The Issue The issues are whether Respondents committed the acts or omissions alleged in four administrative complaints, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondents' licenses.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner proved the grounds alleged in paragraphs 1 through 3 of each Amended Complaint and the grounds alleged in paragraphs 1 through 5 of each Administrative Complaint. Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of pharmacy in Florida pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 465. Rx and Gordon are each licensed in Florida, respectively, as a community pharmacy and pharmacist pursuant to license numbers PH 17718 and PS 27618. Rx is a community pharmacy located at 5400 South University Drive, Suite 107, Davie, Florida 33328. Gordon is the pharmacy manager. Rx operates an Internet pharmacy. Rx fills prescriptions received over the Internet and dispenses the prescribed medications. A website company identified in the record as USAPrescriptions.com (USAP) obtains personal information from individuals responding to USAP advertisements on the Internet. USAP transmits the patient information to physicians who prescribe medication for the individuals and transmit the prescriptions and patient information to Rx by e-mail. Rx prints a written record of the electronically transmitted prescription, but the written record of the prescription is not the actual prescription. Rx then enters the patient information into its computer system; fills the prescription; labels the medication in accordance with the requirements of Section 893.04(1)(e); obtains a written confirmation of the prescription from the physician; and dispenses the medication to the patient by private courier. Petitioner conducted on-site inspections of Rx on April 6 and October 18, 2001. Petitioner proved the grounds alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Complaints. Many of the medications in evidence are controlled substances within the meaning of Section 893.03. None of the controlled substances are Schedule I or Schedule II drugs defined in Section 893.03(1) and (2). Most of the medications are Schedule III, IV, or V drugs defined in Section 893.03(3)-(5). The remaining medications are legend drugs that are not scheduled by statute. Most of the medications in evidence are controlled substances identified in the record as obesity drugs and marketed under the brand names Adipex, Bontril, Didrex, Ionamin, Meridia, Phentermine, and Tenuate. Other medications include Celebrex, Ultram, Valtrex, Viagra, Xenical, and Zyban. Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in subparagraph 4(a) of the Amended Complaints that Respondents filled prescriptions written by out-of-state physicians who prescribed medication based on Internet questionnaires. Rx and Gordon do not fill "written" prescriptions. Respondents fill electronic prescriptions that physicians transmit by e-mail. The electronic prescriptions are transmitted by "other means of communication" authorized in Section 893.02(20). Respondents reduce each electronic prescription to a written record referred to in Section 893.04(1)(a). The evidence is not clear and convincing that physicians prescribe based on Internet questionnaires. None of the prescribing physicians testified. The content of the Internet questionnaire is not established by clear and convincing evidence. The prescribing physicians provide Respondents with patient profiles that include medical information for each patient. Evidence that the patient profiles are an inadequate basis for the prescriptions is less than clear and convincing. Petitioner's experts relied on the adequacy of the patient profiles, in relevant part, to opine that Respondents failed to properly consult patient profiles before dispensing obesity drugs. Evidence that patient profiles were an adequate source of medical information to consult before dispensing drugs is inconsistent with allegations that the patient profiles received from the prescribing physicians were an inadequate basis for the prescription or that the Internet questionnaires did not include sufficient information. Inconsistent evidence and allegations are not clear and convincing. The allegation in paragraph 4(a) that an "out-of-state physician" transmitted the referenced prescription is not material to the statutory mandate for Respondents to determine the validity of the prescription. The statute requires a pharmacist to determine the validity of the prescription only when the prescribing physician is "licensed" in a state other than Florida. The physical location of the physician is immaterial. The trier of fact cannot infer that Petitioner intended to allege a material fact. The fact must be alleged in the plain language of the Amended Complaint. It may be reasonable for the fact-finder to infer that the physician is licensed in the state where he or she is located, but such an inference is less than clear and convincing. The ALJ has ruled that any ambiguity in the factual allegation must be construed in favor of the licensee because this is a license discipline proceeding. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Gordon was present at Rx on April 6, 2001. The investigator's testimony that he interviewed Gordon on April 6, 2001, is not persuasive. That testimony conflicts with evidence that the investigator customarily documents interviews in his investigative report and did not document an interview with Gordon on April 6, 2001. Such inconsistent evidence is less than clear and convincing. Even if Gordon were found to be present during the inspection, the evidence does not show how long she was present or the nature and scope of her personal conduct concerning the alleged acts or omissions. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the alleged acts or omissions were caused by misconduct on the part of Rx. The alleged acts or omissions are limited to April 6, 2001. Evidence relevant to the inspection conducted on April 6, 2001, consists primarily of the testimony of one inspector and two exhibits. The evidence is insufficient to show that unidentified employees of Rx engaged in the alleged acts or omissions in a persistent and practiced manner. The evidence is insufficient to support an inference that Rx is vicariously responsible for the alleged acts or omissions of its employees on April 6, 2001. Paragraph 4(c) in the Amended Complaints alleges that the prescriptions filled by Respondents were not valid because there was no patient-physician relationship upon which to base a treatment plan or "to justify prescribing medications." The evidence does not establish standards applicable to Respondents. The investigator's testimony makes clear that the alleged grounds are based on a rule promulgated by the Board of Medicine that is applicable only to physicians licensed in Florida. The ALJ has ruled in the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no jurisdiction to discipline Respondents for violating a rule applicable to physicians. No further findings are made concerning the grounds alleged in the Amended Complaints. Paragraph five in the Amended Complaints charges a violation based on facts alleged in the preceding four paragraphs of the complaint. The remaining references in the Recommended Order to a "paragraph" refer to paragraphs in the Administrative Complaints. Paragraph 5 alleges that the "inspection team observed" four technicians and one pharmacist dispensing medications on October 18, 2001, in violation of the maximum ratio of 3:1 prescribed in Section 465.014. The observations of the "inspection team" are a method of proof but, in this instance, include the fact sought to be proven. On October 18, 2001, Gordon was the only pharmacist on duty during the inspection. Four other employees were present at the time, but the evidence is less than clear and convincing that all four employees were technicians. Two members of Petitioner's inspection team found that Respondents maintained the correct ratio. One member is a licensed pharmacist. A third member found the ratio to be improper. Such inconsistent evidence is less than clear and convincing. As to paragraph 6, Petitioner proved that mislabeled drugs were present in the offices of Rx on October 18, 2001. The evidence is clear and convincing that a potentially dangerous pre-packaging procedure occurred on that day. The deficient procedure failed to properly label medications during the re-packaging process. The evidence of personal misconduct by Gordon on October 18, 2001, is less than clear and convincing. Although Gordon was present during the inspection, there is little detailed evidence of her personal conduct. The facts are similar for Rx. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Rx directed its employees to commit the deficiencies or knew of the deficiencies. Uncontroverted admissions by Rx employees indicate they were instructed to use the deficient procedure to label vials. However, the evidence is insufficient to show that the instructions came personally from Gordon, the owners of Rx, or some other employee or manager. The evidence does not support an inference by the trier of fact that Rx or Gordon is vicariously responsible for the deficiencies. The evidence is insufficient to show that the labeling deficiencies on October 18, 2001, were persistent and practiced. The allegation is limited to a specific day, and the inspection team was not in the offices of Rx all day. The evidence established the standards required for Respondents to exercise due care. The medications were improperly labeled in vials loaded in bins prior to the time that an employee filled a specific prescription. The bins were labeled with the name of the medication and the number of pills. However, the vials did not contain a label stating the strength of the drug, dosage form, manufacturer's lot number or control number, and expiration date as required in Section 499.006(3) and Rule 64F-12.006(1). The standard of care is that the vials must be labeled with the requisite information before filling the vial rather than afterward. The potential for harm from mislabeled drugs is great. It is unsafe and dangerous to keep unlabeled prescription vials containing medications. However, the evidence is not clear and convincing that any actual harm occurred. No finding is made concerning the grounds alleged in paragraph 7. If the facts expressly alleged in paragraph seven were proven, those grounds would not prove any of the remaining charges. Paragraph 7 alleges virtually every fact related to the misuse of a Kirby-Lester machine except that Respondents actually misused the machine by not cleaning it after counting one type of medication and before counting a different type of medication. The allegation is that contamination can occur if the machine is not cleaned between medications. Paragraph 7 does not allege that any member of the inspection team observed Respondents using the machine to count different medications without cleaning the machine between medications. The trier of fact cannot draw an inference that facts not expressly stated were intended to be alleged. The allegation must appear in the plain language of the paragraph. Petitioner failed to prove the grounds alleged in paragraph 8. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondents prepared, packaged, or held drugs under conditions that could contaminate the drugs with filth or render the drugs injurious to health. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the drugs and drug packaging material referred to in the allegation were part of the dispensing process. The materials were being held for return to the manufacturer. Petitioner submitted no evidence showing that Respondents used the empty vials or vial tops to package medications or that Respondents actually dispensed pills that had been dropped on the floor. The evidence of Gordon's personal conduct concerning the alleged grounds is less than clear and convincing. The evidence does not show that the acts or omissions occurred in a persistent and practiced manner. