from standard to conditional, and the Agency initiated a separate action to impose an administrative fine upon Shady Rest. This proceeding followed. At the hearing, the Agency narrowed the focus of the alleged deficiency from the three residents identified on the Form 2567 to only one, Resident 11. No evidence or testimony was presented regarding any other residents. Resident 11 is a female. At the time of the survey, she was 89 years old, 64 inches (five feet, four inches) tall, and weighed 145 pounds. She has been at Shady Rest since 1987. A care plan for Resident 11 was developed by a "team" that included the director of nursing at Shady Rest, a nurse (Sonja Reece, R.N.), a dietitian (Ann Marie Shields, R.D.), two care plan coordinators, and social service and activity personnel. Members of the care plan team worked closely with Resident 11's physician, Dr. Lakshmi Bushan, to manage Resident 11's medical conditions. Dr. Bushan was actively involved with the care of Resident 11 and was very familiar with her conditions. Dr. Bushan was at the facility on a weekly basis and sometimes several times per week. Resident 11 is totally dependent on Shady Rest and its staff for the provision of nutrition. She is fed through a tube connected directly to her stomach. Resident 11 is a "very complex resident" as a result of a myriad of serious medical conditions, including heart attack, seizure disorder, edema (i.e., swelling of the tissues due to fluid retention), hiatal hernia with reflux, pemphagus (i.e., an autoimmune disease resulting in blisters around the body), congestion in the lungs which caused breathing problems, kidney disease, and liver problems. She was also prone to skin breakdown. The treatment of Resident 11 was complicated by the fact that management of one of her conditions would exacerbate another. For example, the Prednisone she was taking to treat her pemphagus increased her fluid retention and, hence, her edema; but, Lasix, the diuretic she was taking for the edema, caused her to have diarrhea which led to the breakdown of her skin from constant cleaning and put her at risk of dehydration and kidney failure. Resident 11's edema was at a dangerous level, referred to as "3+ pitting edema." Relieving the edema was determined to be of critical importance to Resident 11 by her physician. The fluid retention in Resident 11's lungs caused her to suffer from shortness of breath which could ultimately lead to congestive heart failure. Because Resident 11 did not respond well to Lasix and because it actually exacerbated her other medical problems (i.e., skin breakdown), a fluid reduction diet was deemed necessary by her physician. Resident 11 was overweight, partially due to her edema. Resident 11's weight contributed to and exacerbated her medical conditions, particularly her congestion and breathing problems, and it enhanced her risk of congestive heart failure. On April 3, 2001, Dr. Bushan ordered an evaluation of Resident 11's nutritional status and the adequacy of her tube feeding. Resident 11 weighed 163 pounds on that date. On April 4, 2001, Ms. Shields, performed the evaluation ordered by Dr. Bushan. Ms. Shields calculated the total calories per day (cal/day) needed by Resident 11 based upon a standard formula. She then subtracted 400 cal/day to take into account the weight loss desired by Dr. Bushan. Ms. Shields' calculation resulted in an estimated caloric need for Resident 11 of 1,100 to 1,200 cal/day. Because the feeding ordered at that time provided 1,125 cal/day, which was within the range computed by Ms. Shields, no changes were made to Resident 11's diet at that time. Resident 11 was, however, taken off Lasix at that time because it was not contributing significantly to her weight loss and it was putting her at risk for dehydration and kidney failure. Resident 11's weight dropped only slightly after the April 4, 2001, evaluation. On May 1, 2001, she weighed 159 pounds and on June 1, 2001, she weighed 158 pounds. Dr. Bushan wanted Resident 11 to lose more weight more rapidly to stabilize her serious medical conditions. Accordingly, on June 13, 2001, Dr. Bushan requested a dietary consultant to check the amount of Resident 11's tube feedings in order to implement a planned weight loss program to reduce Resident 11's weight to 145 to 150 pounds. Ms. Shields conducted the assessment on June 14, 2001, and after consulting with Resident 11's care plan team, she recommended to Dr. Bushan that Resident 11's caloric intake be reduced from 1,125 cal/day to 750 cal/day to accomplish the rapid and significant weight loss desired by Dr. Bushan. Dr. Bushan accepted Ms. Shield's recommendations and ordered the reduction in calories on June 14, 2001. On that date, Resident 11 weighed 158 pounds. Resident 11's care plan was updated on June 14, 2001, to reflect the goal of reducing her weight by not more than five pounds per week until she reached less than or equal