The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be disciplined for allegedly practicing medicine below the generally accepted standard of care when he performed a laminectomy and discectomy at the incorrect level of a patient's lumbar spine.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, William O. DeWeese, is a Florida licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 0025687. Respondent is Board-certified in Neurological Surgery and is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons. He has practiced medicine since graduating from medical school in 1968. He received his Florida license in 1975 and established his practice in Tampa where he has continuously practiced medicine ever since. In twenty-four years of practice, the Florida Board of Medicine has never disciplined Respondent. Respondent's Standard Practice Respondent conducts his practice primarily through two local hospitals, St. Joseph’s Hospital and University Community Hospital. He has a typical practice common to neurological surgery. On average, Respondent performs three to four laminectomy-discectomy procedures each week. Before performing surgery on the spine, Respondent’s protocol is to review available medical records and films (CT, MRI, X-ray), obtain an EKG, obtain chest X-rays, and blood work. During surgery, he routinely obtains "real time" radiological confirmation of the level of the spine where he intends to operate based on his initial pre-surgical work-up. Respondent does this by marking the level where surgery is to take place with radio-opaque material (usually a cottonoid sponge), and has an X-ray film of the patient's spine and the marker exposed and developed in the operatory (OR). Respondent reviews the X-ray in the OR before having the X-ray technician take it to the radiology department for review by a radiologist. The radiologist on duty reviews the X-ray and usually writes on the X-ray to label the location of the marker and has the technician bring the labeled X-ray back to the OR; he then calls the OR, usually on a speaker telephone, to inform the surgeon as to the radiologist's interpretation of the film. Any question as to the level of surgery is resolved at that time. If Respondent is not at the intended level of the spine, he makes the appropriate adjustment in the surgical procedure and completes the surgery at the correct level. The First Surgery S.D. first presented to Respondent in November 1989 with complaints and symptoms of intractable back and left leg pain. She had been seen previously by other physicians but had not experienced any relief. At the time she presented to Respondent, S.D. was 5 feet 5 inches tall and obese (at 175 pounds). Unbeknownst to Respondent at the time, the patient also had an anatomical anomaly of six lumbar vertebrae instead of the more common five. As a result of the patient's anatomical anomaly, physicians could easily be misled, fooled, or misunderstood in reporting the level of spine being evaluated or treated. Depending upon awareness of the patient's specific anomaly and terminology used, the same location on the spine could be referred to as L4-L5, as L5-S1, or as L5-L6. Usually, neurosurgeons can predict the location of nerve root pathology fairly accurately based solely on a patient's complaints, objective examination, and symptoms. Specific nerves innervate specific areas of the body, and a deficit in one area of the body can reasonably lead a physician to suspect nerve root pathology at a particular level of the spine. Because Respondent was unable to determine from initial review of the patient's prior MRI that she had a sixth vertebra, he expected to find nerve root pathology at the L5-S1 level of the spine based on S.D.'s complaints, objective examination, and symptoms. But on X-ray and re-review of the MRI with benefit of the radiologist’s report, Respondent noted the sixth vertebra. Following a complete examination of S.D., including review of a recent CT scan, her prior MRI study, and X-ray films, Respondent believed that S.D. had a "large disc protrusion" at the L5-L6 level of the spine and a "small disc bulge" at the L4- L5 level. The patient's extra lumbar vertebra helped explain the location of the patient's nerve root pathology in relation to her complaints, objective examination, and symptoms. Respondent recommended that S.D. undergo lumbar surgery to explore the disc spaces, remove extruded disc material, and free any entrapped nerves. He expected to have to remove disc material only at the L5-L6 level. His pre-operative diagnosis was: degenerative lumbar disc with lateral angle stenosis (narrowing) at L5-L6; and possible disc protrusion at the L4-L5 level on the left. Respondent performed surgery on S.D. on December 4, 1989. The operation consisted of: a left laminectomy, exploration and inspection of the L4-L5 disc; and a laminotomy, foraminotomy, and partial discectomy at L5-L6. To accomplish the surgery, Respondent dissected away the soft tissues above L4, L5, L6, and S1. He then followed his protocol by placing radio-opaque cotton underneath the ligament at the level he believed was L4-L5 for radiological confirmation. After "real time" radiological confirmation that he was at L4-L5, Respondent removed enough lamina at L4-L5 to inspect the disc and nerve root. He did not observe any entrapment of the nerve and did nothing further at L4-L5. He next proceeded to L5- L6, where he repeated the same procedure but noted entrapment at the posterior aspect of the nerve root. The majority of the pressure on the nerve came from the neural foramen, and this was removed with osteotomy. Some disc material also was removed to free the nerve root. While inspecting the disc space at L5-L6, Respondent observed that the disc space was so narrow that a spinal needle was the thickest instrument that the disc space would receive; a straight pituitary curet could not be placed into the disc space. Respondent recorded these observations in his surgical notes. Similarly, the radiologist's report noted "considerable narrowing of the interspace at the L5-L6 level." Respondent completed the operation by performing a foraminotomy (removal of bone surrounding the point of exit of the nerve from the vertebras of the spinal column). The operation in December 1989 was uneventful; S.D. did well post-operatively and was discharged from the hospital after a normal stay. The Second Surgery S.D. returned to Respondent in March 1993 because of recurrent severe back pain and left leg pain. Following appropriate diagnostic tests and examination of S.D., which revealed what was thought to be a herniated disc on the left side at L5-L6, Respondent planned to "re-do" a laminectomy and discectomy at L5-L6. By the time of the patient's second surgery on May 10, 1993, she had gained about 40 pounds (up to 215 pounds.) The planned surgery was made more difficult by S.D.'s weight gain, as well as by her previous surgery. Additional fatty tissue decreased the operative field of view, as well as the quality of the intra- operative X-ray. S.D.'s anatomical landmarks had been altered as a result of the December 1989 surgery, and there was considerable scaring in the area to be explored during surgery, which obscured the remaining landmarks. Without the presence of normal landmarks and with heavy scaring and weight gain, Respondent had fewer tools to locate the correct level, making the second surgery more difficult. One landmark still available to Respondent to aid in the second surgery was the very narrow interspace at the L5-L6 level. However, Respondent did not the read surgical notes from the first surgery carefully enough to recall the landmark; or, if he read them and recalled the landmark, he attached little significance to the notes and landmark, as compared with other factors influencing his decisions during surgery. One of the reasons Respondent and his expert gave for not attaching more significance to the December 1989 findings as to the remarkably narrow L5-L6 interspace was that a patient's position on the Wilson laminectomy holder and the operation of the holder can alter the apparent width of lumbar interspaces. The holder is a special, adjustable operating table that can be made to "bridge up" in a continuous arc to force the patient (lying on the stomach) to stretch over the "bridge" and make the vertebral interspaces widen for easier access during surgery. While theoretically position on and operation of the holder can affect the width of the interspaces, in practice the surgeon always positions the patient and operates the holder so as to maximize the interspaces. One would not expect the positioning and operation of the holder in two operations at the same level of the lumbar spine to significantly widen an interspace as narrow as the one described in the December 1989 surgical notes. But it might reduce the relative importance of the landmark, compared to other information available to the surgeon, such as radiological confirmation and visual examination of the site. Through answers to his attorney's questions on direct, Respondent also initially attempted to take the position that the patient's weight gain between the two surgeries was enough to warrant ignoring the December 1989 surgical note as to the narrow L5-L6 interspace. But the Department's expert opined that the added weight would not make a significant difference, and on cross- examination Respondent admitted that he actually did not have the patient's weight gain in mind as a reason to gloss over the December 1989 surgical note as to the narrow L5-L6 interspace. Indeed, consistent with Respondent's admission on cross- examination, both Respondent and his expert, Dr. Maniscalco, opined that, if anything, the added weight probably would tend to reduce the maximum flexion obtainable through use of the Wilson laminectomy holder and make the interspaces at the surgical site appear narrower, not wider. Nonetheless, depending on its distribution on the patient, weight gain could possibly alter the apparent width of the interspace during surgery on a Wilson laminectomy holder, and this could also reduce the relative importance of the landmark, compared to other information available to the surgeon, such as radiological confirmation and visual examination of the site. While conceding that he really did not pay much attention to the December 1989 findings as to the remarkable narrowing of the L5-L6 interspace, Respondent also attempted to take the position in testimony that the L4-L5 interspace was fairly narrow itself, as compared for example to the L3-4 interspace. But the L5-L6 interspace clearly was much narrower than L4-L5 and could have been used as a landmark. See Findings 25 and 29, infra. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, the relatively narrow interspace at L-5-L6 was just one factor to be considered, along with radiological confirmation and visual examination. As Respondent wrote in his notes on May 10, 1993, he thought: "The previous laminectomy site was easily identified and confirmed with a lateral X-ray." The Department's expert took the use of the singular "previous laminectomy site" as evidence that Respondent was unaware of the previous laminectomy at L4-L5. But Respondent testified convincingly that he had reviewed the patient's medical records and was fully aware of both previous laminectomies--at both L5-L6 and L4-L5. (Respondent also testified that his use of the singular, "previous laminectomy site" was intended to mean the general site of both previous laminectomies. But it was the L5-L6 laminectomy site that he thought was "confirmed with a lateral X-ray," so it seems that the language used probably actually referred to the site of the intended surgery. In that respect, the wording of Respondent's surgical notes was ambiguous, if not erroneous.) As usual, an X-ray technician took the lateral X-ray, developed the film, and showed it to Respondent in the OR. Respondent testified that he then had the X-ray technician take the film to the radiology department, along with the pre-operative MRI, and that a radiologist on duty confirmed for him that he was at the "correct level" before he proceeded with the surgery. When Respondent proceeded with the surgery, he widened the laminectomy site and found a disc fragment (which he presumed to be recurrent) underneath and entrapping the nerve root. The nerve root was retracted medially, and the disc space was entered. A large fragment of disc was found in the subligamentous position. Respondent removed the large fragment; then more disc material was removed from the interspace, freeing the nerve. Respondent then performed a foraminotomy and completed the surgery. The pathology found during the second surgery was not inconsistent with the general kind of pathology Respondent expected to find at the L5-L6 level. Relying on visual examination and radiological confirmation, Respondent believed that he was operating at L5-L6. He did not notice, or attached no significance to, the ease of access to the disc space in May 1993, as compared to the narrow interspace encountered at L5-L6 in the first surgery. The Third Surgery After normal recuperation in the hospital, the patient noticed apparent improvement and began regular walking. However, approximately six to eight weeks after surgery, back and leg pain recurred, and the patient returned to Respondent for consultation. Respondent ordered another MRI and scheduled the patient for an appointment in August 1993. When Respondent reviewed the post- operative MRI with the patient, he realized that he had operated at L4-L5 instead of L5-L6. He asked the patient to go to the hospital and get the intra-operative X-ray to help him understand what had happened. It was his belief that the X-ray would show that he had radiological confirmation. With the patient's help, Respondent obtained the X-ray the same day. See Finding 35, infra. Instead of showing radiological confirmation, the X-ray's labeling showed someone's interpretation that the radio-opaque marker on the X-ray was at L4- L5. (There was no evidence as to who labeled the interpretation. Id.) When Respondent saw the writing on the X-ray, he immediately conceded that he had operated at the wrong level and began the process of scheduling a third surgery (the second at L5-L6). Respondent performed the patient's third surgery free-of- charge on September 17, 1993. He had three X-rays taken during the third surgery. The first one apparently was taken before any incision was made. The second was made to confirm that the Respondent was at L5-L6 this time. Instead, the X-ray showed that he was at L6-S1. Respondent tried again, and a third X-ray confirmed L5-L6. Respondent continued with the operation as planned. Findings during the third surgery supported the reasonableness of using the narrow L5-L6 interspace as a landmark during the second surgery. Once again, Respondent found cause to note significant narrowing at L5-L6, stating: "A needle was placed exactly in the interspace, which was small and tight." (The patient weighed 217 pounds at the time of the third surgery--two pounds more than for the second surgery.) The third surgery was otherwise uneventful and apparently successful. The patient discharged after a short stay. The Questionable X-ray Confirmation Although it appears in hindsight that Respondent should have attached more significance to the notes from the first surgery as to the remarkably narrow disc space at L5-L6, even the Department's expert conceded that Respondent should not be found to have practiced below the generally accepted standard of care if he received "real time" radiological confirmation before proceeding with the second surgery. (The Department's expert assumed from the medical records that there was no radiological confirmation. See Finding 33, infra.) Excepting the possibility of an obvious and clear error by the radiologist, the generally accepted standard of care entitles a surgeon to rely on a radiologist's "real time" reading of an intra-operative X-ray. The radiologist's specialty is interpreting X-rays, and the viewing equipment and lighting in the radiology department is far superior to what is available to the surgeon in OR. The question becomes the truth of Respondent's claim of having had "real time" radiological confirmation in the context of the other evidence presented in the case. The radiologist normally would have conveyed the "real time" confirmation of the correct level to the surgeon over a speaker telephone in the OR. But no one else present at the time of the surgery testified. (The patient testified by deposition, but she was under general anesthesia during surgery and could not testify as to radiological confirmation.) Respondent could not remember the name of the radiologist he says confirmed the correct level, and he was unable to show through any other means who confirmed the correct level for Respondent. Meanwhile, the Department did not present any direct evidence to dispute Respondent's claim of "real time" radiological confirmation in the OR. But there was circumstantial evidence that raised questions as to the veracity of the claim. In a hospital radiology report on the intra-operative X- ray, a radiologist named Robert G. Isbell, M.D., stated: "Film was not available for interpretation in the radiology department. The film will be read upon its return." This report was dated May 17, 1993; it was not clear from the evidence whether the report was dictated on that date, released on that date, or both. This could indicate that the X-ray was not taken to the radiology department during the surgery on May 10, 1993, since standard procedure would be for the radiologist to dictate the report immediately after calling down to the OR to confirm the correct level for the surgeon. (The Department's expert assumed from this report that there was no radiological confirmation.) However, it also is possible that