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Rx operated an unsanitary, unsafe, or unclean pharmacy or that Gordon managed such a pharmacy. It is reasonable for a busy pharmacy to accumulate debris and clutter on the floor in the course of a busy day. Routine clutter does not render a pharmacy unsafe, unclean, or unsanitary. Petitioner proved the allegation in paragraph 9 that unnamed employees at Rx received approximately 764 prescriptions on October 5, 2001, and that the prescriptions were not signed. Petitioner failed to prove that the prescriptions were written and required by law to be signed. The unsigned documents are not prescriptions within the meaning of Section 893.02(20). They are the written record of prescriptions that are transmitted electronically over the Internet. Paragraph 9 refers to Rule 64B8-9.012(4). That rule is promulgated by the Board of Medicine and applies to physicians. Respondents are not physicians. Petitioner proved part of the grounds alleged in Paragraph 10 but failed to prove a material ground. No finding is made regarding the remaining ground. Petitioner proved that Section 893.02(20) contains the provision quoted in paragraph 10. For reasons stated in paragraphs 9 through 11 of the Findings of Fact, evidence of the basis upon which the prescribing physicians ordered medications is less than clear and convincing. No finding is made concerning the allegation that "many of these . . . controlled substances . . . were prescribed. . . ." The prescribing physicians did not testify, and Respondents do not prescribe medications. Respondents fill prescriptions and dispense medications. No finding is made concerning paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 does not allege that Respondents committed any specific act or omission. Paragraph 11 recites Section 465.003(14). No finding is made concerning paragraphs 12 and 13. The grounds alleged in both paragraphs pertain to physicians rather than pharmacists. In relevant part, paragraph 14 alleges: Accordingly, Respondent is dispensing obesity medications prescribed without benefit of a valid patient/physician relationship in violation of Section 465.016(1)(i). . . For purposes of Section 465.016(1)(i) . . ., it shall be legally presumed that the . . . dispensing of . . . drugs in excessive or inappropriate quantities is not in . . . the course of the professional practice of pharmacy. Also, the practice constitutes violations of sections 894.04(1) and 893.02(20). . . for dispensing controlled substances outside the course of the professional practice of pharmacy by failing to determine whether the prescriptions were issued pursuant to a valid patient/physician relationship, and by failing to determine that the drugs so ordered are considered necessary for the continuation of treatment of a chronic or recurrent illness. (emphasis supplied) Paragraph 14 charges that Respondents violated the referenced statutes based on antecedent facts alleged in paragraphs 9 through 13 and incorporated by reference through terms such as "accordingly" and "the practice." Related counts in paragraphs 66-88 or 90 contain substantially similar charges based on facts alleged in paragraphs 1-65. The charges in paragraph 14 and related counts are read together to include relevant factual allegations in paragraphs 1-65. Section 893.02(20), in relevant part, requires a pharmacist to determine whether prescriptions from a physician licensed in a state other than Florida are issued pursuant to a valid patient-physician relationship, are authentic, and are necessary for the continuation of treatment of a chronic or recurrent illness (the validity test). The terms of the validity test are susceptible to different interpretations. The validity test could be construed to require a pharmacist to determine whether the physician considers the patient-physician relationship to be valid, the prescription authentic, and the drugs necessary. Alternatively, the validity test could require the pharmacist to substitute the pharmacist's judgment for that of the physician. The ALJ has determined that any ambiguity in the terms of the validity test must be construed in favor of Respondents and against the imposition of discipline. The ALJ has also determined that a requirement for a pharmacist to substitute her or his judgment to determine the medical necessity of medication may, in some cases, require the licensee to practice medicine. Respondents exercise reasonable care to ensure that the validity test has been satisfied, when applicable, by requiring the prescribing physician to sign a written verification of the prescriptions ordered by that physician. Respondents do not fill any prescription before Respondents receive a "site fill list" or "daily log" signed by the prescribing physician to verify the authenticity of the prescription, the validity of the patient-physician relationship, and the medical necessity of the medication. If pharmacists were required to substitute their judgment for that of prescribing physicians, the standards for exercising that judgment are less than clear and convincing. The requirement for a licensee to determine the validity of the patient-physician relationship applies only if the physician is licensed in a state other than Florida. Standards used to determine the validity of a patient-physician relationship vary from state to state. Clear and convincing evidence does not indicate whether a Florida pharmacist must apply Florida law to make the necessary determination or must apply the law of the state where the prescribing physician is licensed. Petitioner relies on an unwritten agency statement by the Board of Pharmacy to explicate the standards that pharmacists must use in determining the validity of a patient- physician relationship. The agency statement requires licensees to determine whether a prescribing physician, licensed in any state including Florida, has conducted an in-person examination of the patient prior to prescribing a medication. The agency statement holds that the absence of an in-person examination renders the prescription invalid. Findings pertaining to the agency statement are discussed further in the Conclusion of Law because continuity requires a simultaneous discussion of both findings of fact and conclusions of law. The charge in paragraph 14 that Respondents dispense excessive or inappropriate quantities of legend drugs is equivalent to charges in Count Two against Rx and Count Four against Gordon. Facts relevant to those charges are alleged in paragraphs 9, 15, 16, 17, and 20 through 22 of the Administrative Complaints. Paragraphs 25, 26, and 29 in the Administrative Complaint against Rx allege additional relevant facts, as do paragraphs 26, 27, and 30 in the Administrative Complaint against Gordon. In relevant part, paragraph 9 alleges that on October 5, 2001, Respondents received 764 prescriptions from three physicians identified in the record as Drs. Rosenkrantz, Rivera, and Thompson. Paragraphs 15 through 17 allege that two drugs marketed under the names Phentermine and Bontril are controlled substances that have a high potential for abuse. Respondents stipulated to paragraphs 15 through 17. Paragraph 20 alleges that many of the controlled substances are for a three-months' supply per purchase. Paragraph 21 alleges that the PDR states that tolerance for the anorectic effect of many obesity drugs occurs after a "few weeks," and that the drug should be discontinued at that time rather than increased to overcome tolerance. Paragraph 22 alleges that Respondents filled hundreds of prescriptions for obesity drugs each day included in the business practices described in paragraphs 1 through 21. The business practices described in paragraphs 1 through 21 are for the dates that occurred from October 5 through 18, 2001. Paragraphs 25 and 26 pertaining to Rx, and paragraphs 26 and 27, pertaining to Gordon, allege that Petitioner's investigator obtained the written record of additional prescriptions when an employee for Rx produced the documents on October 24, 2001. Paragraph 29, pertaining to Rx, and paragraph 30, pertaining to Gordon, allege that the computer operated by Rx showed that Rx and its employees dispensed 17,410 tablets of Phentermine on December 5, 2001; and that a daily log dated September 4, 2001, showed that Rx employees received 300 prescriptions from Dr. Rivera. The facts alleged to support the charges of dispensing excessive or inappropriate quantities of legend drugs involve dates from September 4 through December 6, 2001 (the relevant period). Within the relevant period, the enumerated paragraphs together allege that Rx and Gordon dispensed excessive and inappropriate quantities of legend drugs including: hundreds each day; 17,410 tablets on December 5, 2001; and 300 from Dr. Rivera on September 4, 2001. The relevant paragraphs also allege that many of the legend drugs were obesity drugs such as Bontril and Phentermine; and that many drugs were dispensed pursuant to prescriptions for 90 days' supply per purchase. The relevant paragraphs further allege methods of proof, including documents received on October 24, 2001, provisions of the PDR, and documents collected by the inspectors. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Gordon personally dispensed drugs during the relevant period. There is insufficient evidence, or allegations, to show when Gordon was present at the pharmacy, for how long, or if her duties required her to fill prescriptions and dispense drugs. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Gordon is vicariously responsible for drugs that others dispensed during the relevant period. Although the evidence is clear that drugs were dispensed in a persistent and practiced manner, there is insufficient evidence for the trier of fact to draw an inference that Gordon was vicariously responsible. Petitioner did not prove that Gordon was the only manager during the relevant period. Paragraph 5 of the Administrative Complaints alleges that, on October 18, 2001, Gordon identified another person present at the pharmacy as the owner. The next allegations concerning Gordon's management control over pharmacy operations pertain to the inspection conducted on January 31, 2002. The allegations and evidence are insufficient to differentiate the duties of Gordon and others with management control. The evidence is insufficient to show which days various managers were present, what specific duties each performed, and how the managers allocated management responsibilities among themselves. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Gordon had any management control over those who dispensed medications during the relevant period. There is no doubt that Rx dispensed large quantities of medication during the relevant period. Employees at Rx dispensed approximately 1,942 legend drugs during the relevant period. That is a practiced and persistent manner of dispensing drugs regardless of which employees dispensed the drugs. Large quantities of drugs are not necessarily excessive or inappropriate quantities. Petitioner stipulated during the hearing that a determination of whether quantities are excessive or inappropriate must be made "per patient" and not by reference to the pharmacy. The evidence of prescriptions filled by Rx consists of Petitioner's Exhibits 59, 62, 63, 76, 77, 87, 88, 90, 92, and 94 (P59, P62, etc.). The prescriptions were filled from January 11, 2001, through April 26, 2002. Prescriptions evidenced in P87, P88, and P92 are outside the relevant period. Of the remaining prescriptions, the prescriptions that are essential to the opinion of Petitioner's expert are set forth in P94. That exhibit consists of a Site Fill List, or daily log, maintained by Rx for the period from September 4 through October 10, 2001. Petitioner's expert identified 102 instances in P94 in which he opined that medications were dispensed to individual patients in excessive or inappropriate quantities. The instances relied on by Petitioner's expert may be fairly summarized as follows: Item Date Patient Drug Dose/Quantity 1. 9/20 L.A. Phentermine(P) 30mg/30 2. 9/20 L.A. P 30mg/30 3. 9/20 L.W. P 30mg/90 4. 9/20 L.W. Meridia (M) 15mg/90 5. 9/4 K.Co. Diethylpropion(DP) 75mg/90 6. 9/4 K.Cu P 30mg/90 7. 9/10 A.J. Adipex (A) 37.5mg/90 8. 9/10 A.J. Didrex (D) 50mg/30 9. 9/10 A.J. Adipex (A) 37.5mg/90 10. 9/10 A.J. Didrex (D) 50mg/30 11. 9/11 D.B. Bontril (B) 105mg/90 12. 10/2 D.B. B 105mg/90 13. 10/2 K.Sg. P 15mg/90 14. 10/1 K.Sg. P 30mg/90 15. 9/4 I.To. P 30mg/30 16. 9/26 I.To. P 37.5mg/90 17. 10/1 I.Tr. A 37.5mg/90 18. 10/5 I.Tr. A 37.5mg/90 19. 10/3 I.Tr. Celebrex 200mg/50 20. 10/5 I.Tr. Xenical 120mg/270 21. 