Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and holds license number ME 0043566. Respondent has never been the subject of a previous complaint from the Department of Professional Regulation (now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation). No patient involved in this proceeding incurred injury as a result of any procedure performed by Respondent or as a result of any medical record kept by Respondent, nor did any patient claim injury or make a complaint against Respondent. Respondent derived no financial gain from any act or omission alleged in the administrative complaint. All events pertaining to this proceeding occurred in 1987 or 1988. Prior to February 8, 1988, the effective date of Chapter 88-1, Laws of Florida, Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing 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. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Section 25 of Chapter 88-1, Florida Statutes, became effective February 8, 1988, and amended the pertinent provisions of Section 458.311(1), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered, and reports of consultations and hospitalizations. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that a physician be incompetent to practice medicine in order to be disciplined pursuant to this paragraph. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner had adopted no rules pertaining to the keeping of records by a licensed physician. Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point) is a hospital located in Broward County, Florida. Unless otherwise indicated, all hospital records referred to in this matter are from Imperial Point. PATIENT #1 (C.S.) On August 8, 1988, Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #1, a male, who was 44 years old at the time of the procedure. This procedure was performed at Imperial Point on an outpatient basis. An upper endoscopy is the viewing of the mouth, the pharynx, the esophagus, the stomach and portions of the duodenum with a fiber optic instrument that allows direct visualization of the lining of these structures and allows therapeutic maneuvers. The records kept of this procedure performed on Patient #1 on August 8, 1988, include an outpatient hospital record entitled "Operative Report". The description of the procedure portion of this report includes the following: ". . . The gastric portion was infiltrated with 1:1,000 adrenaline . . ." Adrenaline, also known as epinephrine, is a vasoconstrictor that can be used to control minor bleeding and oozing. It is used regularly in gastroenterology to treat actively bleeding lesions or ulcers with evidence of recent bleeding prior to performing a more permanent type of hemostasis. Dr. Goldberg testified that epinephrine was usually injected into these areas by a needle. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that epinephrine should not be used in cases of trivial bleeding or oozing or after routine biopsies unless there is an imminent danger of a significant arterial bleed. The testimony of Dr. Cerda and Dr. Singh established that spraying epinephrine over an area that is subject to bleeding is a precautionary technique some gastroenterologists follow. Dr. Singh and Dr. Cerda have both either used this technique, or have observed its use by other physicians. The expert witnesses agreed that the injection by needle of epinephrine into the gastric wall would be a procedure that falls below an established standard of care. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to how the term "infiltrated" should be interpreted. Petitioner contends that the term "infiltrated" is synonymous with the term "injected", and that the medical records should be construed to mean that Respondent injected the gastric wall with a needle, and therefore practiced below the standard of care. This contention is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Respondent asserts that the medical record should be construed to mean that Respondent sprayed the gastric wall as a precautionary measure. This contention is consistent with the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent. This dispute is resolved by finding that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and does not prove that Respondent injected Patient #1's gastric wall with a needle. This conclusion is based, in part, on the definition of the term "infiltrate" and on the context in which epinephrine is sometimes administered by gastroenterologists during this type procedure. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the term "infiltrate" means to pass a liquid or a gas into something through its interstices or to permeate with a liquid or gas passed through interstices. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Twenty Sixth Edition (Dorland) has a similar definition of the term "infiltrate". According to Dorland, an "interstice" is small interval, space, or gap in a tissue or structure. According to Dorland, the term permeate means to penetrate or pass through, as through a filter. Also according to Dorland, the term inject means the act of forcing a liquid into a part, as into the subcutaneous, the vascular tree, or an organ. Based on these definitions, it is found that the use of the term "infiltrate" is more consistent with the practice of spraying epinephrine onto the gastric wall, and that the use of the term "infiltrate" does not prove that Respondent injected the epinephrine into the gastric wall with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #1 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. A pathology report dated August 8, 1988 contained in the medical file provided a pathological diagnosis as follows: "esophageal brushings: no evidence of malignancy." Brushings are the result of passing a small brush through the biopsy channel of an endoscope, rubbing it over an area of concern that might have either a malignancy or a fungal infection, taking the brush out of the scope, wiping it on a microscopic slide, and sending the slide to the pathologist for cytological examination. The reference to the "esophageal brushings" in the pathology report was error. The brushings taken from Patient #1 during the procedure on August 8, 1988, came from the stomach, a fact obvious to all of the expert witnesses in light of the operative report and operative drawing made by Respondent. Because Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent took esophageal brushings from Patient #1, its charge that he failed to properly document his reasons for doing so must also fail. 1/ Petitioner proved that Respondent's medical records, including his office notes as to Patient #1 failed to contain an adequate medical history for Patient #1 and failed to reflect the findings of any physical examination of Patient #1 by Respondent. Petitioner further proved that such failures fall below an established standard of care as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. PATIENT #2 (R.B.) Patient #2 was a 70 year old male seen by Respondent for a consultation because of the patient's history of hematemesis, which is the vomiting of blood. Respondent prepared a formal consultation note dated September 25, 1988. The consultation note contains a description of the patient's condition, references a rectal exam, which was positive for blood, and indicates that a physical examination of the patient was made. Respondent again saw the patient on September 27, 1988 and performed an upper endoscopy. Dr. Goldberg was critical of the medical records kept by Respondent as to this procedure and was of the opinion that the medical records were inadequate. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedure. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records pertaining to this patient were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. The records kept of this procedure reflect that Respondent "infiltrated" Patient #2 with epinephrine. This is the identical dispute over the meaning of the term "infiltrated" that pertained to Patient #1 as discussed above. For the reasons given in resolving the dispute as it pertains to Patient #1, it is found that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and that the use of the term does not prove that Respondent administered the epinephrine by injecting Patient #2 with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #2 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. PATIENT #3 (B.B.) Patient #3, a 65 year old female was admitted to Imperial Point with chest pains by her physician, a Dr. Fanfan. Patient #3 had a history of cancer which included the prior surgical removal of a tumor. On October 3, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy of Patient #3. A colonoscopy is an examination of the colon from the anus to the ileocecal valve using a fiber optic instrument. A colonoscopy is indicated to evaluate abnormal X-rays, changes in bowel habits, evidence of bleeding, suspicions of inflammation, tumors, or polyps. Respondent adequately performed the procedure on Patient #3. The colonoscopy detected that Patient #3 had polyps. Subsequent laboratory results established that these were hyperplastic polyps that required no follow-up. Had the polyp been an adenomatous polyp, which is a true neoplasm with malignant potential, a follow-up for recolonoscopy would have been appropriate in one year. Prior to receiving the pathology reports, on the polyp, Respondent recommended a six month follow-up for the patient. This follow-up recommendation was appropriate at the time it was made. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that a follow-up be performed was below an established standard of care. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that the follow-up for this patient with a history of cancer be in six months as opposed to one year fell below an established standard of care. The barium enema for this patient was originally scheduled by the attending physician, Dr. Fanfan. Dr. Fanfan clearly wrote a note on the same day following Respondent's report of the colonoscopy that the barium enema was pending, yet the attending physician did not cancel the barium enema. There is no disagreement among the experts that the barium enema was unnecessary in light of the findings of the colonoscopy. It is medically unnecessary and inappropriate for both tests to be performed on the same day. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent was responsible for the patient once he began his consultation and that Respondent should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Cerda, Dr. Eberly and Dr. Singh were of the opinion that the attending physician was responsible for scheduling the barium enema and that the attending physician or the radiologist should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Eberly testified that as the primary care physician, the admitting physician is the "captain of the ship" and has the responsibility to make final determinations with respect to tests of this nature. Because of the conflicting testimony from equally credible expert witnesses, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care by not cancelling Patient #3's enema. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #3 were inadequate. He had several criticisms of the records. Dr. Goldberg opined that there should have been a formal consultation note on Patient #3's chart that included past history, present illness, review of systems, allergies, pertinent laboratories, a thorough organ specific or system examination, an impression, an adequate discussion of the consultant's impression and the consultant's plans. He opined that the indications for Patient #3's procedure were inadequately dictated on the procedure notes and that Respondent's history pertaining to Patient #3 was inadequate because there was no pertinent review of systems or past history, no mention of the previous tumor, no mention of allergies, and an extremely scant examination. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of this patient's medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #4 (E.K.) On October 4, 1988, Patient #4, a 92 year-old female, was admitted to the hospital with an acute onset of vomiting, dehydration, and abdominal pain. Respondent was asked by Patient #4's attending physician to evaluate Patient #4 for a potential small bowel obstruction following an X-ray that was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #4 on October 7, 1988. An obstruction of the intestines is a blockage in the large or small intestine. The bowel behind the blockage may become inflated with fluid or air and may be seen on X-ray. The obstruction may result from a variety of abnormalities. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the upper endoscopy was contra- indicated and potentially dangerous to the patient because of the X-ray indicating a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that an upper endoscopy should be used only under compelling circumstances if there is a partial bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did the right tests on Patient #4, but in the wrong order since he did not first rule out an obstruction. Prior to performing the upper endoscopy Respondent monitored the patient for several days. During that time period, examinations indicated that the patient was having bowel movements. Both the attending physician's notes, Respondent's notes, and the nurse's notes indicate positive bowel signs on October 5 and 6, indicating that there was not a complete bowel obstruction. Respondent ordered a Golytely preparation administered to the patient, which usually consists of one or two liters of non-absorbable solution that basically washes the bowel out. That preparation would have been improper with a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the use of a Golytely prep in this patient was a gross judgment error. Dr. Singh was of the opinion that there was no contra-indication for using the preparation in this situation. Petitioner failed to prove that Patient #4 had a complete bowel obstruction or that the procedure, including the use of the Golytely preparation, violated an established standard of care. It is found that Respondent was acting within the scope of his discretion as the consulting physician to order the administration of the Golytely preparation and to perform the upper endoscopy. On October 11, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #4. Respondent stated on the operative report that the colonoscopy was indicated because of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis was not mentioned in any of Respondent's notes concerning Patient #4, and there was no notation as to the reasons Respondent thought the patient had diverticulitis. Although Respondent failed to document why he felt that diverticulitis was an appropriate indication for the colonoscope, there is no dispute that a colonoscope was, in fact, indicated. Further, the colonoscope established that the pretest diagnosis of possible diverticulitis was not incorrect. The colonoscopy revealed areas of colitis, and the pathology report noted an ulcer with acute and chronic inflammation. Respondent's experts testified that they were of the opinion that Respondent violated no established standard by listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscopy. