The Issue The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 99-4377, charged Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (failure to practice medicine with care, skill and treatment); Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (failure to keep written records justifying treatment); Section 452.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (violation of a rule of the Board or Department) by violating Rule 64B8-9.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, relating to legibility of medical records, in connection with Respondent's emergency room treatment of Patient B.W. on July 21, 1995. The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 99-4378, charges Respondent with violation of Section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes (being unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness, use of any material, or as the result of any mental or physical condition).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the incidents alleged in the Administrative Complaints, Respondent was a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. ME 0016828. Respondent specialized in internal medicine and emergency medicine but has never been board certified in any specialty. Respondent's license has been delinquent since January 31, 2000, but because delinquent licenses may be subject to renewal, the Petitioner has persisted in prosecuting these cases. DOAH Case No. 99-4377 On July 21, 1995, B.W., a 56-year-old female, presented to Respondent in the emergency room of Florida Hospital Waterman, with complaints of chest, epigastric, and left shoulder pain. B.W. had a history of dermatomyositis, for which she had been taking 100 mg of Prednisone for a month, along with other medications. Prednisone in such large doses can cause gastrointestinal irritation, ulceration, and bleeding. The day before, B.W. had been prescribed Imuran by her rheumatologist for immunologic problems. Dermatomyositis is a degenerative disease of skeletal muscle that can lead to a multitude of complications, including rheumatologic problems evidenced by abnormal laboratory results. The standard of care in the examination and treatment of a patient with chest pain requires an emergency physician to obtain a history including a complete medical history, family history, and social history. Additionally, in order to meet the standard of care, the emergency physician must perform a complete physical examination, including a review of systems. The emergency room records for Respondent's treatment of B.W. show the information contained above in Finding of Fact No. 4. The emergency room records do not show that Respondent obtained or documented a complete medical history, family history, or social history of B.W. Respondent violated the standard of care in that he failed to obtain or document a complete medical history, family history, or social history of B.W. Respondent also violated the standard of care in that he failed to perform or document a complete physical examination, including a review of systems. Respondent ordered an electrocardiogram (EKG), a chest X-ray, a complete blood count (CBC), complete cardiac enzymes testing (CPK and CKMB), and a metabolic profile or chemistry panel (MPC). He also did a rectal exam which was negative for blood. He did all appropriate tests. He did not fail to order any appropriate tests. The EKG and the chest X-ray yielded normal results, but B.W.'s blood count revealed several abnormal values, including a decreased platelet of 21,000 and a markedly elevated white count of 24,000. A platelet count of 21,000 is extremely low and grounds for major concern, as is the elevated 24,000 white count. Together, in the presence of the other symptoms and abnormal blood values present, which included low RBC, anemic hemoglobin, and low hemocrit, the standard of care requires that an emergency physician obtain a consultation with a specialist, such as a rheumatologist or a hematologist. In light of all the foregoing results and normal corpuscular volume, which B.W. also had, the emergency physician should have recognized that B.W. did not have simple iron deficiency anemia. Under some circumstances, the emergency room physician's consultation with B.W.'s primary care physician, who in this case was also a rheumatologist, would have been sufficient. Respondent maintained that he had obtained a history from B.W. as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 4, and an oral report from the hospital lab technician to the effect that a blood test ordered by B.W.'s treating rheumatologist the preceding day, July 20, 1995, had shown a platelet count of 18,000, and that because Respondent presumed B.W.'s platelets were increasing with the use of Imuran plus other factors, Respondent did not admit B.W. to the hospital, but, instead, discharged her without even consultation. Despite Respondent's foregoing explanation, it is clear that Respondent did not record or document on B.W.'s chart his oral conversation with the lab technician, if, in fact, such a conversation occurred. This was below the acceptable standard of medical care and record-keeping for an emergency room physician. Respondent stated that he felt that because the treating rheumatologist had not admitted B.W. to the hospital or transfused B.W. the previous day, she should not be admitted or transfused on July 21, 1995. He stated that he also relied on a medical text (Merck's Manual) which allegedly states that platelet transfusions should not be given until the count falls to 10,000. Respondent stated that he ruled out a myocardial infarction on the basis that both the CKMB on B.W. and the CKMB Index were not elevated and B.W.'s EKG was normal. However, Dr. Tober, who is certified in emergency medicine, testified more credibly that he had never seen a CPK test so high; that interpretation of CPK and CKMB in such a patient as B.W. would be confounded by the co-existence of the dermatomyositis, grossly throwing off these tests in an acute cardiac setting, sometimes causing several EKGs to come back normal in the course of a myocardial infarction; that B.W.'s extremely low platelet count should cause great concern about the hemologic system and clotting response if B.W. started to hemorrhage; and that the suspiciously low lymphocytes and all blood parameters should have caused Respondent not to discharge B.W. prior to a consultation with a specialist. Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by the treatment he rendered to B.W., in that he did not obtain a consultation from either the primary care physician, another rheumatologist, or a hematologist, before discharging her. That standard of care requires an emergency physician to determine an appropriate diagnosis and treatment as related to the patient's complaint and results of examinations. Respondent violated the standard of care in that he merely wrote into B.W.'s chart a portion of her medical history, "dermatomyositis," instead of a current diagnosis which addressed her current abnormalities when she presented in the emergency room. Thus, Respondent did not discern an appropriate diagnosis while appropriately treating B.W.6 Respondent's chart on B.W. is illegible to the extent that Dr. Tober was unable to read most of 23 lines of it. Because proper care of patients requires that medical records be sufficiently legible for successive professionals to discern what the writer has done and analyzed, I find that Respondent is guilty of keeping written medical records that are illegible and difficult to decipher. I do not consider Hospital Waterman's failure to provide dictation or transcription equipment and/or personnel to excuse this flaw. DOAH Case No. 99-4378 On or about July 14, 1995, Respondent was convicted of driving under the influence and placed on probation for 12 months, and his driver's license was revoked for 12 months. About two years later, on July 12, 1997, Respondent's vehicle collided with another vehicle. Respondent and the driver of the other car were injured. Blood was drawn from Respondent at the hospital. Laboratory studies performed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revealed that Respondent's blood alcohol level was 0.10 grams of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml. Under Florida law, a driver is legally intoxicated when his blood alcohol level is 0.08 grams of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml or higher. On August 12, 1997, Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of serious bodily injury while driving under the influence, and two counts of property damage while driving under the influence. On July 2, 1998, Respondent entered a plea of guilty7 to one count of serious bodily injury while driving under the influence and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years, one month, and eight days. On or about January 13, 1998, Walter J. Muller, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist, performed a psychiatric evaluation of Respondent. Dr. Muller diagnosed Respondent with major depression, dysthymic disorder, and alcohol abuse, pursuant to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV. At that time, these conditions were active and not in remission. The diagnosis of major depression correlates with impaired social and occupational functioning. A diagnosis of dysthymic disorder is an indication of impairment and the inability to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients. A diagnosis of alcohol abuse can be an indication of inability to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients, but would depend upon when the abuse is occurring and how long it has been since the abuse occurred. In the expert opinion of Dr. Raymond Pomm, who is board certified in adult psychiatry and general psychiatry, with added qualifications in addiction psychiatry, and who relied on Dr. Muller's evaluation, the combined three diagnoses of major depression, dysthymic disorder, and alcohol abuse revealed that, to a degree of reasonable medical certainty, Respondent was unable to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients on the date of Dr. Muller's report. Respondent was evaluated at Menninger Clinic in Kansas, on or about May 26, 1998, and diagnosed with alcohol dependence. After six weeks of treatment at the Menninger Clinic, Respondent was released as being "in early remission." The treating physician made a number of recommendations for rehabilitation of Respondent, including treating his alcohol dependence by entering into a monitoring contract with the Physician's Resource Network in Florida and requiring a further evaluation by a neurologist of Respondent's apparently diminished cognitive skills. Dr. Pomm did not have the opportunity to read the entire evaluation by the Menninger Clinic, and did not rely upon it in forming his opinion of Respondent's inability to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients. However, according to Dr. Pomm, there is no cure for alcohol dependence. It is a life-long illness, which is incurable, and which at best, can only be "in remission." In Dr. Pomm's opinion, one who is alcohol-dependent cannot practice with skill and safety to patients without undergoing a monitoring program. While I accept Respondent's testimony that he has remained sober since approximately May 27, 1998, because he has been in prison, I also note that Respondent has not entered into a monitoring contract or been monitored in a recovery program because he has been in prison. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Respondent's circumstances have changed sufficiently since January 13, 1998, so as to demonstrate that he is able to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients in the real world.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of all violations charged, and as a penalty therefore, suspending Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida until such time as Respondent presents to the Board and proves that he can practice with skill and safety. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2000.
Findings Of Fact During the period August 26-28, 1985, James L. Myrah, a hospital consultant for DHRS, accompanied by Ms. Christine Denson, a registered nurse, and other consultants in various disciplines from the Petitioner's office of licensure and certification, conducted a licensure, medicare, medicaid and civil rights survey at the Respondent's facility in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. During the course of this survey, Mr. Myrah followed the normal procedure for such inquiries which included an entrance conference with the administrator, and a survey process which includes looking at various items for as many days as is required to do a thorough job.1 As a part of the survey, the team looks at every resident physically but examines patient charts on the basis of a random sample. In the instant case, examination of the patient records kept by the Respondent revealed only one variance. That was brought to the attention of the Petitioner's Office of Licensure and Certification by the Local District I omebudsman who commented about a particular patient, whose name will not be recited to preserve patient confidentiality, but whose initials, M.C., will be used as identification. By the time the survey was conducted, M.C. had already been transferred to another nursing home and was not physically present. Therefore, the inspection team was unable to examine her. However, they did examine her medical records and chart closely. This examination resulted in Petitioner drawing the conclusion that Respondent was in violation of the require ment for notification to the patient's physician whenever there is a substantial significant change in the patient's condition. The patient's chart was not entered into evidence. The report form identifying the deficiency (HRS Form 553E) was prepared by the inspection team based on its evaluation of the patient records. This was not objected to by Respondent, and in the absence of any objection to its entry, it was accepted. The entry for the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on May 22, 1985, reflects,2 "Total care given, nothing per os (by mouth) past midnight. Dr.'s appointment in am--resident seems very listless not talking as usual. Several small bruises noted on lower extremities (rt.) foot very discolored." This entry is, in the opinion of Ms. Denson, important because it relates to the fact that the patient was to go to the doctor in the morning. The use of the term "listless" might indicate a serious medical condition and a change of condition which should have been reported to the person next in charge. The term, "not talking as usual" shows a change that would require comment. In addition, the comment regarding the discoloration of the foot should have been reported to someone and not allowed to remain uncommented on until the visit with the doctor the next morning. The patient saw her physician, Dr. Wilson, at 8 a.m. on May 22, 1985; and returned to the home at 10 a.m. the same morning. Apparently nothing was considered to be wrong with the patient because no prescription for medicine or other treatment was given by the physician who, three days later, on May 25, 1985; when advised by nurses on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift of large black and blue areas on the patient's inner groin area, indicated he examined the patient and found nothing new clinically on May 22. There are repeated instances of comments which Petitioner alleges were not properly reported to the physician. For example, on May 23, personnel on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift reflected that the patient "continues to be listless. Right leg turned at a funny angle. Report to D.O.N. (Director of Nursing)." The 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift the following