an unknown radiologist confirmed the correct level for Respondent and then failed to follow the normal procedure, and either he forgot to dictate the report, or the dictation got lost or for some other reason did not result in a transcribed report to go in the patient's file "jacket" in the radiology department. If there was radiological confirmation in the OR, the radiologist apparently did not label the film and have it sent back to the OR, as usual, because the X-ray apparently was not labeled until later. See Findings 35-36, infra. When the patient went to St. Joseph’s Hospital in August 1993 at the Respondent's request to ask for her X-ray, she was told that a doctor had just asked for it to be sent over to the hospital (apparently from where it ordinarily would have been kept.) S.D. was surprised and somewhat suspicious that the hospital was familiar with her X-ray by name and that it coincidentally had just been requested by a doctor. There was no evidence as to the identity of the doctor who requested the X-ray. S.D. insisted on receiving her X-ray immediately and waited until it was returned to her. When she got it, there appeared to be fresh "grease pen" writing on it. As previously mentioned, the grease pen writing labeled the X-ray and clearly indicated someone's interpretation that the radio-opaque marker on the X-ray was at L4-L5. Respondent has maintained that he had never seen the grease pen writing before the X-ray was brought to him by the patient in August 1993. This is consistent with the patient's testimony that the grease pen writing appeared to her to be fresh, and it seems clear from the evidence that the writing was placed on the X-ray shortly before S.D. retrieved it, contrary to normal procedures. This evidence also makes it possible that the X-ray never was sent to the radiology department during surgery, again contrary to normal procedures. It is not clear from the evidence where the X-ray had been between the time of the May 1993 surgery and the time S.D. picked it up with the fresh grease pen writing. There was no evidence as to who put the markings on the X-ray, or at whose request. There was no evidence of any hospital radiology report recording the mysterious August 1993 "reading" of the X-ray as reflected by the new grease pen writing. It also is not clear from the evidence exactly what was written on the X-ray in August 1993 when S.D. retrieved the film from the hospital, or what that particular X-ray looked like. While S.D. retained the X-ray until some time during her subsequent civil action against Respondent and the hospital, she then gave it to the hospital's risk manager, who was supposed to make her a copy. When S.D. went to retrieve the X-ray for her deposition in this administrative proceeding, she found several X-rays apparently given to her by her lawyer after disposition of the civil action, including one labeled "original" and bearing writing in addition to, or other than, the writing S.D. recalled from August 1993. The writing on the X-ray used in this administrative proceeding may have been placed on the "original" X- ray by experts in the civil action. The other X-rays in S.D.'s possession were not produced for use in this administrative proceeding, and it is not clear which, if any of them, is the X-ray labeled as when S.D. retrieved it in August 1993. The X-ray used in this administrative was of poor quality and actually did not show what was below the marked interspace. (As the Respondent described the lower part of the film, "It looks like a snowstorm.") As a result, it actually would not have been possible to confirm the correct level using that particular X-ray. But X-rays can deteriorate over time, and there is no way of knowing if the intra-operative X-ray as it existed on May 10, 1993, or when seen again by Respondent in August 1993, also was of such poor quality as to be virtually useless. If an unknown radiologist in fact called the OR to confirm the correct level for Respondent, it also is possible that there was a miscommunication. Respondent in his testimony made a point of explaining that he only used the terminology "correct level" in talking to the radiologist "to avoid confusion." But if Respondent just asked if he was at the "correct" level, and the radiologist just said, "yes, you're at the correct level," the radiologist actually either would be simply assuming that the level marked on the X-ray was the "correct" level, or he would be saying that pathology visible on the MRI matched the marked location on the X-ray. If the latter, the radiologist may have thought there was enough pathology showing on the MRI matching the marked interspace in this case (actually L4-L5) to justify surgery there. Taking all of this evidence into consideration, it cannot be found that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not receive "real time" radiological confirmation on which he was entitled to rely in proceeding with the second surgery. Without such proof, it cannot be found that Respondent practiced below the generally accepted standard of care, notwithstanding the little attention he paid to his December 1993 surgical notes as to the remarkably narrow interspace at L5-L6.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1580 Waldo Palmer Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tayna Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Jose Rosado, M.D., (Respondent), violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0068035. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. On March 10, 1997, Patient W.B.C., a 72-year-old man, arrived at the Leesburg Regional Medical Center (LRMC) emergency room. He complained of a sudden onset of weakness in his left hand and arm with numbness and tingling. Respondent was Patient W.B.C.'s primary care physician. Respondent admitted Patient W.B.C. with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome and a history of myocardial infarction. Respondent ordered that Patient W.B.C. undergo a head CT scan, carotid Doppler, 2-D echocardiogram, an electroencephalogram, and a neurological consultation. Based on the test results and the consultation, Respondent diagnosed Patient W.B.C. with right cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome, and history of myocardial infarction. Respondent then discharged the patient with Ticlid, a medication to prevent further cerebrovascular accidents and aspirin. On March 16, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was admitted to LRMC complaining of weakness, dizziness and a fever. His vital signs revealed a temperature of 103.0 F, a pulse of 118, and a blood pressure of 139/75. The emergency room physician ordered a chest x-ray, EKG, and urine and blood cultures. The chest x-ray revealed no acute cardiopulmonary abnormality. Urine tests revealed features consistent with the possibility of urosepsis. Blood work showed a white blood count of 9.15, elevated but within the normal range. Also on March 16, Respondent ordered that antibiotics be given prophylactically until the blood cultures came back from the laboratory. The cultures came back positive for staphylococcus aureus (staph). Staph is a notoriously “bad bug” and Staphylococci aureus bacteremia has a high mortality rate. Staph aureus can originate from several possible sources including infections through the urinary tract system, IV sites, aspiration into the lungs, and pneumonia (although not very common). Staphylococci in the bloodstream is known as bacteremia. Bacteremia can lead to endocarditis which is an infection of the inner lining of the heart and the heart valves. Endocarditis is a life-threatening condition that can quickly damage the heart valves and lead to heart failure or even death. Patients with certain cardiac conditions such as mitral valve regurgitation have a higher risk of developing endocarditis. Patient W.B.C. had such a history. On March 17, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was started on intravenous antibiotics by Respondent. Patient W.B.C. continued to receive the intravenous antibiotics for four days from March 17, 1997, through March 20, 1997. Respondent then switched Patient W.B.C. to oral antibiotics and kept the patient in the hospital one more day prior to discharging him with instruction to continue on the oral antibiotics for another ten days. Patient W.B.C. was discharged on March 21, 1997. He was not referred to an infectious disease specialist nor had Respondent obtained a consultation with any specialist to determine the length of time that the patient's infection should be treated. Respondent felt that he was adequately qualified to treat this patient, and the treatment appeared to work. Respondent thought the bacteria growing in the patient's blood "likely" originated from a lung infection. An infectious disease specialist should have been consulted to give guidance as to how long to treat the infection. The standard of care for treating a staph aureus infection where there is a known source of infection requires 14 days of intravenous antibiotics. Where the source is not known, then four to six weeks of antibiotics is recommended. In this case, the infection, a resistant staph infection found in the patient's blood, could have originated from several sources. While such staph could have sprung from a source in the lung, this is by no means likely and the infection could have originated from another source. The standard of care required that Respondent contact an infectious disease specialist for an evaluation and/or that he treat Patient W.B.C.’s staphylococcus with a minimum of 10 to days of intravenous antibiotics. On or about April 11, 1997, Patient W.B.C., presented to the emergency room at LRMC complaining of congestion, shortness of breath, fever of 100.3° F, and a cough. The emergency room physician performed a physical exam which revealed vital signs of a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104, and a blood pressure of 90/54. A chest x-ray, blood work and a urine culture were ordered. Patient W.B.C. was then admitted on April 11, 1997, with a diagnosis of pneumonia, an old cerebrovascular accident and coronary artery disease. The ER physician started Patient W.B.C. on a plan of treatment which included intravenous antibiotics, Vancomycin, IV fluids, and blood cultures. A physical examination on the patient revealed a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104 and blood pressure of 91/53. The attending physician diagnosed him with probable sepsis with pneumonia. On April 12, 1997, the blood cultures came back positive for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. On April 15, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was afebrile (without fever) and his white blood cell count was 10.23, which is within the normal range of 4.0 to 11.0. The patient continued in this condition through April 18, 1997, despite suffering from sepsis. On April 18, 1997, Respondent approved Patient W.B.C. for transfer to another institution for consideration for urgent mitral valve replacement. On April 19, 1997, Patient W.B.C. arrested and was pronounced dead at 5:53 a.m. Petitioner’s expert, Carlos Sotolongo, M.D., is board- certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease and nuclear cardiology. As established by Dr. Sotolongo's testimony, Respondent practiced below the standard of care by failing to treat Patient W.B.C. with a sufficient number of days of intravenous antibiotics and by failing to consult an infectious disease specialist. According to Dr. Sotolongo, there is a difference in the way that an uncomplicated pneumonia is treated as opposed to a pneumonia complicated by bacteremia. The latter must be treated more aggressively. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), by failing 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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and imposing a penalty which includes a formal reprimand, payment of an Administrative Fine in the amount of $5,000.00 within 180 days, and eight hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) to be completed within the next 12 months dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of infections and/or risk management. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Kim M. Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a medical doctor in Florida by examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, following which he did a rotating internship at Abington Memorial Hospital before reporting for active duty in the U.S. Navy. Upon release from active duty in the Navy in 1959 he entered a residency program in general surgery at Hospital of University of Pennsylvania followed by thoracic surgery which he completed in 1965. Petitioner was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1965 and by the Board of Thoracic Surgery in 1966. From 1965 to 1986 Petitioner was engaged in the practice of general, cardiac, thoracic and vascular surgery. In the latter part of this period, he headed a cardiothoracic surgery team at Lankenau Hospital, Philadelphia, which performed some 700-800 open-heart surgeries per year. It was during this period that most of the malpractice suits were filed against Petitioner, the hospital and other doctors on his team. As head of the surgical team Petitioner did the definitive surgery (bypass grafts) while other members of the team opened and closed the chest cavity. Petitioner is currently licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Arizona. At the time he first applied for licensure in Florida in 1988, he was licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Arizona. No licensing agency has brought any charges against Petitioner's license. Petitioner took and passed the FLEX examination in 1988 scoring 84 and 83 on the two parts of the exam. In the past twenty years, 19 malpractice suits have been filed against Petitioner. Of those suits 9, have been dismissed by Plaintiffs without any recovery from Petitioner, and two were settled on behalf of Petitioner, one in 1979 for $50,000 and one in 1989 for $25,000. Those settlements represented little more than nuisance value. The hospital defendant settled one case for $225,000 and another for $2,500. Of the remaining eight suits the complete medical records of those cases were reviewed by another cardiothoracic and vascular surgeon who opined that five are without merit. For the remaining three, additional evidence is needed to fairly appraise the merits of those suits. This additional information will not be available until discovery is completed. Petitioner's testimony, that these remaining three cases did not involve a failure on his part to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, corroborates the Affidavit of the risk manager (Exhibit 3) and letters in the file (Exhibit 1) stating those cases are deemed to be without merit and will be vigorously defended. All of these suits were brought in Pennsylvania where the backlog of civil cases is such that civil cases are not scheduled for trial until approximately seven years after the suit is filed. Furthermore, the complaints filed in these cases contain general allegations that the Respondent's negligence, inattention, failure to adequately apprise the plaintiff of possible complications of the surgery, along with the negligence of the hospital and others involved with the surgery, directly resulted in the plaintiff's death, injury, etc. These are catch- all allegations and the specific nature of the malpractice claim cannot be discerned from these pleadings. Cardiothoracic and vascular surgery is a high risk field of medicine in that the patients are frequently very sick and elderly. Accordingly, the success rate for this type surgery is lower than for most surgeries, and this leads to a higher incidence of suits alleging malpractice. Many of these earlier suits were brought before the doctors began paying attention to documenting that they fully explained the risks of the surgery to the patient and thereafter the patient gave informed consent to the operation. Petitioner has been more assiduous in this regard in recent years than he was several years ago. This practice will have the effect of reducing the incidence of malpractice suits against surgeons. It is noted that several of the suits alleged the plaintiffs were not adequately advised regarding the risks involved and, therefore, they did not give informed consent to the surgery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Horace MacVaugh III be granted a license to practice medicine in Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except: 8. Accepted only insofar as consistent with HO #5 and 6. 