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent practiced below an established level in listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscope. During the colonoscopy, Respondent found several mildly bleeding areas and infiltrated Patient #4 with epinephrine. For the reasons discussed pertaining to Patient #4, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care in administering epinephrine to Patient #4. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation report was inadequate. Dr. Goldberg bases his conclusion on the following observations. The report was difficult to read and failed to include any significant historical events concerning Patient #4. In his consultation report, the Respondent failed to note anything about having done a rectal examination on this patient, whether or not the abdomen was distended, and whether there were active or inactive bowel sounds. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that these findings would help to distinguish between an obstruction and an ileus or paralysis of the bowel. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that the patient's records of the upper endoscopy performed October 7, 1998, fail to reveal any significant findings. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #5 (J.T.) Patient #5, an 89 year-old male, was admitted to Imperial Point with a history of peptic ulcer disease and arthritis. This patient was seen by Respondent on a consulting basis. The patient was vomiting blood and Respondent was asked to see the patient to determine the source of the bleeding. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on October 13, 1988, and found a significant outlet obstruction. On October 17, 1988, a G.I. series was performed and a repeat upper endoscopy and pyloric dilatation was performed. The procedures performed by Respondent were properly indicated and had a beneficial result to the patient. Back-to-back pyloric dilatations were appropriate and clinical judgment was properly exercised. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the upper endoscopy of October 13, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report failed to document Respondent's findings in detail. Dr. Goldberg testified that an essential endoscopy report that physicians are trained to do should include the following: indications for the procedure, medication used to sedate the patient, identification of instrument used, description of the anatomical landmarks and their condition as visualized by the physician passing the endoscope, the removal of the scope, the physician's impressions and what the physician plans to do about those impressions, how the patient tolerated the procedure and what the patient's condition was after the procedure, and that the patient was sent to the recovery area. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the procedures performed on this patient on October 17, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report did not document Respondent's findings in detail and did not indicate if the scope was passed through Patient #5's dilated pylorus into the duodenum. In Respondent's impressions on the second endoscopy, he noted pyloric stenosis and duodenal ulcer. In his procedure note Respondent does not mention whether he passed the scope into the duodenum or how he knew there was a duodenal ulcer. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did not properly document what he did. On October 18, 1988, Respondent performed a repeat pyloric dilation on Patient #5. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to record the reasons for the second procedure and to document his findings. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the third endoscopy note did not adequately detail the examinations of the esophagus and stomach. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that every procedure note stands alone, and that if a physician does an endoscopy on day one and repeats it on day two, the physician still must make that report complete because it is not always going to be part of a document. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's records did not stand alone. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation note was sketchy and should have contained a history of allergies because of the need to give the patient medications for sedation. Dr. Goldberg's criticisms of Respondent's medical records do not prove that the medical records kept by Respondent were inadequate as measured by an established standard. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedures and that the records were adequate. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #6 (D.Y.) From October 19, 1988, until October 22, 1988, Respondent was consulting physician to Patient #6, a 72 year-old male, who was admitted to Imperial Point with rectal bleeding. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to Patient #6 because a formal consultation note was lacking. The medical records which were reviewed by Dr. Goldberg were incomplete when reviewed by him. A specific reference is made to a consultation note that is not contained in the hospital records. Respondent established that other medical records were missing from the hospital records. In light of the specific reference to the consultation note, it is found that the absence of this consultation note from the hospital records is insufficient to prove that there existed no consultation note. On October 20, 1988, Respondent performed an colonoscopy on this patient and a biopsy was taken in the segmental descending colon area. The colonoscopy could not be completed because the colonoscopy could not pass to the patient's cecum. The following recommendation was made by Respondent (the original is in all capital letters): IN VIEW OF NOT REACHING TO THE CECUM, THE PATIENT WOULD NEED BE (this is an abbreviation for barium enema) AND ALSO IF EVERYTHING IS NEGATIVE, RECOLONOSCOPY IN ONE YEAR AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IN THE BIOPSY OF THE POLYP, THEN ACCORDINGLY WILL PLAN. On October 21, 1988, the follow-up barium enema was performed by Dr. Nicholas M. Arfaras, a radiologist. The radiology report reflected the following finding: "Also in the sigmoid there is an approximately 1 cm. rounded filling defect identified near the junction with the descending colon. This is felt to be secondary to a polyp." The possible polyp detected by the barium enema should have been followed up. However, it was not established that Respondent was consulted by the attending physician about the results of the barium enema. Dr. Lipton, as the attending physician, would have had the responsibility for following up the recommendations made by Respondent and for bringing Respondent or another gastroenterologist in for further consultations following the barium enema if Dr. Lipton had believed it necessary to do so. This patient was discharged from Imperial Point by Dr. Lipton on October 22, 1988. The final page of the discharge summary for this patient reflected the following notation: "Condition was improved. The patient is to have a follow up in one week in the office with Dr. Lipton and with Dr. Gupta in two weeks." The evidence presented in this proceeding, including Respondent's office notes, does not reflect that Respondent had any involvement with this patient after October 21, 1988, until 1990, when he performed on the patient at North Broward Medical Center a procedure described as a "multiple colonoscopy with multiple biopsies and cauterization." This procedure in 1990 revealed multiple polyps. The polyp removed on colonoscopy in 1988 was an adenomatous polyp, a polyp with significant malignant potential. This patient needed a follow-up colonoscopy in one year. Respondent was the consulting physician and recommended reevaluation of the patient in one year. Follow-up care was not the responsibility of Respondent, but of the treating physician. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records in that Respondent failed to adequately document the indications for the colonoscopy performed on Patient #6 and why the colonoscope could not be passed to Patient #6's cecum. Dr. Goldberg opined that a physician doing a colonoscopy needs to tell why he did not get to the cecum so that the next physician colonoscoping this patient can take appropriate precautions. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #7 (C.R.) Respondent was a consulting physician to Patient #7, a 64 year old male who was hospitalized with rectal bleeding. Respondent saw this patient because of a possible colonic fistula, which is a connection with any piece of the intestine and some other structure. Respondent recommended a barium small bowel X-ray and a barium enema, both appropriate clinical recommendations. On November 11, 1987, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #7. Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the aforementioned procedure in that Respondent failed to document an adequate history as an indication of Patient #7's colonoscopy. This contention is rejected based on the testimony of Dr. Singh. The medical records provide adequate justification for the procedure. Dr. Goldberg was critical of Respondent's records pertaining to this patient and considered the records inadequate. He was of the opinion that the records should have better detailed his findings and should have recorded any follow-up plans for a repeat colonoscopy on the patient. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide a history or physical examination for Patient #1 as alleged in Count Two, which reprimands Respondent for that violation, and which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 against the Respondent for that violation. It is further recommended that all other charges against Respondent contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Moheb Ishad Girgis El-Far was licensed as a physician in Florida under license number ME 0026895, and the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing and monitoring of physicians in this state. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent practiced medicine with a specialty in obstetrics at his clinic located a 401 East Olympic Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida. Patient 2, C.L., first went to see Respondent at his office in Punta Gorda in January, 1989 because she was pregnant and had heard he was delivering babies in his office. She was referred to the Respondent by the Sarasota Health Department when she indicated she wanted to have her child in a birthing center. During that first visit, the doctor and patient agreed on a treatment plan which would culminate with the baby's being delivered in his office and C.L. paid for this pursuant to their agreement. During the period of the patient's prenatal care with the Respondent, he told her her baby was due on August 30, 1987, and when labor began, she was to come to his office and bring her own sheets. On August 24, 1987, C.L. began her labor and went to Respondent's office as agreed. By the time she got there, she was about ready to deliver and a few minutes after her arrival, she did so in a birthing room with her husband present. At the time of the delivery, both Respondent's wife and Ms. L.'s boss, neither of whom played any part in the proceedings, were standing in the doorway to the birthing room. No nurse was present and C.L. cannot recall seeing any sterilization or resuscitation equipment in the room. C.L. experienced little pain during the delivery, which appeared to go smoothly. Afterwards however, Respondent told her she had sustained an inverted uterus and when Respondent attempted to remove the afterbirth, she started to hemorrhage. When this happened, Respondent gave her a shot and towels with which she was to try to stem the bleeding while he tried to correct the uterine problem. He was unsuccessful and thereafter called the paramedics who came to his office and took C.L. to St. Joseph's Hospital in Punta Gorda for treatment. Respondent did not treat her at the hospital because he had no hospital privileges. While there she required 6 units of blood and 2 units of plasma. At no time during the course of her prenatal care did Respondent advise her to go to the hospital. She fully recovered. C.L. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by Department investigators at some time subsequent to her delivery. With the exception of the fetal monitor which she had seen in his office, the pictures she saw bore little similarity to the condition of the office whenever she was there. Though the office was not as messy as the pictures show, she was, nonetheless concerned about its condition at the time of her delivery. The carpet was dirty and so was the aquarium. She could not do anything about it at that time, however, and it was not so bad as to cause her to feel unsafe. S.K., Patient 1, first went to the Respondent for her pregnancy care in November, 1987 on a referral from a friend. They agreed on a fee of $1600.00 for prenatal care and delivery in his office. During these initial discussions, Respondent did not discuss in detail with the patient the possibility of complications. He stated only that if there were complications, they could probably be treated in the office. S.K. went to Respondent's office about 6 times after that initial visit. During this period, on an early visit, Respondent gave her some medicine samples and a prescription for vitamins. When she asked about the cost, he said he would include the cost of the samples when he billed her insurance company. During these visits, she also saw his personal office, an examining room, and a small room where the patient's blood pressure was taken. She noted that the office was not as clean and orderly as others she had seen, and in fact, was usually in a state of disarray. On one occasion when Respondent examined her, he was wearing a wrinkled shirt with a blood spot on it. The next time she went for a visit, Respondent was wearing the same shirt. S.K. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by investigators and several were similar to conditions she observed there. His personal office was not well organized and there was clutter about but not as aggravated as appears in the photos. Based on her experience with other doctors, Respondent's office was far more untidy and in disarray but not necessarily nonsterile or unsafe. On February 5, 1988, S.K. went to Respondent's office because she was having pains and thought she was in labor. When she called him and explained her symptoms, he told her to come in and he examined her when she did. He gave her something to calm her and to try to stop her labor in an attempt to save her baby. He gave her a shot of demerol and put her in an examining room to lie down. She slept there for quite a while with her husband present. When she awoke she again began to have pains but Respondent would not give her any more medicine. After a while, the baby spontaneously delivered while Respondent was sleeping in another room. He was called but by the time he came in, the baby was dead. He asked S.K. if she wanted to see the fetus but she declined. After a period of recovery, she was released to return home. When this patient came into the office that day and it appeared she was going to deliver, her husband asked Respondent if he thought she should be in the hospital. Respondent replied that it was up to her because the baby, if delivered, was too premature to survive. The decision not to go to the hospital was hers. Respondent did not try to dissuade her from going. In fact, in most ways she considered Respondent's treatment of her to have been satisfactory. During the period she was in his office Respondent was in and out of the room checking on her. The only complaint she has relates to his handling of the fetus she delivered. About 2 weeks after delivery she again went to see Respondent at his office where he showed her her baby which he had preserved in a jar of formaldehyde. This was a strange and sad experience for her. Mr. K. basically confirms that testified to by his wife. While she was in labor or sleeping prior to the delivery, he wandered about the building into other parts of the clinic. He also rested in one of the examining or birthing rooms and observed the general state of cleanliness of the facility was poor. For example, the floor and rugs were spotted throughout with a dark stain and the examining table also had a dark stain on it. These stains looked to him like blood. In addition, the hallway carpets were dirty, there were bags off debris laying out, spare pieces of wood were stacked in the halls, and medical instruments were left out in the birthing and examining rooms. In his opinion, many of the pictures shown to him displayed scenes similar to what he saw when he was there with his wife. Both Dr. Borris and Dr. Marley agreed that Respondent's treatment of Ms. K. had no relationship to her miscarriage. By the same token, neither claims that his treatment of Ms. L.'s inverted uterus was inappropriate. Both agree, however, that other factors in Dr. El Far's operation of his practice as regards both patients failed to conform to generally accepted standards of care in providing obstetrical services. Specifically, he failed to have a nurse present during the delivery; he failed to have emergency equipment in the form of resuscitative and lifesaving equipment available to handle potential surgical complications which might have arisen; he had no emergency backup care available; and he had no hospital privileges in Punta Gorda, the area in which he was engaged in an obstetrical practice. Without those privileges, it was not prudent for him to undertake a delivery in the office. While the prenatal care of patient 1 was within standards, the balance of Respondent's practice was below standards because: the patient was not monitored while in the office; if the conditions as appearing in the pictures existed at the time he was seeing patients, he did not meet sanitation standards because of the general disarray.; he attempted a delivery in his office when a hospital was only 1.5 miles away, (not prudent in light of the patient's condition when there was no emergency to justify it); and his records were not complete. The standard of a reasonably prudent physician is the same regardless of the locality. Acceding to the wishes of a patient, when to do so is not in the patient's best interests, is not necessarily acceptable medical care. Mr. Cook, the Department's investigator, inspected Respondent's office on September 16, 1988, in the company of investigator Clyne, as a result of a call he received from an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who was then on the premises. When they arrived, they observed a female sitting on the couch in the waiting room changing a baby's diaper. From conversation he had with Respondent at the time, Mr. Cook inferred the lady was a patient. In addition to the previously mentioned lady and the state investigative personnel, Cook also noticed two children, who Respondent indicated were his, running freely about throughout the building. Cook examined the patient log maintained by Respondent for that day and noted that two patients were scheduled. Nonetheless, while he was there, there were no nurses, receptionists or office staff present. Though Respondent claims he did not have any patients that day, and though Cook did not see any other than the lady aforementioned, from the patient log and the fact that at least one patient was there, it is found that Respondent was engaged in at least a minimum practice and was available to see patients. Mr. Cook observed conditions in Respondent's office on the day in question that were inconsistent with a proper medical practice. Trash was not contained, food was left open, and dust and dirt were in evidence, all in the area where medical services were or would be rendered. Mr. Cook took photos and a video tape of the condition of Respondent's office. The photos were those shown to the two patients who testified herein and to Mr. K. Though he looked throughout the office, Mr. Cook could find no sterilization equipment, no general anesthesia equipment, no blood transfusion equipment, and no emergency resuscitation equipment. When asked about his sterilization capability, Respondent stated his "heater" was broken and in for repairs. When during a visit to Respondent in October, 1988, Ms. Clyne told him he needed sterilizer equipment, he indicated it had recently been purchased. On that visit, Respondent had a patient in the office. Ms. Clyne again went to Respondent's office on February 15, 1989 and observed it to be still in a state of disarray. Ms. Hampton, another Department investigator, visited with Respondent in his office on January 11, 1989 and found it to be unsatisfactory. The waiting area was cluttered, the carpet was dirty, the walls stained, and magazines were laying around. The clinic area was piled up with mail leaving no counter space. Respondent took Ms. Hampton on a tour through the office during which she observed the computer, patient records, and the typewriter to be unclean. Her examination of the halls, examining rooms, birthing rooms, and the like revealed that in one room, a sink had an unclean speculum in it and others were lying about. The paper on one examining table was soiled and when Respondent saw that, he quickly tore it off. The spread in one of the birthing rooms was soiled and the floor needed sweeping. Trash cans were not lined and needed cleaning. The covering on the baby examining table was soiled and there were bloody cotton balls on a table in the room. She, too, saw no evidence of any sterilization, anesthesia, or emergency resuscitation equipment. On this visit, Respondent indicated he was not seeing any new patients; only those former patients who were still pregnant. Respondent indicates that during the period from July 4 through September 16, 1988 he had closed up his office for an extensive vacation and was living in his office on that latter date. He does not deny that his office was in the condition as depicted in the photos when they were made but contends he has since cleaned it up and put new carpet down. During the period his office was closed, he referred his patients to other doctors and has not been actively practicing while waiting for his malpractice insurance to come through. Respondent also does not deny that the Certificate of Education form he signed and submitted to the Board was in error. He contends, however, that at the time he signed it he believed it to be a certificate of regular continuing education hours, not a certification used for approval for dispensing drugs. He also claims that at no time did he intend to defraud the Board, and when Ms. Clyne brought the error to his attention, he wrote to the Board explaining what had happened. He contends that when he affirmed the statement that he had the appropriate hours, he considered the "a" in "affirm" to be a negative prefix indicating he did not have the required hours. This contention is both ingenuous and unbelievable. It is found that Respondent well knew the meaning and effect of the certification he signed and his affixing his signature thereto was both false and with intent to mislead.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida be suspended for two years and that he thereafter be placed on probation for an additional period of three years under such terms and conditions as are imposed by the Board of Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of October, 1989, 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 30th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1507 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1.- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected in so far as it editorializes on the condition of the clinic. While below standard, there was no evidence of health hazard to patients. 6.-8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted. For the Respondent: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of expert testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as it finds that Respondent's performance of medical procedures was within standard. Rejected as to the finding that overall care and practice was within standards. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David K. Oaks, Esquire The Professional Center 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 205, Box 3288 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine DPRB 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, committed medical malpractice in delivering a baby and/or failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of the mother's treatment; if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's medical license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Mark N. Scheinberg, M.D., was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida. He is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Dr. Scheinberg. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Scheinberg committed two such offenses——namely, medical malpractice and failure to keep records justifying the course of treatment——in connection with the vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery of an infant born to Patient L.G. on February 2, 2005, at West Boca Medical Center. The crux of this case (though not the sole issue) is whether, as the Department contends, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg to perform a Caesarean section ("C- section") on L.G. due to the passage of time, instead of allowing her to continue to labor for approximately 13 hours and, ultimately, deliver vaginally. The events giving rise to this dispute began on February 1, 2005, at around 11:00 a.m., when L.G., whose pregnancy was at term, checked into the hospital after having experienced ruptured membranes. At 12:30 p.m. that day, L.G. signed a form bearing the title "Authorization for Medical and/or Surgical Treatment," which manifested her consent to a vaginal delivery or C-section together with, among other things, "such additional operations or procedures as [her physicians might] deem necessary." Immediately above L.G.'s signature on the form is an affirmation: "The above procedures, with their attendant risks, benefits and possible complications and alternatives, have been explained to me " The evidence is not clear as to when, exactly, Dr. Scheinberg first saw L.G., but that fact is unimportant. The medical records reflect that at 8:30 p.m. on February 1, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg gave a telephone order to initiate an IV push of the antibiotic Ampicillin; therefore, he had taken charge of L.G.'s care by that time. The nurses' notes indicate that at 10:00 p.m., L.G.'s cervix had dilated to "rim" or approximately nine centimeters—— meaning that the dilation was complete, or nearly so. At this time, and throughout the duration of L.G.'s labor, an external fetal heart monitor was in place to detect and record the baby's heartbeats and the mother's uterine contractions. An intrauterine pressure catheter ("IUPC")——a device that precisely measures the force of uterine contractions——was not inserted into L.G.'s uterus at any time during this event. The Department argues (although it did not allege in the Complaint) that, at some point during L.G.'s labor, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg either to place an IUPC or perform a C-section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 10, ¶36. The Department's expert witness, Dr. John Busowski, testified unequivocally and unconditionally, however, that the standard of care does not require the use of an IUPC. T. 36. The undersigned credits this evidence and finds that Dr. Scheinberg's nonuse of an IUPC did not breach the standard of care. Dr. Scheinberg conducted a physical at around 2:00 a.m. on February 2, 2005, which included taking L.G.'s complete history and performing a vaginal examination. L.G.'s cervix remained dilated to approximately nine centimeters, and her labor had not substantially progressed for about four hours. Dr. Scheinberg noted in L.G.'s chart that the baby was in the posterior position at 2:00 a.m. The Department argues, based on Dr. Busowski's testimony, that as of 2:00 a.m., the standard of care required [Dr. Scheinberg to] choose one of the following options: (1) watch the patient for a few more hours to allow for progress; (2) place an IUPC to determine the adequacy of Patient L.G.'s contractions; (3) start Pitocin without the placement of an IUPC; or (4) perform a C- section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 9-10, ¶ 32. The Department contends that Dr. Scheinberg breached the standard of care by choosing "simply to watch the patient for approximately 10 more hours"—— which was tantamount to "choosing to do nothing." Id. at 10, ¶¶ 33-34. In fact, Dr. Scheinberg chose to watch the patient, which was, according to Dr. Busowski, within the standard of care. Obviously, at 2:00 in the morning on February 2, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg did not choose to wait for 10 more hours, because at that point he (unlike the parties to this litigation) did not know what was about to happen. The nurses' notes reflect that L.G. was under close observation throughout the early morning hours, and that Dr. Scheinberg was following the situation. At 4:30 a.m., L.G. was set up to push and at 4:45 a.m. was pushing well. At 6:15 a.m., the notes indicate that Dr. Scheinberg was aware of the mother's attempts to push. At 6:45 a.m., he reviewed the strips from the fetal heart monitor. At 7:45 a.m., he was present and aware of L.G.'s status. From 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., no contractions were identifiable on the external monitor. At 8:00 a.m., however, L.G. was comfortable and pushing well. She stopped pushing at 8:30 a.m., but remained comfortable. Dr. Scheinberg then ordered the administration of Pitocin, a medicine which is used to strengthen contractions and hasten delivery. Although the Department faults Dr. Scheinberg for giving L.G. Pitocin at this relatively late stage of her labor, Dr. Busowski (the Department's expert witness) admitted being unable to say "that Dr. Scheinberg should have started Pitocin earlier " T. 72. The Department therefore has no clear evidential basis for second-guessing Dr. Scheinberg's professional judgment in this particular, and neither does the undersigned. At 9:10 a.m., L.G. resumed pushing. The baby's fetal heart tones (heartbeats) were stable. L.G. continued pushing, with her family present, until around 11:00 a.m., at which time Dr. Scheinberg discussed the situation with the patient and her family. Dr. Scheinberg explained to L.G. or her husband the risks of, and alternatives to, performing a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. Either L.G. or her husband gave verbal consent to the use of a vacuum device to assist in the delivery. Between 11:00 a.m. and 11:10 a.m., the fetal heart monitor detected some variable decelerations, meaning a decrease in heart rate that could be a sign of fetal distress. Dr. Scheinberg delivered the baby at 11:23 a.m., using a vacuum device to help pull the infant out of the birth canal. In his post-operative notes, Dr. Scheinberg wrote that his "pre-operative diagnosis" was "+3 station — prolonged second stage 2½ hrs." As a "post-operative diagnosis," Dr. Scheinberg recorded, "same + tight cord." He reported the following "findings": "tight cord cut on perineum[;] mec[onium] aspirated on perineum."