morning reported, "Both legs ecchymosis (discolored), hip moves oddly, color pale." The 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift the same day reported, "Color remains pale-- unusual movement and rotation of both legs noted." Additional comments of a similar nature were noted by personnel on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on May 24 the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift on May 24; and the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift which discovered the discoloration to the pelvis as reported previously. At 4 p.m. on May 25, 1985, personnel reported their concern in reference to the bruises on the patient's groin and lower extremities to the physician and further entries show that at 5:10 p.m., the patient was subsequently returned to the home at 7:30 p.m. after x-rays were accomplished which failed to reveal any fracture. Nonetheless, because of continued concern by the nursing staff and at the urging of family members, the patient was returned to the hospital at 10 a.m. on May 27, 1985. At this point, she was found to have fractures of both lower extremities and upon release from the hospital was transferred to another convalescent center. Mrs. McCasland contends that all due care and concern was given to the patient, M.C., consistent with the long standing convalescent center policy governing changes in patient status. This policy statement, dated March, 1975, which is still in effect, requires that "in the event of a significant change in the patient's physical, mental, or emotional status, the attending physician is immediately called by the charge nurse." As was stated in paragraph 3, above, on May 22, an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.'s shift nurse noted a small bruise on the left foot of the patient and that the patient was listless. Small bruises are not necessarily significant in geriatric patients (M.C. was 88 years old). Also, often older people do not talk for several days. In any event, the lack of any significant condition was confirmed by the physician who found nothing unusual in the patient's condition during the examination. The doctor's report reflects, inter alia, "physical examination is remarkable for an elderly white female in an involuted state appearing her stated age." Her extremities "show some area of bruising primarily in the upper thighs presumably related to lifting the patient. She has crepitance in the bilateral knees and is unable to fully extend her lower extremities." Neurologically; she was determined to be alert and the physician recommended continuing general support of care. On May 25, 1985, the charge nurse called Ms. McCasland at home indicating that the patient's legs seemed to be getting bluer. Ms. McCasland, at that moment, told the nurse to call the patient's physician which was done and the doctor indicated at that time that when he had examined the patient several days previously, he found nothing wrong. It apparently was the decision of the doctor to take no further action at that time. However, at approximately 4 p.m.; after the conversation with the physician; the charge nurse contacted the physician again, indicating she thought the patient needed to be x-rayed. At 5:10 p.m.; the patient was taken to the hospital; apparently at the order of the physician; for x-rays which showed no fractures. Nonetheless; this action would not have been taken were it not for the attention of the nurse on duty and actions of the Respondent's administrator. On the following day, May 26, the charge nurse from the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift again called Mrs. McCasland at home and stated that the patient's legs were; "bad." Ms. MeCasland told the nurse to call the patient's physician who directed she be sent to the hospital for x- rays. The hospital would not accept the patient and as a result, the physician came to the convalescent center where he examined her and concluded that there was, in fact, a problem. He directed she be sent to the hospital the following day and when she was x-rayed then; fractures were discovered. It should be noted here that again the contact with the physician which resulted in the ultimate diagnosis of leg fractures, was initiated by the charge nurse at Respondent's center and communicated to the physician and Ms. McCasland by center personnel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that deficiency number NH77(g); relating to the visit to Respondent's convalescent center on August 28, 1985, be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1986.
The Issue The administrative complaint charged Respondent in Count I with violating Section 458.331(1)(t), F.S., failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and in Count II with violating Section 458.331(1)(m), F.S., failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME004552. On October 24, 1988, Patient #1, a 67 year old female, presented by wheelchair at the Physicians Referral Center (PRC) emergency room of the Marion Community Hospital in Ocala, Florida. Respondent was on duty there at that time. Patient #1, arrived at the emergency room at approximately 1:50 a.m. complaining of gas, no bowel movements for three days, feeling weak, and a highly elevated blood sugar of 412 as of 5:00 p.m. the evening before. Patient #1 was accompanied by her husband, who provided some of the foregoing information. Alicia Ables, R.N., attended Patient #1 when she arrived, took her vital signs which appeared to be within normal limits, and noted in the patient medical records, at the bottom of the nurse's notes, that the patient had heart problems, diabetes, kidney problems, and was taking medications. The nurse attached to the patient's medical records a list of the patient's current medications which had been provided by the husband. These medications included Isordil, Trental, Ascriptin, Lasix, Lanoxin, Depyridamole, Capoten, Riopan Plus, Mylicon 800, Pilocarpine eye drops, Tylenol and Humulin N-100, 30 units in the morning and 6 units in the evening. Humulin N-100 is a low level prescription for insulin diabetic maintenance. Mylicon is an anti-gas preparation. The foregoing history was on the patient chart when Respondent saw the patient a few minutes later. Respondent saw the patient at approximately 2:10 a.m. At that time, only the patient, her husband, and Respondent were present in the examining room. No nurse was present in the examining room with them, but Ms. Ables testified that the absence of a nurse during a rectal examination of a female patient occurred occasionally if not regularly at PRC. Nurse Ables was not present in the examination room at the time of the examination and is without knowledge of the extent of Respondent's examination of Patient #1. The patient, who is now deceased, did not testify. The patient's husband did not testify. The only person who was present in the examining room on October 24, 1988 who did testify was Respondent, and his testimony is unrefuted that he performed a routine examination of the patient's chest, abdomen, and skin, that he also performed a rectal examination during which he found the patient's rectal vault "empty," and that he concluded that there was no fecal impaction but some retention of gas. He concluded that a soap suds enema was not warranted, given the patient's condition. He stated that despite believing that the patient had some retention of gas, he considered her to be "fixated" in her mind on the gas problem. When the Respondent examined the patient on October 24, 1988, he contemporaneously noted on her chart that her chief complaint was accumulation of gas, that she wanted a soap suds enema, and that she had spoken earlier with Dr. Sunkavalli, who had referred her to the emergency room. Dr. Sunkavalli was the patient's primary treating physician. Respondent also noted on the chart at 2:25 a.m. on October 24, 1988 that Dr. Sunkavalli would follow the patient as an outpatient. He also wrote down that he diagnosed her as having "gas retention fixation." He ordered Mylicon 80 to be administered to her. She was not given a soap suds enema, was not admitted to the hospital, and was not transferred to another hospital. Respondent did not order any laboratory tests or x-rays. Administration of the Mylicon 80 was noted on the patient's chart by a nurse other than Ms. Ables at 2:40 a.m. That nurse also noted on the patient records that Patient #1 was discharged home at 3:00 a.m., in stable condition. None of the typically observable symptoms of ketoacidosis in the patient were observed or noted by Respondent or by Ms. Ables while the patient was at PRC. Patient #1 was admitted to Citrus Memorial Hospital six and one-half hours after being discharged from Respondent's care. Three hours after her admission to Citrus Memorial, the patient died. After autopsy, the principal pathologic diagnosis and cause of death was listed as "marked three vessel artherosclerosis with large, old myocardial infarction." The gross summary reads, "Death of this 67-year old, white female was due to marked three vessel arteriosclerosis secondary to arteriosclerotic heart disease. A contributing factor was diabetic acidosis." There was also evidence of a gastro-intestinal bleed. When Patient #1's death became an issue the next day, Respondent was unable to recall the patient or his examination and treatment of her. The Respondent reviewed the emergency room records and spoke with Ms. Ables in order to recall the care he had rendered to the patient. Respondent prepared an addendum to the patient's medical records three days after he actually examined Patient #1. Only at that late date, October 27, 1988, did Respondent document a history, document that he had made a physical examination, and document that he had had a telephone consultation with Dr. Sunkavalli on October 24, 1988 while the patient was in the emergency room, and further document that he and Dr. Sunkavalli had concurred at that time in treating the patient with Mylicon. Adding the addendum was deemed appropriate under the circumstances by Marion Community Hospital personnel, and Petitioner's expert did not specifically find that adding it was inappropriate or improper. Respondent had not documented the telephone consultation with Dr. Sunkavalli or a history or physical examination of Patient #1 at the time he examined her on October 24, 1988. Neither on the date of examination/treatment nor in his later addendum did Respondent ever document that he had performed a rectal examination on Patient #1. In his testimony at formal hearing, Respondent explained and supplemented his October 27, 1988 addendum notation of a telephone conversation with Dr. Sunkavalli on October 24, 1988 to add that Dr. Sunkavalli was aware at that time of Patient #1's elevated blood sugar reading the previous evening but, hearing Respondent's examination results, Dr. Sunkavalli had recommended no further tests and had said nothing to disagree with Respondent's assessment and treatment of the patient and that while Respondent had not deferred to Dr. Sunkavalli, he had relied on the consultation. Dr. Sunkavalli was not called to corroborate or refute Respondent's testimony on this score. Jack Kareff, M.D., was accepted as an expert in emergency room medicine. He opined that, under similar circumstances, and particularly with an elderly diabetic patient, the minimal acceptable level of care, skill, and treatment of a reasonably prudent similar physician would have been to examine Patient #1's abdomen, perform a rectal examination, and perform a dipstick of urine for both glucose (sugar) and acetone. Dr. Kareff also expressed the opinion that the rectal examination should have been made to eliminate the chance of fecal impaction and that such rectal examination should have included treating a sample of fecal matter found in the rectal vault with a paper reagent to determine if there were occult blood in the patient's stool so as to rule out gastro-intestinal bleeding. Dr. Kareff testified that there is sufficient fecal matter for such a test in the rectal vault 99% of the time. He conceded that an enema might not be warranted and could be potentially traumatic, given such a patient's condition. Dr. Kareff indicated that the urine dipstick test should be done to ensure that the patient was not headed for diabetic ketoacidosis. The urine dipstick test proposed as a minimal requirement by Dr. Kareff was also described by him as actually "problematic" in that he admitted that such a dipstick test can "fool you" occasionally because not enough aceto acetate is formed to tell the patient's true condition. According to Dr. Kareff, ketoacidosis may take anywhere from 2 hours to several weeks to develop in a diabetic. On the foregoing information, the efficacy of a dipstick test was not established. Because he believed that Respondent had not done the abdominal examination, rectal examination with stool testing, and urine dipstick test, Dr. Kareff further opined that Respondent had fallen below the acceptable level of care, skill and treatment as recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances. In forming his foregoing opinions, Dr. Kareff had not had the benefit of hearing Respondent's unrefuted testimony that Respondent had, in fact, performed a rectal examination, determined that there was no fecal impaction, and found the patient's rectal vault empty. Accordingly, the record is devoid of Dr. Kareff's opinion, if any, as to what should have or could have been done as regards a fecal test when the patient's rectal vault is "empty." Dr. Kareff's opinions assumed and relied on some material contrary to the facts established in this proceeding. Dr. Kareff's opinion also relied upon much uncorroborated hearsay evidence, such as the agency's investigative report. These reliances and assumptions on Dr. Kareff's part detract from the weight and credibility of his opinion on minimal professional treatment, and therefore that opinion is not persuasive. The parties have stipulated that Respondent's medical records were inadequate. This stipulation and Dr. Kareff's opinion that Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment are accepted.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 458.33(1)(t), F.S. and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent is guilty under Count II of the Administrative Complaint of violating Section 458.331(1)(m), F.S., failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results; and Reprimanding Respondent for the single violation, fining him $1000.00, and requiring him to complete one basic level continuing medical education course in record keeping responsibilities and techniques within one year of the entry of the final order. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 24th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-5014 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-12 Except as to subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative material, accepted. 13-14 Rejected because it is largely subordinate to the facts as found in FOF 18-21. 15 Rejected as a conclusion of law but also for the reasons set forth in FOF 18-19. Respondent's PFOF: 1 Covered in the preliminary statement, the FOF, or the Conclusions of Law. Accepted as covered in the rulings on Petitioner's PFOF. Rejected as legal argument. 4-6, 20-21, 37-38, 44, 46-48 Accepted but subordinate to the facts as found. 7-8 Covered in FOF 3-4. 9 Accepted with time adjustment per greater weight of the evidence. 10-11, 13-18, 22-24, 39-40, 45, 49-63, 66 Except as to subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative material, accepted. 12 Accepted, except as to characterization "necessary". 19 Covered in FOF 17. 25 Covered in FOF 8. 26-28 Covered in FOF 18-21. 41-42 Covered in FOF 18-21. 29, 31 Rejected as irrelevant. 30 Covered in FOF 15. 