15. Rejected. No evidence was presented in this regard. Respondent's proposed findings are accepted except: 17. Second and third sentences rejected as not supported by any competent evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger Lutz, Esquire Robin Uricchio, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Allan Grossman, Esquire The Capitol, Suite 1602 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Florida Board of Medicine Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact HRS stipulated that the challenging parties, petitioners and intervenor, are substantially affected by, and so have standing to challenge, the memoranda in question. According to the pleadings, the challengers are existing providers of surgical services faced with the prospect of increased competition from competitors likely to receive certificates of need for ambulatory surgical centers under the HRS policy articulated in the challenged memoranda. On June 6, 1985, Robert Maryanski, administrator of HRS' Office of Community Medical Facilities, "issued to staff regarding the review of ambulatory surgical [c]ertificate of [n]eed applications," (T. 71) including applications for certificates of need for limited or specialty ambulatory surgical centers, Deposition of Marta Hardy, p. 23, the following: PDCF POLICY MEMORANDUM #7 JUNE 6, 1985 SUBJECT: Policy on CON review of ambulatory surgical center proposals TO: PDCF (Liz Dudek) PDCF (Paul Reilly) PDCF (Wayne McDaniel) PDCF (Joe Mitchell) The following policies will be employed by this office in the review of ambulatory surgical center CON applications: Based upon a review of available literature and outpatient surgical information obtained from the American Hospital Association Survey, a 30 percent factor will be used as the optimum number of surgeries to be performed on an outpatient basis. In all instances, the potential for outpatient surgeries will be determined at a county level. "Specialty" ambulatory surgical center (e.g., opthalmic) will not be given special consideration. The break even level of operations approach is considered adequate to assess the potential for such facilities. In those instances when the outpatient surgical potential in a county is calculated to be slightly below the applicant's projected break even level of operation and there is no existing and/or approved ambulatory surgical center in the county-consideration will be given to approving the application, assuring all other appropriate criteria are satisfied, to foster competition for outpatient surgery as an alternative to more costly inpatient surgery. Proposals which include a captive population (e.g., health maintenance organization) will be given additional consideration as required by appropriate statutory criteria (e.g., Chapter 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes.) If "pre-existing clinics, which have been performing surgical procedures similar to those approval of the project, after assuring that all other appropriate criteria are satisfied. An architectural review will be conducted to verify that the existing facility meets, or will be capable of meeting, licensure requirements. In those instances, in which a hospital makes application for outpatient surgical capabilities or an increase in its existing outpatient surgery capability via the establishment or expansion of operating rooms dedicated to outpatient surgery, the hospital's current level of outpatient surgical procedures will be subtracted from the total hospitals' outpatient surgical procedures. The hospitals' outpatient surgical rate (minus the applicant hospital) will be computed separately from the applicant's outpatient surgical rate. The county's projected population will be used to project hospitals' (minus the applicant hospital) outpatient volume, as well as existing ambulatory surgical facilities' volume. These figures will be subtracted from the total outpatient surgical "pool" projection. The 2nd year break even point number of procedures for approved ambulatory surgical facilities (which either are not in operation or have not operated a full year), is next subtracted from the total "pool." At this point, the projected number of outpatient procedures which would be performed at the applicant hospital, is compared to the remainder from the previous calculations. Should the projected outpatient level equal or exceed the calculated break even level of operation, consideration will be given to approving the application, assuring all other appropriate criteria are satisfied. In the case of hospital ambulatory Surgical projects which do not involve additional operating rooms dedicated to outpatient surgery, the above ambulatory surgery methodology will not be used. Licensed and existing ambulatory surgical centers which have been operational one year or more, will be surveyed to determine the number of procedures performed over one year. These procedures will be applied to the projected population and deducted from the total outpatient potential as described above. In the case of those approved but unlicensed ambulatory surgery methodology will not be used. Licensed and existing ambulatory surgical centers which have been operational one year or more, will be surveyed to determine the number of procedures performed over one year. These procedures will be applied to the projected population and deducted from the total outpatient potential as described above. In the case of those approved but unlicensed ambulatory surgical centers, the previously calculated break even level of operation will be deducted from the total outpatient potential. In all instances, the projected year of operation will be based on the time required for construction, if appropriate, as reflected in the application plus two years from the date of this office's review. "Procedures" include all diagnostic procedures (e.g., endoscopic and cystoscopic), as well as all other invasive procedures regularly construed of as surgeries. If you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact me upon receipt. This policy is effective on June 15, 1985. Petitioner's Exhibit A The June memorandum stated policy substantially similar to a memorandum authored by Mr. Maryanski's predecessor on February 21, 1985, which contained at least some of the elements of the policy that HRS applied earlier than October 9, 1983, Deposition of Nelson, p. 5, and even as early as December of 1982, Deposition of Porter, p. 11, and which reads: TO: PDCF STAFF SUBJECT: UPDATED POLICY ON CON REVIEW OF AMBULATORY SURGERY PROPOSALS At a meeting with Doug Mannheimer, members of PDCFR, and myself on February 14, the following guidelines for reviewing CON proposals for ambulatory surgery were agreed upon: Effective immediately, we will use 30 percent as the optimum number of surgeries to be performed on an outpatient basis as opposed to 29 percent. health maintenance organizations. The issue of how to deal with "pre-existing" unlicensed ambulatory surgery providers was also discussed. It was decided that if an applicant can demonstrate that it has been providing ambulatory surgical services historically in a facility which meets, or for a minor capital expenditure could meet, licensing requirements and that the provision of such services has been done profitably, this type of applicant should receive special consideration in CON reviews. However, in such cases, it will be necessary for the CON architect to verify that the existing facility meets, or almost meets, licensure requirements, and for the CON accountant to verify that the operation has historically been profitable. Data base issues were discussed. PDCFR was informed of the decision to remove the ambulatory surgery data collection burden from Nell Mitchem. The possibility of having PDCH and/or the local health councils collect such information on a semi-annual basis was discussed and will be explored further by Tom Porter. The method of counting procedures of existing ambulatory surgery centers was considered. The pros and cons of utilizing the center's break even point as described in its CON application versus its actual use was debated. It was decided that existing ambulatory surgery centers which have been in business one year or more will be surveyed to determine their actual use. In the case of those existing centers in business less than one year, the break even point will be used. The issue of counting dedicated hospital-based ambulatory surgery facilities was discussed. It was decided that in instances where a hospital applies for ambulatory surgical capabilities or an increase in that capability via the establishment or expansion of operating rooms solely dedicated to outpatient surgery, the hospital's current provision of outpatient surgery will be subtracted from the total of outpatient surgeries performed and then converted to an institution-specific rate and applied to projected population to determine the need. In the case of hospital ambulatory surgery projects not involving additional operating rooms or solely dedicated outpatient operating rooms, the ambulatory surgery methodology will not be employed. In these instances, the review will be primarily architectural. The definition of "procedures" was considered. It was determined that procedures should include all diagnostic procedures (e.g., endoscopic and cystoscopic), as well as all procedures regularly thought of as surgeries. establishment or expansion of operating rooms solely dedicated to outpatient surgery, the hospital's current provision of outpatient surgery will be subtracted from the total of outpatient surgeries performed and then converted to an institution-specific rate and applied to projected population to determine the need. In the case of hospital ambulatory surgery projects not involving additional operating rooms or solely dedicated outpatient operating rooms, the ambulatory surgery methodology will not be employed. In these instances, the review will be primarily architectural. The definition of "procedures" was considered. It was determined that procedures should include all diagnostic procedures (e.g., endoscopic and cystoscopic), as well as all procedures regularly thought of as surgeries. The method of computing the break even point was discussed. Tom Porter will work with Joe Mitchell to come up with an improved method for doing this. The issue of what year we project need to was discussed. It was decided that in all cases, the projection year would be based on the time shown in the application as required for construction and licensing of the facility plus two years from the date of the HRS review or date of administrative hearing, whichever is later. If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please see me. /s/ Gene W. Eugene Nelson, Administrator COMMUNITY MEDICAL FACILITIES Petitioner's Exhibit B. The June memorandum supersedes the February memorandum but "not totally." Deposition of Marta Hardy, p. 10. The June memorandum made changes regarding the treatment of hospitals' applications. Deposition of Elizabeth Dudek, p. 23. On September 13, 1985, more than two weeks after the petitions had been filed in Cases Nos. 85-2962RX and 85-2963RX, Mr. Maryanski signed the following memorandum: SUBJECT: Policy Memorandums TO: PDCF (Liz Dudek) (Wayne McDaniel) (Paul Reilly) (Joe Mitchell) Policy memorandums are statements of the current policy of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, regarding the subject to which it is addressed. The policy at issue is in a state of development, and should not be considered to have reached a level of general applicability to all cases. This memorandum is not intended to dictate the out-come of action being taken on any given case, but rather represents a momentary picture of this policy as it has developed through cases previously encountered. In order to provide for reasonably consistent actions taken in similar instances in this office, please utilize this policy memorandum as a guideline, subject to change and development on a case basis. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 At some point staff were told "if there are reasons to deviate [from the policy embodied in the June memorandum] that they should come and discuss those reasons with their supervisor or" (T. 73) Mr. Maryanski. At least some HRS staff adhere to the policy stated in the June memorandum. Deposition of Elizabeth Dudek, p. 28. But the only reasons for deviating from the policy set out in the Maryanski memorandum of June 6, 1985, are the very reasons that would justify deviation from duly promulgated administrative rules. (T. 77) Petitioner's Exhibit A, the June memorandum, has application statewide and is addressed to all applications for certificate of need for ambulatory surgical centers. (T. 77) Without this policy in effect, "the only means [HRS] would have available would be to review am-surg applications according to statutory criteria." (T. 73) HRS has assigned to its Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, not to its Office of Community Medical Facilities (headed by Mr. Maryanski and, before him, by Mr. Nelson), responsibility for promulgating administrative rules. On July 6, 1984, HRS published notice of intent to adopt a rule governing applications for certificates of need for ambulatory surgical centers, at 10 Florida Administrative Weekly No. 27, pp. 2064-2067. Petitioner's Exhibit C. Additional or amended notice was published on March 15, 1985, at 11 Florida Administrative Weekly No. 11. After petitions challenging HRS' proposed rule 10-5.11(30) were filed, HRS abandoned the effort formally to adopt a rule specifying the criteria for granting certificates of need for ambulatory surgical centers, by filing notice of withdrawal with the Department of State on June 20, 1985. On deposition, HRS' Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning testified that the June "memo was issued right after we withdrew the rule." At 6. Although in fact the notice of withdrawal of proposed rule 10-5.11(30) was not filed until after the June 6 memorandum was executed, the decision to withdraw the proposed rule, to judge from this testimony, antedated the memorandum which "in the absence of any kind of methodology, [HRS] decided to issue. . . to provide methodology guidelines to the staff within the office." Deposition of Marta Hardy, p. 6.
The Issue Whether Proposed Rules 10N-6.002, 10N-6.003, 10N-6.004, 10N-6.005 and 10N- 6.006, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, Medivision, Inc., and Tampa Surgi-Center, d/b/a Ambulatory Surgery Center, have standing to challenge the proposed rules at issue in these cases. See the affidavits of Larry Cyment and Donna McMillan. Intervenor, Florida Hospital Association, Inc., has standing to participate in these cases. See the affidavit of Pat Haines. The following Intervenors have established their standing to participate as intervenors in these cases through testimony or affidavit: Cataract Surgery Center, Cortez Foot Surgery Center, Ambulatory Surgery Center of Bradenton, Tampa Outpatient Surgical Facility, Naples Day Surgery, Ambulatory Surgical Center, Specialty Surgical Center and Tallahassee Single Day Surgery. Eye Surgery Center, The Eye Associates, FW Associates and Cordova Ambulatory Surgical Center have failed to prove their standing to participate in these cases. The Proposed Rules; Purpose and Adoption. The Health Care Cost Containment Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), published Rules 10N-6.002, 10N-6.003, 10N-6.004, 10N-6.005 and 10N- 6.006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rules"), in Volume 16, Number 12, of the Florida Administrative Weekly (March 23, 1990). The purpose of the Proposed Rules is to collect data concerning the provision of ambulatory surgery services in the State of Florida. Data collected by the Board will allow a comparison of patient charges and will create an additional bases for the analysis of trends in the health care field. In particular, data collection will promote the analysis of shifts in the provision of health care from inpatient to outpatient settings. Data concerning patient identity, geographic location, diagnosis, procedures performed and charges for services is required to be collected and submitted to the Board pursuant to the Proposed Rules. In June of 1989, the staff of the Board presented a study to the Board concerning the growth of ambulatory health care services. Staff recommended that the Board direct that steps be taken to explore the possibility of collecting ambulatory surgery data. The Board accepted the recommendation and appointed a Technical Advisory Panel. The Technical Advisory Panel appointed by the Board consisted of nine representatives of various interested groups. Two members were from freestanding ambulatory surgery centers and two members were from hospitals providing ambulatory surgery services. At meetings of the Technical Advisory Panel in July, August, September and October, 1989, the collection of ambulatory surgery services data was considered. The Technical Advisory Panel discussed collection costs, the type of data to be collected, implementation dates, legislative authority, methods of submitting data and the scope of data collection. The Board was made aware of the Technical Advisory Panel's efforts through minutes of the Panel's meetings and other materials provided to the Board. The collection of ambulatory surgery services data was considered by the Board at its October, November and December, 1989, meetings. The Proposed Rules were approved by the Board at its December, 1989, meeting. There is no statutory authority which specifically provides that data may be collected by the Board from "freestanding ambulatory surgical centers." The Board cited Section 407.03, Florida Statutes (1989), as the specific authority for the Proposed Rules. The Board cited Sections 407.003, 407.03 and 407.08, Florida Statutes (1989), as the laws implemented by the Proposed Rules. Scope of the Proposed Rules. Ambulatory surgery services are provided in a variety of settings: hospitals (e.g., acute care, psychiatric and rehabilitation), licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers, physician offices and other unlicensed health care facilities. The Proposed Rules provide that all licensed hospitals included in Groups 1 through 10 and Group 14 of the HCCCB Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual which provide outpatient surgery services and all licensed ambulatory surgery centers in Florida are required to collect and submit 45 data elements to the Board. Psychiatric hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals are not subject to the Proposed Rules. Physicians' offices and other unlicensed health care providers are also not subject to the Proposed Rules. The Proposed Rules are limited to licensed providers of ambulatory surgery services so that the Board's staff can insure that all members of the groups selected data actually collect and report data. The Board cannot insure that all unlicensed providers of ambulatory surgery services, such as physicians' offices, comply with the Proposed Rules. Therefore, if data was required to be collected and submitted by unlicensed providers, the data would be less reliable. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the requirement of the Proposed Rules that only hospitals included in Groups 1 and 10 and Group 14 of the HCCCB Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual and licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers collect and submit data constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specific Data vs. Aggregate Data. The Proposed Rules require the collection and reporting of 45 specific data elements. Aggregate data concerning ambulatory surgery services could be obtained from insurance companies and used by the Board as an alternative to the more specific data required to be collected pursuant to the Proposed Rules. Aggregate data is a compilation of specific data. Aggregate data can be used to comply with the Board's statutorily required functions. If aggregate data is used, however, it is likely that reporting will be incomplete. Not all information is reported to insurance companies concerning outpatient activity. Therefore, aggregate data obtained from insurance companies would not cover 100% of ambulatory surgery services provided by reporting entities, resulting in the potential for presenting an incomplete or inaccurate picture of ambulatory surgery services. The recommendations and conclusions which can be reached from aggregate data are limited. Specific data allows more flexibility for research purposes. Specific data will assure greater accuracy and comparability of data. Recommendations and conclusions reached from specific data should be more accurate. In order to insure comparability of data, specific data concerning patients, geographic location, diagnoses, procedures and charges must be collected. The Board collected aggregate data concerning ambulatory surgery services through a special study. The Board collected the data from hospitals and, on a voluntary basis, from licensed ambulatory surgery centers. "Typical" charges for specified ambulatory surgery procedures was collected. This collection effort was flawed by the lack of specific data. The accuracy of the reports based upon the aggregate data was criticized publicly. The reports were even criticized by one of the witnesses called to testify by Intervenors, Cataract Surgery Center, et. al. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the requirement of the Proposed Rules that specific data be collected and submitted instead of aggregate data constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority. Confidential Patient Data. Some of the data elements to be reported pursuant to the Proposed Rules constitute confidential patient information. Disclosure of confidential patient information is prohibited by Florida law. The Proposed Rules do not require or authorize disclosure of confidential patient information. The manner in which the data collected will be distributed has not yet been decided upon by the Board. The evidence failed to prove that the Board will not comply with prohibitions against disclosure of confidential patient information. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the requirement of the Proposed Rules that confidential patient information be reported to the Board constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority. Computer Use. The Proposed Rules require that data be submitted by computer tape or computer diskette. Therefore, data will have to be input into a computer system. The Proposed Rules specify the format data must be in when submitted. Most of the language of the Proposed Rules is computer terminology. The terminology of the Proposed Rules will require some knowledge of computers to carry out the requirements of the Proposed Rules. The language of the Proposed Rules is intentionally designed to convey technical information. The general purpose and requirements of the Proposed Rules does not take any special knowledge to understand. Requiring the submission of data by electronic means is designed to assure the accuracy and confidentiality of the data. The requirement of the Proposed Rules that data be reported in computer form and the use of computer terminology does not constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Errors in the Proposed Rules. Proposed Rule 10N-6.002(2) defines "Ambulatory Surgery Services" as procedures "provided in a hospital in its dedicated ASC ..." [Emphasis added]. Instead of "ASC" the Board intended to use the terms "operating room." Proposed Rule 10N-6.005 contains a list of the data elements to be collected and reported to the Board. This Proposed Rule contains the following errors or unclear language: Item 20 is "Facility Fee - Pri. Proc." "Pri. Proc." is an abbreviation for primary procedure. Items 21-24, similar to Item 20, contains the abbreviation "Sec. Proc." instead of secondary procedure. Items 25-27 contain a reference to "Page 3". As published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, there is no page 3. Item 35, which deals with expected methods of payment, refers to "Comm. Ins. (incl. BCBS)." This reference is an abbreviation for commercial insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield). Item 44, patient birth date, uses the abbreviation "MMYYYY." This abbreviation should be "MMDDYY." Proposed Rule 10N-6.006 refers to "Primary Diagnosis Code" and "Secondary Diagnosis Code." The Rule should refer to Primary and Secondary "Procedure" Code. The mistakes identified in findings of fact 38-40 are not significant enough to characterize the rule as vague. Nor are these mistakes sufficient enough to otherwise conclude that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Economic Impact. The Economic Impact Statement (hereinafter referred to as the "EIS"), issued with the Proposed Rules provided the following concerning the economic impact of the Proposed Rules on the Board: ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION: The agency will be affected by the costs of rule promulgation and by the demands placed upon staff time to assure compliance with the rules and to analyze the data collected. Costs for these activities are estimated to be approximately $85,000 per year. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this portion of the Board's EIS is unreasonable. The EIS provided the following concerning the economic impact of the Proposed Rules on persons affected by the Proposed Rules: ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation by affected facilities will cost approximately $2.9 to $3.1 million. These funds will be used to develop the programs necessary to collect and submit the data required. On-going compliance will have a much less significant impact. . . . . ESTIMATE OF COST TO ALL PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE RULE: The initial cost to Florida hospitals and freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) would be from approximately $2.9 to $3.1 million to develop the reporting system necessary to generate the necessary data elements. On-going annual cost to the hospitals and free standing ASCs would be substantially less after the first year's start-up procedures are adopted. . . . . The EIS is insufficient because it does not adequately discuss the costs (implementation and ongoing costs) to affected persons or the impact of the Proposed Rules on small business. The weight of the evidence proved that the Proposed Rules will have an economic impact on affected persons. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board did not fully consider the asserted economic factors and impact of the implementation cost affected persons can be expected to incur as a result of the Proposed Rules. As indicated in the EIS, the Board's determination of the estimate of the economic impact on affected persons was based upon surveys the Board distributed to licensed ambulatory surgery centers, an estimate of costs that hospitals incurred in implementing the Board's detailed patient data collection rule, the Board staff's experience with computer costs (including the collection and entry of data) and consultation with a computer expert familiar with the Proposed Rules. The surveys relied upon by the Board were distributed to all licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers. A total of 91 surveys were distributed. The Board requested that the surveys be returned within one week. Forty-one responses to the surveys were received by the Board from licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers. The responses constitute hearsay. Findings of fact concerning whether the information contained in the responses is correct, therefore, have not been made. The responses to the surveys have, however, been relied upon to make findings of fact concerning what information the Board based its EIS on. The Board received the following pertinent responses to the surveys from licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers: (1) 26 of the responders use computers, 12 have no computer capacity and 3 have some computer capacity; 17 or 18 different software programs are in use; and, (3) the costs to implement the proposed collection of data ranged from $0 to $50,000.00. Twenty- six responders indicated that they did not know how long it would take for them to implement the proposed collection of data. The Board determined that the average implementation cost for licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers reported in the responses to its survey was $18,975.00 and that the average implementation time was 13 weeks. The Board rounded up the average cost reported to it in the surveys and estimated that the cost of implementing the Proposed Rules at licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers would be $20,000.00. Based upon the existence of 85 licensed facilities, the Board estimated the total implementation cost for licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers to be $1,700,000.00 ($20,000.00 x 85). The Board estimated that the maximum cost of implementing the Proposed Rules at affected hospitals would be $2.00 per patient record. This estimate was based upon the Board's estimate of the cost of hospital compliance with the Board's detailed patient discharge data rule. Based upon an estimate of 600,000 patient records a year which will have to processed as a result of the Proposed Rules, the Board estimated the total cost of implementation in affected hospitals to be $1,200,000.00. The Board concluded that the total minimum cost of implementing the Proposed Rules will be $2,900,000.00 ($1,700,000.00 cost for freestanding ambulatory surgery centers plus $1,200,000.00 cost for affected hospitals). The Board discussed the cost of implementing the Proposed Rules with J. Thomas Solano, an expert in computers. Mr. Solano estimated that the cost of modifying an existing computer system (small to mid-range computer) to comply with the Proposed Rules would be $4,000.00 to $10,000.00. The Board used the highest estimate, $10,000.00, and multiplied this cost by the number of affected persons (85 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers and 220 hospitals x $10,000.00). This resulted in a rounded-up estimated implementation cost of $3,100,000.00. The Board concluded that the total maximum cost of implementing the Proposed Rules will be $3,100,000.00. Some of the data to be collected and reported pursuant to the Proposed Rules is already being collected by affected persons. Therefore, the primary cost of complying with the Proposed Rules will be associated with modifying existing computer software and/or hardware. The cost of modifying an existing computer system can fluctuate widely. As a general rule, computer users with existing software must rely upon their existing software provider to make modifications. The cost of modifying software can, therefore, be much higher than Mr. Solano estimated. As an alternative to modifying existing systems, affected persons can acquire a freestanding personal computer and software which can be used to comply with the Proposed Rules. The cost of such an acquisition should be approximately $2,500.00 to $5,600.00. Intervenor, T.S.D.S., Inc., d/b/a Tallahassee Single Day Surgery Center, estimated that it will have to spend approximately $14,000.00 to $20,000.00 to implement the Proposed Rules. This estimate is based upon a letter purportedly from the Intervenor's computer company. The information contained in the letter is hearsay. The estimated implementation costs are, therefore, not supported by admissible evidence. The estimate, even if supported by competent substantial evidence, is within the Board's estimated implementation costs and, therefore, fail to prove that the Board's EIS is unreasonable or that the Board failed to fully consider the economic factors or impact. Intervenor, Cataract Surgery Center, estimated implementation costs of $1,900.00. This amount is limited to additional maintenance fees, supplies and personnel costs. Cataract Surgery Center believes there will no charge from its computer vendor to modify its software. Cataract's estimated costs are reasonable and within the Board's estimates. Ambulatory Surgical Center of Lake County (hereinafter referred to as "Lake"), does not own a computer. It uses the computer system of its physician owners. Lake considered more than one method of complying with the Proposed Rules. It considered buying a personal computer and estimated it would cost $5,000.00. This cost is consistent with the estimates of the Board. Lake also considered purchasing an integrated hardware and software package. It estimated that such a system would cost $40,000.00 to $50,000.00. The estimate is based upon hearsay. Even if the evidence concerning the cost of an integrated system is accepted as correct, the evidence fails to prove that such costs are necessary to comply with the Proposed Rules. The estimate for this system is based upon Lake's decision that it would perform other functions with the computer system, including storing management information and performing billing functions. These functions are not required in order to comply with the Proposed Rules. Lake currently treats approximately only 300 patients annually. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority because of the implementation cost which will be incurred by affected persons. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the inadequate treatment of implementation costs in the EIS was fully considered by the Board. Therefore, the treatment of implementation costs in the EIS constitutes harmless error. Although the primary costs to affected persons caused by the Proposed Rules will be associated with implementation of the Proposed Rules, there will also be certain costs associated with ongoing compliance with the Proposed Rules. There will be ongoing costs for the collection of data, entry of the data into a computer and reporting data to the Board. Ongoing costs caused by the Proposed Rules will be greater if an affected person with an existing computer system acquires a freestanding computer system instead of using the existing system. The Board's statement in the EIS concerning ongoing costs was not based upon information from affected persons. The statement concerning ongoing costs does not indicate what the ongoing costs of compliance with the Proposed Rules will be. It only indicates that it will be less than the initial implementation costs associated with the Proposed Rules. Although the weight of the evidence did not prove the estimated total amount of ongoing costs to affected persons from the Proposed Rules, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that ongoing costs will be greater than the estimated total amount of implementation costs. T.S.D.S., Inc., d/b/a Tallahassee Single Day Surgery Center, estimated that it would incur ongoing costs of approximately $6,000.00. This estimate is reasonable. Cataract Surgery Center estimated that it would incur ongoing costs of $41,600.00, or $20.00 per case, to comply with the Proposed Rules. Cataract Surgery Center's estimated costs include the following costs: reel purchase; handling; reel preparation; collection of billing data; process of sending information to the Board; clarification of errors; additional record production; and response to public inquiries. Cataract Surgery Center's estimated costs are not reasonable. The estimated time to comply with the Proposed Rules is excessive and some of the tasks, i.e., collection of billing data, are not required by the Proposed Rules. Cataract Surgery Center's conclusion that it may have an increase in maintenance fees is reasonable. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board did not fully consider the asserted economic factors and impact of the ongoing costs affected persons can be expected to incur as a result of the Proposed Rules. Therefore, the treatment of ongoing costs in the EIS was harmless error. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority because of the ongoing cost which will be incurred by affected persons. The EIS contains a statement that the Proposed Rules should have no economic impact on small business. In reaching this conclusion the Board failed to take into account the legal definition of "small business" contained in Florida Statutes. The Board did, however, actually consider the impact the Proposed Rules would likely have on small ambulatory surgery centers subject to the Proposed Rules. The Board attempted to reduce the economic impact on small ambulatory surgery centers by allowing affected persons to file data on computer tape or on diskette. By allowing the use of diskettes for reporting data, the Board made it possible for affected persons to use personal computers to comply with the Proposed Rules. Delayed submission of some data elements was also allowed in order to reduce the impact on small facilities. It is unlikely that the Board would have made further modifications of the Proposed Rules had the legal definition of "small business" been considered. The weight of the evidence failed to prove what, if any, reasonable modifications should have been taken by the Board to accommodate any economic impact on small business. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether any of the entities that participated in the proceeding were small businesses. Those entities, although meeting the definition of small business with regard to the number of employees they have and their net worth, failed to prove whether they are "independently owned and operated." See Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The weight of the evidence failed to prove if any person affected by the Proposed Rules is a small business. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board did not fully consider the asserted economic factors and impact of small business which can be expected to incur as a result of the Proposed Rules. Therefore, the treatment of the impact on small business in the EIS was harmless error. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the Proposed Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because of the impact on small business. The Petitioners and Intervenors presented evidence concerning a number of actions which the Board did not take during its consideration of the economic impact and factors of the Proposed Rules and its preparation of the EIS. This evidence proved only that there were other steps which the Board could have taken during its preparation of the EIS. The Petitioners and Intervenors failed to prove, however, that the steps which the Board did take were not sufficient. The Petitioners and Intervenors therefore failed to prove that the steps which the Board did not take were required or necessary.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having license ME 0036704. He is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology. He has had no prior complaints of any kind against him since he began practicing medicine in Florida in 1980, and he has a reputation for being a competent and caring physician. On the morning of August 1, 1988, while making rounds at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Florida, the Respondent was paged by one of his partners, Belur Sreenath, M.D. The Respondent returned the call and was asked to see a patient whom Sreenath had just accepted and admitted on a 23-hour basis at Morton Plant. Sreenath reported that the patient was a referral from the Morton Plant emergency room. The patient's regular physician was on vacation, and the regular physician's on-call cover had recommended to the emergency room physician that the patient be referred to the Respondent and Sreenath to treat the patient for diagnosed fecal impaction. It was reported to the Respondent, through Sreenath, that the patient had come into the emergency room at about five in the morning complaining of abdominal pain and constipation. The emergency room physician, Jerry Julius Chase, M.D., had three X-rays done and had done his own "wet reads" of the X-rays before sending them to the radiology department for a definitive interpretation. According to Chase, the X-rays showed "much fecal matter, no obstruction." Chase did not mention any other significant findings. Chase's preliminary diagnosis was "fecal impaction." Sreenath also reported that he (Sreenath) had ordered enemas for the patient. Soon after the Respondent received the call from his partner, the Respondent called Chase, who was still in the emergency room and still had the X-rays. Chase confirmed what Sreenath had told the Respondent, again not mentioning any other significant findings. After talking to Chase, the Respondent visited the patient in his hospital room. By this time it was about 10:00 a.m. The Respondent took a history from the patient, examined the patient, and read the patient's chart. The chart included the results of lab work and the "ER sheet," which included the emergency room physician's diagnosis of abdominal pain and impaction and the results of his "wet-read" of the X-rays, but it did not yet include a report from the radiology department or the X-rays themselves. The Respondent did not contact the radiology department for a definitive interpretation of the X-rays or obtain the X-rays for his own review. By the time the Respondent saw the patient, the patient already had one enema and seemed to be responding to the treatment. Based on the information he had, the Respondent made a diagnosis of fecal impaction, confirmed his partner's orders for enemas for the patient, and added a stool softener. The nursing staff was ordered to monitor the patient's progress. The patient continued to respond satisfactorily to treatment during the day. Between ten and eleven in the evening of August 1, 1988, the patient complained of some abdominal pain or cramping (symptoms that are consistent with a diagnosis of fecal impaction and enema treatments) and the nurses on duty contacted the Respondent's partner, who was on call. Sreenath ordered a combination of demerol and vistaril as an analgesic. One small dose was enough to relieve the patient's pain, and the patient slept through most of the night. He ate 80% of his breakfast the next morning and was not complaining of pain or asking to see a doctor. At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 2, 1988, a nurse telephoned the Respondent for a decision whether the patient was being discharged or was being admitted as an inpatient. The Respondent still had not seen the patient's X- rays, seen or had reported to him the radiology report on them, or spoken to the radiologist. On questioning, the nurse reported the patient's status to the Respondent. The nurse's report satisfied the Respondent that the patient was responding to the treatment for fecal impaction and could be discharged. The nurse was given orders to have arrangements made for the patient to see his regular physician within a week and to instruct the patient on symptoms to report if they occurred between discharge and seeing his regular physician. In accordance with the Respondent's telephone instructions, the patient was discharged at approximately 9:30 a.m. on August 2, 1988. Although there were no clinical signs or symptoms of it during the patient's stay at Morton Plant, the patient had a large aortic aneurysm, approximately eight centimeters in diameter, in his abdomen just below the renal arteries. The aneurysm was readily apparent on the X-rays, yet Chase did not report it to either the Respondent or to his partner, Sreenath. The radiologist either did not contact Dr. Chase to point out to him that the report of Chases's "wet read" of the X-rays omitted the aneurysm or, if he did, Chase did not relay this information to the Respondent or his partner. The radiologist's written report, stating that the X-rays revealed the large aneurysm, was sent to Chase, not to the Respondent, and Chase did not relay the information in it to the Respondent or his partner. If the Respondent had known about the aneurysm, he would have considered the aneurysm to be the patient's most serious medical concern. He might not have accepted the patient or, if he did, he probably would have brought a vascular surgeon into the case and had the vascular surgeon, or perhaps a cardiologist, closely monitor the patient for possible leaking or dissecting or rupture of the aneurysm. The Respondent also would have had to give consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain. In addition to treating the aneurysm as the patient's most serious medical concern, giving consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain, the Respondent would have had to give consideration to altering his diagnosis for the patient had he reviewed the X-rays or the radiologist report, or had spoken with the radiologist. In addition to showing the existence of the aneurysm, the X-rays indicated that the patient technically may not have been impacted. (The gas pattern was non-specific.) With respect to this patient, the Respondent practiced medicine below that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances (below the standard of care) in that he did not either personally review the X-rays on the patient, read or have reported to him the contents of the radiologist's report, or talk to the radiologist. Instead, he relied totally on the emergency room physician's "wet read." As a result, the Respondent's diagnosis of "fecal impaction" may not have been correct, and he did not give proper consideration to the aneurysm. However, except for the failure regarding the X-rays, the DPR otherwise did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent, who was treating the patient for fecal impaction, to discharge the patient without seeing him on the morning of August 2, 1988, based on the nurse's report to the Respondent. Although it was below the standard of care for the Respondent not to either read the X-rays himself or obtain the radiologist's definitive interpretation, it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that the emergency room physician would have told him, and noted in the "ER sheet," that the patient he was being referred had an aneurysm of the kind and size of the one the patient had in this case. Even if the emergency doctor had not initially communicated to the Respondent the existence of the aneurysm, either directly or through the "ER sheet," it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that, in the normal course, the radiologist reviewing the X-rays would have noted that, according to the "ER sheet," the ER doctor "missed" the aneurysm and would have contacted the ER physician to bring this to his attention, and that the ER doctor then would have contacted the Respondent to advise him of the omission. The patient did not experience abdominal pain after his discharge from Morton Plant, but he began to experience back and groin pain. The aneurysm was becoming symptomatic. The patient's symptoms markedly worsened in the early morning hours of August 4, 1988. The patient's wife had him taken to the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital at approximately half past midnight. The patient was confused, and was complaining of pain in the back and groin area. His blood sugars were three times normal. He was diagnosed preliminarily in the emergency room as having out-of-control diabetes and confusion and as being near sycope. No X-rays were taken in the emergency room at New Port Richey Hospital, and no information was obtained from Morton Plant Hospital. Because the patient and his wife did not know about the aneurysm, they were unable to report it when the emergency room physician took the patient's history. The patient was admitted to New Port Richey Hospital at approximately 2:30 a.m. on August 4, 1988. However, the admitting physician did not see the patient or order diagnostic medical imaging at that time. The admitting physician saw the patient at approximately 9:00 a.m., and ordered X-rays and a CAT scan. Before the X-rays or CT scan were taken, at approximately ten o'clock, the patient suffered an acute hypotensive event while in his hospital room. An emergency abdominal sonogram was ordered, and it was determined that the patient was suffering from the rupture of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (the same one that was evident on the X-rays taken at Morton Plant). Surgery was attempted to resect the ruptured aneurysm. The patient was a poor candidate for surgery of that kind due to his age and other health factors. The patient died on August 6, 1988. If the patient knew of the aneurysm, it is likely that his treatment on August 4, 1988, would have been far different. First, when the aneurysm became symptomatic, they probably would have contacted the vascular surgeon, who would have been on the case already, either immediately or on arrival at the emergency room. The aneurysm would have been closely monitored from the time of arrival at the hospital, and the vascular surgeon would have been prepared for surgery when indicated. 2/ At the very least, the patient and his wife probably would have reported the aneurysm during the taking of a history in the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital, and the emergency room surgeon could have immediately taken appropriate steps, such as contacting a vascular surgeon and immediately ordering appropriate diagnostic medical imaging. 3/ The Respondent did not dictate admission notes for the patient until August 17, 1988. The Respondent did not dictate discharge notes. The DPR did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent to delay the dictation of admission notes or for him not to prepare a discharge summary for a patient in the hospital on a 23-hour basis. The DPR also did not prove that the Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.
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, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., guilty of one count of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), but dismissing the other count of the Administrative Complaint; reprimanding him; and (3) fining him $2,000. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1992, 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 27th day of July, 1992.
The Issue Should Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stehpenson's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0051453. The patient, a 73 year old female, presented to Respondent on July 11, 1991, with complaints of flashes of light over the past ten years which had increased over the past two years. The patient also complained of seeing halos around street lights at night. During this visit, Respondent diagnosed the patient as having 20/30 corrected vision in her right eye and 20/40 plus 2 corrected vision in her left eye, and that the patient had cataracts. However, Respondent did not recommend cataract surgery at this time. In January, 1992, the patient took the State of Florida driver's license test, including the eye test, and received her driver's license. However, the examiner notice that the patient was having trouble with the eye test and, although the examiner gave the patient her driver's license, the examiner suggested that the patient see an opthalmologist. At the time the patient received her driver's license in January, 1992, the patient was enjoying golf, bowling and driving. Although the patient did not immediately follow the driver's license examiner's advice concerning her eyes, the patient did visit with Respondent on May 8, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised the Respondent that the flashes and floaters had improved but that her vision was interfering with her golfing and driving. Again, Respondent did not recommend removal of the cataract. The patient's vision continued to interfere with her golfing and driving, notwithstanding the patient's testimony to the contrary which I do not find to be credible. The patient's next visit with Respondent was on October 16, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised Respondent that her vision had "lessened a lot" in the left eye. Visual acuity testing indicated corrected vision of 20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 plus 2 in the left eye. However, while the level of vision at which the patient was able to perceive letters (20/40 plus 2) did not change, the refraction (stronger glasses) required to achieve that level indicated more myopia, indicating that the cataract had progressed which supports the patient's complaint that her vision had "lessened a lot". Also at the October 16, 1992, visit, Respondent tested the patient's vision using brightness acuity testing (glare test) and measured the patient's vision as 20/70, with glare in the left eye. The glare test is a method whereby the doctor shines a light in the person's eye to determine the effect of glare on the person's vision. Although some ophthalmologists consider the glare test of no value, other ophthalmologists consider the glare test as another tool to assist the surgeon in making a decision concerning the necessity for cataract surgery. During the October 16, 1992, office visit, Respondent discussed with the patient: (a) the effect the cataract was having on the patient's activities (life-style); (b) the patient's complaint that her vision had lessened; (c) the results of the glare test showing the patient's vision as 20/70 with glare and; (d) other visual acuity testing; and (e)advised the patient that cataract surgery was indicated. Also, Respondent explained the cataract surgery procedures and discussed with the patient the risks and the benefits of the surgery. The patient had no reservations or objections to the surgery and consented to the surgery in hopes of improving her eyesight as well as her life- style. For a person with cataracts, a corrected vision of 20/40 or worse is the vision level where some cataract surgeons will recommend cataract surgery, while other cataract surgeons consider a corrected vision of 20/50 or worse, with or without glare, as the vision level where cataract surgery should be recommended. However, because the vision as determined by visual acuity testing (the ability of the person to perceive letters) does not always accurately reflect the person's quality of vision (the quality of perception on a day to day basis), neither vision level referred to above when considered alone can be used as a hard and fast rule to form a basis for cataract surgery. Since the quality of vision can only be described by the person with the cataract(s), the cataract surgeon must also determine, after consultation with the person, that the cataract(s) are interfering with the person's life-style. Therefore, a person with corrected vision of somewhat better than 20/40 or 20/70 with