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Dr. Scheinberg not guilty of the charges set forth in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of June, 2011.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of charges set forth in a three-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violations of paragraphs (m), (q), and (t) of Section 458.331(1) Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Donald A. Tobkin, M.D., has been licensed, and continues to be licensed, to practice medicine in the State of Florida. His license number is 30942.5 Sometime during the month of December 2004, the Police Department of Hollywood, Florida, (HPD) received information from a confidential informant that the Respondent was soliciting drug-prescribing business and was writing inappropriate and excessive prescriptions for controlled substances. On the basis of that information, the HPD initiated an undercover operation to investigate the information received from the confidential informant. As part of the undercover investigation, on the evening of January 20, 2005, at approximately 9:56pm, an HPD female detective named Nicole Coffin made a telephone call to the Respondent's telephone. The Respondent answered the telephone and identified himself by name. Detective Coffin pretended to be a person named Melissa Beech. She pretended to be a person who was seeking to obtain OxyContin, which is a Schedule II controlled substance. During the entire undercover investigation, Detective Coffin pretended to be a drug-seeker while interacting with the Respondent. On the telephone she told the Respondent that she wanted a prescription for OxyContin and also told the Respondent that a girl somewhere on Federal Highway had given her the Respondent's card and had told her she could call the Respondent if she needed a prescription. Detective Coffin, in her role as Melissa Beech, did not initially describe any medical complaint to the Respondent; she just said she wanted a prescription for OxyContin. In response to the request for a prescription for OxyContin, the Respondent told the make-believe drug-seeker that he could provide the requested prescription, but that they would have to have a "medical reason" for such a prescription. The Respondent then asked the make-believe drug-seeker if she had ever been in an automobile accident. The make-believe drug-seeker answered "yes," because that is the answer she thought would provide a basis for a "medical reason." The Respondent then proceeded to ask the make-believe drug-seeker a long series of leading questions which, if answered "yes," could provide the appearance of a "medical reason" for the requested prescription for OxyContin. This series of questions was for the purpose of establishing a contrived "medical reason" for the prescription sought by the make-believe drug-seeker. There never was, and there never appeared to be, any real "medical reason" for the prescription sought by the make-believe drug-seeker. The sole purpose for the many questions asked by the Respondent, and for the Respondent's written notations related to those questions, was to create the illusion, or the false impression, that there was a "medical reason' for the prescription when, in fact, there was no such reason. The detective who was pretending to be a drug-seeker answered "yes" to all of the leading questions asked by the Respondent. She answered "yes," even when that was not a truthful answer, because she was trying to give the answers she thought the Respondent wanted to hear.6 The Respondent's leading questions included questions asking about such things as whether the make-believe drug-seeker had ever had an automobile accident, whether she had suffered a herniated disk as a result of that accident, whether she had had an MRI, whether she had had any subsequent accidents, whether she had tried any other drugs to relieve pain, whether she had used Oxycontin in the past, and whether in the past the Oxycontin had relieved her pain. During the course of the first telephone conversation between Detective Coffin and the Respondent a number of significant matters were not discussed. The Respondent did not discuss the possibility of surgical treatments to treat the back pain described in response to the Respondent's questions. The Respondent did not discuss the necessity of reviewing the MRI or X-rays that supposedly would confirm the "herniated disc" he had inquired about. The Respondent did not discuss the necessity of obtaining future MRIs, X-rays, or other diagnostic tests to evaluate the "severe back pain" supposedly described by Detective Coffin in her role as Melissa Beech. The Respondent did not mention that she would need to have any follow-up visits with the Respondent. During the course of the first conversation between Detective Coffin and the Respondent, she told the Respondent that she had previously been obtaining Oxycontin "off the street" and that she was seeking a prescription from the Respondent because her street source had "dried up." She also told him that she had previously taken Valium and Percocet. During the course of the first telephone conversation Detective Coffin, pretending to be a drug-seeker, told the Respondent that she suffered from back pain as a result of the make-believe automobile accidents. She did not say that she was currently experiencing pain at the time of that telephone conversation. During the first telephone conversation the Respondent did not ask the make-believe drug-seeker any questions about her menstrual cycle, about whether she was pregnant, or about whether she had had any prior pregnancies or had ever had any children. However, in his written notes the Respondent included notations that purport to be answers to those unasked questions. Similarly, the Respondent did not ask the make-believe drug-seeker any questions about her consumption of alcohol, but included in his notes notations that purport to memorialize the answer to that unasked question. The Respondent's "history" notes also report that he warned the make-believe drug-seeker that OxyContin tablets should not be crushed or broken, even though he did not include any such warning in his telephone conversation with the make-believe drug-seeker. During the first telephone conversation, Detective Coffin was never asked about, and never provided any information about, whether other physicians had either prescribed OxyContin for her or had refused to prescribe OxyContin for her. The only prior sources of OxyContin she mentioned to the Respondent were non-prescription illegal sources on the street. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the possibility or necessity of a more structured medical treatment plan for addiction. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the possibility or necessity of a more structured medical treatment plan to treat a complaint of "severe pain." During the course of the first telephone conversation, the Respondent agreed to provide a prescription to the make- believe drug-seeker for a total of sixty-two 80-milligram OxyContin tablets. It was agreed that the make-believe drug- seeker would pay $100.00 for the first prescription and that the Respondent would provide similar prescriptions in the future for $50.00 per prescription. Towards the end of the first telephone conversation the Respondent told the make-believe drug-seeker that he had another matter to attend to and that she should call him later to arrange the time and place for the two of them to meet later that same evening. During the course of the first telephone conversation, which lasted for approximately 14 minutes, the Respondent made written notes of the answers given by the make-believe drug-seeker. Those notes were prepared in such a manner as to resemble the types of notes customarily made by physicians who are making a medical record of information elicited from a patient. A number of the details recorded in the Respondent's notes of the first telephone conversation were inconsistent with the information provided by the make-believe drug-seeker. Specifically, those notes contained a significant amount of information that was never uttered by the make-believe drug- seeker. The fictitious and false history details memorialized in the Respondent's notes are intentional falsehoods. Later that evening, at approximately 12:20am on January 21, 2005, Detective Coffin, still pretending to be the drug-seeking person named Melissa Beech, placed a second telephone call to the Respondent. She spoke with the Respondent for about three minutes on this occasion. Most of the second conversation consisted of providing the Respondent with information about the location where Detective Coffin would be waiting for him and information about where the Respondent should park when he arrived. Law enforcement officers of the HPD attempted to record both of the telephone conversations between the Respondent and Detective Coffin. Both of those attempts were unsuccessful. There is no recording of either of the telephone conversations. Sometime later that evening, during the early morning hours of January 21, 2005, the Respondent met the make-believe drug-seeker at the motel or efficiency apartment. He entered the room where the make-believe drug-seeker was pretending to be staying. Prior to his arrival, two cameras had been concealed in the room by the HPD police officers. During the entire time the Respondent was in the room the two cameras were attempting to record everything he said and everything he did, as well as everything said or done by the detective pretending to be the drug-seeking person named Melissa Beech. After entering the room, the Respondent spoke with the make-believe drug-seeker and asked her additional questions related to her request for a prescription for OxyContin. He made some written notes that purported to be summaries of her answers. During the course of the meeting with the make-believe drug-seeker the Respondent provided her with a document titled "Patient's Acknowledgement," which she signed, but did not read. That document contained information about the patient-physician relationship, about what was expected of the patient, and also memorialized the patient's informed consent to the treatment she was requesting from the Respondent. The Respondent also conducted a brief physical examination of the make-believe patient and made written notes that purported to be a memorialization of what he had observed during the course of his examination. The Respondent's examination of the make-believe drug-seeker included the following: check of pulse and blood pressure, check of reflex responses at several joints, and check of chest sounds with stethoscope. The Respondent performed a deep tendon reflex test on Detective Coffin by striking her wrists, elbows, and knees with a medical hammer. Detective Coffin's feet remained on the floor during this test. A deep tendon reflex test cannot be performed properly with the subject's feet touching the floor. Such a test performed in such a manner will not produce reliable results. The Respondent indicated in his written notes that he had examined Detective Coffin's head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat. However, the Respondent did not perform any examination at all of Detective Coffin's head, ears, nose, or throat. The Respondent perhaps performed a partial examination of Detective Coffin's eyes, but did not perform an adequate examination of her eyes. The Respondent indicated in his written notes that Detective Coffin's pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation. However, the Respondent did not conduct any examination of Detective Coffin's eyes that was sufficient to support a conclusion that they were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation. The Respondent included in his written notes that Detective Coffin's chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. The Respondent did not examine Detective Coffin in a manner that could determine whether her chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. Therefore, the Respondent did not have any basis for writing that the detective's chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. The Respondent included in his written notes an observation that Detective Coffin's abdomen was soft. The Respondent never touched or otherwise examined Detective Coffin's abdomen. The Respondent had no factual basis for writing that Detective Coffin's abdomen was soft. In his written notes the Respondent indicated that Detective Coffin experienced pain upon lifting her leg thirty degrees. Detective Coffin never raised either leg in the Respondent's presence and never complained of pain in his presence. There was no factual basis for the subject notation. The Respondent never conducted a Rhomberg examination on Detective Coffin, but he included in his written notes an observation that a Rhomberg test was negative. There was no factual basis for such a notation. The Respondent included in his written notes an observation that he had examined Detective Coffin's gait. However, the Respondent never performed an adequate and sufficient examination of Detective Coffin's gait. The Respondent did not conduct a range of motion test of Detective Coffin. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin to lift her leg towards her chest. Nor did he ask her to touch her toes. The Respondent never asked her to manipulate her body in any way. At no time during the encounter between Detective Coffin and the Respondent did Detective Coffin state that she was experiencing pain. At no time during that encounter did she behave or move in any manner that would suggest she was experiencing pain. To the contrary, Detective Coffin crossed and uncrossed her legs, alternatively slouched and sat up straight in her chair, and made other movements that would indicate to a reasonable prudent physician that she was not experiencing any pain at all. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the necessity of obtaining further MRIs, X-rays, or other forms of diagnostic testing. He never discussed any need to obtain and review any prior medical records. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin to sign a medical records release document that would have authorized the Respondent to obtain prior medical records. The Respondent's written notations regarding his examination of the make-believe drug-seeker contain false information because, among other things, the notations contain the results of tests and examinations the Respondent did not perform. Such false notations are intentional falsehoods. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the need for a follow-up appointment. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin for any form of identification. Under the circumstances presented in this case, a reasonable prudent physician would have performed a range of motion test and a leg-raising test, neither of which were performed by the Respondent. Under the circumstances presented in this case, a reasonably prudent physician would have established a treatment plan that would have included a schedule for follow-up visits, a review of prior medical records, and plans for future diagnostic tests. The Respondent did not establish any type of treatment plan. The prescription provided to Detective Coffin was inappropriate, unjustified, and excessive because the physical examination was inadequate, the medical record was falsified, and the patient never exhibited any sign of being in pain. Under the circumstances presented in this case, the Respondent's act of providing a prescription to a total stranger with no medical justification for doing so was an action taken other than in the course of the Respondent's professional practice. Ultimately, the Respondent wrote and delivered a prescription to the make-believe patient. The prescription was for sixty-two 80-milligram tablets of OxyContin. This was a 31- day supply if the OxyContin was taken as directed; one tablet every 12 hours. The Respondent wrote several warnings at the bottom of the prescription document. The warnings included such things as the fact that OxyContin impairs driving ability and may cause drowsiness, loss of balance, and/or loss of coordination. The Respondent also wrote on the prescription: "Must swallow whole and do not crush or break." Other law enforcement officers of the HPD were listening to and observing the events inside the room. Shortly after the Respondent handed the prescription to the make-believe patient and received the one hundred dollars from her, other law enforcement officers rushed into the room, arrested the Respondent, and seized various items of the Respondent's personal property, including the medical record he had been preparing regarding his care and treatment of the make-believe patient. With regard to obtaining information about the characteristics of, and the proper use of, specific drugs, medical doctors customarily rely on the information contained in the Physician Desk Reference (PDR) and on the information contained in the manufacturer's package insert that often accompanies a drug. The package insert for OxyContin includes the following information: (Following an initial caption reading WARNING) OxyContin Tablets are a controlled-release oral formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride indicated for the management of moderate to severe pain when a continuous, around-the- clock analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. * * * (Following caption reading CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY) Oxycodone is a pure agonist opioid whose principal therapeutic action is analgesia. *** With pure opioid agonist analgesics, there is no defined maximum dose; the ceiling to analgesic effectiveness is imposed only by side effects, the more serious of which may include somnolence and respiratory depression. * * * As with all opioids, the minimum effective plasma concentration for analgesia will vary widely among patients, especially among patients who have been previously treated with potent agonist opioids. As a result, patients must be treated with individualized titration of dosage to the desired effect. The minimum effective analgesic concentration of oxycodone for any individual patient may increase over time due to an increase in pain, the development of a new pain syndrome and/or the development of analgesic tolerance. * * * OxyContin Tablets are associated with typical opioid-related adverse experiences. There is a general relationship between increasing oxycodone plasma concentration and increasing frequency of dose-related opioid adverse experiences such as nausea, vomiting, CNS effects, and respiratory depression. In opioid-tolerant patients, the situation is altered by the development of tolerance to opioid-related side effects, and the relationship is not clinically relevant. As with all opioids, the dose must be individualized . . . because the effective analgesic dose for some patients will be too high to be tolerated by other patients. (Following caption reading WARNINGS) OxyContin 80 mg and 160 mg Tablets ARE FOR USE IN OPIOID-TOLERANT PATIENTS ONLY. These tablet strengths may cause fatal respiratory depression when administered to patients not previously exposed to opioids. * * * Concerns about abuse, addiction, and diversion should not prevent the proper management of pain. The development of addiction to opioid analgesics in properly managed patients with pain has been reported to be rare. However, data are not available to establish the true incidence of addiction in chronic pain patients.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and the revocation of the Respondent's license to practice medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2006.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., committed violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2001), alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner on February 25, 2004, in DOH Case Number 2002- 16502, as amended; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice as a physician assistant in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians and physician’s assistants licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician's assistant licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number PA 9100713. Mr. Carmouze's address of record at all times relevant to this matter is 6545 Southwest 95th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33173. No evidence that Mr. Carmouze has previously been the subject of a license disciplinary proceeding was offered. Mr. Carmouze's Supervising Physician. At the times relevant Mr. Carmouze worked under the supervision of Dr. Manuel Fernandez-Gonzalez, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who has practiced emergency medicine, holds Florida medical license number ME 17907. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez currently practices family medicine at 9600 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to April 2002, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze worked together in Miami, providing emergency room care and seeing patients at a nursing home. The emergency room services were provided pursuant to employment contracts that both had entered into with a company providing emergency room services at the hospital in south Florida where Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze provided services. Mr. Carmouze's Assignment to Weems Memorial Hospital. The company for which Mr. Carmouze was employed also provided emergency room services for Weems Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Weems"). Weems is located in Apalachicola, Florida, located in the Florida Panhandle, approximately 520 miles from Miami. Weems is a rural hospital, licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. It does not have 24-hour, on-site ancillary services such as X-ray, laboratory, and respiratory therapy. These services are available to the emergency room on an on-call basis after business hours. At the times relevant, Malvinder Ajit, M.D., a Florida licensed physician, was the Director of the Emergency Department at Weems. Dr. Ajit has not provided any documentation to the Department indicating that he has ever acted as supervising physician of record for Mr. Carmouze. Mr. Carmouze was assigned by the company by which he was employed to work in the emergency room at Weems in April 2002 and again in June 2002. He worked in the emergency room at Weems as a physician's assistant for part of April 2002, and part of June 2002. While at Weems, Mr. Carmouze provided emergency room medical services to more than 100 patients. While working at Weems, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who remained in Miami, continued to act as Mr. Carmouze's supervising physician. Mr. Carmouze did not notify the Department that he was practicing as a physician's assistant at Weems in April or June 2002. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was working for, and thus "employed," by anyone different from the employer that he worked for in Miami. The only evidence on this issue proved that Mr. Carmouze continued throughout the relevant period to work for Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and the company that provided emergency room services at Weems. Dr. Carmouze's Treatment of Patient A.M. On June 7, 2002, Patient A.M., an 84-year-old female, was brought to the emergency room (hereinafter referred to as the "ER"), at Weems by ambulance. She arrived at approximately 23:24 hours (11:24 p.m.). A.M.'s medical history included congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. She presented to Mr. Carmouze in apparent respiratory distress (respiratory rate of 36 to 40), had no measurable blood pressure, and a pulse rate of 100 to 108. While being transported to the ER from her home, A.M. was given oxygen by rebreather mask. During her transport, her oxygen saturation level improved from 68% to 91%. Mr. Carmouze assessed A.M.'s condition, obtained her medical history, ordered lab work and other tests, and ordered and initiated nebulizer treatments for her. She was alert, oriented and had a Glasgow score of 15/15, indicating she was responding to verbal and pain stimuli. Mr. Carmouze ordered nebulizer treatments with albuterol and atrovent to assist her breathing. Additionally, A.M. received 100% oxygen through a nonrebreather mask. Mr. Carmouze also determined that A.M. was "dry," meaning that her fluid volume was depleted and, therefore, she was dehydrated. As a result, her blood pressure was low. In an effort to treat this condition, Mr. Carmouze ordered an I.V. with 0.9 normal saline. He also ordered a Dopamine drip to increase A.M.'s heart rate in an effort to increase her blood pressure. Mr. Carmouze appropriately denied a request from a nurse to administer Lasix to A.M., because A.M. was "dry." Lasix is a diuretic used to decrease fluid volume. It opens the arteries and reduces fluids, thereby lowering blood pressure. Lasix was contraindicated for A.M. and contrary to the appropriate efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze to treat A.M.'s low blood pressure. Despite Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M., her condition continued to deteriorate. At or near 23:50 hours (11:50 p.m.), approximately 25 minutes after A.M. had arrived at the ER, an ER nurse contacted A.M.'s primary physician by telephone and obtained an order to administer Lasix to A.M. The Lasix was administered immediately. A.M.'s oxygen saturation level was 81%, down 10 points since her arrival, when the Lasix was administered. Within half an hour, at 0:18 hours (18 minutes after midnight) on June 8, 2002, A.M.'s oxygen saturation level had dropped another 10 points, to 71%. A.M. then "crashed and coded." Mr. Carmouze initiated appropriate emergency measures when A.M. coded, including initiating Cardio Pulmonary Recitation and endotracheal intubation. A.M. was given epinephrine, atropine, and a CVP line was placed. These actions by Mr. Carmouze were appropriate. Mr. Carmouze did not attempt or order that A.M. be intubated prior to 0:18 hours when she coded. A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, arrived at the ER. Shortly after she coded, Dr. Sanaullah continued the same efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze. A.M., however, did not recover, expiring at 01:00. The "Standard of Care" for Treating A.M. Four expert witnesses testified in this matter, rendering opinions as to whether Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M. was consistent with "that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar [physician assistant] as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. . . " (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard of Care"). The expert witnesses who testified were Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, Dr. Julio Lora, Dr. Harry W. Lee, and James L. Cary, P.A. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony as to whether Mr. Carmouze treated A.M. within the Standard of Care is rejected for lack of credibility. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony has been found to lack credibility for the reasons explained by Petitioner in paragraph 25 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order. That paragraph, except for the last two sentences, is hereby adopted. Additionally, Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez's testimony is rejected because, in the undersigned's judgment, he made too much of an effort to give the answers that he appeared to conclude that Mr. Carmouze wanted him to give. The testimony of Dr. Lora on the other hand is found to be credible. Dr. Lora, testifying as an expert in cardiology and internal medicine, offered convincing explanations as to why Mr. Carmouze did not violate the Standard of Care in his overall treatment of A.M. and, in particular, in not attempting to intubate A.M. earlier than he did. Dr. Lee's testimony, while corroborating Dr. Lora's testimony, was cumulative and of little weight. A.M. was reported to be awake, alert, and oriented. She was breathing, albeit with difficulty, on her own. Therefore, it was appropriate for Mr. Carmouze to attempt the other measures to assist her breathing he instituted. Mr. Cary's testimony, while credible, was not convincing, especially given Dr. Lora's expert opinions. Mr. Cary's testimony was taken during a discovery deposition by Respondent and, as a result, the benefit of his testimony to Petitioner's case was limited. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze violated the standard of care: In his treatment of A.M.; By failing "to contact his supervising physician, the ED director, and/or Patient A.M.'s primary physician for assistance in treating Patient A.M."; By failing "to identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M."; and By failing "to consult his supervising physician prior to ordering Demerol, a controlled substance, for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M." Mr. Carmouze's Treatment Plan and Medical Records for Patient A.M. Mr. Carmouze, as the Department has conceded in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 13, page 20, did identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M. Having found that Mr. Carmouze did not err when he did not initiate intubation of A.M. earlier than he did, the evidence failed to prove that "he failed to maintain medical records that justified the course of treatment in that he failed to record a reason for not intubating sooner in an attempt to address Patient A.M.'s respiratory distress." There is no indication in Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. that Mr. Carmouze attempted to contact Dr. Ajit or Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez. The medical records do indicate, however, that A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, was "notified and arrived for code." While the evidence did not prove who notified Dr. Sanaullah, Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was not responsible for Dr. Sanaullah's notification. Mr. Carmouze failed to identify himself by name or professional title in A.M.'s medical records. He also failed to include Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's name and title in A.M.'s medical records. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on A.M.'s medical records. While the quality of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. was correctly characterized as "minimally acceptable" by Mr. Cary, the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that those medical records were not adequate. This finding is based upon the lack of an unequivocal opinion from Mr. Cary concerning the adequacy of the medical records and a comparison of Mr. Cary's opinions with those of Dr. Lee in support of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for Patient A.M. Mr. Cary, on the one hand, made the following negative comments about Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M: "[T]he record isn't really clear on what did happen because he did not write down any times on intervention of what he did." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 14; "[W]hen you look at this face sheet here you don't get a picture of what happened and at what time, there's no real times there, no progression of the treatment." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 67. Mr. Cary stated that there was no time noted in Patient A.M.'s history/physical section, and that a portion of that section was illegible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 21 and 25. On the other hand, Mr. Cary stated that "[the medical record for A.M.] is minimally acceptable, it just doesn't give a good clear picture of the sequence of events." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 68. Mr. Cary also stated the following when asked if he thought Mr. Carmouze maintained medical records that justified the course of his treatment regarding Patient A.M.: "There were medical records that were there, I think they could have been more complete and more detailed . . . ." These statements, taking into account the fact that Mr. Cary was able to read almost all of Mr. Carmouze's medical record pertaining to A.M. on direct examination by counsel for Mr. Carmouze, reduces the effectiveness of his other opinions. Finally, it is noted that all of Mr. Carmouze's experts, along with Mr. Cary, were able to read Mr. Carmouze's notes, other than a word or two. Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Patient C.M. On April 23, 2002, Patient C.M., a 20-year-old male presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.M. complained of a server headache. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient J.S. On April 24, 2002, Patient J.S., a 37-year-old female presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. J.S. complained of a burn. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient B.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient B.M., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. B.M. complained of a headache of two-days' duration. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 25 milligrams of Demerol administered to B.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for B.M. a diagnosis of scabies/headache cluster, severe. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for B.M. Patient R.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient R.M., a 73-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.M. complained of abdominal pain and constipation of several days’ duration. In patient part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to R.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.M. a diagnosis of abdominal pain, impaction. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.M. Patient M.F. On April 25, 2002, Patient M.F., a 34-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.F. complained of left-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to M.F. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.F. a diagnosis of left-flank pain, left nephrolithiasis. Patient G.C. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.C., a 20-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.C. complained of right-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Patient G.B. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.B., an 83-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.B. complained of wrist, knee, and leg pain, secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for G.B. a diagnosis of chest contusion, leg edema, and right Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for G.B. Patient K.S. On June 8, 2002, Patient K.S., an 18-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. K.S. complained of lower back pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.S. a diagnosis of intractable back pain, trauma to spine. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Patient C.W. On June 8, 2002, Patient C.W., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.W. complained of headache and dizziness. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for C.W. a diagnosis of headache and anemia. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for C.W. Patient M.A.C. On June 9, 2002, Patient M.A.C., a 49-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.A.C. complained of pain in the lower right abdomen and back. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.A.C. a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and abdominal pain. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for M.A.C. Patient R.S. On June 9, 2002, Patient R.S., a 34-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of shoulder pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.S. a diagnosis of right shoulder tendon tear. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.S. Patient K.M. On June 11, 2002, Patient K.M., a 52-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of wrist pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.M. a diagnosis of a Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Facts Common to Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Mr. Carmouze did not note in his medical records for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Pain Patients "), that he had consulted with Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit prior to ordering Demerol for the Pain Patients. Demerol is a controlled substance. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez' testimony regarding alleged consultations he had with Mr. Carmouze concerning the Pain Patients and other patients seen by Mr. Carmouze while at Weems is rejected as lacking credibility for the reasons explained, supra. Mr. Carmouze also failed to note in the medical records for the Pain Patients his name and professional title. His name was stamped on the Emergency Room Record he completed for Patients M.A.C., G.M., and R.S. His name was also written into the space under "Time/Initials" on the Emergency Room Record for Patients M.A.C., C.W., R.M., and J.S. None of these records, however, included his title of "physician assistant." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the Pain Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to ensure that the signature of Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit was included in the medical records of the Pain Patients. The Other "106 Patients". While at Weems ER, Mr. Carmouze provided medical services, in addition to A.M. and Pain Patients, to 106 other patients at issue in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "106 Patients"). Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 is a composite exhibit of medical records for the 106 Patients. There are approximately two patients for whom more than one medical record has been included in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. The foregoing findings relate to the 108 medical records for the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to note in most of the medical records for the 106 Patients his name and professional title. Of the approximately 108 records, Mr. Carmouze's name does not appear in any fashion on 48 of them. The rest either include his name (but not title) either stamped on the record or written into the box titled "Time/Initials." On two of the medical records both Mr. Carmouze's name and "P.A." have been written into the box titled "Time/Initials." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on the medical records of the 106 Patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., has violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and (v), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; issuing a reprimand; placing Mr. Carmouze's license on probation for one year; requiring that he pay an administrative fine of $5,000.00; requiring that he perform five hours of CME in a subject(s) determined appropriate by the Board; and suspending his license for six months (with the suspension stayed provided he complies with probation). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of December, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Levine Matthew Casey Assistants General Counsel Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Julie Gallagher, Esquire Greenberg Taurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. M. Rony François, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case are set forth in 11 separate counts within the four consolidated cases: Case No. 09-5360 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly monitor and care for a patient in restraints. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure the physician's plan of care for patient was implemented. Case No. 09-5363 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly implement the physician's plan of care for patient. Case No. 09-5364 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to ensure a patients' right to privacy. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that food was served in the prescribed safe temperature zone. Count III--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that only authorized personnel had access to locked areas where medications were stored. Count IV--Whether Respondent failed to perform proper nursing assessments of a patient. Count V--Dismissed. Count VI--Whether Respondent failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition. Case No. 09-5365 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to triage a patient with stroke-like symptoms in a timely fashion. Count II--Whether Respondent's nursing staff failed to assess and intervene for patients or ensure implementation of the physician's plan of care.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring health care facilities in the state to ensure compliance with all governing statutes, rules and regulations. It is the responsibility of AHCA to regularly inspect facilities upon unannounced visits. Often AHCA will inspect facilities for the purpose of licensure renewal, certification, or in conjunction with federal surveys. AHCA will also inspect facilities on the basis of complaints filed by members of the general public. Respondent, Gulf Coast Medical Center ("Gulf Coast" or "GCH") is a hospital within the Lee Memorial Health System. South West Florida Regional Medical Center ("SWF") was another hospital within the Lee Memorial Health System. SWF closed in March 2009, when it was consolidated with Gulf Coast. On October 15, 2008, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at SWF; a follow-up complaint investigation was done on November 13, 2008. SWF filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in each of the investigations. The November investigation resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing two counts. On December 16, 2008, AHCA performed another complaint investigation at Gulf Coast. Gulf Coast filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the investigation. The investigation resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing one count. On January 5 through 9, 2009, AHCA conducted a routine licensure survey at Gulf Coast. The hospital filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the survey. The survey resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing six counts (although Count V was dismissed during the course of the final hearing). On February 18, 2009, AHCA did its follow-up survey to the previous licensure survey. Gulf Coast filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the survey. The survey resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing two counts. Case 09-5360 The complaint investigation at SWF on November 13, 2008, was conducted under the supervision of Charlene Fisher. Count I in this case addresses findings by the Agency concerning a patient who was placed in restraints at the hospital on August 28, 2008. The patient, A.D., came into the hospital emergency department under the Baker Act seeking medical clearance to a facility. The patient presented at approximately 4:00 p.m., with back pain. He had a history of drug abuse, so there was concern by the hospital regarding the use of narcotics or certain other medications to treat the patient. The patient engaged in some scuffling with police. A physician signed and dated a four-point restraint (one on each limb) order, resulting in the patient being physically restrained. The restraint was deemed a medical/surgical restraint, rather than a behavioral restraint. AHCA had concerns about the restraint, specifically whether there was a notation for Q 15 (or every 15 minutes) monitoring of the restrained patient. However, medical/surgical restraints only require monitoring every two hours. The restraint worksheet for the patient confirms monitoring every two hours. The patient was ultimately admitted to the hospital at 9:37 p.m., and, thereafter, began complaining of left shoulder pain. The hospital responded to the patient's complaints about back pain and began treating the pain with analgesics. However, the patient continued to complain about the pain. An X-ray of the patient's shoulder was finally done the next morning. Shoulder dislocation was confirmed by the X-ray, and the hospital (four hours later) began a more substantive regimen of treatment for pain. Surgery occurred the following morning, and the shoulder problem was resolved. It is clear the patient had a shoulder