32-36, 67 These proposals are irrelevant, out of context, or misleading as stated, since Dr. Kareff did not specifically advocate a soap suds enema and Respondent did not feel it was warranted. To the extent necessary, the subject matter is covered in FOF 7-9, 14-17, and 18-22. 43 Covered in FOF 7. 64-65, 68 Rejected as unnecessary and/or unproven. COPIES FURNIISHED: Louis Kwall, Esquire Gross and Kwall, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615 Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are whether Respondent committed the violations charged in four Administrative Complaints and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Department has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed chiropractic physicians pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a chiropractic physician after a probable cause panel (PCP) of the Board determines there is probable cause to suspect a licensee has committed a disciplinable offense, and provides direction to the Department on the filing of an administrative complaint. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Dr. Aderholdt has been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 7814. He was first licensed on January 6, 2000. He practices in an office in Bradenton, Florida. Vax-D Therapy Three of the four Administrative Complaints involve patients of Dr. Aderholdt who received Vax-D therapy. The complaints are not directed to the provision of Vax-D therapy itself, or to any other treatments provided by Dr. Aderholdt. In all four cases, the patients generally spoke well of the chiropractic care they received from Dr. Aderholdt and the manner in which they were treated by him and his office staff. Vax-D therapy is a modality using the Vax-D model for decompression of the spinal discs and spinal structure. It is used to treat a range of issues associated with low back pain, including herniated, degenerated, and bulging discs. The Vax-D model is the originator of this technology; it was the first spinal decompression device. It is a large computerized moving table. It can be programmed to provide specific axial or distractive loading. The table moves in and out, pumping nutrients at the discs. Some research shows that it can actually pull discs away from where they are causing irritation on nerves and the spinal cord. The Vax-D model is FDA-cleared for use, and the literature supports its efficacy. The Vax-D model is an expensive piece of equipment. The price range for the initial purchase is between $100,000 and $150,000, with ongoing expense thereafter for maintenance and updates. Vax-D therapy is one of the most expensive forms of therapy, if not the most expensive, in the chiropractic profession. Other models coming out after Vax-D, as well as other tools, arguably can be used for similar purposes. However, as Petitioner’s expert readily acknowledged, Vax-D is the “Rolls Royce. It’s a really nice tool.” Vax-D spinal decompression is not covered by Medicare. In fact, when it comes to chiropractic care, Medicare has never covered anything besides spinal adjustments. Coverage for Vax-D treatment by private insurance companies is rare. In 2012, Dr. Salvatore LaRusso presented a study on spinal decompression to the profession, before the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards, to inform state regulators of issues associated with Vax-D therapy. The one regulatory concern he reported was that some physicians were improperly billing Vax-D as a surgical decompression procedure, when it is plainly not surgery; it is an alternative to surgery, properly billed as a non-surgical decompressive tool or traction device. Dr. LaRusso’s study also made findings on the common methods of packaging and selling the service, and the range of charges observed. He found that most practitioners providing Vax-D therapy were selling the service as a cash item in their practice, with payment up front often required. The common model was to sell a package with a certain number of visits, with or without additional services included. Dr. LaRusso found that the per-visit charges ranged from $150 to $450, depending on the ancillary services added to the decompression. Dr. Shreeve does not have any issue with the use of or charges for Vax-D therapy. Dr. Aderholdt offers Vax-D therapy pursuant to a Vax-D Therapy Payment Plan agreement (Vax-D Agreement), which is comparable to the multi-visit packages that Dr. LaRusso’s study found to be common. After initial consultation, with intake forms, patient history, x-rays, evaluation, and examination, if a patient is determined to be appropriate for Vax-D therapy, Dr. Aderholdt will give his treatment recommendations and then turn the patient over to his office staff to address the financial aspects. If the patient wants to proceed with Vax-D therapy, the Vax-D Agreement will be reviewed and signed. Patients A.M., R.O., and P.D. each received Vax-D therapy, pursuant to signed Vax-D Agreements. The terms of the Vax-D Agreements for the three patients were the same. Patient B.O. wanted Vax-D therapy, but she was determined to not be an appropriate candidate for it. The Vax-D Agreements in evidence for Patients A.M., R.O., and P.D. provided that the named patient committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions, for $250.00 per session. The total amount that the named patient agreed to pay Dr. Aderholdt for 25 to 28 sessions was $5,500.00, which computes to an actual per-session cost of between $196.43 (for 28 sessions) and $220.00 (for 25 sessions). For the agreed price for 25 to 28 sessions, the Vax-D Agreement provided the following treatment package: at each session, the patient would receive 30 minutes of Vax-D therapy, 30 minutes of full range interferential electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), 15 minutes of hydro-massage therapy, and manipulation (adjustments) by the doctor if needed. The first set of x-rays was also included. Dr. Aderholdt requires an up-front payment for the Vax-D therapy package. For patients who want Vax-D therapy but need help coming up with the funds, Respondent’s office staff has put the patients in touch with Care Credit, which is a medical credit program. If a patient applies and is accepted, Care Credit will finance the cost without charging interest to the patient if the loan is repaid within one year. Care Credit apparently charges a fee to Respondent when credit is extended, similar to the fees charged to merchants by credit card companies for credit card purchases. No evidence was presented regarding Care Credit’s approval criteria or how widely this method is used. All that is known about Care Credit from the record evidence is that two patients who received Vax-D therapy applied for Care Credit and were approved. The other Vax-D patient charged half of the agreed price on a Visa credit card the first day of treatment, and charged the other half after 15 treatment sessions. Patient A.M. From the end of July 2013 to early February 2014, Dr. Aderholdt treated Patient A.M., then a 66-year-old female, for lower back pain and hip pain. Patient A.M. had tried other treatments and had seen chiropractors before, but reported that her pain kept getting worse. As shown by A.M.’s medical records, A.M. was first seen by Respondent on July 29, 2013. That day, A.M.’s intake form, patient history, and x-rays were taken and evaluated, and A.M. was examined by Respondent. Respondent then formulated A.M.’s initial treatment plan. Respondent recommended Vax-D therapy, along with chiropractic adjustments, EMS, and hydrotherapy. The initial treatment plan specified a two- session per day protocol for the first two to three weeks. On July 30, 2013, A.M.’s husband, J.M., signed the Vax-D Agreement (in the space for Patient Signature). J.M. did not remember signing the Vax-D Agreement, but both he and A.M. identified his signature on the Vax-D Agreement. A.M. was named in the agreement as the patient who committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions and agreed to pay $5,500.00 for those sessions. Respondent did not require full payment of the agreed price prior to treatment. Instead, he accepted payment of one- half ($2,750.00) of the Vax-D therapy package price, which was charged on A.M.’s or J.M.’s Visa credit card on July 30, 2013. In accordance with the initial treatment plan, Patient A.M. received two treatment sessions per day beginning July 30, 2013, in the morning and afternoon, for nearly three weeks. After 15 treatment sessions--more than half of the 25 to 28 sessions covered for $5,500.00--the balance of $2,750.00 was charged on A.M.’s or J.M’s Visa credit card. Between July 30, 2013, and February 3, 2014, Patient A.M. had more than 60 Vax-D therapy sessions--approximately 64 total sessions. A.M. initially testified with a fair degree of confidence that she thought she had about 30 treatment sessions, until she reviewed her prior statement made to Petitioner. A.M. testified that at every session, she received Vax-D decompression therapy, hydrotherapy, adjustments “up and down” her spine, and ice packs. She left every session feeling better, with relief from her pain. The relief was temporary, however; she said the pain would come back after a few hours. After 29 sessions, having received all of the treatment sessions covered by the Vax-D Agreement, A.M. started paying additional amounts for more Vax-D therapy and the other ancillary services that she continued to receive. For approximately 35 additional treatment sessions beyond those covered by the Vax-D Agreement, A.M. made seven additional payments in the total amount of $2,226.00. In all, A.M. paid $7,726.00 for approximately 64 Vax-D therapy sessions. Rounding down to an even 60 sessions, she paid an average of $128.77 per session. A.M. was covered by Medicare at the time of her treatment. She did not have any private “Medicare supplement” health insurance. At some point, the subject of Medicare coverage came up. The details of what was said, when, and to whom were not clearly established. The only fact clearly established was that Dr. Aderholdt did not bring up the subject. Patient A.M. testified that Dr. Aderholdt did not talk to her about payment when she first visited, but that she and J.M. asked him, “Does Medicare cover this,” and he said, “Yes.” J.M. said that Dr. Aderholdt did talk to them about payment, saying “we need to do so many treatments and we should pay so much money.” J.M. said that they asked, “Will Medicare take care of it?” Dr. Aderholdt answered, “Yes, we will bill Medicare.” J.M could not say whether he asked about billing Medicare before or after he signed the Vax-D Agreement, since J.M. did not remember signing the Vax-D Agreement. When Dr. Aderholdt was asked if he told A.M. her treatments would be covered by Medicare, he answered, “No, I don’t believe I did, no.” As an interesting contrast, Patient R.O. testified that Dr. Aderholdt told him Medicare would not cover treatment under the same Vax-D Agreement; Dr. Aderholdt does not believe he made that statement, either. In the middle of the spectrum, Patient P.D. testified that Respondent never said anything to her about insurance coverage or financial arrangements. He would only talk about treatment, turning P.D. over to the office manager or billing person to address the financial issues. This version is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that he does not address “the money thing” with patients. Instead, he said he assesses x-rays, takes patient histories, performs the evaluation and examination, and ultimately formulates the recommended treatment plans, whether Vax-D or something else. Then he turns the treatment plans over to his staff to address the financial issues with the patients. A.M. and J.M. did not demonstrate a clear and certain recollection of what they asked Dr. Aderholdt or exactly what he answered. Indeed, both J.M. and A.M. could not remember most every other detail about A.M.’s treatments, often confidently stating details that were shown to be wrong by more than a little, including how many treatment sessions, and how much was paid. For example, Patient A.M. initially reported that she had paid $13,179.00 to Dr. Aderholdt, when the total was $7,726.00. The undersigned cannot find--without hesitancy--that Dr. Aderholdt made any representation to J.M. and A.M. regarding Medicare coverage before J.M. signed the Vax-D Agreement by which A.M. committed to the Vax-D therapy package. Dr. Shreeve made the point well that it is difficult to resolve this kind of he said-she said conflict, although he made the point while confusing Patient A.M. (who claimed Respondent said there would be Medicare coverage) with Patient R.O. (who claimed Respondent said there would not be Medicare coverage), in the following exchange: Q: With Patient RO, what’s your understanding of what Dr. Aderholdt told him regarding Medicare reimbursements? A: Counselor, I’m going to tell you that the investigative record shows that the patient stated that Aderholdt told him that they would be paid, is what my recollection is. And, yet, that’s not something that weighs heavily on my mind because I wasn’t there. This becomes a “he said, she said.” He said he didn’t; he said he did. I can’t get into that fight. That’s not an issue for me. (Jt. Ex. 12 at 35). (emphasis added). Respondent (or his staff) may have told A.M. and J.M., when they asked about Medicare, that the office would complete and submit the Medicare claim forms. Respondent (or his staff) may have told A.M. and J.M., when they asked, that Medicare proceeds paid on the Vax-D therapy package would be refunded. But it would be unreasonable, on this record, to find that Respondent misrepresented that Medicare would provide full coverage, or that Respondent schemed to induce A.M. and J.M. to sign up for Vax-D by guaranteeing that Medicare would pay back everything, when Respondent did not even bring up the subject.8/ The Administrative Complaint alleges that on one or more occasions, Respondent did not submit Medicare claims for Patient A.M.’s treatment. Petitioner has apparently abandoned this allegation; its PRO has no proposed finding identifying any dates of service for which claims were not submitted. The Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M. were compiled by Petitioner’s counsel for use in taking Respondent’s deposition, and are attached as deposition exhibit 2. The evidence is difficult to cull through, as there are 84 separate pages of claims and they are not in chronological order; they start out in chronological order, but then jump forward two months, then continue jumping around on dates, back and forth and back again. As best can be determined, all service dates shown in Patient A.M.’s medical records appear to be accounted for by corresponding claim forms. It appears that one claim form may have a clerical mistake, identifying the date of service as August 3, 2013, when there was no treatment session that day; the actual service date may instead be September 4, 2013, which is the date the claim form was submitted. The Medicare claim forms in evidence demonstrate that claim forms for A.M.’s treatments were regularly submitted, either on or very shortly after the dates of service. The evidence is insufficient to prove that Respondent did not submit Medicare claims for Patient A.M.’s treatment.9/ The Administrative Complaint contains no allegations regarding the disposition of the Medicare claims, although it does allege that Patient A.M. received no reimbursement from Respondent for Medicare payments. Petitioner’s expert seemed to be under the impression that Respondent received Medicare payments, because he criticized Respondent for not providing reimbursement to Patient A.M. Respondent testified that he has received no payments from Medicare for A.M.’s treatments, and Petitioner acknowledges in its PRO that Medicare has not made payments to Respondent. Acknowledging that the Administrative