or without glare, may be a candidate for cataract surgery, provided the cataract is causing a reduction in the person's quality of vision beyond what is indicated by visual acuity testing and thereby interfering with the person's life-style. Furthermore, there are no written standards or guidelines which set a particular vision level for the cataract surgeon to follow when making a decision to recommend cataract surgery. The surgeon must take into consideration all factors and make a decision based on the surgeon's judgment as to what is best for that person. The patient's vision level and the interference the patient was experiencing with her life-style because of the cataracts in her left eye justified Respondent's decision to recommend and perform the cataract surgery on the patient, notwithstanding any of the testimony of Dr. Leslie Monroe to the contrary. On November 3, 1992, Respondent performed phacoemulsification (removal of cataract) with posterior chamber intracular lens implant (implantation of lens) on the patient's left eye. While the patient was in the holding area being prepared for surgery there were complications with the anesthesia. The anesthesiologist, Robert Dienes, M. D., first gave the patient a retrobulbar block which was repeated apparently due to Dr. Dienes' conclusion that the first retrobulbar block was ineffective. Apparently, Dr. Dienes also concluded that the second retrobulbar block was ineffective and gave the patient a superior lid peribulbar block. After giving the peribulbar block, Dr. Dienes noticed a dissecting subconjunctival hemorrhage and notified Respondent. Upon examining the patient's eye, Respondent found the globe (whole eye) to be soft with no active bleeding, indicating the eye was not full of blood and that there was no retina tear or rupture of the globe. Respondent also noticed that "the conjunctiva was real chemotic or it had blood behind it". Respondent also measured the patient's eye pressure with a Schiotz tonameter because there was no slit-lamp in the holding area. The patient's eye pressure was 5, with a 5.5 gram weight, which was normal. The patient's medical records do not reflect an indirect ophthalmoscopy being performed by Respondent on the patient's left eye between Respondent being advised of the dissecting subjunctival hemorrhage by Dr. Diemes and the Respondent performing surgery on the patient's left eye to remove the cataract and implant the lens. Furthermore, Respondent has no independent recollection of performing an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Respondent's normal practice under conditions and circumstances similar to those in this case has been to perform an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Therefore, it is assumed that Respondent performed an indirect ophthalmoscopy on the patient after being advised of the subconjunctival hemorrhage but before surgery, notwithstanding the fact that patient's medical records do not reflect such procedure being performed or the fact that Respondent has no independent recollection of performing such procedure during the above period of time. However, assuming arguendo that Respondent did not perform the indirect ophthalmoscopy before surgery, the Agency has failed to establish facts to show that under the conditions and circumstances of this case that such failure amounted to the failure of Respondent 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. After considering the conditions and circumstances surrounding the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized, Respondent made a decision that it was in the best interest of the patient to go forward with the removal of the cataract and implantation of the lens. The operation was completed without any further incident and there was a successful removal of the cataract and lens transplant. Respondent's decision to go forward with the surgery had no adverse effect on the subsequent treatment of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. In fact, the result of the treatment subsequent to the cataract surgery would have been the same even if Respondent had not gone forward with the surgery. Respondent, using a ophthalmoscope, was able to see the inside of the eye more clearly and assess the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. While performing this indirect ophthalmoscopy, Respondent noted undulation of the vitreous with pigmented blood cells present and that the anesthesia needle had penetrated the globe. The patient was seen the next morning, November 3, 1992, by Respondent. After assessing the condition of the patient's left eye, Respondent referred the patient to Keye Wong, M. D., a retina specialist. Upon examining the patient's left eye on November 4, 1992, Dr. Wong noted vitreous hemorrhaging and retinal detachment. Dr. Wong performed an operation on the patient's left eye in an attempt to correct the damage and attach the retina. The patient's vision is not as good as it was before the operation, and still effects the patient's life-style. The patient has difficulty tolerating sunlight, which may or may not be a result of the complication experienced while the patient was being anesthetize. Respondent's action of going forward with the surgery after becoming aware of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized did not cause, complicate, aggravate or result in any of the problems the patient has suffered postoperatively. Respondent did not fail to recognize, identify or treat properly the complications that arose before, during or after the surgery. The Agency has failed to establish facts to show that Respondent failed 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 at anytime while Respondent was treating the patient, including both preoperative and postoperative treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stephenson, M. D. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1560 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Department in this case. Agency's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-2 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in Finding of Fact 3. The second and third sentence are not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 4 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 5, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 5 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 7, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 12, 13, and 14, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 8 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 21 and 22, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 9 is a restatement of Dr. Monroe's testimony and is not a finding of fact. However, see Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 8, Proposed findings of fact 10, 16, 17 and 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 15, 16, 10, 8 and 9. Proposed finding of fact 11 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 16, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Although proposed findings of fact 12, 13 and 15 are findings of fact, they are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. See Finding of Fact 9. Proposed finding of fact 14 is a restatement of Dr. Grabow's testimony and is not stated as a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. Dr. Grabow's testimony was 20/50 vision with or without glare which is different than just 20/50 vision. 11. Proposed findings of Fact 18 and 20 are not supported by evidence in the record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 27 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Marm Harris, M. D., Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building Number Three 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steve Rothenburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 William E. Partridge, Esquire Lutz, Webb, Partridge, BoBo, and Baitty One Sarasota Tower 2 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a hospital licensed by the State of Florida and is located in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent, the affected state agency, as defined in Subsection 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, is responsible for the regulation of health care facilities, to include Petitioner. The Department also considers the question of provision of additional health care in the community through its certificate of need program. Intervenor has made application to provide ambulatory surgery in Duval County, Florida, through a freestanding surgery center. Jacksonville, Florida, is in Duval County. This case is part of a consolidated hearing process and is the companion matter to Saint Vincent's Medical Center, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Ambulatory Care - Duval Development Corp., d/b/a Jacksonville Surgical Center - Ambulatory Surgical Center, Respondents, D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-337 and Riverside Hospital, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Ambulatory Care - Duval Development Corp. d/b/a Jacksonville Surgical Center - Ambulatory Surgical Center, Respondents, D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-482. The first three days of the hearing were conducted on the dates alluded to in this order. That presentation was transcribed. In addition, deposition testimony was presented and accepted as part of the record in this matter. The campanion cases concern the propriety of the grant of a certificate of need to the Intervenor in this cause to allow construction and operation of a freestanding ambulatory surgery center which would be used for performing outpatient surgeries. At all times relevant to this case, Saint Vincent's had a department in which outpatient surgical procedures were performed and are expected to be performed in the future. With the advent of the establishment of the Intervenor's facility, that health care unit will be in competition with Petitioner in the realm of providing surgical procedures. As recently as 1975, Respondent knew that ambulatory surgery centers, such as that proposed by the Intervenor, would need permission to construct such a facility. This permission relates to the need to apply and receive a certificate of need from the Department. The authority for such regulation was pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding this regulatory role to be fulfilled, Respondent did not undertake a program for enacting rules to consider the question of need for ambulatory surgical centers. This lack of rulemaking was primarily due to inactivity of applicants seeking ambulatory surgical center certificates of need. This circumstance changed in late 1982. In December, 1982, Respondent received approximately thirteen applications for ambulatory surgical center certificates of need, as contrasted with approximately ten applications over the prior three years. At the same time Respondent was in the throes of having to revamp its certificate of need review process related to the overall health industry, brought about by statutory changes which abolished health system agencies and created local health councils. In 1983, at the time of the hearings, Respondent had received 27 applications for ambulatory surgery centers. This glut of applications by would-be ambulatory surgical centers and the 1982 applications were examined without formal rules defining the need question, related to expected numbers of surgical procedures that might be conducted on an outpatient or ambulatory basis. The determination of this ratio of outpatient surgical procedures to inpatient surgical procedures is a vital part of the need question. 1/ Absent promulgated rules, Department officials began their attempt to ascertain the percentage comparison between outpatient and inpatient surgeries, as that item was involved in the establishment of a methodology for considering the need question. Based upon information provided by applicants for ambulatory surgery centers and its own research, Respondent concluded that anywhere from 18 to 40 percent of total surgeries could be expected to be outpatient surgeries. Having utilized a median projection related to population expectations in the certificate of need process, the Department decided to use a median projection for the expected percentage of outpatient surgery. Thus, 29 percent was selected as the percentage of outpatient surgeries in the total number of surgical procedures and that percentage was utilized in the computation of the number of expected outpatient surgical procedures. Utilization of this 29 percent factor in the computation of the number of procedures to be expected on an outpatient basis may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Respondent's Exhibit 1, application reviews. Once the Department decided to employ the 29 percent factor, it has consistently, on a statewide basis, utilized that factor in evaluating the question of the grant of certificates of need for ambulatory surgical center applicants. This has been done in more than one batch or cycle and was done in the instance of Intervenor's application which is at issue. Although the 29 percent factor is not the only determining element of the certificate of need process, it is an integral part of that process and can affect the outcome of the grant of the certificate, as has been the case in two instances alluded to in the course of the hearing. This policy choice by the agency is not emerging. It is not one of a series of approaches that have been experimented with in trying to arrive at a concluding agency position, prior to the formal adoption of a rule. This percentage factor has been the only number utilized in the review of all ambulatory surgery center applications commencing late 1982 to the time of final hearing in this action. This choice has not stood the test or scrutiny of the rulemaking process set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding the stated willingness of the agency to modify its position when presented with a more credible method, that contingency or eventuality has not occurred and every applicant for ambulatory surgery center certificate of need has had its application measured against the 29 percent factor commencing December 1982, to the exclusion of other techniques suggested by applicants. In the face of the facts reported above and the record considered, and recognizing that the agency should be afforded an opportunity to establish a record basis for the utilization of the 29 percent factor, even if it were found to be an invalid rule, a decision was reached at the time of hearing on the question of the utilization of the 29 percent factor and whether it was a rule not duly promulgated. It was found that the 29 percent factor is an unpromulgated rule and could not stand as law without first being subject to an assessment of the quality of the record basis for the agency's policy choice. The argument related to this case may be found at pages 798 through 829 of the transcript. The ruling is announced at pages 829 through 832. Respondent subsequently presented additional evidence in support of its policy choice and that may be found in succeeding sections within the transcript. This written order memorializes the ruling announced at hearing.