injury, but it is unclear as to when that injury became more painful than the back injury with which the patient had initially presented. The evidence is unclear whether or when the shoulder injury became obvious to hospital staff. During its course of treating this patient, the hospital provided Motrin, Tylenol, Morphine, Percocet and other medications to treat the patient's pain. Count II in this case also involved a restrained patient, M.D., who had presented to the emergency department under the Baker Act. The patient was released from handcuffs upon arrival at the hospital. After subsequently fighting with a deputy, this patient was also placed in a medical/surgical restraint pursuant to a physician's order. The doctor signed and dated, but did not put a time on, the restraint order. A time is important because there are monitoring requirements for patients in restraints. However, the time of 0050 (12:50 a.m.) appears on the patient's chart and is the approximate time the restraints were initiated. The proper procedure is to monitor a restrained patient every two hours. This patient, however, was removed from his restraints prior to the end of the first two-hour period. Thus, there are no records of monitoring for the patient (nor would any be necessary). The evidence presented by AHCA was insufficient to establish definitively whether the hospital nursing staff failed to properly respond to the aforementioned patients' needs. It is clear the patients could have received more care, but there is not enough evidence to prove the care provided was inadequate. Case No. 09-5363 On December 16, 2008, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at SWF. The Agency had received a complaint that the hospital did not properly implement a physician's plan of care. Count I in this complaint addresses alleged errors relating to two of four patients reviewed by the surveyors. Both of the patients came to the hospital from a nursing home. One patient, I.A., had presented to the emergency department complaining of chest pains. The medication list sent to the hospital by the nursing home for I.A. actually belonged to someone other than I.A. I.A.'s name was not on the medication list. The drugs listed on the patient chart were different than the drugs I.A. had been taking at the skilled nursing facility from which she came. The skilled nursing facility actually sent I.A.'s roommate's medication list. The erroneous medications were then ordered by the admitting physician and administered to the patient. The hospital is supposed to review the medication list it receives and then enter the medications into the hospital system. The person reviewing the medication list does not necessarily have to be a nurse, and there is no evidence that the person making the error in this case was a nurse or was some other employee. It is clear, however, that the person reviewing the medication list did not properly ascertain that the list belonged to patient I.A. The other patient from the nursing home had been admitted for surgery at SWF. Again, the nursing home from whence she came sent a medication list that was incorrect. The medications on the incorrect list were entered into the system by a SWF employee. The erroneous medications were ultimately ordered by the attending physician for the patient, but there is no evidence the patient was ever administered those medications. Neither of the residents was harmed by the incorrect medications as far as could be determined. Case 09-5364 From January 5 through 8, 2009, AHCA conducted a licensure survey at Gulf Coast and SWF in conjunction with a federal certification survey. Count I of the complaint resulting from this survey addressed the right of privacy for two residents. In one instance, a patient was observed in her bed with her breasts exposed to plain view. In the other instance, a patient's personal records were found in a "public" place, i.e., hanging on the rail of a hallway in the hospital. AHCA's surveyor, Nancy Furdell, saw a female patient who was apparently asleep lying in her bed. The patient's breasts were exposed as she slept. Furdell observed this fact at approximately 1:15 p.m., on January 7, 2009. Furdell did not see a Posey vest on the patient. She did not know if anyone else saw the exposed breasts. Furdell continued with her survey duties, and at approximately 5:00 p.m., notified a staff member as to what she had seen. Furdell did not attempt to cover the patient or wake the patient to tell her to cover up. The female patient with exposed breasts was in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the hospital. Visiting hours in ICU at that time were 10:00 to 10:30 a.m., and again from 2:00 till 2:30 p.m. Thus, at the time Furdell was present, no outside visitors would have been in the ICU. ICU patients are checked on by nursing staff every half-hour to an hour, depending on their needs. This particular patient would be visited more frequently due to her medical condition. On the day in question, the patient was supposed to be wearing a Posey vest in an effort to stop the patient from removing her tubing. The patient had been agitated and very restless earlier, necessitating the Posey vest. Also on January 7, 2009, a surveyor observed some "papers" rolled up and stuffed inside a hand-rail in the hospital corridor. This occurred at 1:15 p.m., on the fourth floor of the south wing of the hospital. A review of the papers revealed them to be patient records for a patient on that floor. The surveyor could not state at final hearing whether there were hospital personnel in the vicinity of the handrail where she found the patient records, nor could she say how long the patient records had been in the handrail. Rather, the evidence is simply that the records were seen in the handrail and were not in anyone's possession at that moment in time. Count II of the complaint was concerned with the temperature of certain foods being prepared for distribution to patients. Foods for patients are supposed to be kept at certain required temperatures. There is a "danger zone" for foods which starts at 40 degrees Fahrenheit and ends at 141 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature, along with time, food and environment, is an important factor in preventing contamination of food and the development of bacteria. Surveyor Mary Ruth Pinto took part in the survey. As part of her duties, she asked hospital staff to measure the temperature of foods on the serving line. She found some peaches at 44 degrees, yogurt at 50 degrees, and cranberry juice at 66 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Pinto, the hospital's refrigerator temperatures were appropriate, so it was only food out on the line that was at issue. Pinto remembers talking to the hospital dietary manager and remembers the dietary manager agreeing to destroy the aforementioned food items. The hospital policies and procedures in place on the date of the survey were consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code concerning the storage, handling and serving of food. The policies acknowledge the danger zone for foods, but allow foods to stay within the danger zone for up to four hours. In the case of the peaches and yogurt, neither had been in the danger zone for very long (not more than two hours). The cranberry juice was "shelf stable," meaning that it could be stored at room temperature. The food services director for the hospital remembers the peaches and yogurt being re-chilled in a chill blaster. She does not believe any of the food was destroyed. Count III of the complaint addressed whether an unauthorized person had access to a room where medications were being stored. A state surveyor, Gary Furdell, was part of the survey team on January 5, 2009. Furdell was touring the second floor of the hospital when he noticed a locked door. Furdell asked a hospital medical technician who was standing nearby about the door. The medical technician gave Furdell the code to unlock the door. Furdell peeked inside and noticed bottles that he presumed were medications. It would be a violation for a medical technician to have access to medications, because medical technicians cannot distribute drugs. The room Furdell looked into is a "mixed use" room located behind a nursing station. A mixed use room is used to store medical supplies, including medications, as long as there is a locked cabinet in the room for that purpose. This particular mixed use room had a locked cabinet. The room is used for the preparation of medications and for other purposes. No narcotics were stored in this particular mixed use room. The room contained locked cabinets used to store other medications. The evidence presented was insufficient to determine what "medications" Furdell may have seen in the room. Count IV of the complaint concerned the nursing assessment of a patient, and whether the assessment was properly and timely performed. A patient, M.S., had been admitted to the hospital on June 18, 2008, for lung surgery. Following the surgery, Amiodarone (a very toxic drug which can cause clots and other complications) was administered to treat M.S. for heart arrhythmia. The Amiodarone was administered intravenously and M.S. developed blisters and irritation at the intravenous site. That is not an uncommon complication with Amiodarone. M.S.'s attending physician was notified about the irritation and prescribed a treatment. He also ordered a consult with an infectious disease specialist who ultimately changed M.S.'s antibiotics. Although M.S. was seen daily by her physicians, the nursing notes do not reflect the assessment and treatment of her blisters. It appears that proper care was rendered, but the care was not documented properly. Another patient was admitted to the hospital on December 15, 2008, with End Stage Renal Disease and diabetes mellitus for which she began dialysis treatment. The patient was not weighed before and after a particular dialysis treatment on January 5, 2009. However, the patient had been moved to an air mattress bed on that date for comfort. The air mattress bed did not allow for a weight to be taken as it could be on a regular bed. There is an allegation in the Administrative Complaint concerning the discontinuation of the calorie count for a patient. This issue was not discussed in AHCA's Proposed Recommended Order, nor was sufficient evidence of any wrong- doing concerning this matter presented at final hearing. During the survey, the hospital was found to be storing the medication Mannitol in blanket warmers, rather than in warmers specifically designed for the drug. The blanket warmers maintained the Mannitol at 100-to-110 degrees Fahrenheit. The manufacturer's label on the drug calls for it to be dispensed (injected) at between 86 and 98.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In order to meet this requirement, the hospital takes the drug out of the blanket warmer in time for it to cool sufficiently before it is injected. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a blanket warmer to store Mannitol. On January 5, 2009, a surveyor found two vials of Thrombin, one vial of half-percent Lidocaine and Epi, and one vial of Bacitracin in operating room No. 4. The operating room is within the secured and locked suite of surgical rooms on the second floor. Two of the vials had syringes stuck in them and one of them was spiked. Whoever had mixed the medications was not attending to them at the time the surveyor made her observation. There were two unlicensed technicians in the room preparing for the next surgery. A registered nurse anesthetist was present as well. There was no identifying patient information on the medications. The hospital's policies and procedures do not require the patient's name to be on the label of medications prepared for impending surgery. That is because the procedures for the operating room include a process for ensuring that only the correct patient can be in the designated operating room. There is a fail-safe process for ensuring that only the proper patient can receive the medications that are set out. At around 2:45 p.m. on January 5, 2009, there were patient records in the emergency department showing that several drugs had been administered to a patient. The surveyor did not see a written order signed by a physician authorizing the drugs. When the surveyor returned the next morning, the order had been signed by the physician. The hospital policy is that such orders may be carried out in the emergency department without a doctor's signature, but that a physician must sign the order before the end of their shift. AHCA cannot say whether the physician signed the order at the end of his shift or early the next day. Count V of the complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the Agency. Count VI of the complaint concerned the status of certain patient care equipment, and whether such equipment was being maintained in a safe operating condition. A patient was weighed at the hospital upon admission on December 27, 2008, and found to weigh 130 pounds using a bed scale. Six days later, on January 2, 2009, the patient's weight was recorded as 134 pounds. Two days later, in the same unit, the patient weighed 147 pounds and the next day was recorded as weighing 166 pounds. During the survey process, the patient was weighed and recorded at 123 pounds on a chair scale. The hospital does not dispute the weights which were recorded, but suggests there are many factors other than calibration of the equipment that could explain the discrepant weights. For example, the AHCA surveyor could not say whether the patient sometimes had necessary medical equipment on his bed while being weighed, whether different beds were involved, or whether any other factors existed. AHCA relies solely on the weight records of this single patient to conclude that the hospital scales were inaccurate. Case No. 09-5365 On February 18, 2009, AHCA conducted a licensure survey at Gulf Coast. Count I of the complaint from this survey concerned the timeliness of triage for a patient who presented at the hospital emergency department with stroke-like symptoms. AHCA surveyors witnessed two patients on stretchers in the ambulance entrance hallway leading to the emergency department. Each of the two patients had been brought in by a separate emergency medical service (EMS) team and was awaiting triage. One patient was taken to an emergency department room (ER room) 50 minutes after his/her arrival at the hospital. The other patient waited 45 minutes after arrival before being admitted to an ER room. Meanwhile, a third patient arrived at 2:20 p.m., and was awaiting triage 25 minutes later. During their observation, the surveyors saw several nursing staff in the desk area of the emergency department, i.e., they did not appear to be performing triage duties. The emergency department on that date was quite busy. That is not unusual during February, as census tends to rise during the winter months due to the influx of seasonal residents. A summary of the action within the emergency department from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., on the day of the survey shows the following: Patient L.G., 74 years old with stable vital signs, was radioed in by her EMS