Complaint allegation has not been established, Petitioner instead proposed a finding (not alleged in the Administrative Complaint) that all of A.M.’s Medicare claims submitted by Respondent were rejected and payment was denied. No evidence was offered to prove the actual disposition of the 84 pages of Medicare claims submitted for A.M.’s treatments. Instead, the only record evidence of Medicare adjudications on any claims for A.M. is a group of explanation of benefits forms (EOBs) attached to a March 6, 2014, letter from Patient A.M. to Petitioner’s investigator, which is a deposition exhibit. Patient A.M. identified the small handful of EOBs attached to the March 6, 2014, letter as EOBs she had at that time, reporting on the disposition of Medicare claims submitted by other providers during the same time period as her treatments with Respondent. The EOBs reported, as to each claim, whether the claim was covered in whole or in part; and, if covered, what amount was paid, or, if not, why not. There were no EOBs for claims submitted by Respondent’s office. Patient A.M. was not asked for, and did not offer, any additional EOBs at her deposition. If, in fact, all of the Medicare claims submitted by Respondent were rejected and payment denied, then there would be a stack of EOBs explaining why each claim was denied. On this record, the evidence is insufficient to make any finding as to the outcome of the Medicare claims submitted for Patient A.M.’s treatment. There is no evidence proving whether the claims were denied, approved, or simply never acted on by Medicare. A separate allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that Patient A.M. requested copies of the Medicare claim forms submitted by Respondent’s office for her treatment. Patient A.M. said that she made verbal requests to Respondent’s office staff for the Medicare claims on more than one occasion, and the parties stipulated that Patient A.M. made these requests. Respondent’s office should have responded by giving Patient A.M. copies of the Medicare claims. Dr. Aderholdt said that he was not aware that Patient A.M. had requested copies of her Medicare claim. But it is his responsibility to ensure that his staff promptly responds to requests by patients for insurance claim forms. In the course of Petitioner’s investigation, the Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M. were provided to Petitioner (according to the investigator’s report, on May 16, 2014). It is unknown whether a set of the claim forms was provided to A.M. at that time. She is entitled to a copy of the claim forms if she has not already been given a set. Respondent should have verified that Patient A.M. has received the claim forms she requested, or, if not, provided them to her. Finally, the Administrative Complaint alleges that on the Medicare claim forms for A.M.’s treatments on August 6, 2013, and December 11, 2013, Respondent utilized Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 98941, which is the code for adjustments to three or four regions of the spine. However, Respondent’s Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan notes (referred to as SOAP notes) for those dates identify spinal adjustments to L3, L4, and L5, which are in a single region--the lumbar region. Beyond the SOAP notes, however, Dr. Aderholdt’s notes for Patient A.M.’s morning session on August 6, 2013 (there were two sessions that day), show multiple adjustments, not only to the lumbar region, but also, to the sacrum and ilium. Dr. Aderholdt’s notes for December 11, 2013, show multiple adjustments to the thoracic, lumbar, and sacrum regions. At hearing, Dr. Shreeve identified the five spinal regions as follows: “a region would be considered cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacrum, ilium.” (Tr. 106, lines 21-22). Based on his testimony, and considering all of Patient A.M.’s medical records, there were multiple adjustments to three spinal regions on both days identified in the Administrative Complaint.10/ The Administrative Complaint has no other factual allegations regarding CPT code issues in connection with Patient A.M.’s treatment. The complaint pointedly identified one specific CPT code that was used on two specific dates, but was allegedly not supported by SOAP notes for either date. At hearing, Dr. Shreeve attempted to expand the factual allegations regarding CPT coding issues by questioning other CPT codes shown on A.M.’s patient ledger. Dr. Shreeve’s criticism was improper, not only because he strayed beyond the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, but also, because the criticism was based on his misunderstanding of what Dr. Aderholdt’s patient ledgers portray. In particular, Dr. Shreeve was critical of CPT code 99212 entries (for focused patient examinations) on A.M.’s patient ledger, without use of modifier code -25. He said that these repeated entries of CPT code 99212 were inappropriate without use of modifier code –25, to indicate they should not be considered for payment, because they are redundant with other CPT treatment codes that include examination. Dr. Shreeve should have reviewed the actual Medicare claim forms to look for the modifier codes, because the CPT code 99212 entries do, in fact, add a modifier of -25. The modifier code conveys information to the third-party payor, as Dr. Shreeve acknowledged, regarding whether or how payment should be made. The modifier codes need to be used, when appropriate, on the Medicare claim forms, and they were used just as Dr. Shreeve said was appropriate. The modifier codes do not appear on Dr. Aderholdt’s patient ledgers because they are not claim forms sent to third- party payors, nor are they bills sent to patients. Instead, a patient ledger, as used in Respondent’s practice, is an internal practice management tool to account for and track everything associated with treating patients: how many examinations, how many adjustments, how many Vax-D treatments, how many ice packs, and so on. Dr. LaRusso explained that this is a perfectly reasonable use of patient ledgers, and is a common practice among physicians. The usage statistics are analyzed for practice management, for such purposes as making changes in the services or treatments and stocking supplies. Dr. Shreeve admitted that he assumed Respondent’s patient ledgers reflected the exact CPT coding used on insurance claims and bills sent to patients. The evidence refuted that assumption. Modifier codes were used on the Medicare claims. And Dr. Shreeve admitted he saw no evidence that Respondent’s patient ledger for A.M. was ever sent to her as a bill, or that any patient ledgers were ever sent to any patients as bills. Dr. Shreeve also admitted that there is no standard for patient ledgers, much less a regulation mandating the contents and use of patient ledgers. As he put it, he could go to 1,000 chiropractic offices and find 1,000 different variations in what is called a patient ledger. Dr. Shreeve would like to see a standard adopted for “patient ledgers,” but his aspiration simply underscores that there is no standard now; Respondent’s practices cannot be judged against or held to conform to a non-standard, non-regulation.11/ In somewhat stream-of-consciousness fashion, untethered from the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Shreeve interjected a number of other comments about Dr. Aderholdt’s practices related to Patient A.M., such as the adequacy and legibility of his medical records and the quality of x-rays. He raised questions about Dr. Aderholdt’s compliance with trust accounting requirements in connection with payments for A.M.’s Vax-D therapy, and Dr. Aderholdt’s compliance with obligations in connection with Petitioner’s investigation. None of these factual matters were alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and none of the corresponding statutory or rule provisions implicated by Dr. Shreeve’s open-ended commentary were charged in the Administrative Complaint. No findings can be made on matters not alleged, and violations not charged, in the Administrative Complaint. Moreover, there is no competent evidence fleshing out any of these matters, because they were not alleged, charged, or identified in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation as issues of fact or law to be litigated. Patient B.O. Between April and June 2013, Respondent treated B.O., then a 78-year-old female, for back and neck pain. B.O. is married to R.O. They both went to Respondent’s office on the same day for their initial consultation. B.O. completed intake forms, had x-rays and patient history taken, and was examined by Respondent, similar to R.O. Whereas R.O. was determined to be a candidate for Vax-D therapy, B.O. was not. Unlike for the Vax-D therapy plan, there was no protocol calling for a certain range of sessions needed and no set payment correlated to a planned number of sessions for B.O.’s recommended treatment plan that called for adjustments, hydrotherapy, and ice packs. At the time of her treatment, B.O. had Medicare coverage and a “Medicare supplement” insurance policy through Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey (Horizon). As was his practice, Respondent had B.O. address the financial aspects of the treatment he recommended with his office staff. Upon review of B.O.’s insurance coverage, B.O. was informed by Respondent’s staff that Horizon would probably cover the cost of her treatment that exceeded her copay. The staff determined that, although it was possible Horizon would apply its lower in-network copay of $15.00 per visit, there was no guarantee that Horizon would not consider Respondent out-of- network, with a copay of $25.00 per visit. Therefore, B.O. was charged $25.00 per visit. She paid that amount per visit, although sometimes she did not pay at all on one or more visits, and would catch up at a subsequent visit. B.O. received treatments on 23 occasions. B.O. experienced some relief from her pain as a result of those treatments.12/ For those 23 visits, B.O. paid a total of $575.00 in copays. After B.O. had stopped going to Dr. Aderholdt for treatment, Horizon determined that its lower in-network copay of $15.00 per visit applied. The total copay amount should have been $345.00 for 23 visits. The difference is $230.00. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “overcharged” B.O., misrepresenting that her copay was the out- of-network charge, to exploit her for financial gain. This allegation was not proven. Respondent made no representation. The representations of his staff, as described by B.O., were not shown to be the product of anything other than a good faith attempt to determine the undeterminable details of insurance coverage. There is no evidence to support the allegation that B.O. was intentionally charged more than she should have been charged, based on the information available at the time. On this point, the expert testimony was in lockstep: figuring out insurance coverage details is a “nightmare.” It is virtually impossible, according to both experts, to obtain sufficient information to make a correct determination for a new patient on such issues as in-network versus out-of-network, because, as they agreed, the insurance coverage details keep changing. “Now, you can be in network today and they can decide you’re out of network tomorrow. And then you can be out of network and then they decide you’re in network, and they don’t tell you.” That’s--that makes no sense.” (Dr. Shreeve, Tr. 131). In fact, when asked how he determines if a patient is out-of-network, Dr. Shreeve responded: “Counselor, I don’t. I leave that to the patient. I run a cash practice. I give them a bill. We’ll help them fill out a health insurance claim form, if they need it. But they pay us when they receive the service.” (Tr. 130). The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent billed Horizon for medical visits by Patient B.O. that did not occur. There is no credible evidence of this allegation; the evidence is to the contrary. Petitioner contends in its PRO that Respondent billed B.O. for treatments received on June 3, 7, 11, and 14, 2013, when B.O.’s appointments were cancelled on those days. The record citations offered by Petitioner fail to support this proposed finding. Instead, B.O.’s bank records directly refute the proposed finding, and corroborate Dr. Aderholdt’s treatment notes and the SOAP notes that detail B.O.’s treatment on those four days.13/ In addition to B.O.’s bank records, B.O.’s patient records include the “merchant copy” receipt for a debit card payment on June 14, 2013. The receipt shows that a $50.00 payment was made at Dr. Aderholdt’s office on June 14, 2013, and it bears the clear signature of B.O. B.O.’s accusation that she did not go to Respondent’s office for treatment on these four days is belied by the documentation that she personally went there and paid the copay charges for her treatments on those four days ($50.00 check on June 7 for two copays; $50.00 debit card payment on June 14 for two copays). Petitioner’s own expert, Dr. Shreeve, conceded that this evidence refutes B.O.’s accusation that her insurer was billed for treatment on four days when she did not go to Respondent’s office for treatment. A separate problem proving this allegation (besides B.O.’s false accusation) is that there is no evidence to prove what was billed to Horizon for B.O.’s treatments. There is no evidence in the record of claims submitted by Respondent’s office to bill Horizon for B.O.’s treatment. In pre-hearing discovery proceedings, shortly before hearing, Petitioner sought to compel production of Medicare claim forms or Horizon claim forms submitted by Respondent’s office. However, Petitioner declined an Order compelling production that was offered along with additional time to pursue this evidence. Instead, Petitioner chose to go forward with the hearing on the basis that there were no such records (as Respondent represented). Another allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that B.O. was not given a copy of her medical records upon request. B.O. testified that she made several verbal requests to two staff persons at Respondent’s office, Lisa14/ and Amanda, for her medical records. She said she was given a copy of her patient ledger, but nothing more. B.O. and R.O. then mailed a letter addressed to Respondent that they jointly wrote on December 31, 2013, requesting their medical records and updated patient ledgers. Respondent said that he was never informed of any verbal requests for records, nor did he believe he ever saw the letter that was mailed to him. Indeed, B.O. handwrote on her file copy of the letter, provided to Petitioner’s investigator: “Letter to Dr. who probably didn’t see – no response to date.” The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent has failed in his obligation to promptly respond to B.O.’s requests for medical records. However, there is no evidence that Respondent was aware of the requests before the investigation and intentionally refused to comply, or that he ever instructed his office staff to ignore such requests. But even though the evidence only establishes that Dr. Aderholdt’s staff failed to promptly respond to requests for medical records, the obligation to ensure these patient requests are promptly addressed remains Dr. Aderholt’s responsibility. It is clear that his office procedures require serious overhauling, as both Dr. Aderholdt and his expert acknowledged. It is unknown if B.O.’s medical records were provided to her when they were produced by Respondent’s counsel during the investigation.15/ In her deposition, when B.O. was asked if she had gotten the records from Respondent’s office yet, she said “not from them.” Among other remedial steps in the aftermath of this proceeding, if B.O. and R.O. do not already have copies of their medical records and updated patient ledgers as they requested long ago, Respondent must provide them. It is concerning that he did not come to this hearing with proof that he had provided B.O. and R.O. with the records they had requested or confirmed that they already had a copy. Lastly, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received payment from Horizon for B.O.’s treatment, but has not provided a refund. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether B.O. is entitled to a refund. The only information regarding the extent to which Horizon covered B.O.’s treatment is the information in the EOBs issued by Horizon after B.O.’s treatment ended, identifying amounts that would be covered and reporting payments to Respondent. For B.O.’s treatments, Horizon paid $1,770.00 to Respondent. What is unknown is whether B.O. owed more for her treatments than what Horizon paid. Dr. LaRusso reasonably opined that the receipt of an insurance payment would not generate an obligation for a patient refund if the payment is applied to a balance due by the patient. No evidence, methodology, or calculation was offered to prove that after Horizon’s payment was applied, a refund was owed to B.O. As noted previously, Respondent’s “patient ledger” is an internal practice management tool that does not function as an accounting of what a patient or insurance company owes. However, the patient ledger for B.O. reflects a total amount of $5,575.00 in services provided to B.O. Application of the Horizon payments of $1,770.00 and B.O.’s payments of $575.00 would reduce the patient ledger amount by less than half. Again, this is not to say that Patient B.O. owes the remaining patient ledger amount, but it is at least a point of reference suggesting the possibility that the Horizon payment did not cover all of B.O.’s treatment costs. Viewed another way, all B.O. paid for 23 treatment sessions was $25.00 per visit. B.O. was informed at the outset that she would not be charged for the full treatments she would be getting, because Horizon would “probably” cover her treatment except for the copay. Although she paid $230.00 more than the amount Horizon ultimately applied as copays, if B.O. owed $230.00 or more for treatment provided that was not covered by Horizon’s payment, then no refund would be due. Patient R.O. As noted previously, Patient R.O. is Patient B.O.’s husband. Like B.O., R.O. was treated by Respondent from April through June 2013. R.O., then a 64-year-old male, sought treatment for severe back pain. R.O. completed the intake form, had x-rays and patient history taken, provided detailed records of recent treatments and surgeries (including back surgery), and was evaluated and examined by Dr. Aderholdt. Dr. Aderholdt determined that R.O. was a candidate for Vax-D therapy. Respondent’s then-office manager, Lisa, took over to address the financial aspects of the recommended treatment. R.O. informed Respondent’s staff that he could not afford to pay $5,500.00 up front. R.O. was given contact information for Care Credit. He called Care Credit, then submitted an application. R.O.’s application was approved, and Care Credit agreed to finance the cost of Vax-D therapy without charging interest if the amount was paid off within one year. R.O. accepted the loan, and the result was that Care Credit paid Respondent $5,500.00 minus a fee absorbed by Respondent, similar to fees by credit card companies charged to merchants for sales using their credit cards. R.O. testified that he has paid off the Care Credit loan. R.O. signed the Vax-D Agreement, by which he committed to 25 to 28 Vax-D therapy sessions at $250.00 per session, for a total payment amount of $5,500.00. His Vax-D Agreement included the treatment package detailed in paragraph 13 above. R.O. testified that during the time of his treatment by Respondent, he had health insurance coverage with Medicare and Horizon (the private Medicare supplement insurance coverage that B.O. also had). He also had Tricare for Life, but said that that coverage would not have been applicable. R.O. recalled that Respondent told him that none of his insurance plans would cover the Vax-D therapy. As previously noted, Respondent does not believe he discussed insurance coverage with R.O., as that is not his standard practice. Regardless, R.O. had no expectation of insurance coverage. R.O. found the Vax-D therapy helpful in relieving his pain. He felt better after every treatment and wanted to continue. Rather than stopping after the 25 to 28 sessions included in the Vax-D Agreement, R.O. had a total of 40 treatment sessions. However, at some point, Respondent’s office manager informed R.O. that he needed to pay for additional sessions. R.O. said he could not afford to pay more, and discontinued treatment. After R.O. discontinued his treatments, he received an EOB from Horizon, stating that Horizon had paid a total of $5,465.84 in claims for both R.O. and B.O. According to the EOB summary, as noted above, $1,770.00 was paid to Respondent for treatments to B.O. The rest--$3,335.84--was paid to two providers for services to R.O. (A minor discrepancy is noted, in that Petitioner’s PRO stated that $3,335.00 was paid to Respondent for treatments to R.O.; however, the EOB reports that $10.84 was paid to a different provider (“Ga Emergency Phys”) for services provided to R.O. Thus, the actual total payment to Respondent for R.O.’s treatment was $3,325.00). The total amount paid to Dr. Aderholdt for R.O.’s 40 Vax-D therapy sessions, including Horizon’s payments, was $8,825.00, an average of $220.63 per session. R.O. believes the insurance payment should be paid to him as reimbursement for part of the $5,500.00 he paid. But that payment was for 25 to 28 sessions. The insurance payment was reasonably applied to the additional amounts due for R.O.’s sessions that were not covered by the $5,500.00 payment. No reason was offered as to why Dr. Aderholdt should not have applied the insurance payment to charges owed for the 12 sessions that were not covered by the Vax-D Agreement. Chiropractic physicians are not required to provide free care. Dr. Shreeve admitted that he does not provide chiropractic care to patients for free. As found above with respect to Patient B.O., R.O. joined B.O. in submitting a written request to Respondent for their medical records and updated patient ledgers by letter dated December 31, 2013, although Respondent said that he did not see the letter that was mailed to him. The findings above with respect to B.O., as one party to the joint written request, apply with equal force to R.O. as the other party to the joint written request. The Administrative Complaint also included an allegation that Respondent failed to practice chiropractic medicine at an acceptable level of skill, care, and treatment, charged as a violation under section 460.413(1)(r). This was the only charge in any of the Administrative Complaints that was based on the care provided by Dr. Aderholdt. The allegation was that adjustments indicated as having been performed on R.O. were physically impossible. However, at hearing, Petitioner’s expert retreated from the allegation, agreeing that the procedure in question was plausible. As a result of his concession, Petitioner’s PRO abandoned the charge, stating, “Petitioner is no longer pursuing discipline for the alleged violation of section 460.413(1)(r).” Pet. PRO at 4. Patient P.D. In March and April 2013, Respondent treated Patient P.D., then a 62-year-old female, for back pain. After completing intake forms and patient history, Patient P.D. was x-rayed, then examined and evaluated by Dr. Aderholdt, who determined that P.D. was a candidate for Vax-D therapy. Dr. Aderholdt turned P.D. over to his then-office manager, Lisa, to address the financial aspects of his recommended treatment plan. P.D. confirmed that Dr. Aderholdt never discussed financial issues or insurance with her. P.D. signed the Vax-D Agreement on March 8, 2013, the same day that she completed a Care Credit application that was approved for $5,500.00. P.D. paid off the Care Credit loan in 11 months, at $500.00 per month, so the loan was interest-free. At the time of the treatments, P.D. was not yet eligible for Medicare. She had insurance coverage through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Blue Cross). P.D. said that Lisa, the office manager, told her that she would file claims with Blue Cross. Thereafter, P.D. had 33 Vax-D therapy sessions. P.D. was pleased with the Vax-D therapy. She found it effective in relieving her pain. P.D. learned at some point from Blue Cross that several months after her treatment ended, Blue Cross paid Respondent for a portion of P.D.’s treatment. No evidence was offered to prove the details of the Blue Cross coverage, such as EOBs explaining what was covered and what was not. P.D. said that she contacted Respondent’s office and spoke with staff multiple times before Respondent provided her reimbursement in the full amount of the Blue Cross payment. Respondent refunded $946.45 on April 8, 2015, and $1,046.45 on April 10, 2015, for a total of $1,992.90. P.D. acknowledged that she has been fully reimbursed and is owed nothing further. The Administrative Complaint includes an allegation that Respondent improperly utilized CPT “billing codes” 99204 and 99212 for P.D.’s first session on March 6, 2013. Dr. Aderholdt admitted that for March 6, 2013, P.D.’s patient ledger incorrectly lists both CPT code 99204 (for a comprehensive examination for a new patient), and CPT code 99212 (for a focused examination for an established patient). The first CPT code should have been the only one entered on this day. The second code was entered by mistake. Although Dr. Aderholdt admitted the error made in the patient ledger, there is no evidence that the erroneous CPT code was “utilized” for billing purposes. No evidence was presented that both CPT codes were submitted by Respondent in a claim for payment to Blue Cross (and Petitioner did not charge Respondent with having submitted a claim to P.D.’s insurer for a service or treatment not provided). No evidence was presented of the actual claims submitted to Blue Cross. No evidence was presented to show that P.D. was ever sent a bill utilizing the referenced CPT codes. The error recording an extra CPT code on P.D.’s patient ledger might throw off Respondent’s internal practice management statistics, but there is no evidence that the admitted CPT coding mistake on the patient ledger was repeated in any claim or bill submitted to anyone. Expert Opinions Considering All Four Cases Both Dr. Shreeve and Dr. LaRusso offered their overall opinions, taking the four cases as a whole. Dr. Shreeve’s Oinions Dr. Shreeve testified that, while he might be more understanding of issues he saw in each individual case, “I’ve got four cases that I reviewed together. I received them all at once. So my view on each individual case might be seen as a little more tolerant of something I saw. But when it becomes repeated, it becomes less understanding [sic].” (Tr. 109). In forming his opinions, Dr. Shreeve relied on allegations that have not been proven, his own extension of the Administrative Complaint allegations to add other concerns about use of CPT codes (which were also shown not to be valid concerns), and his observations about a litany of matters nowhere mentioned or charged in the Administrative Complaints. Dr. Shreeve made clear that he elevated his opinion from concerns about sloppy office practices to fraud, misrepresentation, and patient exploitation, because of matters that were either unproven, not alleged or charged, or both. For example, he injected the concern, shown to be based solely on patient ledgers, that CPT code 99212 appeared many times without the -25 modifier when used in conjunction with an adjustment CPT code. Starting with A.M.’s case, he complained of the repeated use of CPT code 99212 without a -25 modifier, when CPT code 98941 (adjustments) was used for the same office visit. He said, “If we were going to bill 99212, an E/M code with that, we would use a modifier of -25.” (Tr. 110). As previously found, however, Dr. Aderholdt did use the -25 modifier with every entry of CPT code 99212 in the Medicare claim forms. In explaining how his opinion was affected by his misimpression from the patient ledgers that CPT code 99212 was not used with the -25 modifier, he said: This is repeated over and over during the record. If it were one off, it occurred in one place in the ledger or on a form, you know, everybody is human. They can make a mistake. If it is the trend, that becomes not a mistake. That becomes, I’m doing the wrong thing. And if I’m doing it over and over again, and I’m then billing for one service two times, two different ways, and I’m – I hope to get paid for it. Then that’s where I start to see the trend of exploiting the patient for financial gain. (Tr. 111). Dr. Shreeve further elevated the significance of not seeing modifiers with the evaluation codes in the patient ledgers, when he spoke about R.O.’s case: If [Dr. Aderholdt] did both codes [for evaluation and adjustments] every visit, if he did, which is not normal, we would have to have a modifier, the -25, to tell us it’s a reduced service because it’s duplicative. A modifier was never present in any record I saw on this patient or any other patient of the records of Dr. Aderholdt. So misusing the codes. This is not standard of care that we expect, and this appears to me exercising influence on the patient to exploit them for financial gain. That’s what it looks like to me. By the time we’re through with the third case that’s what I see. (Tr. 148). Not only was this CPT coding issue not alleged in any of the four Administrative Complaints, but it is a false accusation. If Dr. Shreeve did not see a single use of CPT code 99212 with the -25 modifier in any record he saw, then he did not look at the records very carefully. As found above, the only evidence of actual claims submitted to any third-party payor--the Medicare claim forms for Patient A.M.