The Issue Should the Board of Medicine (the Board) discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida, based upon allegations that he violated Sections 456.072(1)(bb), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in the care and treatment of Patient H.J.?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME: 65565. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes. On or about July 21, 2003, the Respondent performed peritoneal dialysis catheter removal on Patient H.J. at Bay Medical Center (Bay Medical). Peritoneal dialysis is a technique that uses the patient's own body tissues inside of the abdominal cavity to act as a filter. On or about August 25, 2003, Patient H.J. presented with erythema (a redness of the skin resulting from inflammation) and induration (localized hardening of soft tissue of the body) in the area where the peritoneal dialysis catheter had been removed. On or about December 3, 2003, the Respondent performed exploratory surgery of Patient H.J.'s wound. Additional Facts Patient H.J. suffers from end-stage kidney failure, diabetes and heart disease. Dr. Ahmad Oussama Refai treated Patient H.J. for his kidney failure. Dr. Refai is a board- certified Nephrologist. Dr. Refai referred Patient H.J. for placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter (catheter) to address the end-stage kidney failure. The catheter, as Dr. Refai describes it, was intended to remove the poisonous material in the blood of Patient H.J. By using the catheter clean fluid is introduced into the abdomen where it remains for a period of about four hours. The fluid introduced contains electrolytes put in the patient's blood stream. After the residence time for the fluid expires, the fluid is withdrawn through the catheter removing the harmful material. The patient, once instructed, is capable of performing the procedures described. The other option in performing this method of dialysis is to use a device that is employed at nighttime called a cycler, used while the patient is asleep and without the need for the patient to conduct the process. The patient's use of the catheter for dialysis is referred to as "home dialysis." Before Dr. Refai referred the patient to Respondent to place the catheter, the patient had been treated for his end- stage renal disease through a forearm AV graph to provide hemodialysis. That technique allows access to the patient's blood through a shunt, with the blood being run through a machine and cleansed and returned back to the patient. This procedure is done several times a week at out-patient centers, whereas the peritoneal dialysis is done daily by the patient or at night. On June 30, 2000, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and determined that the patient was a good candidate for the surgery necessary to place the catheter to perform peritoneal dialysis. On July 19, 2000, Respondent placed the catheter and peritoneal dialysis treatment was commenced. Following the placement the catheter was used by the patient as overseen by the Dr. Refai. As Dr. Refai describes it, the catheter is a silestic tube that has two cuffs. The cuff at the lower level sits on the fascia where it is secured and the other cuff is just under the skin or in the subcutaneous tissue. Dr. Refai describes the cuffs as fuzzy. The cuffs are expected to induce an inflammatory process promoting scarring so that the body forms tissue to hold the catheter in place. Dr. Refai calls this a bond. Dr. Refai explains that the other parts of the catheter are "slippery." It is the fuzzy part that holds the catheter in place. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 is an unused catheter similar in design to that placed in Patient H.J. On July 7, 2003, Respondent, Dr. Refai, and a Dr. Dean discussed Patient H.J. and the plan to remove the catheter that was no longer adequately performing the dialysis. On July 21, 2003, Respondent did surgery to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. On July 17, 2003, before Respondent did the surgery to remove the catheter, an explanation was made to Patient H.J. of the risks associated with the surgery as to bleeding, infection, MI stroke, death, and allergic reaction following removal of the catheter. Following the surgery Dr. Refai as the treating physician was aware that the wound associated with the surgery was not healing well and Dr. Refai sent Patient H.J. back to Respondent. Dr. Refai is familiar with the course of antibiotics prescribed for Patient H.J. to respond to the condition and the surgical exploration done by Respondent where a piece of cuff, as Dr. Refai describes it, was removed and the wound healed. December 3, 2003, was the date of the exploratory surgery. At that time, Patient H.J. was on hemo-dialysis and was being seen by Dr. Refai once a week. In Dr. Refai's opinion Patient H.J. was doing remarkably well, making allowances for his underlying condition (illnesses). At present Dr. Refai is aware that the patient is on the list to receive a kidney transplant. On August 1, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. In his notes Respondent stated: His wounds look good. There is no evidence of infection. No fever or chills. He looks well. He is not taking any pain medicine. I am going to see him back in a month for a final visit. On August 25, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again. The Respondent's notes stated: His p.d. catheter removal site which was removed 4 weeks ago has some erythema and induration around it. I ultrasounded it here in the office and it looked like there was a little fluid. I anesthetized the area and opened it. There was no gross pus. I am going ahead and treat [sic] him with some Keflex and have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday as I am going to be out of town. This may come to a head and become an abscess. It may just be some cellulitis. I am not real sure why he would have cellulites as it certainly did not look like a hernia. I am going to have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday and make sure it is improving. On August 29, 2003, a note was made by Dr. Beaver concerning his visit with Patient H.J. In that note Dr. Beaver said: Patient of Dr. Kinsey. He was seen back for re-check. Apparently he was having some questionable cellulites around his p.d. cath today. He states that he is feeling much better. On examination, I see no redness at all and per the office assistance it has much improved. There is really not tender [sic]. It looks to me like it is improving. We will plan for him to see Dr. Kinsey back next week. On September 12, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and in the office note stated: The area in his left lower quadrant is completely healed. He is doing well. I am going to see him back in one month for a final visit. On September 16, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note stated: He had some drainage from his previous p.d. catheter site. It does not appear to be infected. I am going to follow this area and see him in the office in a month. On September 30, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note it states: He still has some drainage from the p.d. catheter exit site [sic] it was done about eight weeks ago. I told him that I would like to leave that along [sic] for at least three months and follow that. If it does not improve after three to four months then we may need to explore the wound but it may be a piece of suture that it [sic] trying to spit. We will see him back in the office in about 6 to 8 weeks. On November 11, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and noted: He is still draining from his p.d. catheter exit site. This has been 5 months. It is time to explore the wound. We will proceed to the operating room for exploration in the sinus tract. I suspect that there will be a piece of the catheter in the bottom of the wound. On December 1, 2003 Respondent saw Patient H.J. for the pre-operative visit. At that time he noted: He is here for a pre-op for a wound exploration for his p.d. catheter removal site. He still has some granulation tissue there. I am going to plan to probe the area and evaluate where the sinus goes. On December 3, 2003, the surgery was conducted on Patient H.J. and Respondent noted: He underwent a left lower quadrant wound exploration. The p.d. catheter cuff was within the subcutaneous tissue and that is why his wound [sic] not close. This was removed and then the would [sic] was closed. He tolerated the procedure well. The various surgeries that have been discussed which were performed by Respondent took place at Bay Medical in Panama City, Florida. In the operative procedure report at the hospital related to the December 3, 2003 exploratory operation Respondent described a pre-operative diagnosis as: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. The post-operative diagnosis stated: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. Foreign body (peritoneal dialysis catheter cuff), left lower quadrant abdominal wound. The procedure performed was described as: Wound exploration and foreign body removal. The intra-operative findings related to the operation were: He was found to have a cuff of the catheter within the tissue. He had a small piece of p.d. catheter attached to it. The cuff had obviously broken. The catheter was broken with a cuff remaining in the subcu tissue. There was no intra-abdominal portion. In comparison, on July 21, 2003, in the operative/procedure report at Bay Medical through the description of the procedure to remove the catheter Respondent stated: . . . The previous incision in the left hypogastric area was anesthetized with local anesthetic and sharply incised. This was carried into the subcutaneous tissue and p.d.-catheter dissected and divided. The catheter was then pulled from the subcutaneous tissue at the exit site. The catheter was then delivered into the wound and abdominal wall cuff sharply incised and the catheter removed. The fascial edges were then reapproximated with 2 figure-of-eight0- vicryl sutures. On July 21, 2003, when Respondent removed the catheter from Patient H.J. no pathology was ordered. On December 3, 2003, following the exploratory surgery and retrieval of the catheter pathology was ordered. Daniel G. Dena was the pathologist at Bay Medical who addressed the specimen which was described by the pathologist as: "Tissue-p.d. catheter cuff" The anatomic diagnosis referred stated: "p.d. catheter cuff: plastic catheter, with attached fibro-fatty tissue at one end, showing acute and chronic inflammation." The macroscopic examination in the pathology report stated: "The specimen is labeled 'pd catheter cuff'. Received is a portion of plastic tubing measuring approximately 5 cm in length and up to 0.5 cm in diameter, with a cuff of soft tissue at one end measuring 2.5 cm in length and 1.2 cm in diameter." On July 26, 2004, in responding to the investigation that led to this prosecution Respondent stated in writing in relation to Patient H.J.: The original peritoneal dialysis catheter removal had gone uneventfully and I felt that both cuffs of the catheter had been removed in their entirety. But this was found not to be the case. I have placed a number of these catheters and removed a number as well and have not had this type of problem before. Visual inspection of the catheter on removal is routinely undertaken to ensure that the cuffs are removed and I felt that this had been completely removed but I was obviously mistaken. I am not sure if this was a defect in the catheter. Evaluation of the catheter and assurance of complete cuff removal would have probably prevented this process. I am certainly more cognizant of this being a problem in subsequent catheters that I have removed. At the original time of catheter removal the operative site appeared appropriate. At hearing Respondent offered additional explanation concerning the July 21, 2003 operation to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. and the exploratory surgery on December 3, 2003. As Respondent explained, in the July 21, 2003 surgery Respondent made a 3-to-4 cm incision about the belly button towards the middle of the abdomen through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, the fascial layer and muscle and peritoneal layer. The peritoneal layer is a semi-permeable membrane that waste products removed in the dialysis will cross. The catheter is placed into the abdomen. The catheter is 12 to 14 inches in length with a curlicue tail and holes in the end of the catheter that allows the fluids to be introduced and withdrawn from the abdomen. As Respondent explained the catheter has two cuffs, the smaller of which is designed for placement in the rectus muscle located along the inset part of the abdomen. The smaller cuff sits inside that muscle. Tissue attaches to that cuff to keep fluid from leaking out, to keep the catheter in place and to prevent bacteria from going down the outside of the catheter. There is a segment of the catheter between that cuff and a larger cuff which sits underneath the skin in the subcutaneous tissue. The tissue in that area attaches to the cuff and serves to hold the catheter in place. When removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, Respondent used an incision of about 3 cm and encountered the mid-portion of the catheter located between the two cuffs which was dissected down through the fascia and taken out with the portion in the abdomen being removed first. Before making the incision to remove the catheter, Respondent cut the portion of the catheter outside the body of Patient H.J. off, including the metal and plastic valves and other paraphernalia hanging out of the patient. The purpose of removing the catheter outside the patient's body was in the interest of protecting the surgical field from contamination to avoid wound infection. The part removed inside the patient initially was the intra-abdominal portion. The intra-abdominal portion of the catheter, including the cuff in that area was sharply removed. The cuff was 2 or 3 times the size that it would have been when first placed and the part around the cuff was cut to allow the catheter to be extracted. The area of the fascia was closed. Next Respondent addressed the subcutaneous portion of the catheter by following it out and sharply cutting the tissue around the catheter and the subcutaneous cuff with scissors to remove that portion which also had an ingrowth of scar and fibroblastic tissue. Once the portions of the catheter with the cuffs, had been removed Respondent looked to determine if he had both cuffs which appeared at that time as a wad of scar and tissue. Respondent then closed the wound. Respondent believed that he had removed the whole catheter, to include the cuffs. In fact the subcutaneous cuff was not entirely removed and another portion of the catheter remained in the patient following the July 21, 2003 surgery. Respondent's estimate of what had been left in the patient and removed on December 3, 2003, was about 2 cm of the subcutaneous cuff and then a portion of the balance of the catheter. In commenting on the difference between the pathology report and his visual assessment on December 3, 2003, Respondent remarked about "all the stuff" grown onto the cuff and catheter. He also said it had a lot of specimen, taken to mean the "stuff" attached to the cuff and catheter. Although in the operative notes from December 3, 2003, Respondent says the catheter broke, at hearing he stated that he did not know whether the catheter had been cut or broke during the July 21, 2003 procedure to remove the catheter. No independent tests were conducted to determine whether the catheter broke during the July 21, 2003 surgery or was cut by Respondent. Respondent does not precisely remember the appearance of the catheter, to include the cuffs, when examining it on July 21, 2003. But he believed that he had successfully removed the entire catheter. In his testimony Respondent describes the office visits subsequent to the July 21, 2003 surgery. When he saw Patient H.J. he observed cellulitis around the area of the incision which was treated with oral antibiotics and resolved. Respondent used ultrasound to determine whether fluid had collected in the area where he observed the cellulitis. No fluid collection was seen. Drainage was noticed around the exit site where the catheter came out of the skin, which ordinarily takes a month to six weeks to heal. Concerning the drainage around this exit site, Respondent expected the drainage to resolve within around five weeks unless there were a piece of suture or other kind of event keeping the site opened and draining. The wound site where the incision was made healed without incident. The exit site continued to drain. After a time Respondent concluded that the reason for the drainage was either an epithelilized sinus tract, a piece of suture, a piece of catheter, a piece of cuff, or a piece of dressing for the wound. Respondent waited a time before doing the exploratory surgery in view of the use of an absorbable suture in the July 21, 2003 surgery which would have dissolved over time, precluding the need to do the exploration. Respondent, given the problem with the drainage from Patient H.J. following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter, does not believe that the failure to remove this fragment would have killed the patient or have caused a lot of problems, but it was bothersome enough that it was worth the effort to try and find it and get the patient healed. Respondent in dictating his post-operative note on December 3, 2003, thinks that the catheter had broken and continues to hold to that belief, although he recognizes that it may have been cut in the prior surgery. Concerning his practice at Bay Medical, Respondent did not routinely have an X-ray done for patients undergoing surgery without a more specific reason for ordering it. Nor did he order a pathology examination following surgery absent the need for specific information. Patient H.J. in his testimony described the level of pain following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter as "a little pain." Expert Opinion Dr. Stanley P. Kococki is a general surgeon licensed in Florida. He is board-certified in general surgery. He has had experience placing and removing peritoneal dialysis catheters. He was qualified to offer expert opinion testimony concerning Respondent's treatment of Patient H.J., in particular, the surgery performed July 21, 2003. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that the Respondent fell below the standard of care in treating Patient H.J., in that Respondent failed to recognize that he had left a portion of the catheter in the patient, which Dr. Kococki describes as a retained foreign body and that this caused the patient to undergo a second unnecessary procedure, meaning that the second procedure would not have been necessary if the catheter had been removed completely in the first surgery. The failure to remove could possibly have caused serious problems for the patient, to include septicemia and death, according to Dr. Kococki. Dr. Kococki refers to the Respondent's obligation in removing the catheter, to make certain that the whole catheter was removed and that the wound properly healed beyond that point so that the patient would not experience problems. While recognizing that there are different techniques for removing the catheter from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki took issue with the method employed by the Respondent. Dr. Kococki believes that there are other methods for avoiding the problem with infection than to cut the catheter outside the body. There was no description of the use of a hemostat or clamps to hold the retained part of the catheter once the outside segment had been cut, so that the remaining portion of the catheter would not be lost under the skin. In addition, by cutting the catheter in two places there was a chance of leaving a piece of the catheter in the patient. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that when you cut the catheter in several places you have to remember where the pieces of the catheter are left in the patient. Given other circumstances during the surgery that occupy the surgeon's mind, it can lead to leaving a piece of catheter behind. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that leaving the catheter behind was not in the best interest of the patient because it led to subsequent surgery and had the sinus tract closed over the foreign body would have caused a localized infection and abscess formation around that area and possibly allowed for the bacteria from the abscess to enter the patient's bloodstream causing sepsis, and abscess formation in other organs, possibly the abdominal cavity, with a possible rupture intra-abdominally causing the patient to have generalized peritonitis. That can be life threatening and ultimately lethal. It is more of a problem with the person that has end-stage renal failure, in that the patient has a weakened immune system and lessened prospects to fight off infection. Dr. Kococki relied upon the pathology report made after the December 3, 2003 surgery to accurately describe the size of the segment that was left in the patient. In order to ascertain what actually happened with the catheter Dr. Kococki believes that the company or an independent examining body would have to determine if the catheter was defective. Even in the instance where the catheter may have broken in the initial surgery to remove it on July 21, 2003, the onus is still on the surgeon removing the catheter to examine it to make certain it was removed intact. Dr. Kococki characterizes the catheter as commonly present and utilized in surgical procedures to place and remove peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Kococki describes the catheter as a medical device, unlike a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle. Dr. Kococki recognizes that the purpose of the catheter is to perform dialysis but the retained portion left after the initial surgery to remove the catheter does not have a medical purpose, in his judgment. Dr. Kococki describes the cuff in the field related to the abdominal wall as providing a seal to avoid bacteria. The cuff as he understands it has an antibiotic coating that will help fight off infection. The cuff reacts with the patient's body tissue to act as a sealant. To have avoided the problem of failing to account for a portion of the catheter during the initial surgery to remove it from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki believes that the easiest thing to have done was while the patient was in the operating room send the catheter to a pathologist and have it measured for comparison against the known size of the catheter when first placed. A second safe-guard would be to use a portable X-ray of the abdominal cavity to make sure that there was no radiopaque material in the abdomen or subcutaneous tissue. The catheter has radiopaque material allowing this identification in Dr. Kococki's understanding. Dr. Kococki was not familiar with the procedures at Bay Medical where the catheter removal from Patient H.J. was performed. The bylaws of the institution do not require that the catheter be sent to pathology following removal. Dr. Thomas A. Gadacz testified in the interest of Respondent. He is licensed in several states. He is not licensed in Florida. He is an expert in the field of general surgery. He has placed and removed peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Gadacz describes the catheter as a medical device. It has nothing in common with a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle, in his opinion. As a surgeon Dr. Gadacz refers to sponges, forceps, clamps and surgical needles as items whose sole purpose is to assist during an operation, not intended to be left in the body. They are to facilitate an operation to provide exposure, to conduct the operation but they are not a therapeutic modality. By contrast the peritoneal dialysis catheter is used primarily for therapy by remaining in the patient for specified periods of time to treat the patient. Other aids in performing an operation are cotton balls called kitners, metal retractors and cannulas. Dr. Gadacz explains that the purpose of the cuffs related to the catheter is to react to the body so that tissue grows around them. The other part of the catheter made of Teflon is designed to be non-reactive. Dr. Gadacz is aware that catheters of the type under discussion have fractured or broken. Dr. Gadacz explained that the fracture of a cuff is not common. In his experience, in the instance where a segment broke in a catheter, Dr. Gadacz removed it. On the other hand the failure to remove the piece is not necessarily below the standard of care as Dr. Gadacz explains, "because some times this happens, and its, you don't know that that has happened." The possibility of knowing that the segment broke off is difficult. As Dr. Gadacz describes, it was impossible given the tract involved with the surgery here. The gross inspection of the catheter once removed from the patient is a process in which it is difficult to make certain that both cuffs are there because of the encrusting fibrous tissue found after removing the cuffs, causing the cuffs to no longer have the same appearance as when first placed. The visual inspection made of the catheter after removal would not necessarily reveal whether it was removed in its entirety, according to Dr. Gadacz. Dr. Gadacz is unfamiliar with surgeons who would use an X-ray after removal of the catheter to confirm that the entire catheter had been removed. Instead he defers to Respondent's operative note on December 3, 2003, where the Respondent says that the catheter had obviously broken to explain the failure to retrieve the catheter. Dr. Gadacz does not believe sending the catheter to pathology after it was removed on July 21, 2003, would necessarily have been useful because it would take familiarity on the part of the pathologist with that form of catheter to recognize that a part was missing. Dr. Gadacz recognizes that the fragment from the catheter left in Patient H.J. at the end of the initial surgery to remove the catheter is medically considered a foreign body because it was not part of the human body. Dr. Gadacz found nothing in the care provided by Respondent by to Patient H.J. after the July 21, 2003 surgery that was questionable. Dr. Gadacz did not find the technique Respondent used in removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, from the Patient H.J. to be below the standard of care. Generally Dr. Gadacz did not express the opinion that Respondent practiced below the standard of care. Dr. Gadacz explained that had the segment continued to be present in the patient there would have been a major risk of continuing infection and ultimately the patient could have developed a serious abscess in the subcutaneous tissue that could become life-threatening or nothing may have happened, and the segment may have been walled off by the patient's body. In determining the comparability of what is described in Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003), as "other paraphernalia," to those items listed within that section, "such as a sponge, clamp, forceps, surgical needle," that are "used in surgical examination, or other diagnostic procedures," reliance is made upon testimony from Dr. Gadacz. As a surgeon, the opinion by Dr. Kococki is rejected for reasons that will be explained in the conclusions of law. When considering whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as envisioned by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), with the specificity called for in that provision, Dr. Kococki is more compelling in his opinion that the fragment left in Patient H.J. should have been removed in the earlier operation whether it broke or was cut by Respondent. The notion that there are times when some portion of the catheter may have been left in the patient, as was the case here, with no consequences to the practitioner, as expressed by Dr. Gadacz is not persuasive. Disciplinary History The Respondent has no prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the guidance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 8.001, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent did not violate Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003); that Respondent did violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003); placing Respondent on probation for two years; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; requiring Respondent to perform 50 hours of community service; requiring the completion of 5 hours of continuing medical education on "risk management" and requiring him to present a one-hour lecture to a group of peers discussing retention of foreign bodies in surgeries and techniques to avoid the retention. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller Ephraim D. Livingston Assistants General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Albert Peacock, Esquire 8554 Congressional Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with the required standard of care, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and failed to keep required written medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician in Florida, having been issued license number ME 0022608. Respondent is board-certified in ophthalmology. He was the principal investigator in the Excimer Laser Research Study. He is a fellow with the American College of Surgeons. He has published extensively in prominent medical and ophthalmologic journals. While still receiving medical training, Respondent gained experience in treating the ophthalmologic conditions of patients who suffer from Down Syndrome. While in practice, Respondent has continued to gain considerable experience in treating the ophthalmologic conditions of patients with Down Syndrome. Respondent has never previously been disciplined. U. V. was born on January 6, 1973. He suffered from Down Syndrome. As a young child, U. V. was diagnosed with inoperable congestive heart failure. Suffering from damage to two chambers of his heart and irreversible lung damage, U. V. had been in “terminal” condition since about the age of seven. Despite his serious medical problems, which are common to Down Syndrome patients, U. V. was a happy young man, who developed and matured as a teenager. He communicated his feelings and interacted with others, especially with his family. His mother adopted him when he was about five years old; previously, she had cared for him after his biological family had abandoned him. In March 1992, U. V. became quite ill. His physician discussed with U. V.’s mother the possibility of a Do Not Resuscitate order, but no order was ever given or entered into his medical records. U. V. rallied from his illness. His cardiologist found, after an office visit on October 13, 1992, that U. V. had made “tremendous progress” and was “doing quite well at this point in time.” This was the last time that U. V. visited his personal physician prior to the cataract surgery nearly a year later. In April of 1993, U. V. received home health care through the Hospices of Palm Beach. During this time, the hospice nurse who visited U. V. at home noted that he was sensitive about his Down Syndrome and social isolation. On July 14, 1993, the hospice nurse noted that she found U. V. to be “alert, ambulatory, cheerful.” U. V.’s mother told the nurse that U. V. wanted an eye surgeon to treat a cataract that had developed in his left eye, and the family would be willing to pay for the operation in installments, if health coverage would not pay for the surgery. Ten days later, during another home visit by the hospice nurse, U. V.’s mother again stated her concern about his cataract. The nurse told her to take U. V. to his primary care physician for a referral. U. V.’s family took U. V. to his family physician, who sent him to an optometrist. The optometrist determined that U. V. had a cataract in his left eye and was starting to develop one in his right eye too. The optometrist told them that surgery could correct the condition and referred U. V. to Respondent. About a month later, in late August, U. V.’s mother informed the hospice nurse that they had an appointment with an eye surgeon and hoped that he would remove the cataract from U. V.’s left eye. At this time, U. V. was still leading an active life, largely due to the support and assistance of his loving family. He was happy and enjoyed dancing at weddings and parties and watching television. The family thought that surgery would help him see better with his left eye. Respondent first examined U. V. on August 31, 1993. He found a hypermature cataract in U. V.’s left eye. U. V.’s eye was totally opacified by the cataract to such an extent that he could see only hand motion. Respondent was immediately concerned with the possibility of phacolytic glaucoma. This is a condition in which the cataract liquifies and may leak through the lens capsule, resulting in an immunological reaction. Phacolytic glaucoma is extremely painful. It is impossible to predict the precise onset of phacolytic glaucoma, but Respondent reasonably determined that the condition could develop in as little time as hours or days, although it was possibly months away. Respondent was also concerned with U. V.’s right eye. Respondent found a cataract in the right eye in the lens where all the light rays pass into the eye. This type of cataract advances rapidly, so much so that it might overtake in seriousness the older cataract in U. V.’s left eye. Respondent performed a comprehensive examination of both eyes. He discussed cataract surgery with U. V.’s mother. Respondent agreed to perform the surgery for the Medicaid payment. He carefully explained the condition of U. V.’s left eye and the risks and benefits of surgery and general anesthesia. To assist in communicating with U. V.’s Spanish-speaking mother, Respondent had someone in the office translate for the mother. After hearing the explanation, U. V.’s mother agreed to the surgery, and Respondent set up the surgery for September 7, 1993. After returning home, U. V. began complaining of problems with his right eye. His sight was deteriorating at this time, heightening his feeling of isolation from the world around him. In the meantime, Respondent had the laboratory work done in preparation for the surgery. His office contacted U. V.’s physicians to get medical information in preparation for the cataract surgery. But they were unable to get such information from the physicians’ offices. On September 7, U. V. and his family returned to Ft. Myers for the surgery. The board-certified anesthesiologist examined U. V. and found that he had wheezing respiration, so the anesthesiologist told Respondent that the surgery had to be postponed. Respondent rescheduled the surgery for September 15, 1993. Respondent and the anesthesiologist then discussed the possibility of using a local anesthetic, which would present fewer risks to U. V. than would be posed by a general anesthetic. But, as is typical with Down patients, U. V. had been fidgety during the August 31 office visit and was a poor candidate for local anesthesia during the extremely delicate cataract surgery that he was about to undergo. Respondent and the anesthesiologist agreed that U. V. would receive general anesthesia for the surgery. After the first surgery was canceled, the anesthesiologist undertook the task of obtaining the medical clearances for general anesthesia. He spoke with U. V.’s primary physician, who practices in the small town where U. V. lived at the south end of Lake Okeechobee between Clewiston and Belle Glade. U. V.’s primary physician appeared as a witness at the hearing. He seemed to suffer from communication problems not entirely attributable to obvious difficulties with the English language. Not surprisingly, the anesthesiologist obtained little useful information from the physician. The anesthesiologist’s nurse called the cardiologist’s office several times on September 15 prior to the surgery. Unable to reach the cardiologist or any of his partners, the anesthesiologist spoke with one of the cardiologist’s office nurses and had her read him U. V.’s chart. Especially interested in U. V.’s cardiac malformations, the anesthesiologist satisfied himself that U. V. could withstand the rigors of general anesthesia and developed a plan, after discussing the case with his partners, to use special drugs and techniques so as to affect V.’s heart and lungs as little as possible. The anesthesiologist also studied either a chest xray taken on September 6, 1993, or a report of the chest xray taken on that date. He examined the xray or report to determine if U. was suffering from any reversible heart problems that might resolve themselves if surgery were postponed. The anesthesiologist found no cardiac problems of this type. Prior to the administration of the general anesthesia, the anesthesiologist spent several hours with U. V. and his family discussing the risks and benefits of general anesthesia. U. V.’s mother accepted the risks and agreed to the use of the general anesthesia. U. V.’s cardiologist testified that, if asked about the surgery and general anesthesia, he would have cautioned Respondent and the anesthesiologist of the risks of surgery, but he would not have offered an opinion on the advisability of using general anesthesia on U. V. The cardiologist would have left the decision on this matter to the anesthesiologist. On September 15, 1993, Respondent removed the cardiac from U. V.’s left eye. The surgery was flawless. During the surgery, U. V. was stable and tolerated the anesthesia. Following the surgery, U. V. awoke in the recovery room, where he was alert and following commands. Once U. V. began to breathe better on his own, the ventilator machine was turned off. U. V. suddenly developed cardiac arrhythmia and died within an hour. Respondent did not deviate from the applicable standard of care in his diagnosis and treatment of U. V. Respondent’s medical records amply memorialize his diagnosis and fully justify the surgery undertaken on September 15, 1993.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 John F. Lauro, Esquire John F. Lauro, P.A. Suite 3950 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0972 Jerome Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