to 150 pounds. The dietary change achieved the desired effect of rapidly reducing Resident 11's weight and stabilizing her medical conditions. Her weight records showed the following: Date June 20, 2001 Weight 153 June 27, 2001 153 July 4, 2001 152 July 11, 2001 153 July 18, 2001 152 July 25, 2001 n/a August 2, 2001 145 The dietary notes for August 1, 2001, indicate that Resident 11's "weight goal was met" and recommended a dietary change to increase Resident 11's caloric intake to 1,000 cal/day. The record does not include the doctor's order implementing that recommendation. However, by August 8, 2001, Resident 11's weight was at 151 pounds, suggesting that the dietary change was implemented. Between the June 14, 2001, dietary change and the August 2, 2001, survey, Resident 11 lost 13 pounds, which is an 8.2 percent weight loss. For the three-month period of May 1, 2001 through August 2, 2001, Resident 11 lost 14 pounds, which is an 8.8 percent weight loss. Resident 11's edema improved significantly during this period; it was no longer at the "3+ pitting edema" level. In this regard, some of Resident 11's weight loss is attributable to the elimination of retained fluids (i.e., reduction in her edema), which was a significant purpose of the weight loss program. The amount of the weight loss attributable to the fluid loss is not quantifiable. The federal guidelines discussing Tag F325, which the Agency's survey team uses in its evaluation of a facility, state that "weight loss (or gain) is a guide in determining nutritional status" and identify parameters to be used in evaluating the significance or severity of weight loss. The 8.8 percent weight loss experienced by Resident 11 over a three- month period would be considered "severe" based upon the parameters. The parameters in the federal guidelines specifically refer to "unplanned and undesired weight loss." By contrast, the weight loss experienced by Resident 11 was planned and desirable. It was directed by Dr. Bushan after Ms. Shield's dietary consultation in order to reduce Resident 11's fluid intake and her edema while also promoting rapid weight loss to minimize her congestion and related breathing problems. The estimated protein needs for Resident 11 were 53 to 57 grams per day. The protein that she was being given, both prior to and after the June 14, 2001, dietary change was within that range. Increasing Resident 11's protein to offset the calorie reduction was not considered a viable option for Resident 11 because her history showed that the more protein she received the more weight she gained. Moreover, too much protein could cause liver failure, which was a risk for Resident 11. When the body is not receiving enough calories, it can metabolize protein as a calorie source rather than for the purposes protein is normally used, such as health of the skin. Resident 11 experienced skin breakdown (i.e., pressure sores or decubitus ulcers) after the June 14, 2001, dietary change. The sores were very small in size and, consistent with Resident 11's past history, the sores healed quickly. Therefore, they are not indicative of a protein deficiency. Indeed, subsequent to the dietary change, Resident 11's skin turgor was good. The laboratory reports for Resident 11 showed her having low albumin levels after the dietary change. Low albumin is generally an indicator of insufficient protein in the body. However, as noted above, the rate at which Resident 11's skin healed suggests that she was getting sufficient protein. Resident 11's low albumin level, in and of itself, is not determinative of her nutritional status. Indeed, the federal guidelines provided to the survey team state: Because some healthy elderly people have abnormal laboratory values, and because abnormal values can be expected in some disease processes, do not expect laboratory values to be within normal ranges for all residents. Consider abnormal values in conjunction with the resident's clinical condition and baseline abnormal values. Even before the June 14, 2001, dietary change, Resident 11's albumin level was not within the normal range. Her abnormal albumin levels may have been the result of her liver problems. Dr. Bushan and the care plan team at Shady Rest managed Resident 11's care based upon their clinical observations of her in conjunction with their experience regarding what worked for her in the past, not simply based upon her laboratory values. They were constantly weighing standards of practice with what was actually happening with Resident 11.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order which: Dismisses the Administrative Complaint against Shady Rest Care Pavilion in DOAH Case No. 02-1291; and Rescinds the notice of intent to assign conditional licensure status to Shady Rest Care Pavilion in DOAH Case No. 02-1965 and retains the facility's standard licensure status. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2002.