--shows that CPT code 99212 was never used without the -25 modifier. But Dr. Shreeve only looked at the patient ledgers for modifiers. As also found above, the only two CPT coding issues that were alleged (improper use on two specified dates of CPT code 98941 for adjusting three or four spinal regions for Patient A.M.; and improper use on Patient P.D.’s first day of service of two patient examination CPT codes for billing purposes) were not proven. Dr. Shreeve also relied on the allegation that Patient B.O.’s insurance carrier was billed for treatment that was not provided. He pointed to “notes” written (by B.O.) on the patient ledger stating that the patient cancelled, but CPT codes were entered for treatments that day. He concluded: That’s blatant. I don’t have a way to explain that away. To me that absolutely says, I billed for something that I didn’t do. That’s fraud. Because that’s with intent. That’s not an accident. (Tr. 137). When Dr. Shreeve was shown the $50.00 debit card receipt signed by Patient B.O. on June 14, 2014, he quickly retreated: “That would indicate that they were there, even though they said they were not. So my apologies for that. It’s good to clear that up.” (Tr. 183). Later, he added that the June 14, 2013, payment of $50.00 was for that visit and the prior visit on June 11, 2013. He explained that this was consistent with Respondent’s daily notes, which identified treatments for each visit and also logged the copay charges by visit and B.O.’s periodic payments. Dr. Shreeve did not explain how he would alter his overall opinion after conceding that what he characterized as blatant fraud by Dr. Aderholdt was actually a false accusation by the patient. In formulating his overall opinion that what otherwise might be viewed as mistakes or sloppy office practice were elevated in his mind to fraud and exploitation, Dr. Shreeve also relied heavily on matters that were neither alleged nor charged in the Administrative Complaints, and, as a result, were not fleshed out with competent evidence in the record. Dr. Shreeve repeatedly alluded to issues regarding trust accounting requirements in statute and rule. The four Administrative Complaints that were issued as directed by the PCP on June 19, 2018 (as noted on the Administrative Complaints), contain no allegations related to trust accounting practices. The PCP-authorized Administrative Complaints do not charge Dr. Aderholdt under the trust accounting statute, section 460.413(1)(y), or the trust accounting rule, Board rule 64B2- 14.001. To the extent Dr. Shreeve’s perception of trust accounting issues contributed to his opinion that these four cases rise to the level of fraud and patient exploitation, that was error, and his opinion must be discounted accordingly. Likewise, Dr. Shreeve gratuitously offered critiques of Dr. Aderholdt’s medical records, including complaints about the handwriting, complaints about x-ray quality, questions about the adequacy of justifications for the course of treatment, and suggestions regarding how he would rewrite SOAP notes. Again, the Administrative Complaints are devoid of allegations directed to the quality or adequacy of Respondent’s medical records, and they are devoid of charges under the medical records provision in section 460.413(1)(m) and the corresponding medical records rule, Board rule 64B2-17.0065. To the extent these critiques contributed to Dr. Shreeve’s opinion that these four cases rise to the level of fraud and patient exploitation, that, too, was error, and his opinion must be discounted accordingly. Dr. Shreeve also relied on what he characterized as Respondent’s failure to respond, or failure to respond quickly enough, to investigative subpoenas. He made it clear that his opinion was greatly influenced by his perception that Respondent intentionally failed to meet his obligations in responding to the investigations: I think this is absolute fraud. The doctor is not wanting to do the right thing, has flagrant disregard for the law, and the statutes and the rules for the profession, for the Department of Health by not responding. (Tr. 153). Despite Dr. Shreeve’s view that he thinks it is “very clear” that Dr. Aderholdt did not respond timely during the investigation, the timeline and details of the investigation were not established by competent evidence; there is only hearsay evidence addressing bits and pieces of that history, with huge gaps and many questions about the reasons for those gaps (if the reasons why investigations were so protracted was relevant). But the details of the investigations are not laid out in the evidentiary record because the Administrative Complaints do not contain factual allegations related to Dr. Aderholdt’s actions or inactions during the investigation process, nor are there any charges predicated on what was or was not done during the investigation process. Either these matters were not presented to the PCP in June 2018 for inclusion in the Administrative Complaints, or they were presented and not included. Either way, Dr. Shreeve’s perception regarding whether Dr. Aderholdt met his legal obligations in responding to the investigations cannot be injected now. It was improper for Dr. Shreeve to consider, and give great weight to, circumstances that were neither alleged nor charged in the PCP-authorized Administrative Complaints. As found above, the proven allegations are that Respondent failed to provide Patient A.M. copies of the claims submitted to Medicare for her treatment (although she may have them now); and Respondent failed to provide copies of the medical records of Patients R.O. and B.O. upon their joint written request (although they may have them now). Only by considering allegations that were not proven and by injecting matters not alleged or charged was Dr. Shreeve able to characterize these four cases as involving the same problems again and again. In terms of the proven allegations, however, the only duplicative finding is with respect to the husband and wife team, in that Respondent did not meet his obligation to promptly respond to their joint request for medical records and updated patient ledgers. The matters considered by Dr. Shreeve beyond the allegations and charges in the Administrative Complaints were also improperly used by Dr. Shreeve to buttress his view that two disciplinary actions against Dr. Aderholdt based on facts arising in 2005 and 2006, raised “the same or similar” issues. Dr. Shreeve’s attempt to draw parallels between the prior actions and these four cases was unpersuasive. Dr. LaRusso disagreed with the characterization of the two prior actions as similar to the issues presented here. Dr. LaRusso’s opinion is credited. A comparison of the allegations, ultimately resolved by stipulated agreement in two 2008 Final Orders, confirms Dr. LaRusso’s view in this regard. The first disciplinary action was based on Respondent’s treatment of one patient in February 2005. An administrative complaint alleged that Respondent failed to complete intake forms, take the patient’s history, and conduct a sufficient examination to support the diagnosis. Respondent was charged with violating section 460.413(1)(m) by not having adequate medical records. The same facts gave rise to a second count of violating section 460.413(1)(ff) (violating any provision of chapters 456 or 460, or any rules adopted pursuant to those chapters), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0065, which elaborates on the requirements for adequate medical records. There is no repetition of these statutory and rule violations charged in any of the four Administrative Complaints at issue here. The prior administrative complaint also alleged that Respondent billed the patient he saw in 2005 for neuromuscular reeducation and therapeutic exercises, when neither Respondent’s notes nor the SOAP notes reflected those services. In these cases, the only allegation regarding discrepancies between billing records and physician/SOAP notes is the allegation as to Patient A.M. that on two dates, Respondent used the CPT code for adjustments to three or four spinal regions, whereas the SOAP notes reflected adjustments to only one region. The prior disciplinary action supports the findings above that Respondent’s notes must also be considered, in addition to the SOAP notes, to determine what services A.M. received on those two days. A different kind of billing discrepancy allegation in Case No. 18-4485 is the claim that Respondent billed B.O.’s insurer for treatment on days on which services were allegedly never provided. This allegation was not proven, as found above. B.O.’s accusation that Respondent falsely charged for treatment on several days when no treatment was provided was itself proven to be a false charge. Perhaps Dr. Shreeve was thinking of this allegation, based on B.O.’s false charge, when he characterized the 2005 incident as involving the same or similar problems that he saw here. The allegation in the prior complaint was that the patient was actually billed for services not provided, and a refunded was ordered. At first, Dr. Shreeve believed the same was true in B.O.’s case. However, he later retreated and acknowledged that B.O. had not been truthful in her accusation. The only other allegation of a billing discrepancy in any of the four cases at issue was not a billing discrepancy at all, but rather, a CPT coding error on P.D.’s patient ledger that was not billed to anyone. As Dr. Shreeve noted, in the prior disciplinary action, Respondent agreed to be put on probation with a requirement that he practice with a monitor. Dr. Shreeve explained that the monitor would have worked with Respondent “to help this doctor not do the same behaviors that got them into trouble.” In his view, these four cases show that Dr. Aderholdt did not learn his lesson from the monitor “not to do the same problems again.” As he put it, “That really flips me rather quickly to think there’s a question of fraud.” (Tr. 152-153). To the contrary, whereas Respondent was faulted for not having intake records, patient histories, and appropriate examinations to support his diagnosis and recommended treatment plan in February 2005, no such issues were raised in these Administrative Complaints. Dr. Aderholdt did learn his lesson. The medical records for the four patients at issue include patient intake forms, patient histories, evaluations, and examinations that were not alleged to be inadequate. Nor was there any repetition of the problem with billing a patient for treatment or services that were not documented in the medical records taken as a whole, including Dr. Aderholt’s notes. The other disciplinary action resolved by settlement in a 2008 Final Order involved an advertising issue. The Department alleged that Respondent improperly advertised as a specialist in Vax-D disc therapy when the Board does not recognize any such specialty. The Department also found fault in the failure of the advertising to disclose the usual fee. The Department also critiqued an advertisement for identifying a different practice location than Respondent’s practice address of record. The charges were under section 460.413(1)(d), (cc), and (ff); rule 64B2-15.001(2)(e) and (i); and rule 64B2-10.0055. Quite plainly, this prior action bears no similarity to the four Administrative Complaints at issue here. No such allegations or charges were raised here. Dr. Shreeve did not contend that this prior action bears any similarity to the four cases here. Dr. Shreeve was never asked for his opinion as to the type or level of discipline he believes is warranted in these cases. However, his “flip” to “fraud,” due to the perceived repetitive nature of the issues in the four cases (whether charged or not)--which he characterized as the “same problems” in 2005 that resulted in discipline--was the basis for Petitioner proposing the most severe penalty available: license revocation, plus substantial fines and assessments of fees and costs. Dr. LaRusso’s Opinions Dr. LaRusso served as a Board member for multiple terms, and is a past-chair. After leaving the Board, he continued to serve on probable cause panels as recently as 2017. Having reviewed and been involved in thousands of disciplinary matters, he was of the strong opinion that nothing in the four Administrative Complaints warrant discipline at the level being sought here. Imposing a severe penalty in these four cases would be out of line with the Board’s prior practice in disciplinary matters. Dr. LaRusso’s studied review of all of the depositions and records in this case led him to opine that there is no evidence that Dr. Aderholdt deceived his patients, committed fraud, or engaged in double-billing or overbilling. Instead, Dr. LaRusso saw evidence of sloppy office practices, which he attributed to Dr. Aderholdt’s poor management skills. He has seen many doctors like Dr. Aderholdt over the years who just want to deal with taking care of patients. They do not want to have anything to do with administrative and clerical responsibilities. Instead, they leave everything besides patient care to their office manager and staff. In Dr. LaRusso’s view, Dr. Aderholdt’s office protocols and procedures require serious fine-tuning. He believes that Dr. Aderholdt would benefit from re-education in billing and collection practices, as well as laws and rules. He needs to ensure that procedures are in place, and followed, for prompt responses to patient requests for medical records or for claims sent to third-party payors. At the same time, however, Dr. LaRusso reasonably characterized the four cases as involving billing, clerical, communication, and correspondence issues. It bears emphasis that Dr. Aderholdt’s patient care is not in question. There are no issues of endangering the public, where a doctor is doing things that will hurt people, doing something dangerous or sexually inappropriate. Those are the cases where it is appropriate to go after someone’s livelihood, when the person does not belong in the profession. Dr. LaRusso observed that, rather than endangering the public, Dr. Aderholdt was helping his patients by relieving their pain, according to their own testimony. Dr. LaRusso agreed to become involved in this case because he found it so incongruous that the Department would be pursuing this action apparently to try to take Dr. Aderholdt’s license. Dr. LaRusso noted that the four investigations against Dr. Aderholdt were originally being spearheaded by a prior prosecutor for the Department (to whom Respondent’s counsel mailed CDs of patient records in 2014), and that the cases were assigned to Dr. Willis, who was a favored expert witness for the Department. Dr. LaRusso alluded to “inappropriate issues” with the prosecutor and expert that led to the Board having to pay a large award of attorneys’ fees and costs for pursuing discipline against Dr. Christian. According to Dr. LaRusso, those issues ultimately led to the prosecutor and expert being discharged from these cases. There is no evidence as to when or why Dr. Willis was replaced with Dr. Shreeve. Dr. Willis apparently was involved long enough to prepare an expert report. But then, according to Dr. LaRusso, the cases went dormant for a long period of time. The bits and pieces of hearsay evidence in the file comport with this understanding: there were four investigations that began upon complaints in 2014 by the four patients about billing and records issues; documents were collected from Respondent and from the patients; and Investigative Reports were issued, all before 2014 was over. It is unknown when Dr. Willis was involved, when he prepared his expert report, or when he was discharged from the cases. It is unknown when Dr. Shreeve was retained, but there was plainly some duplication of work, in that Dr. Shreeve prepared his own expert report. Neither expert report is in evidence. There is no evidence of any additional investigation or follow-up documentation from the patients or otherwise. There is no evidence of what was presented to the PCP--just that the panel met on June 19, 2018, and authorized the four Administrative Complaints issued on June 20, 2018. While this background is a bit of a curiosity, without impermissible speculation, the most that can be said about this history is that the protracted period of time from investigation to the PCP submission that resulted in issuance of the Administrative Complaints is apparently due, at least in large part, to the turnover in the prosecution-expert witness team assignments. Dr. LaRusso did not persuasively demonstrate grounds to cast nefarious aspersions on the Department for continuing forward with its investigation. One might reasonably question whether the Department dropped the ball, so to speak, in not updating its investigation, given the extended period of dormancy. For example, the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 18-4487 incorrectly alleged that P.D. was not reimbursed, when any cursory check with P.D. would have revealed the “news” that she had been repaid in April 2015, more than three years before the Administrative Complaint was authorized by the PCP. Dr. LaRusso may reasonably debate, as he did, whether the charges lodged against Respondent are inappropriate. And Dr. LaRusso may certainly question, as he did in convincing fashion, whether the discipline apparently being sought is unduly harsh, uncalled for, and way out of line with Board practice. But there is no basis in this record for attributing bad motives to the Department for prosecuting the Administrative Complaints. Dr. LaRusso’s opinions regarding the nature of the violations proven and the appropriate discipline in scale with those violations were more persuasive that Dr. Shreeve’s opinions. Dr. LaRusso’s opinions are credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine: In Case No. 18-4484PL: Dismissing Counts I, II, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(aa), as charged in Count III; In Case No. 18-4485PL: Dismissing Counts I, III, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0055(1), as charged in Count II; In Case No. 18-4486PL: Dismissing Counts II, III, and IV; and Finding that Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), through a violation of rule 64B2-17.0055(1), as charged in Count II; In Case No. 18-4487PL, dismissing Counts I and II; Placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years, with conditions deemed appropriate by the Board; Imposing a fine of $3,000.00; Requiring continuing education deemed appropriate by the Board; and Requiring payment of the costs of investigation and prosecution of the charges on which violations were found. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the practice of medicine in this state. Respondent was licensed as a physician in Florida and holds license number ME 0017915. He practices medicine, specializing in psychiatry, in Clearwater, Florida. He is board certified in that specialty. On September 7, 1987, Patient #1, a 55 year old married female, whose husband had recently separated from many years in the armed service of the United States, came to see Respondent at his office, complaining of severe headaches, loneliness, depression, and a lowering of self esteem. She had been referred to him by physicians at the U.S. Coast Guard Station Dispensary. Respondent examined Patient #1 and found her to be of limited intelligence, considerably overweight, anxious, depressed and confused. She was ashamed of her new status in life as a result of her husband's inability to find work and was experiencing difficulties with him and her children. She was suffering from severe insomnia. Respondent's examination of Patient #1 was limited. He was satisfied with the medical work-up which had been conducted by his colleagues at the Dispensary. Because he was consulting psychiatrist for that facility, he knew all the physicians there and was familiar with the caliber of their work. Based on the medical information furnished him from the Dispensary and his own examination, he diagnosed Patient #1 as suffering a major depression and a psychogenic pain disorder manifested by headaches and insomnia. He developed a treatment plan for the patient which included a wide variety of psychotherapy interventions, the first of which was to effect relief of the symptoms. This included clarification of relationships, interpretation of dreams and fantasies, and allowed for catharsis. When Respondent found out that empathy and intervention alone would not work on this patient, and he had established a relationship with her, he started psychotropic medications including Elavil, the drug of choice for this type of condition in 1988. Elavil is a "superb" antidepressant. While the antidepressant factor is "cranking in", the medication also works as a sedative. For this reason, it is normally prescribed for administration at bedtime. Patient #1 responded to this course of treatment and she and the Respondent established a good and friendly working relationship, which he noted in his April 4, 1988 letter and treatment report to the Coast Guard and to CHAMPUS. In that treatment report, however, Respondent noted Patient #1 had a suicidal ideation. The term "suicidal ideation" does not import that the patient was, at that time, seriously considering suicide. Her mentioning suicide was but an overcompensation - more an alerting statement of depression and sadness with emptiness and angst. She never indicated to Respondent any thought of or plan to commit suicide. Patient #1 thrived for many months in Respondent's therapy. She complained often of her impoverished condition, however, and as a result, he wrote prescriptions for her in such a way that they could be filled at the Coast Guard dispensary without charge. This required writing prescriptions for more tablets of a drug at a lower strength which was stocked by the Dispensary. It was a surprise to him to learn, later on, that she was filling her prescriptions at Eckerds. Throughout the period he treated her, Dr. Fireman prescribed psychotropic drugs for Patient #1, which consisted primarily of amitriptyline, (Elavil), and butalbital, (Fiorinal), in varying strengths, and, at times, in compounds with other substances. As was noted previously, Elavil is an antidepressant with sedative effects. The recommended daily dose for a patient in an outpatient setting is indicated as 150 mg by the Physicians' Desk Reference, (PDR), which also recommends suicidal patients not be allowed unrestricted access to it because of the danger of intentional overdose. Other qualified psychiatrists who testified, including Dr. Spreyhe and Dr. El Yousef, indicate up to 300 or even 350 mg/day may be appropriate. As Dr. Spreyhe noted, it is not so much the daily dose on any given day which is pertinent but the aliquot over an extended period. In that regard, he notes, Dr. Fireman's prescriptions for both Elavil and Fiorinal were within recommended maximums and, therefore, within the appropriate standard of care. Fiorinal is a barbiturate anti-anxiety agent and muscle relaxant with habit forming potential. Fiorinal #3 contains codeine, a legend drug and narcotic. Generally, according to Dr. El Yousef, it should be dispensed for use at a rate of between 8 to 12 tablets per day over the short term, but over a 9 month period he would prescribe between 4 and 9 tablets per day. Pharmacy records indicate that over the period he treated patient #1, Respondent gave her numerous prescriptions for both Elavil and Fiorinal which, at first glance, appear to be excessive. For example, the records reflect that on December 29, 1987, Respondent wrote prescription number 390073 for 100 Elavil 25 mg tablets. Though the prescription clearly indicates no refills were authorized, and the back of the prescription form, where refills are noted by the pharmacist, fails to reflect any refills were authorized by the physician, the pharmacy records indicate two additional dispensings by the pharmacy for 100 tablets each on January 11 and April 20, 1988. There is no evidence to indicate how these additional fillings came about; who arranged for them, or who received them. On February 22, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription number 394289 to the patient for 12 Fiorinal #3 tablets. Again the prescription form authorizes no refills and the back of the prescription form indicates but one coordinated refill but the pharmacy records show the prescription was filled twice - once on April 6, 1988 and once on April 23, 1998. Only the latter is annotated. On March 3, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription number 397144 to the patient for 60 Fiorinal tablets. While the doctor's refill note reflects none were allowed, the computer printout sticker for the bottle reflects 2 refills were authorized. The back of the prescription form shows no refills annotated thereon as required, but the pharmacy's computer listing of all prescriptions indicates the prescription was refilled on May 28 and again on June 3, 1988. No further explanation is given. Prescription number 396378, written to the patient by Respondent on March 14, 1988 for 50 Fiorinal tablets, reflects no refills authorized by the physician nor does the reverse of the form bear any refill annotations. Nonetheless, the pharmacy records as shown on the computer printout indicates a refill on March 27 and April 6, 1988 with no explanation therefore. Before the last refill, however, Respondent wrote prescription number 397091 to the patient on March 29, 1988, for 21 Fiorinal #2, later approved for #3's. He also, on April 4, 1988, wrote prescription number 398853 for 35 Fiorinal tablets. Respondent claims he would not authorize a refill of a prior prescription for the same medication for which he is writing a new prescription, and, since neither of the refills of the earlier prescription properly reflect any physician authorization, it is so found. On May 2, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 399717 for 50 Fiorinal tablets, and prescription 399718 for 100 Elavil 25 mg tablets. Both reflect Respondent's instruction that no refill be given, and neither form bears an annotation for authorized phone refills. Yet, the pharmacy's computer printout indicates that the prescription for Elavil was written on May 31, 1988 even though the bottle sticker shows it was filled on May 3, 1988. On August 1, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 405572 for 100 Fiorinal and 475573 for 100 Elavil 100 mg tablets. Both were filled the next day but neither form bears any annotation of authorized refill, consistent with the physician's instructions. On August 16, 1988, Respondent prescribed another 100 Fiorinal by Prescription 406536. It was not refilled. On August 29, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 407201 for 150 Elavil 50 mg tablets to patient #1, and number 407202 for 100 Fiorinal tablets. Both prescription forms clearly reflected no refills, but the back of the forms reflect refills were authorized. The Elavil prescription was refilled on September 10, 1988 by pharmacist Ivan Funkhouser who contends he refilled on the basis either of a call to or from the doctor's office. He cannot recall which. He also, at the same time, refilled the Fiorinal prescription under the same conditions. The Elavil prescription was filled again, this time for 225 tablets, on September 30, 1988, by pharmacist Robert Wivagg who also indicated phone refills made only on the basis of a call to or from the physician's office. In this case, however, he believes that because of the amounts involved, he would have spoken to the physician himself before filling the prescription. He cannot be sure of this, however, and Respondent denies having ever prescribed 225 Elavil tablets, regardless of strength, at one time. Mr. Lewis, the pharmacy expert, indicates that proper pharmacy practice would have allowed the pharmacist to issue fewer tablets than on the prescription but not more without express approval of the physician. The Fiorinal prescription, refilled on September 30, 1988, this time for 150 tablets, is not reflected on the prescription form though it is on the computer printout. Respondent denies that he ever called in prescriptions for Patient #1 because he never had to. She came to his office frequently enough that he was able to provide her with a new prescription for whatever medication she needed. Indeed, his medical office billing records reflect that in June, 1988 he saw her on June 6, 13, 20, and 27; in July, 1988 on July 5, 12, 19, and 26; and in August, 1988, on August 2, 9, 16, and 30. It would appear, therefore, that the refills of prescriptions reflected on the pharmacy computer printout either are in error or were arranged for under some unexplained process not involving Respondent. There appears to be no reason for him having had to authorize refills since he saw the patient so frequently, notwithstanding his comments to Ms. Sutton, during the investigation, that 90 percent of the refill calls are authorized by him personally, and only 10 percent through his secretary. There was no showing that the authorization comment Ms. Sutton recalls was related to this particular patient. Further, according to Ms. Maguire, Respondent's secretary, Respondent frequently refuses to grant refills, and, to her knowledge, he never gives refills to psychiatric patients. Since most, if not all Respondent's patients are psychiatric patients, this does not make sense. Respondent does not deny writing the two prescriptions on August 29, 1988. At that particular time patient #1 was planning a trip to New York to make peace with her dying mother. As a result, and since her headaches had gotten worse, as had her depression, he decided to increase her dosage of Elavil. This was a medical decision which is not in issue here. He admits that Elavil is a drug which is often used to commit suicide and that prescribed at even its lowest strength, a full prescription can be lethal. This became, therefore, an assessment problem wherein Respondent, the physician, had to evaluate the risk of the patient's depression against the benefits to be gained by the use of the drug. Respondent gave patient #1 enough Elavil to hold her through her visit up north. He had previously given her sixty 50 mg tablets to be taken 6 per day for a 300 mg dose at bedtime. He now told her not to use the 50 mg tablets any more and to destroy them. He believed she did. He then gave her a new prescription for one hundred and twenty 25 mg tablets for her trip. He unequivocally states that he never prescribes more than 300 mg/day of Elavil. He admits, however, that while she was on that dosage, he neither hospitalized her nor had blood work done on her. Respondent feels his original treatment plan and diagnosis were sufficient and his records pertaining to those factors were adequate. He uses checkoff forms because he believes they are the most open way of showing how he sees his patient and what he is doing for her. This same conclusion was reached by Dr. Spreyhe, another Board certified psychiatrist who is Clinical Professor of psychiatry at the University of South Florida Medical School, who has served as an expert witness for the Department in the past, and who continues to serve as a contract consultant for it and as a member of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Department. Examination of Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #1 indicates that the medical history and treatment plan are in the form of check sheets on which the physician makes no more than minimally worded entries. The Department's witness, Dr. Greener, an expert in the completeness of medical records, is of the opinion that Respondent's records should have reflected an initial detailed assessment of the patient's condition, including the reasons for her referral to him, a complete medical history, and a subsequent detailed mental status examination. This should be followed by a formulation of her problems and a treatment program. After the initial evaluation, according to Dr. Greener, the physician should make regular progress notes as to treatments, communications with others, phone calls received, prescriptions issued, and matters of that nature. This is done to memorialize the particulars for the patient and to keep a tally of which and how much of any drug is given to the patient. This would show over or under use as a possible flag as to how well the patient follows instructions or if the patient develops a use addiction problem. Based on Dr. Greener's review of Respondent's records for patient #1 and the prescription records relevant to her, he concluded those records were "totally inadequate." This conclusion is based on his opinion that the initial evaluation is cursory and without detail and there are few progress notes in the records. Those which are there are inadequate in detail and full of conclusions without the required supporting information such as drug side-effects, the patient's ability to follow instructions, follow-up, changes in dosages, and the like. He complains that Respondent's records do not really outline a plan of treatment designed specifically for that patient. For example, the forms used by Respondent are merely check-off forms even though, during the period, the patient was receiving continuing analgesic medications. From Respondent's records, it was impossible to determine how the patient was doing on the medications prescribed or whether additional medical evaluation was required. It is important to put this information in patient records to memorialize what is done and not just to keep the information in the treating physician's memory. Respondent denies that his initial evaluation and treatment plan, prepared by the use of form check