9/10 D.Ha. A 37.5mg/90 Item Date Patient Drug Dose/Quantity 22. 9/6 D.Ha. P 30mg/90 23. 10/10 J.H. M 10mg/30 24. 10/5 J.H. P 30mg/90 25. 9/6 D.Ht. D 50mg/30 26. 9/7 D.Ht. D 30mg/30 27. 9/28 L.M. Viagra 100mg/30 28. 9/28 L.M. Viagra 100mg/30 29. 9/5 J.S. P 30mg/30 30. 9/24 J.S. P 30mg/30 31. 10/1 J.S. P 30mg/90 32. 9/25 Z.H. P 30mg/30 33. 9/25 Z.H. P 30mg/30 34. 9/5 D.I. A 37.5mg/30 35. 9/6 D.I. A 37.5mg/30 36. 10/10 L.Z. D 50mg/90 37. 10/8 L.Z. P 30mg/90 38. 9/17 T.W. A 37.5mg/30 39. 9/14 T.W. P 37.5mg/90 40. 9/20 L.A. P 30mg/30 41. 9/20 L.A. P 30mg/30 42. 9/17 A.E. P 30mg/30 43. 9/24 A.E. P 30mg/90 44. 9/27 D.P. A 37.5mg/90 45. 9/26 D.P. P 30mg/90 46. 10/5 K.Sh. A 37.5mg/30 47. 10/5 K.Sh. P 37.5mg/30 48. 10/5 P.S. P 30mg/90 49. 9/27 P.S. P 37.5mg/30 50. 9/10 M.F. P 30mg/90 51. 9/10 M.F. P 30mg/90 52. 9/24 A.G. A 37.5mg/30 53. 9/6 A.G. B 105mg/30 54. 9/4 B.A. DP 75mg/30 55. 9/4 B.A. DP 75mg/30 56. 9/17 M.S. P 37.5mg/90 57. 9/20 M.S. P 37.5mg/90 58. 10/9 V.S. P 30mg/90 59. 9/24 V.S. P 37.5mg/90 60. 9/17 D.Cd. P 37.5mg/90 61. 9/4 D.Cf. P 37.5/90 62. 9/26 J.Ws. P 30mg/90 63. 9/27 J.Ws. P 37.5mg/90 64. 9/25 R.R. B 105mg/30 65. 9/24 R.R. B 105mg/90 66. 9/10 A.J. A 37.5mg/90 Item Date Patient Drug Dose/Quantity 67. 9/10 A.J. D 50mg/30 68. 9/28 K.J. P 30mg/90 69. 10/1 K.J. P 30mg/90 70. 9/12 S.F. P 30mg/30 71. 9/12 S.F. P 30mg/30 72. 10/3 S.F. P 30mg/30 73. 10/3 D.M. A 37.5mg/30 74. 10/5 D.M. A 37.5mg/30 75. 9/14 P.G. DP 75mg/30 76. 9/14 P.G. DP 75mg/90 77. 9/17 M.I. P 30mg/30 78. 9/21 M.I. P 30mg/90 79. 9/19 T.H. Viagra 100mg/20 80. 9/18 T.H. Viagra 100mg/30 81. 9/12 C.C. Ionamin (I) 30mg/90 82. 9/5 C.C. P 37.5mg/30 83. 9/21 M.P. D 50mg/30 84. 9/25 M.P. D 50mg/90 85. 9/4 K.H. A 37.5mg/30 86. 9/28 K.H. A 37.5mg/30 87. 10/10 K.H. A 37.5mg/30 88. 10/3 A.C. Viagra 100mg/10 89. 10/3 A.C. Viagra 100mg/10 90. 9/24 K.K. P 37.5mg/30 91. 10/2 K.K. P 37.5mg/90 92. 9/6 J.Wi. A 37.5mg/30 93. 9/19 J.Wi. D 37.5mg/30 94. 9/5 T.W. A 37.5mg/30 95. 9/19 T.W. A 37.5mg/30 96. 10/8 T.W. A 37.5mg/30 97. 9/28 A.M. P 30mg/30 98. 10/9 A.M. P 30mg/30 99. 9/17 S.K. Viagra 100mg/10 100. 9/17 S.K. Viagra 100mg/10 101. 10/5 C.K. Ultram 50mg/30 102. 10/8 C.K. ULtram 50mg/90 The appropriateness of a quantity of medication is determined by reference to the medical profile of a particular patient. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the quantities of dispensed medication were inappropriate. Evidence and allegations concerning patient profiles are inconsistent. Petitioner alleges in its complaints that information in patient profiles provided an insufficient basis for the prescribing physician to order medication. However, witnesses for Petitioner opined that Respondents deviated from the professional practice of pharmacy by failing to consult the profiles. The necessary implication is that the profiles contained sufficient medical information for Respondents to consult before dispensing medication. There would be no rational reason to consult an invalid patient profile. Other evidence suggests the patient profiles contain insufficient medical information. The apparent inconsistency was confusing, contributed to a hesitance in the mind of the trier of fact that either proposition was true, and eroded the credibility of expert testimony that Rx employees dispensed medication in inappropriate quantities to particular patients. A medication is dispensed in an excessive quantity if the quantity dispensed exceeds the maximum recommended quantity for the medication. Petitioner cited no statute or rule that defines the term "quantity." The plain and ordinary meaning of the "quantity" of a drug is the "measurable [or] countable . . . property" of the drug. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1432 (4th ed. 2000). The trier of fact measured the total medication dispensed pursuant to a single prescription by the total milligrams of medication dispensed. Rx employees dispensed obesity drugs evidenced in P94 in the form of pills. The total medication dispensed by pill is a mathematical product equal to the strength of each pill multiplied by the number of pills, including refills. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that prescriptions in P94 included refills. Petitioner cited no statute or rule that identifies the maximum recommended quantity for the obesity drugs at issue. Rather, a combination of expert testimony and the maximum strengths evidenced in P94 establish a maximum recommended quantity for the obesity drugs at issue. The trier of fact determined that obesity drugs in P94 were dispensed in excessive quantities if the total medication dispensed to a patient within 90 days exceeded the total medication in 90 pills, at the maximum strength for each pill, taken once a day for 90 days (the 90-day standard). Evidence of which obesity drugs have a lower quantity standard is less than clear and convincing. It is clear, however, that any of the obesity drugs in P94 are dispensed in excessive quantities if the total dispensed medication exceeds the total medication in the 90-day standard. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the total dispensed medication was excessive in item numbers 1, 2, 7 through 10, 40, 41, 66, and 67. Items 1, 2, 40, and 41 may be duplicates as may be the case for items 8, 10, and 67; and 7, 9, and 66. The trier of fact has sufficient doubt as to whether the opinions based on the enumerated items are true. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the total dispensed medication was excessive in items 19, 20, 27, 28, 79, 80, 88, 89, and 99 through 102. Those items show that the medications are not obesity drugs. Evidence of the quantity standards for legend drugs other than obesity drugs is less than clear and convincing. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that total dispensed medication was excessive in connection with items 5, 6, 25 and 26, 32 through 35, 46 and 47, 52 through 55, 60, 61, 70 through 74, 85 through 87, and 92 through 98. Patient names in items 5 and 6 and 60 and 61 are different. Where patient names are the same for two prescriptions, the total medication dispensed pursuant to both prescriptions does not exceed the 90-day standard. The evidence is clear and convincing that the total dispensed obesity medication exceeded the 90-day standard in several instances. Those instances are evidenced in items 3 and 4, 11 through 18, 21 through 24, 29 through 31, 36 through 39, 42 through 45, 48 through 51, 56 through 59, 62 through 65, 68 and 69, 75 through 78, 81 through 84, and 90 and 91. Neither the strength of each pill nor the number of pills dispensed pursuant to a single prescription caused total dispensed medication to exceed the total medication in the 90- day standard. Total dispensed medication generally exceeded total medication in the 90-day standard when employees dispensed an obesity drug to a patient pursuant to a second prescription within 90 days of the first. In items 29 through 31, however, the excess occurred when obesity drugs were dispensed pursuant to a third prescription in item 31 within 90 days of the first two prescriptions in items 29 and 30. Therefore, the 49 items enumerated in the preceding paragraph evidence only 24 instances of excessive quantities of obesity drugs. The total dispensed medication exceeded the total medication in the 90-day standard in three types of fact patterns. In one fact pattern, Rx employees dispensed the same brand name obesity drug to a patient at the maximum strength pursuant to two prescriptions within 90 days. In item 11, for example, Rx employees dispensed 90 pills of Bontril at the maximum strength of 105 milligrams per pill. In item 12, they dispensed the same quantity approximately 22 days later. The total dispensed medication within 90 days is equal to the product of 180 pills multiplied by 105 milligrams, or 18,900 milligrams. The total medication in the 90-day standard is 90 pills at 105 milligrams, or 9,450 milligrams. The excessive quantity is the excess of the dispensed medication (18,900) over the medication in the 90-day standard (9,450). The excessive quantity evidenced in items 11 and 12 is 9,450 milligrams. By similar calculations, the excessive quantity in items 56 and 57 is 3,375 milligrams. The excessive quantity in items 64 and 65 is 3,150 milligrams. In items 75 and 76, 83 and 84, and 90 and 91, the excessive quantities are 2,250, 1,500, and 1,125 milligrams, respectively. In the second fact pattern, Rx employees dispensed the same brand name obesity drug to a patient at less than the maximum strength pursuant to two or more prescriptions within 90 days. In item 14, for example, Rx employees dispensed 90 pills of Phentermine at a strength of 30 milligrams per pill. In item 13, they dispensed 90 pills of the same drug the next day at 15 milligrams per pill. The total medication dispensed within 90 days is equal to the sum of the total milligrams dispensed in each instance, or 4,050 milligrams. The total medication in the 90-day standard is 90 pills at 37.5 milligrams, or 3,375 milligrams. The excessive quantity is the excess of the dispensed medication (4,050) over the medication in the 90-day standard (3,375). The excessive quantity evidenced in items 13 and 14 is 675 milligrams. By similar calculations, the excessive quantities in items 15 and 16, 29 through 31, 42 and 43, 48 and 49, 50 and 51, 58 and 59, 62 and 63, 68 and 69, and 77 and 78, respectively, are 900, 1,125, 225, 450, 2,025, 2,700, 2,700, 2,025, and 225 milligrams. In the third fact pattern, Rx employees dispensed different brand name obesity drugs in different strengths pursuant to two prescriptions within 90 days. In item 3, for example, Rx employees dispensed 90 pills of Phentermine at 30 milligrams per pill. In item 4, they dispensed 90 pills of Meridia on the same day at 15 milligrams per pill. The total medication dispensed within 90 days is equal to the sum of the milligrams dispensed in each instance, or 4,050 milligrams. The total medication in the 90-day standard is 90 pills at 37.5 milligrams, or 3,375 milligrams. The excessive quantity is the excess of the dispensed medication (4,050) over the medication in the 90-day standard (3,375), or 675 milligrams. By similar calculations, the excessive quantities in items 21 through 24, 36 through 39, 44 and 45, and 80 and 81, respectively, are 2,975, 1,575, 2,700, and 450 milligrams. Rx employees dispensed obesity drugs in the three fact patterns just discussed in an aggregate excessive quantity of 42,275 milligrams. The average excessive quantity for each of the 24 instances found in P94 is 1,761 milligrams. The average excess quantity correlates to a 90-day excess of approximately 17 pills at a maximum strength of 105 milligrams, 23 pills at 75 milligrams, 35 pills at 50 milligrams, 47 pills at 37.5 milligrams, and 117 pills at 15 milligrams. The ALJ has concluded that Section 465.016(1)(i) creates a legal presumption that the excessive quantities of obesity drugs dispensed by Rx employees were not dispensed in the course of the practice of pharmacy. Rx did not rebut the statutory presumption with persuasive evidence that explains the quantities of medications dispensed or rebuts the quantity standards in evidence. Respondents' expert relied on substantially the same evidence as that relied on by Petitioner's expert and opined that Respondents dispensed medication in accordance with the professional practice of pharmacy. However, that opinion was an ultimate conclusion that was not fact specific and did not cast doubt on the details that gave rise to the statutory presumption. That opinion was not persuasive. Rx argues that Petitioner did not show that the prescriptions were actually filled, did not sufficiently identify the patients, and did not show that the patients actually received the medications. Those arguments are neither credible nor persuasive. They do not create a hesitance in the mind of the trier of fact concerning the details supporting the statutory presumption. Information in P94 is part of the QS1 system. The instances of excessive quantities of medications provide a sufficient basis for the trier of fact to find that Rx is vicariously liable for Rx employees who dispensed obesity drugs in excessive quantities in the 24 instances evidenced in P94. The instances are not isolated events. During the 26 days evidenced in P94, the 24 instances of excessive quantities occurred, on average, almost once a day. That evidence shows that Rx employees dispensed excessive quantities of obesity drugs in a persistent and practiced manner. Rx did not require its employees to comply with the standard of conduct evidenced in expert testimony. In the absence of an adequate alternative, Rx employees must personally review site fill lists to ensure that quantities are not excessive. Rx employees do not personally review site fill lists. Rather, Rx permits its employees to rely on the QS1 computer system for that and other purposes. Reliance on the QS1 computer system was reasonable and was made in good faith. The QS1 is a computer system commonly utilized by pharmacies. The system maintains inventory, patient profiles, and patient addresses and phone numbers. The QS1 system enables Rx to capture and monitor patient profiles in dispensing medications. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the information in the patient profiles is inaccurate or inadequate. Rx employees enter a prescription into the QS1 system and then retrieve the prescribed medication from inventory. If the medication has not been pre-packed, the employee counts the medication and places it in a vial. If the medication has been pre-packed, Rx labels the medication. The QS1 system alerts Rx employees to any particular problems that a patient may have as a result of the prescribed medication. If an Rx employee receives an alert, she or he reviews the patient profile and resolves the problem. Once the prescription is prepared for dispensing, Rx pharmacists compare the prescription with the vial label to ensure accuracy. Rx employees then place the medication in an envelope for shipping but do not actually ship the medication until they receive a signed copy of the daily log from the prescribing physician verifying that the physician has not prescribed medication in excessive quantities. The daily log is not a prescription but is an extra step taken by Rx to ensure the accuracy of the order for medication. The QS1 system performed its purpose well when measured by statistical standards. There are approximately 1,942 prescriptions listed in P94. Only 24 of those were for excessive quantities of obesity drugs. The QS1 system achieved an error rate of approximately 1.23 percent. That rate of error, however, produced excessive quantities of medication almost once a day for 26 days. Rx relied on the QS1 system in filling approximately 154,773 prescriptions between October 19, 2001, and April 26, 2002. If the QS1 system were to maintain an error rate of 1.23 percent during that period, the mathematical probability is that Rx would have dispensed excessive quantities of medication in 1,903 instances over approximately 190 days for an average of approximately 10 instances a day. If the excess quantity in each instance were equal to 1,761 milligrams, according to the average determined in paragraph 76 of the Findings of Fact, Rx would have dispensed 17,644 milligrams of excess medication each day and 3,352,429 milligrams of excess medication in 190 days. An error rate of 1.23 percent represents a significant potential for harm. However, the evidence of actual harm is less than clear and convincing. Rx dispensed excessive quantities of obesity drugs in 24 instances evidenced in P94. Rx dispensed the medication irrespective of whether the patients actually received it. Receipt is a relevant inquiry to determine harm to an identified recipient. Receipt does not determine whether Rx employees dispensed obesity drugs from the pharmacy. The grounds alleged in paragraphs 15 through 17 are not disputed. Paragraph 18 alleges, in relevant part: The concept of dispensing . . . scheduled drugs by permitting them to be specifically requested and 'ordered' over the internet is a potentially dangerous method of allowing . . . medications to be 'taken on the user's own initiative rather than on the basis of professional medical advice. ' Dispensing controlled . . . drugs in this manner by Respondent[s] runs contrary to the spirit, intent, and purpose of chapter 893 with regard to protecting the safety of the public. (emphasis supplied) No findings are made concerning the grounds alleged in paragraph 18. The trier of fact cannot discern what specific acts or omissions paragraph 18 alleges. Paragraph 18 implies that Respondents somehow transformed a "concept" into a "method" but does not allege any specific acts or omissions by which Respondents effectuated the transformation. Paragraph 18 is devoid of patient names, dates, specific transactions, details, and other allegations of essential facts. Several allegations in paragraphs 19 through 21 concern the "Physician's Desk Reference" (PDR). Other than those findings already made, the trier of fact is uncertain what Petitioner intends to allege in paragraphs 19 through 21. The PDR is a method of proving a fact not alleged. Evidence of the legal effect of the PDR in this proceeding is less than clear and convincing. Petitioner failed to sufficiently evidence the specific standards allegedly enunciated in the PDR. The allegation is that the PDR states that obesity drugs should be discontinued within a "few weeks." Petitioner failed to define a "few weeks" with clear and convincing evidence as any period less than 90 days. The remaining grounds alleged in paragraphs 19 through 21 recite or paraphrase provisions of the PDR. No further findings are made concerning paragraphs 19 through 21. Petitioner proved the allegation in paragraph 22 that Rx dispensed hundreds of medications each day from October 5 through 18, 2001. Petitioner did not prove the remaining grounds alleged in paragraph 22. For reasons stated in paragraphs 9 through 11 of the Findings of Fact, evidence of the allegation in paragraph 22 that prescribing physicians wrote and submitted prescriptions based solely on information received from Internet questionnaires is less than clear and convincing. Information included in the Internet questionnaires is not established by the requisite standard of proof. No finding is made concerning the grounds alleged against Rx in paragraphs 23 through 24 or those alleged against Gordon in paragraphs 23 through 25. Petitioner concedes in its PRO at pages 27 through 28 that Petitioner did not prove grounds supporting the charges that: Respondents failed to report violators to Petitioner; and used USAP to promote or advertise the use or sale of controlled substances. Petitioner proved the grounds alleged against Rx in paragraphs 25 and 26 and those alleged against Gordon in paragraphs 26 and 27. Respondents produced the written record of prescriptions requested by the inspector. Respondents conferred with their attorney before producing the documents. The grounds alleged in paragraphs 27 through 36 against Rx and in paragraphs 28 through 37 against Gordon pertain to an inspection conducted by Petitioner on December 6, 2001. Petitioner proved some of the grounds alleged against Rx in paragraphs 27 and 28 and some of those alleged against Gordon in paragraphs 28 and 29. The evidence shows that Gordon was not present at the pharmacy during the inspection on December 6, 2001. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Gordon worked at the pharmacy that day. The evidence is insufficient to prove that Gordon committed the acts or omissions alleged in paragraphs 28 through 31 or that the acts or omissions of others were so persistent and practiced during that period that Gordon was vicariously responsible for their acts or omissions. Petitioner proved some of the grounds alleged against Rx in paragraph 27. When the inspector first arrived, two technicians and an administrator were visible to the inspector. Two pharmacists greeted the inspector within 15 minutes of his arrival at Rx. No sign was posted that the pharmacists were out to lunch or on break. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that both pharmacists were out to lunch or on break. One of the pharmacists may have been in the bathroom or otherwise available for questions from technicians. Respondents argued during the hearing that legislation identified in the record as the "potty bill" carves out an exception to the requirement to post a sign when a pharmacist goes to the bathroom. Although the argument does not evidence the "potty bill," the argument creates sufficient doubt in the mind of the trier of fact concerning the issue of whether both pharmacists were out to lunch. Evidence of the whereabouts of the second pharmacist is less than clear and convincing. Evidence defining the term "[l]ater" is less than clear and convincing. Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 28 that a technician was working "alone" or was "unsupervised." If it were found that Rx committed the charged violation, there would be no potential or actual harm. The requirement for a sign has little meaning for an Internet pharmacy such as Rx. The testimony of several witnesses for Petitioner makes clear that Rx is not open to patients who physically walk into the pharmacy and present written prescriptions. The front door is frequently locked. At least one investigator had to knock on the front door to gain access. Patients who fill their prescriptions at Rx "walk in" electronically and are unable to read any sign posted inside the pharmacy. The only persons who would benefit from such a sign would be those employed at the pharmacy. More likely than not, Rx employees do not need a sign to tell them a pharmacist is not in the same room with them. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Rx employees failed to properly label drugs on December 6, 2001. The plain terms of paragraph 28 admit that Rx complied with all but one of the labeling requirements in Rule 64F-12.006(1)(a) by ensuring that its employees place pills in vials labeled with all of the requisite information except dosage form. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the labels did not include dosage form. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Rx placed the labeled vials with "unsigned prescriptions." Rather, the preponderance of evidence shows that the unsigned documents are the written record of electronic prescriptions and not unsigned written prescriptions. Petitioner proved the allegations against Rx in paragraph 29. The dates alleged in paragraph 29 are included in previous findings that Rx dispenses large numbers of medications ordered by Drs. Rosenkrantz, Rivera, and Thompson. Petitioner did not prove substantially similar allegations against Gordon in paragraph 30. Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 30 and 31 that Rx and Gordon knowingly possessed mislabeled drugs. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Rx employees possessed mislabeled drugs or, if so, that Rx or Gordon are vicariously responsible for that deficiency. The grounds alleged to have occurred on December 6, 2001, are not supported by the quantum or quality of evidence that supports the finding of mislabeled drugs on October 18, 2001. Evidence of grounds arising from the inspection on December 6, 2001, primarily consists of the testimony of one inspector and three exhibits. The photographs in evidence pertain to the inspection conducted on October 18, 2001. Petitioner's experts relied on those photographs, in relevant part, in rendering their opinions concerning allegations that Rx knowingly possessed mislabeled drugs. Expert opinions are unnecessary to assist the trier of fact in determining whether Rx possessed mislabeled drugs on any date. The trier of fact is capable of making that determination based on the standards enunciated in the applicable rules, the testimony of the fact witnesses, and the pictures and documents that support their testimony. Grounds alleged against Rx in paragraphs 31-36, and those alleged against Gordon in paragraphs 32-37, arise from a re-inspection conducted on January 31, 2002. Like the evidence pertaining to the inspection on December 6, 2001, grounds arising from the inspection on January 31, 2002, are not supported by the quantum or quality of evidence that supports the inspection of October 18, 2001. Petitioner must prove the grounds arising from each inspection by clear and convincing evidence. The trier of fact cannot draw an inference from the findings pertaining to October 18, 2001, to bolster the evidence submitted for the other inspections. If it were found that evidence concerning each inspection satisfied the clear and convincing standard of proof, it would be appropriate for the trier of fact to consider all of the inspections in determining whether the alleged deficiencies were so persistent and practiced that they supported an inference of vicarious responsibility. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the alleged grounds arising from the inspection on January 31, 2002, are true. The preponderance of evidence shows a bin containing unlabeled vials of medication was on top of a counter on one side of a room in the pharmacy. On the other side of the room, all of the medication vials and bins were labeled. The medication in the bin by itself was separated from medication in the pharmacy's active stock. Bins of medication containing active stock were labeled. It is unlikely the separated medication would be inadvertently dispensed. Medication in the separated bin was not labeled because it was being returned to the manufacturer. Respondents did not hold medication in the separated bin to be dispensed. The grounds alleged against Rx in paragraphs 37 through 65 and against Gordon in paragraphs 38 through 65 pertain to complaints filed by T.M. and J.W. For convenience, a finding pertaining to the cited paragraphs may contain references to more than one paragraph. References to a lower numbered paragraph, or group of paragraphs, refer to the grounds alleged against Rx. References to a higher numbered paragraph, or group of paragraphs, refer to grounds alleged against Gordon. Petitioner proved the grounds alleged in paragraphs 37 (against Rx) and 38 (against Gordon). Petitioner proved some of the grounds alleged in paragraphs 38 through 48 and 39 through 49 and portions of the grounds alleged against Rx in paragraph 52. On October 21, 2001, T.M. opened an e-mail from USAP and responded with information about her. T.M. purchased 90 tablets of Phentermine and paid $169 to USAP by credit card. T.M. subsequently returned the medication and received a refund. T.M. received the medication by overnight delivery. The vial label indicated Rx dispensed the medication. The label listed Dr. Rivera as the prescribing physician. T.M. never saw Dr. Rivera or heard of Rx or Gordon before receiving the medication. T.M. did not choose Rx as a pharmacy and did not choose Gordon as a pharmacist. T.M. attempted to return the medication for a refund. T.M. spoke by telephone to a representative of USAP. The representative denied T.M.'s request for refund. T.M. telephoned Rx at the number provided on the prescription label. T.M. spoke to a female who identified herself as a pharmacist and answered with a heavy accent. It is not clear that Gordon has a heavy accent. T.M. had no technical questions of the medication dispensed by Rx. The pharmacist stated that she could not help T.M. with her refund and referred T.M. back to USAP. The remaining testimony of T.M. is less than clear and convincing. On cross examination, T.M. distinctly recalled few, if any, facts. Her testimony was neither precise nor specific. T.M. was confused as to material facts in issue. Petitioner failed to prove the remaining grounds alleged in paragraphs 38 through 48 and 39 through 49. The ALJ ruled that evidence of the statements made in the USAP website is hearsay and that Sections 120.57(1)(c) and (l) prohibit the trier of fact from basing a finding on anything less than competent and substantial evidence. There is less than clear and convincing evidence that the website does not afford patients a choice in pharmacies. If it were found that the USAP website failed to offer a choice of pharmacies, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondents knowingly participated in a system that does not afford a choice in pharmacies. USAP is located in the same building that Rx occupies at 5400 University Drive. Any further findings would require the fact-finder to draw an inference based on insufficient evidence. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Rx controls the operations of USAP; that Rx and USAP are sibling or related companies, or share common officers, managers, directors, or employees; or that Rx has any legal or actual influence in the management or operation of USAP. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondents had editorial control or input into the content and operation of the website used by USAP in the conduct of USAP's business; or that Respondents knew the content of the website. For similar reasons, evidence of the grounds alleged in paragraphs 53 through 65 concerning the content of the USAP website is less than clear and convincing. Petitioner failed to prove the grounds in paragraphs 43 and 44 alleging that the obesity medication prescription for T.M. was not written within the course of the professional practice of medicine. The prescriptions were not written. Petitioner failed to prove the grounds alleged in paragraphs 49 through 51 and 50 through 52. Operative terms in Section 893.02(20) apply to a pharmacist and not to a pharmacy. A pharmacist and a pharmacy are defined separately in Section 465.03(10) and (11). Section 893.02(20) does not require a pharmacy, including Rx, to make any determination regarding the validity test defined in paragraph 42 of the Findings of Fact. Section 893.02(20) requires Gordon to apply the validity test only if Gordon receives a prescription ordered by a physician licensed in a state other than Florida. While the statute necessarily requires Gordon to determine the state in which the prescribing physician is licensed before Gordon can know whether to apply the validity test, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Gordon failed to perform her statutory duty. Petitioner did not submit any competent substantial evidence that Drs. Rosenkrantz, Rivera, and Thompson are licensed in a state other than Florida. Sufficient evidence of the statutory prerequisite to the charged violation is missing from the record. The prescriptions evidenced in P92 list a Florida address for Drs. Rosenkrantz and Rivera and a Missouri address for Dr. Thompson. It may be reasonable for the fact-finder to infer that the physicians are licensed in the state where they are located, but such an inference is less than clear and convincing. If Drs. Rosenkrantz and Rivera were licensed in Florida, Section 893.02(20) would impose no statutory duty on Gordon concerning their prescriptions. Dr. Thompson is not licensed in Florida. It is unclear that Dr. Thompson is licensed in a state other than Florida. Sufficient evidence of the statutory prerequisite to the charged violation is missing from the record. If it were found that Drs. Rosenkrantz, Rivera, and Thompson are licensed in a state other than Florida, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Gordon failed to correctly apply the validity test prescribed in Section 893.02(20). Before employees of the pharmacy managed by Gordon dispensed any medications ordered by these physicians, the employees required each physician to sign a site fill list, or daily log, verifying the validity of the professional relationship, the authenticity of the prescription, and the medical necessity for the drugs. An unwritten agency statement prohibits Gordon from dispensing any controlled substance pursuant to a prescription transmitted by a physician who has not conducted an in-person examination of the patient. The unwritten agency statement requires Gordon to determine whether the physician has conducted an in-person examination regardless of the state in which the physician is licensed. It is clear from the record that Drs. Rosenkrantz, Rivera, and Thompson did not physically examine their patients prior to ordering the prescriptions evidenced in P92. Drs. Rosenkrantz, Rivera, and Thompson transmitted substantially all of the prescriptions evidenced in P92. The prescriptions list Florida addresses for Drs. Rosenkrantz and Rivera and a Missouri address for Dr. Thompson. The prescriptions are for patients located in more than 36 states and the District of Columbia. By negative proof, three prescribing physicians in Florida and Missouri could not have physically examined all of the patients in a single day. For purposes of continuity, further findings regarding the agency statement are made in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraphs 64 and 65 that Respondents engage in a fee splitting, commission, kickback, rebate, or split fee arrangement with USAP. Standards defining the prohibited arrangement are not defined clearly and convincingly. No evidence shows that Gordon receives anything from USAP or pays anything to USAP. Rx and USAP are located in the same building and maintain a business relationship. USAP pays Rx a fee for filling prescriptions plus any costs incurred by Rx. USAP pays Rx the costs of each prescription filled plus a fee of either $5 or $10 for each prescription. From October 19, 2001, through January 18, 2002, Rx filled approximately 66,217 prescriptions and billed USAP approximately $584,460 for fees, exclusive of costs. From January 25 through April 26, 2002, Rx filled approximately 88,556 prescriptions and billed USAP approximately $416,100 for fees, exclusive of costs. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Rx paid any amount to USAP for referring patients to Rx or otherwise. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that USAP paid Rx for anything other than the costs incurred and services performed in filling prescriptions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Gordon not guilty of the allegations in the two administrative complaints against her; Rx guilty of violating Section 465.016(1)(i); imposing an administrative fine of $24,000 for the 24 instances of dispensing excessive quantities of controlled substances; placing Rx on probation for one year, subject to the condition that Rx utilize personal review or some other system adequate to prevent its employees from dispensing excessive quantities of controlled substances; and requiring Rx to pay the costs directly related to that part of the investigation and prosecution required to prove that Rx dispensed excessive quantities of controlled substances. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosanna M. Catalano, Esquire David Herman, Esquire John Raymaker, Esquire Bureau of Practitioner Regulation - Legal Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Sean M. Ellsworth, Esquire Mark A. Dresnick, Esquire Monica L. Felder, Esquire Dresnick, Ellsworth & Felder, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle Sun Trust Plaza, Suite 701 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5108 John Taylor, R.Ph., Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue In addition to the issue of whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged, the administrative complaint alleges on its face that the Respondent was not licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida until July 13, 1982. Most of the administrative complaint relates to alleged violations by the Respondent prior to the date of his licensure. A primary issue is the Petitioner's jurisdiction over the Respondent to prosecute for acts committed prior to his licensure. A major factual issue in this case are the dates upon which the doctor's conduct allegedly took place.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor on July 13, 1982, in the State of Florida. Prior to that date the Respondent was not licensed to practice medicine in this or any other state. Prior to his licensure he was participating in a medical internship program in Pensacola, Florida. He was permitted to practice and prescribe medicine as an intern in and within the limits of this program. (Re: Count I through Count IV) The Respondent presented prescriptions for Eskatrol and Dexedrine on two different occasions to two different pharmacies. These prescriptions listed the Respondent as the person for whom the prescriptions were filled and signed by the Respondent. Neither prescription was accepted by the pharmacists and neither prescription was introduced into evidence. Eskatrol and Dexedrine are amphetamine compounds and are Schedule II controlled substances. The Respondent's ex-wife placed the Respondent's use of amphetamines in February of 1981. See Transcript page 95 line 19 through page 96 line 1. One of the pharmacists to whom the prescription was presented by the Respondent was Ann Cole Wilson, the Respondent's former sister-in-law and sister of his ex-wife. Wilson's testimony concerning the date of the alleged occurrence testifies as follows: Q. Can you tell me what occurred on that occasion, and tell me approximately when this occurred? A. Like I say, it's hard to remember. It was sometime during the summer months. Q. The summer of what year? A. Oh, gosh. Right now it's been, let's see, `82 or `83. Q. The summer of `82? A. I would say `82 yeah. The other pharmacist who testified regarding the Respondent's presentation of prescriptions for amphetamines was Elizabeth S. Grimsley. Grimsley testified regarding the alleged events as follows: Q. How did you come to meet him? A. He brought in a prescription one night for, two prescriptions, rather, written for him by himself for Eskatrol and Dexedrine, amphetamine prescriptions. Q. These prescriptions were written for the use of Dr. Taylor and they were written by Dr. Taylor? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember approximately when this occurred? A. No, sir; roughly a year and a half or two years ago, I suppose. The latter witness is very vague about the date, and the former witness has an interest in these proceedings by virtue of her relationship with the Respondent's former wife. The relationship by Respondent and his former wife is characterized by hostility and continuing litigation arising out of their divorce and concerning child custody. It is concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the acts occurred after the date of the Respondent's licensure. (Counts V, VI) The Respondent ordered legend and other drugs from pharmaceutical companies using the name of Michael Archer, M.D. and Archer's DEA registration number. Archer did not approve the order or give the Respondent permission to use his DEA registration in order to obtain these drugs. Respondent's actions took place in 1981 and 1982 prior to the date of the Respondent's licensure by the Florida Board. See the depositions of Farrell, Schied & Perez. (Count VII) Between the dates of March 3, 1982, and June 30, 1982, the Respondent submitted drug orders for and received thirty Crescormon No. 4 iu- vials from Pharmacia Corporated, 800 Centennial Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854. These events occurred prior to the Respondent's licensure by the Petitioner. See deposition of Schied, Exhibit 3. Respondent ordered amino acids from Varitex Corporation, a Michigan company. These materials which are not legend drugs were ordered and received by the Respondent prior to the date of his licensure by the Petitioner. See deposition of Myers, Exhibit 4. Respondent ordered various drugs from Generix Drug Corp., 1900 W. Commercial Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, in the same manner. All these transactions occurred before the Respondent was licensed. See the deposition of Perez, Exhibit 5. (Count VIII) The Respondent sold or provided Darrell R. Black substances represented by the Respondent and thought to be by Black a drug with the trade name Dianabol. Dianabol is a steroid and a legend drug. This transaction was not a part of Dr. Taylor's practice under the Pensacola Education Program, the internship in which Dr. Taylor was participating. This transaction occurred in 1981, prior to Dr. Taylor's licensure by the Board. See Transcript page 38. The Respondent sold or provided to Shaun Francis Farrell drugs represented by the Respondent and thought to be by Farrell testosterone and Deca-Durabolin. This transaction was not part of the Respondent's internship in the Pensacola Educational Program. These transactions occurred in 1981, prior to Respondent's licensure by the Board. See Transcript page 46. (Count IX) The Respondent presented prescriptions for and received various metabolic steroids during 1981. However, all of these were presented prior to the date of the Respondent's licensure by the Board. See Transcript, pages 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33. One prescription for Trisorlan was presented by the Respondent for himself on October 20, 1982. Trisorlan is a legend drug, however it is not a controlled substance. Trisorlan is a drug affecting the pigmentation of skin. Transcript page 24. No evidence was received concerning the propriety of Dr. Taylor prescribing this medication for himself. (Count XI) No evidence was received that the Respondent held himself out as being licensed to practice medicine. Black and Ferrell did not see Respondent as a doctor. Respondent saw Cayton at the hospital and was authorized to treat patients within the scope of his internship. Most of the witnesses stated that they knew that the Respondent was a doctor, that he was "practicing" at Sacred Heart Hospital. The Respondent holds a degree as an M.D. and was practicing at Sacred Heart as an intern. Further to the extent that the Respondent may have held himself out as a physician contrary to Section 458.327, he did so prior to the date of his licensure and acquisition of jurisdiction by the Board.
Recommendation Having found no evidence to support the jurisdiction of the Board over the Respondent on the allegations of Count X, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board take no action against the Respondent and the administrative complaint against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Department of Professional Director Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street William Taylor, M.D. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 5271 Myrtlewood Sarasota, Florida 33580 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed physician in the state of Florida, and holds license number ME 0034710. Respondent's last known address is 1430 Mason Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida, 32117-4551. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, who is both a neurologist and a psychiatrist, specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of headaches in his medical practice with Daytona Neurological Associates in Daytona Beach, Florida. At various times from approximately May 18, 1984, through December 23, 1988, Respondent rendered neurological care to Patient C.R., a female born on November 14, 1963. On May 18, 1984, when C.R. initially came to Respondent's office complaining of severe headaches, Respondent noted in his medical records that the patient had been on birth control pills for three years and had ceased taking them two months prior to this visit. C.R. was also a cigarette smoker. From approximately May 18, 1984, until September 12, 1986, C.R. was prescribed a variety of medications at various times by Respondent for the patient's headaches. The medications included Asendin, Phrenilin Forte, Norpramin, and Tylenol #3. Medrol, Prednisone, and Decadron are legend drugs as defined in Section 465.003, Florida Statutes, and contain both natural and synthetic adrenocortical steroids (glucocorticoids). On September l2, 1986, Respondent prescribed a Medrol Dosepak unit to C.R. A Medrol Dosepak is a corticosteroid specific package that is tapered over six days from the first dose down to the last dose and contains a total of 84 mg of methylprednisolone (105 mg Prednisone equivalent). The medication was concluded on or about September 17, 1986. On October 30, 1986, Respondent prescribed another Medrol Dosepak unit to C.R. The patient took the Medrol tablets beginning on this date, in decreasing dosages, starting at 24 mg and ending at 4 mg six days later, for a total of another 84 mg of methylprednisolone (105 mg Prednisone equivalent). Both prescriptions of Medrol (September 12, 1986 and October 30, 1986) were short courses and treatment was not inappropriate. On November 7, 1986, C.R. went to a hospital emergency room where she was prescribed Prednisone 40 mg for three days and 20 mg for four days and referred back to the Respondent for follow-up care. During this hospitalization, C.R. received approximately 200 mg of Prednisone. On November 14, 1986, Respondent saw C.R. in his office and indicated in his records that the patient seemed to be doing better on Prednisone and "[w]e will keep her on this medication and re-evaluate her in one month. She is to . . . decrease the Prednisone and come off this in about a week or two." On November 25, 1986, Respondent saw C.R. in his office. Respondent indicated in his records that he would keep C.R. on Prednisone l0 mg daily for "another week or so." From November 7, 1986 until November 30, 1986, C.R. received a total of 465 mg of Prednisone. Appropriateness of corticosteroid use varies with both amount and duration. The amount initiated in the Emergency Room on November 7, 1986, was not excessive, but Respondent's rationale for continuation of the drug, or whether the November 14, 1986 dosage was tapered or less than that previously prescribed for C.R. in the emergency room, is not documented in Respondent's patient records. On January 20, 1987, Respondent saw C.R. in his office and documented that he was going to give the patient another "short course" of Prednisone. Respondent saw C.R. again in his office on January 30, 1987, and documented further prescription of Prednisone. The documentation for the above two visits does not indicate the dosage details nor suggest what circumstances of the patient's condition justify again prescribing prednisone other than the remark dated January 20, 1987, that "[p]atient is having some headaches again." For the period of January 20, 1987 through February 9, 1987, C.R. was prescribed a total of 510 mg of Prednisone. Petitioner's Exhibit 5 is a calendar prepared by C.R. which allegedly documents the patient's receipts for prescriptions which she purchased upon Respondent's authorization. C.R. has no independent recollection of amounts or times when she took the medications. On the basis of information reflected on the calendar, Petitioner seeks to establish that Respondent prescribed corticosteroids for C.R. in excess of that otherwise established by the evidence in this case. In view of the lack of C.R.'s independent recollection of when she took the medications, the lack of corroborating original receipts, C.R.'s lack of detail recall concerning her treatment by Respondent, her inability to remember when she prepared the calendar other than in preparation for civil litigation against Respondent following her treatment, and lack of other direct evidence corroborating the document's veracity, the calendar standing alone is not credited for the purpose of establishing amounts and times of medication prescribed for C.R. by Respondent. C.R. had an office visit on March 18, 1988 but there is no reference to any Prednisone prescription in the medical record. A handwritten note for the date of April 6, 1988 in the Respondent's medical record states that the patient was "told to stay on Prednisone." Respondent conceded in testimony that he apparently failed to document prescribing 60 mg Prednisone in April of 1988. From April 27, 1988 through May 8, 1988, Respondent had C.R. admitted to Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach, Florida. During that period, she received 909 mg. Prednisone equivalent (Decadron). Respondent discharged the patient with a diagnosis of severe vascular migraine headaches under control with a combination of Mellaril and Procardia. At the time of the April, 1988 admission, C.R. was suffering from crescendo migraine with numbness, blurring, and an episode of loss of consciousness. As established by testimony of Thomas M. Zizic, M.D., Respondent's expert in avascular necrosis, corticosteroid use, and treatment of headache, patients with the symptoms displayed by C.R., when she was hospitalized in April of 1988, are at risk for transient ischemic attacks and strokes. As opined by Dr. Zizic, and corroborated by testimony of Victor B. Robert, M.D., the short course of less than two weeks of high dose steroids in the course of the April, 1988 hospitalization was not inappropriate. Zizic also opined that the other courses of steroids prescribed previously for C.R. were not inappropriate. As established by Zizic, steroid medications in the amounts and duration prescribed for C.R. are not causative of avascular or aseptic necrosis. Dosage amounts of these drugs have to be much greater and for longer periods of time to occasion such side effects. Even assuming C.R.'s calendar of medications and the resultant supposition that she ingested more steroid medication than is established by the credible evidence, Zizic opined that the likelihood that such medication amounts and duration resulted in C.R.'s development of aseptic necrosis is less than five percent. Zizic also testified that he would not have felt it necessary to warn C.R. of the potential for avascular or aseptic necrosis in view of the remoteness of such a possibility at dosages prescribed for her. Dr. Jacob Green, an expert witness presented by Respondent, is a neurologist who provided insight into the clinical management of the difficult headache patient, noting that there is no standard treatment for such patients, "[y]ou just have to use what works . . . Its a matter of trial and error in a lot of cases." Green also noted that once a patient is treated with corticosteroids, the dosages must be tapered gradually, not stopped suddenly. Green concluded C.R.