sheets, is below standard. Dr. Spreyhe concluded the use of such check sheets is not inappropriate for the initial work-up of a patient and he opined that Respondent's forms, and the information thereon provide sufficient information for an independent understanding of the patient's situation and are within an appropriate standard of care. It is so found. However, the medical progress notes which make up the bulk of the remaining medical records are not so complete and, in Dr. Spreyhe's opinion are insufficient. Respondent concurs and admits this. It is so found. As to Respondent's prescribing practices, Dr. Greener is far more conservative than Respondent in prescribing Elavil. He starts with a low dose and gradually works up to a therapeutic level dosage depending upon the patient. He would start an average patient out at 25 mg/day and work up to a maintenance dose of 150 mg/day. Elavil is a dangerous drug and the doctor must closely monitor the patient for possible side effects and the direct effect it is having on the patient. It should never be ordered "prn", (as needed) when that designation relates to the amount to be taken. Based on Respondent's records for this patient, it would appear to Dr. Greener that the medication was being used improperly. There appears to have been no monitoring of the amount of the drug the patient was getting and it would appear that the patient was given the prerogative as to dose, which is not a good thing to do. In his opinion, a dose at 300 mg/day of Elavil is very and unnaturally high and he would not use so high a dose. He would do other tests first to see why the medication was not working at the lower dosage. As was seen before, however, other physicians of equal expertise disagree. Fiorinal is habit forming and, according to Dr. Greener, should be used only over the short term. If needed for a longer period, the patient should be reviewed to see why. The doctor must keep in mind the addictive properties of the drug. Here, Dr. Greener is of the opinion that Respondent prescribed excessive amounts of Fiorinal for patient #1. From January 27, 1988 through March 2, 1988, a period of 34 or 35 days, Respondent prescribed 302 tablets and Dr. Greener would be concerned that the patient was addicted. On March 21, 1988 Respondent prescribed another 50 tablets, and on March 27,1988, he prescribed 50 more followed by another 60 somewhat later and more after that. All of these were being prescribed for a patient whose records reflect she was doing "OK", and was "nicely stabilized". To Dr. Greener, this is just too much, especially for a patient who is obviously addicted and who appears to be taking the medication only to prevent withdrawal symptoms. By his prescription regimen, a patient would get no more than 10 tablets a day for no more than 4 to 5 days, and he would prescribe this drug for 9 months, as here, only with support for it in the patient records, including the opinions of other specialists to whom the patient would have been referred. While it is obvious Dr. Greener is more conservative in his approach to medication than is Respondent, the evidence does not clearly show Respondent's approach fell below standards. Dr. Spreyhe is of the opinion that the levels of Elavil and Fiorinal prescribed by Respondent for this patient were appropriate in both dosage and amounts. He has patients of his own who take such doses and he is not swayed by the PDR recommendations for dosage which, he believes, is too conservative. As for the Fiorinal, he would prescribe no more than 8 per day because there is some information that a patient may develop a tolerance for the substance. In any case, the drug is appropriate for the treatment of psychogenic headaches as were suffered by Respondent's patient here. Both W.L.P. and M.J.S. have been patients of Respondent. Both found him to be concerned and available. When patient #1 died, Ms. Sherman was in a therapy group with her. She did not appear to be suicidal and was looking forward to her proposed trip to New York. Patient #1 died on October 8, 1988. The report of the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner reflected her death as suicide from the combined effects of amitriptyline, (Elavil), butalbital, (Fiorinal), and salicylate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued herein, finding Respondent not guilty of all allegations except those relating to his failure to keep adequate medical records regarding Patient #1 as alleged in Count One, of which he is shown to be guilty, and imposing an administrative reprimand and a requirement for continuing medical education in the area of proper record keeping. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5048 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony but not as a Finding of Fact. 8. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony but not as a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted that the medications were dispensed based on prescriptions written under the patient's name. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a necessary conclusion to be drawn. Accepted. - 23. Accepted as restatements of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein as pertaining to the dosage level of Elavil used and the balance accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 32. Rejected as Findings of Fact, and found to be Conclusions of Law. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted. 15. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. & 18. Accepted. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted. 22. This Proposed Finding of Fact is, in reality, a restatement of the evidence presented, in several subparagraphs, some of which are identified by letter and some of which are not. It is, however, accepted as an accurate restatement of the evidence admitted at hearing on this point, except where it becomes argument. 23. & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. First four sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance considered only as argument in support of the position taken. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. Accepted. 28. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact. 29. - 31. Accepted as basic findings. This does not go to their adequacy, however. 32. & 33. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. & 35. Accepted as the substance of the witness' testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Rothenberg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue An administrative complaint dated November 9, 1990 alleges that Respondent violated Chapter 458, F.S., governing the practice of medicine, by failing to conduct a complete history and medical examination, failing to order an EKG, failing to admit for cardiac observation and failing to keep adequate written medical records of a patient which he treated in a hospital emergency room in Kissimmee, Florida. The issue is whether those violations occurred and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Benjamin P. Delgado, M.D., is now and at all times relevant has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0029222. Dr. Delgado has been licensed in Florida since 1982, and for the last nine years has maintained a private practice of internal medicine in Kissimmee, Osceola County. Dr. Delgado has also provided emergency room services, under contract, at Humana Hospital in Kissimmee. He came on duty at the emergency room on February 23, 1989, at 8:00 p.m. The patient, identified as "Patient #1" in the administrative complaint, checked into the emergency room on February 23, 1989 at approximately 8:19 p.m., accompanied by his wife. Patient #1 was a 56-year old male, approximately 6'1", weighing 181 lbs. He complained of severe upper abdominal pain. After the emergency room clerk recorded the patient's name, address, relevant insurance information and chief complaint, the patient was seen by the emergency room staff nurse, Janet Kusser, R.N. The nurse noted on her chart that the patient had complained of severe pain in his upper abdomen on and off since 3:00 a.m. She recorded his temperature, pulse, respiration rate and blood pressure; she inquired about allergies and any medications he might be on. She also completed an emergency room assessment sheet, which involved circling relevant answers on a questionnaire form addressing a brief medical history, and current physical condition. The patient was ambulatory, had normal respiration, was alert and cooperative, had warm skin with pink extremities. He exhibited tenderness in his upper abdomen, and that is where he said the pain was -- centered beneath his chest. Two attempts to notify the patient's family physician, at 8:25 and 8:55 p.m., were unsuccessful. When the nurse completed her assessment, she introduced Dr. Delgado and gave him the chart. The emergency room was not crowded, although staff was busy. A patient vocally complaining of chest pains was being seen around the same time that patient #1 checked in. Still, Dr. Delgado was able to devote full attention to Patient #1 in his examination. He went through the same questions as the nurse did on the emergency room assessment form and substantially agreed with her findings. He also found the upper abdomen to be tender. The patient clutched his stomach and was doubled over. He was not grasping his arm and he denied having pain in any extremities. The patient denied having prior medical conditions as heart disease, asthma, hypertension or diabetes. Negative findings were not recorded by Dr. Delgado on the chart. For example, he noted tenderness in the epigastrium, but did not note the lack of pain in the extremities. Dr. Delgado considered the complaints to be related to gastritis and ordered a complete blood count, urinalysis, SMA-7 and X-rays of the abdomen. The results of those tests are attached to the emergency room chart for the patient. The total time Dr. Delgado spent with the patient was approximately 30 minutes. Dr. Delgado also inquired of the patient from time to time as to how he felt, as the other emergency room patients being attended were on stretchers nearby. The patient's wife remained in the waiting room and was not interviewed by the nurse or physician. After reviewing the laboratory reports and X-rays, Dr. Delgado diagnosed the problem as gastritis and released the patient with Donnatol for his stomach and suggested he contact his family physician in the morning. The patient checked out around 10:10 p.m. The patient returned home with his wife. He died in bed early in the morning at approximately 2:30 a.m., on February 24, 1989. After an autopsy, the medical examiner, G.V. Ruiz, M.D., determined the immediate cause of death was cardiac arrhythmia due to arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This is also referred to as sudden death due to clogging or hardening of the arteries. In this case the patient had severe occlusion, up to 75% in some areas, in all three main coronary arteries. Based on a reading of the medical record, the pathologist's report and deposition of the pathologist, Petitioner's expert witness, Jay W. Edelberg, a Board-certified emergency room physician, opined that the patient's chart was not adequately documented and that the patient should have been worked up for the possibility of cardiac problems. From ten to twenty percent of people with cardiac problems present symptoms that mimic gastrointestinal complaints. A variety of risk factors needs to be documented to rule out or minimize the risk of a complaint being cardiac- related. Those risk factors include smoking, family history, history of hypertension, blood sugar problems, sedentary lifestyle, overweight, and high cholesterol. Dr. Edelberg was unaware that Dr. Delgado did pursue questions with regard to those risk factors and simply did not note the negative findings. Dr. Delgado did observe that the patient was a smoker -- he had his cigarettes with him -- and did not note that on the record. The other risk factors identified by Dr. Edelberg were essentially negative. Moreover, Dr. Delgado had no substantial clue from his examination that cardiac problems should be suspected: there was no prior history of heart disease, no reported pains in the neck or arms, no observed sweating or shortness of breath. For that reason, the EKG or other cardiac work-up was not ordered. David John Orban, M.D., Medical Director at Shands Teaching Hospital at the University of Florida, Board certified in emergency medicine, testified as an expert witness on behalf of Dr. Delgado. Dr. Orban agreed that the complaints and symptoms of the patient pointed to gastritis rather than heart disease, and that the medical record adequately reflected the basis for the diagnosis. Although brief, the notes focus on the problem at hand. The patient's vital signs were normal. An EKG is not generally indicated for patients who present abdominal pain. The chart is typical of charts found in busy community emergency departments. Reasonable, competent, expert physicians simply disagree on whether Dr. Delgado's treatment and his medical records violate a standard of care. Dr. Edelberg stops short of saying that any 56 year old male who appears in an emergency room with upper abdominal pain should receive a cardiac work-up. On the other hand, Dr. Orban concedes that a reasonable prudent physician does not simply rely on what a patient tells him without further inquiry and observation. Dr. Delgado's conduct falls between those two extremes. He conducted a physical examination and an inquiry into the patient's history and symptoms. He made cursory notes without duplicating the information already obtained by the emergency room staff nurse. He failed to document that the patient was a cigarette smoker, but in other respects documented relevant positive findings, such as tenderness in the epigastrium. The patient's external physical signs, his history, and the complaints he articulated reasonably led Dr. Delgado to conclude that the patient was suffering from gastritis. The patient's age and his smoking habit did not, given his other signs and symptoms, require a cardiac work-up, and Dr. Delgado reasonably did not suspect nor pursue possible cardiac complications. Dr. Delgado's failure to record the fact of cigarette smoking does not alone make his medical records of the patient inadequate. Essential information was noted, albeit briefly, and was consistent with standards for community emergency facilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Benjamin P. Delgado, M.D. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as contrary to the evidence or immaterial. Rejected as immaterial or contrary to the evidence. The questions were asked or the conditions were observed and primarily positive findings were recorded. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 7.-8. Rejected as immaterial. Evidence indicates the examination and tests were sufficient for the symptoms presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. See Joint Exhibit #1, where the test results are found attached. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted by implication in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. 13.-14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 9. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 7. 23.-24. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 3. 4.-5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 12. 9.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted by implication in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Nickell, Sr. Atty. Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert Rao, Esquire 20 S. Rose Avenue Kissimmee, FL 34741 Mark Dabold, Esquire Suite 1550, Firstate Tower 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Dorothy Faircloth, Exec. Director DPR-Board of Medicine 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