`s dosages were decreased appropriately, that duration of Medrol and Prednisone prescribed for the patient was appropriate, and that use and duration of Decadron during C.R.`s hospitalization in April, 1988, was also appropriate. While Green acknowledged that avascular necrosis of the hips is a known complication of steroid use, he testified that in 1986 or 1987 he would not have felt that failure to warn a patient about the potential for such a remote side effect constituted a breach of the standard of care and would not have warned the patient. In Green's opinion, Respondent did not prescribe Medrol, Prednisone or Decadron contrary to the best interests of C.R. In 1989, C.R. was diagnosed with aseptic necrosis of the femoral head of both her hips and underwent surgery in 1989 and 1990 resulting in total hip replacements. She has undergone surgery for "a revision on the left side" and continues to have problems. While differing expert testimony presented in this proceeding fails to clearly and convincingly establish a causal connection between the steroid medications given to C.R. and her resultant physical problems, the common consensus of those experts is that avascular necrosis is a complication that can arise from the use of steroids, given sufficient dosages and duration of such medication. Although Respondent did not inform C.R. of the potential of avascular necrosis from corticosteroid dosing by the prescribed medications and did not at any time during the course of his treatment discuss with CR the potential for such harmful side effects, the evidence fails to establish that the patient should have been informed in 1986 regarding the remote potential for harmful side effects of such medications. However, Respondent's medical records on the patient C.R. were inadequate. The records did not serve as an effective basis for planning patient care and providing for continuity in the evaluation of the patient's condition and treatment. The records did not furnish documentary evidence of the course of the patient's medical evaluation, treatment, and change in condition. Detail of the records was not sufficient to clearly demonstrate why one course of treatment was undertaken in preference to another course and would not have communicated sufficient information for any other practitioner who would have assumed the patient's care.
Recommendation ACCORDINGLY, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of count two of the Administrative Complaint, violation of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes; requiring as a penalty that Respondent's license to practice as a physician in the State of Florida be placed on probation for a period of one year upon conditions prescribed by the Board of Medicine; and further requiring that Respondent pay a fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS, 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 26th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX CASE NO. 94-2116 In accordance with requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following constitute my rulings with regard to proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Accepted. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted, but not verbatim. While the calendar was admitted, it may only be used to corroborate direct testimony. C.R. had no independent recollections which could be corroborated by the calendar. Respondent took issue with the calendar, consequently the calendar is not credited as a basis for fact finding with the exception of Dr. Zizic's opinion regarding dosage levels. Incorporated by reference. 7.-10. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 11. Accepted, not verbatim. 12.-15. Incorporated by reference. 16.-18. Accepted. 19.-22. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1-4. Accepted. 5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6.-9. Accepted, not verbatim. 10. Accepted in part, remainder rejected as subordinate. 11.-12. Accepted. 13.-19. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 20.-22. Accepted. 23.-25. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donna J. Torsney, Esquire Donald W. Weidner, P.A. 10161 Centurion Parkway North Suite 190 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Medical Quality Assurance 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations contained in a five-count Administrative Complaint. The charges against the Respondent may be summarized as follows: Count One charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1985) , by failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed on a licensed physician. Count Two charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(1), Florida Statutes (1985), by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine when such scheme or trick fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community. Count Three charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. Count Four charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (1985), by prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. Count Five charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by gross or repeated malpractice, or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, or treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The Respondent filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint. In his answer, the Respondent admits some of the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint, but denies all allegations of wrongdoing. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed on September 16, 1987, and the parties were allowed fifteen days from that date within which to file proposed recommended orders. The Respondent filed a proposed recommended order on October 1, 1987, and the Petitioner filed one on October 2, 1987. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' proposed recommended orders, and specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0004527. Respondent's last known address is 463 Emerald Road, Ocala, Florida 32672. Ionamine is a brand name for a scheduled controlled substance as defined by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Respondent's treatment of patients for obesity included B-12 vitamin injections. Approximately two-thirds of the Respondent's practice is devoted to the treatment of obesity. The other third of the Respondent's practice is devoted to a general practice of medicine. The Respondent graduated from Indiana University Medical School in 1945, interned in 1946, and became licensed in the State of Florida in 1951. The Respondent served for two years in the Air Force during the Korean War, and then returned to Florida where he established a practice in Miami. He practiced in Miami until 1970, at which time he moved to Ocala, where he has practiced since 1970. The Respondent is a board certified anesthesiologist and graduated at the top 10 percent of his class from Indiana University. The Respondent subscribes to and reads many medical journals and articles, including those concentrating on bariatrics. The Respondent has purchased and reviewed the American Medical Association video and study guide concerning the treatment of obesity. The Respondent also has continued his post graduate studies. When a new patient comes to the Respondent's office for treatment for obesity, the patient is first given a questionnaire to fill out. Subsequently a medical history is obtained from the patient, and the patient is given a thorough physical examination. Usually, but not always, blood and urine samples are obtained from this patient for testing, and the patient is given an EKG. If this patient appears to be in good health, the Respondent puts the patient on a weight loss program consisting of a reduction of calories, an exercise program consisting of a thirty minute walk each day, and an appetite suppressant, usually Phentermine or Diethylpropion. Phentermine and Diethylpropion are both helpful in the treatment of obesity. The Respondent also encourages each patient to take a vitamin injection on a weekly basis, regardless of whether there is any evidence of vitamin deficiency or pernicious anemia. Thereafter, the patient is instructed to return to the Respondent's office once a week, at which time an R.N. or L.P.N. checks their blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and weight. The nurse questions each patient to find out how they are reacting to the weight loss program. If everything appears to be satisfactory, the patient receives another seven-day supply of diet suppressant medication and a vitamin injection. The Respondent sees the patient every fourth visit (once a month) to determine what progress the patient is making. The Respondent routinely commences treatment of obesity patients, including the prescription of or dispensing of Phentermine or Diethylpropion, before reviewing the results of blood and urine tests. The Respondent continues obesity patients on an appetite suppressant (usually Phentermine or Diethylpropion) at the rate of seven 30 mg. pills per week as long as the patient continues to lose one percent of their body weight per week until their ideal weight is reached. In January of 1986, the Respondent saw a patient by the name of Sandy Wilson who came to his office for the treatment of obesity. The Respondent gave Ms. Wilson a thorough physical examination. The Respondent also questioned Ms. Wilson about her medical history. During the course of relating her medical history, Ms. Wilson complained of swelling of her hands and feet. The Respondent did not obtain blood or urine samples from Ms. Wilson, nor did he do an EKG on Ms. Wilson. Following his examination of Ms. Wilson, the Respondent placed her on a 1000 calorie per day diet, recommended that she exercise by walking 30 minutes each day, and dispensed to her a seven-day supply of Ionamine, which is a form of Phentermine. The Respondent also wrote a prescription for Ms. Wilson for thirty tablets of Furosemide 40 mg. Furosemide is a rather potent diuretic. The Respondent also suggested that Ms. Wilson have a vitamin injection, but she refused the injection. Ms. Wilson also refused to have blood drawn, saying she was afraid of needles. The Respondent told Ms. Wilson if she changed her mind she could have the blood drawn and the vitamin injection on her next visit. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not contain sufficient information to show that Ms. Wilson received a thorough physical examination. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not show that an adequate medical, social, or family history was obtained from Ms. Wilson. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not mention that Ms. Wilson had or complained of edema. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not contain the results of any blood or urine tests or the results of any EKG. Ionamine and Furosemide should not be dispensed or prescribed to a patient for obesity and edema without first giving the patient a thorough physical exam, obtaining an adequate medical history, and obtaining the results of laboratory analysis of blood and urine samples and obtaining an EKG. This is in part because a patient may have the beginnings of some illness, such as diabetes or hypothyroidism, that are not detectable by a physical examination alone. The dispensing of Ionamine and the prescription of Furosemide to Ms. Wilson without first obtaining the results of laboratory analysis of blood and urine samples and obtaining an EKG is a failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. A physician's records must be sufficient to justify the treatment given to the patient. In particular such records should contain complete information regarding examinations, histories, and laboratory tests. Because the Respondent's records regarding Ms. Wilson did not contain complete information in this regard, the Respondent has failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. Vitamin injections do not have any direct therapeutic effect in the treatment of obesity. They do not cause weight loss, nor do they contribute to weight loss. Nevertheless, periodic vitamin injections are commonly given to patients who are being treated for obesity as a form of "behavior modification." The goal of the behavior modification is to have the patient return for follow- up treatment on a regular basis. Vitamin injections do not pose any significant risk to the patient.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing the following penalty on the Respondent: (1) an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), and (2) placement of Respondent's license on probation for a period of two years under conditions to be prescribed by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2031 The following are my specific rulings on all of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. As the parties are well aware, there is a large amount of conflict in the testimony in this case, especially in the expert witness testimony. To the extent that the testimony of the expert witnesses on behalf of the Petitioner (Dr. Clark and Dr. Weiss) conflicts with the testimony of the expert witnesses on behalf of the Respondent (Dr. Haimes and Dr. Asher), I have for the most part been persuaded by, and have incorporated into the findings of fact, the version set forth by the Petitioner's witnesses. Among other things, the version set forth by the Petitioner's expert witnesses more often appeared to be more logical, more reasonable and well reasoned, and more consistent with other evidence in the case. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance, with some irrelevant details deleted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance with some additional findings in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 8: Rejected as not fully supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. (The failure to include argument in the findings of fact is not a comment upon the merits of the argument.) Paragraphs 16 and 17; Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by the Respondent: By way of clarification of some of the rulings which follow, it is noted that a substantial number of the findings proposed by the Respondent begin with the words "Dr. So-and-so testified" or the words "Dr. So-and-so believes." Such findings are, in most cases, nothing more than summaries of the testimony and might well have been rejected on that basis alone. However, I have chosen to direct attention to the substance of such proposals, overlooking their form, and have treated each such proposal as a proposed finding of the fact testified to or the fact believed by the witness. Accordingly, when such proposals are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, that is not to say that the witness did not so testify or did not so believe, but that the fact testified to or believed by the witness is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Most of this paragraph has been accepted, but many of the statements have been made subject to additional qualifications to be fully consistent with the evidence. Some details have been omitted as not supported by competent substantial evidence. A major qualification is that the procedures described in this paragraph are performed on many, but not all, of the Respondent's patients. Paragraph 7: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. It has already been found that the Respondent gives thorough physical examinations. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: First sentence is accepted in substance. Second sentence is rejected as constituting an opinion which is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Also, last clause of first sentence is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 17: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20: Rejected as irrelevant and as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph: 21: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Also rejected as inaccurate because there were other reasons for the opinion. Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 29: First two sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant because it ignores and omits the context of the statement. Paragraph 30: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 31 and 32: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 33: Rejected because an important detail of the proposal is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 34: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 35 and 36: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 38: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 39: Rejected as irrelevant and as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 40: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 41: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, because Dr. Haimes did not witness the examination and treatment of the patient. Paragraph 42: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 43: Rejected because the witness's use of vitamin injection is irrelevant in light of other evidence and because the witness's opinion that vitamin injections are acceptable world wide is rejected as not persuasive. Paragraph 44: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45: Rejected as irrelevant; the witness's beliefs notwithstanding, the greater weight of the evidence is to the contrary. Paragraph 46: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 47: First three sentences rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 48: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49: The first, second, and fourth sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The third sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 50: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 51: First two sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Last sentence accepted in substance. Paragraph 52: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence is accepted in substance. Third and fourth sentences are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 53: First sentence rejected as irrelevant. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 54: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 55: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 57: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 58: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 59: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 60: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evident. Paragraph 61: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 62: First two sentences rejected gas contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third sentence accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 63: First sentence rejected as irrelevant. Second sentence accepted in substance. Third sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 64: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 65: Rejected because the opinions in this paragraph are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 66: First and third sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Second and fourth sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 67: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 69 and 70: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 71: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine C. Landau, Esquire Inman and Landau, P.A. 2252 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 H. Edward Dean, Esquire 201 Northeast Eighth Avenue Suite 100 Ocala, Florida 32670 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a medical doctor having been issued license number 0029773 by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an employee of the Atlantic Stress and Obesity Clinic, Inc., located in North Miami Beach, Florida. While employed there, Respondent treated Daniel Wolfenstein, Cindy Vegazo, Neal Schoenberg, James F. McDonald, Scott Brown and Virginia Hagerty at the Clinic. On or about October 9, 1981, Respondent prescribed 45 methaqualone tablets 300 mg., a scheduled controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Daniel Wolfenstein. Respondent did not prescribe the above-described controlled substance to Daniel Wolfenstein for a medically justifiable purpose. That prescription was inappropriate and in an excessive or inappropriate quantity. Between the dates of approximately March 10, 1981, and February 8, 1982, Respondent prescribed 405 methaqualone tablets 300 mg., a scheduled controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Cindy Vegazo. Respondent did not prescribe the above-described controlled substance to Cindy Vegazo for a medically justifiable purpose. Those prescriptions were inappropriate and in excessive or inappropriate quantities. Between the dates of approximately October 9, 1981, and January 5, 1952, Respondent prescribed 90 methaqualone tablets 300 mg., a scheduled controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 593, Florida Statutes, for Neal Schoenberg. Respondent did not prescribe the above-described controlled substance to Neal Schoenberg for a medically justifiable purpose. Those prescriptions were inappropriate and in excessive or inappropriate quantities. Between the dates of approximately September 9, 1981, and January 22, 1952, Respondent prescribed 225 methaqualone tablets 300 mg., a scheduled controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 593, Florida Statutes, for James F. McDonald. Respondent did not prescribe the above-described controlled substance to James F. McDonald for a medically justifiable purpose. Those prescriptions were inappropriate and in excessive or inappropriate quantities. On or about October 13, 1981, Respondent prescribed 45 methaqualone tablets 300 mg., a scheduled controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 593, Florida Statutes, for Scott Brown. Respondent did not prescribe the above-described controlled substance to Scott Brown for a medically justifiable purpose. Said prescription was inappropriate and in excessive or inappropriate quantity. Between the dates of approximately August 4, 1981, and December 29, 1981, Respondent prescribed 135 methaqualone tablets 300 mg., a scheduled controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Virginia Hagerty. Respondent did not prescribe the above-described controlled substance to Virginia Hagerty for a medically justifiable purpose. Said prescriptions were inappropriate and in excessive or inappropriate quantities. The medical records of each of the above-listed patients indicate that each patient was given a prescription for 45 methaqualone tablets each time that patient came to the Atlantic Stress and Obesity Clinic to see Respondent. All patients indicated on the form checklist given to them at the Clinic that they were seeking medical aid because they were depressed, tense, unable to sleep, and/or without ambition. The progress notes for each patient are identical to the notes from prior visits, all progress notes appear in two different handwritings, and all patients are diagnosed as suffering from anxiety and insomnia, thereby requiring 45 more methaqualone tablets. There appears no variation in dosage or in diagnosis. Methaqualone is a depressant, and, therefore, prescribing methaqualone to depressed patients is contraindicted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of Counts I through XIX of the Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlie L. Adams, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adolfo Z. Aguila, Esquire Midway Professional Building 55 Grand Canal Drive, Suite 404 Miami, Florida 33144 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