team at 1:08; L.G. was processed into the ER at 1:21 (which is not an unreasonable time; EMS teams call in when they arrive at or near the hospital. By the time they gain access, wait their turn if multiple ambulances are present, and get the patient inside, several minutes may lapse). L.G. was stabilized and quickly reviewed by ER staff, then officially triaged at 2:04. Patient H.M., an 89-year-old male residing in a nursing home, arrived at 1:20 and was processed in at 1:59. He was triaged at 2:01, but ultimately signed out of the hospital against medical advice. Patient E.M. arrived at 2:18 and was processed at 2:25. Triage occurred one minute later. This patient presented as a stroke alert, and hospital protocol for that type patient was followed. Patient C.J. arrived at 1:08 and was processed at 2:38. Triage occurred immediately after C.J. was processed. This patient was not stroke alert, but had some stroke-like symptoms.1 C.J. had not been transported to the hospital as emergent, because the symptoms had been going on for 24 hours. Patient W.M., an auto accident victim, arrived at 1:40 and was processed at 1:49. Triage occurred within six minutes. Patient M.M., W.M.'s wife (who had been with M.M. in the automobile accident, but was placed in a separate ambulance), arrived at 2:06 and was triaged at 2:34. There is no record of when M.M. was processed. Patient L.M. came to the hospital from a nursing home. She arrived at 1:43 and was processed at 2:35. L.M. was triaged at 2:37. Patient K.M. arrived at 2:45 and was processed within three minutes. Triage occurred at 2:52. Her triage was done very quickly due to the condition in which she arrived, i.e., shortness of breath and low oxygen saturation. Patient R.S. arrived at 1:00 and was triaged at 1:15. The aforementioned patients represent the patients presenting to the emergency department by ambulance during a two-hour period on a very busy day. It is the customary procedure for ER staff to make a quick visual review (rapid triage) of patients as they come into the hospital. Those with obvious distress or life-threatening conditions are officially triaged first. Others, as long as they are stable, are allowed to wait until staff is available for them. As part of their duties, nurses necessarily have to be in the desk area (nursing station) in order to field phone calls from physicians concerning treatment of the patients who present. It is not unusual or improper for nurses to be in the nursing station while residents are waiting in the processing area. It is clear that some patients waited a much longer time for triage than others. However, without a complete record of all patients who presented that day and a complete review of each of their conditions, it is impossible to say whether the hospital was dilatory in triaging any of them. Count II of the complaint addressed the nursing staff and whether it failed to assess and intervene in the care of a patient or failed to implement a physician's plan of care for the patient. Patient D.W. was a 67-year-old female who was morbidly obese, diabetic, debilitated, had end stage renal disease, and was receiving dialysis. Upon admission, D.W. had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer to her sacrum and a Stage 4 ulcer on her left calf. A wound care protocol was initiated immediately, and a Clinitron bed was obtained for her on the day of admission. Due to the seriousness of her condition, the wound care physician declined to accept her case at first. He later ordered Panafil, and it became part of the protocol for treating the patient. The nursing documentation for D.W. was only minimally sufficient, but it does indicate that care was provided. Patient R.H. was an 83-year-old male who presented on February 10, 2009, in critical condition. R.H. was suffering from congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and respiratory failure. Due to the critical nature of his respiratory problems, R.H. was placed on a ventilator. As a ventilator patient, he did not fit the profile for obtaining wound care. Nonetheless, the hospital implemented various other measures to deal with R.H.'s pressure wounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 in DOAH Case No. 09-5363 and a fine in the amount of $500.00 in DOAH Case No. 09-5364, Count VI. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 30th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, as stated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated May 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) was the state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C., (Petitioner) was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and was providing chiropractic services to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner provided the services pursuant to a contract with Respondent under the Medicaid provider number 0503517-00. His Medicaid patients for years have included children and multi-handicapped children. Petitioner has published in peer review journals and is a board certified chiropractor. Dennis L. Jones, D.C., is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida. 1/ He was involved in the creation of Florida's Medicaid program and monitors the Florida Chiropractic Medicaid Program. Dr. Jones also serves as a Medicaid chiropractic consultant, including the issuance of prior authorizations for treatment. Prior authorizations are required for a chiropractor to provide and bill for visits by Medicaid recipients in excess of the set limited number. The maximum number of visits allowed per year prior to July 1, 1994, was 12, and after July 1, 1994, was 24. After July 1, 1994, prior authorization was required for visits beyond 24 for Medicaid recipients under the age of Prior authorization was granted for requests that demonstrated medical necessity. Dr. Jones denied many of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization. He denied the requests on the basis that the treatments were extending for periods of up to two years without detailed explanation of medical necessity to substantiate such extended periods of care. Dr. Jones observed that Petitioner's requests for such extended care routinely lacked substantiation and documentation for such extended care, such as x-rays, orthopedic and neurological findings, and subjective/objective descriptions. However, Dr. Jones granted some of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization to exceed the maximum number of visits. Dr. Jones had concerns as to the sufficiency of the documentation of Petitioner's requests for prior authorizations. As a result, when such requests were granted, Dr. Jones noted on the request forms that supplemental medical necessity needed to be documented more completely in the future. In 1996, Dr. Jones related his concerns about Petitioner in a letter to Respondent and included with the letter prior authorizations for primarily special needs children covering the years 1994 through 1996. Twenty-nine prior authorizations were included, with 25 of them for special needs children. His concerns related primarily to Petitioner's Medicaid patients who were special needs children and for whom Dr. Jones had reviewed only prior authorizations submitted by Petitioner. Further, in his letter, Dr. Jones requested an investigation into possible patient brokering, a criminal act. However, a request from a complainant for an investigation into a particular area of alleged violation does not prevent Respondent from identifying and investigating other areas of possible violation revealed by the documents provided. Dr. Jones' letter was referred to one of Respondent's employees, Judith M. Jensen. At that time, Ms. Jensen was also in the process of reviewing another complaint lodged against Petitioner by Dr. Jones, regarding prior authorizations for children, but covering a different time period--from 1993 through 1995. Ms. Jensen was, and is, employed by Respondent as a Human Services Program Specialist. Her duties include monitoring Medicaid claims and investigating Medicaid complaints and aberrant billings for Respondent's Medicaid Program Integrity Office. In investigating all billing irregularities or specific complaints, a review is typically made of the Medicaid provider's medical records. Substantiation of Medicaid claims that are submitted and paid is by adequate and proper medical record documentation. An audit, based upon a billing irregularity or complaint, is usually begun with the selection of a provider or a group of providers. Next, a sample of the chosen provider's Medicaid claims is chosen for a particular time period, which is the audit period. An analyst for Respondent then requests from the provider the medical records for the Medicaid recipients sampled for the audit period. The medical records are provided to and analyzed by a medical peer reviewer. If the medical peer reviewer recommends denial of payment for any of the claims, resulting in overpayment, Respondent forwards a preliminary audit letter to the Medicaid provider, describing the audit findings and requesting any supplemental medical records. A review of any submitted supplemental medical records is conducted, and the audit findings are adjusted in accordance with the results of the review. If an overpayment continues to be indicated after the review, Respondent forwards a final audit letter to the Medicaid provider. Respondent has a limited number of analysts and medical peer reviewers. Due to such constraints on Respondent, sampling is utilized due to its reliability, cost-effectiveness, and commonly accepted method for review of high volumes of Medicaid claims. Ms. Jensen initiated Respondent's review of Petitioner's Medicaid claims. She began the audit by requesting an ad hoc computer report on Petitioner's billing history for all Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Ms. Jensen's request concentrated only on Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 because Dr. Jones alerted Respondent primarily to prior authorizations for children. Ms. Jensen received the ad hoc computer report, which was a detail of all of Petitioner's Medicaid billings for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. The report provided that for the time period indicated, Petitioner billed and was paid for 4,499 claims for 85 recipients, for a total amount of $71,731.30. Having received this information, Ms. Jensen requested a computer-generated selection of a random sample of 20 recipients from the total population of the 85 recipients. Twenty recipients were randomly selected from the total population of the 85 recipients, which showed, among other things, claims totaling 1,307 and payment for the claims totaling $20,710.69. Afterwards, Ms. Jensen requested Petitioner to provide all the medical records for the 20 sampled recipients for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Petitioner complied with Ms. Jensen's request. Having received the medical records, Ms. Jensen engaged a peer review consultant, Dr. Ronald J. Hoffman, D.C., to evaluate the records submitted by Petitioner. She provided the medical records to Dr. Hoffman.. 2/ He was provided with the medical records of only 10 Medicaid recipients on two separate occasions, instead of all 20 at the same time. The Medicaid recipients' medical records were not "sanitized" when they were submitted to Dr. Hoffman, meaning that the names of the Medicaid recipients and provider, Petitioner, were not redacted. Dr. Hoffman, as a peer reviewer, rarely reviews files which have been sanitized. The failure to sanitize the medical records found to be of no consequence to Dr. Hoffman's determinations. Dr. Hoffman is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and has been practicing for over 30 years. His practice includes patients who are pediatric and multi-handicapped, but these patients comprise a very small number of his patients. He performs chiropractic Medicaid utilization review for Respondent and is a Medicaid provider. He has performed chiropractic utilization review for more than 15 years. For the Medicaid program, Dr. Hoffman has been a consultant since 1997, but Petitioner's review was the first peer review performed by Dr. Hoffman for the Medicaid program. When Dr. Hoffman performs peer reviews for Respondent, he relies upon State statutes and Respondent's guidelines, specifically, The Chiropractic Coverage and Limitation Handbook, and his years of experience Dr. Hoffman is knowledgeable about what a medical record should contain in order for the medical record to demonstrate medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes. The medical record should contain the complete medical history; an examination showing the condition of the patient and why the patient is being treated; symptoms; standardized testing, including orthopedic and neurological tests; treatment notes; a treatment program; objective findings; special procedures; and an evaluation of the patient's progress. 3/ Petitioner agrees that, according to the Medicaid provider reimbursement handbook, the following are requirements for medical records: patient history; chief complaint for each visit; diagnostic tests and results; diagnosis; treatment plan, including prescriptions; medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; progress reports, treatment rendered; original signatures and dates; dates of service; and referrals to others. Dr. Hoffman was aware from review of the medical records provided by Petitioner that the Medicaid recipients were special needs children. However, he was unaware of Florida's special needs statutes (Subsections 409.803(1)(c) and 409.9126(1)(b), and Section 409.9121, Florida Statutes), which address, among other things, health care needs for special needs children, and he did not use the statutes in his determination. The failure to use the special needs statutes had little or no effect on Dr. Hoffman's review. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that Dr. Hoffman's failure to use the special needs statutes in his review did not invalidate his determinations. Dr. Hoffman was tendered and is accepted as an expert in chiropractic medicine. He is also found to be an appropriate peer reviewer for Petitioner's situation. Dr. Hoffman's testimony is found to be credible. After having reviewed the medical records, regarding the 20 randomly sampled Medicaid recipients, pursuant to Respondent's Medicaid peer review, Dr. Hoffman produced two reports of his findings. 4/ During his review, Dr. Hoffman considered all of the Medicaid recipients' visits, including those that had been granted prior authorization. Patient 1 was recipient K.K., with a date of birth of 5/18/86. 5/ Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 1's medical records did not support a finding of medical necessity. The medical records failed to support justification for Patient 1's 198 visits from 11/10/94 through 9/10/96. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Petitioner's medical notes were practically the same for each visit, with Petitioner noting practically the same comment(s); and there was no recorded orthopedic or neurological testing and no standard chiropractic evaluation forms justifying the number of treatments billed. Patient 1's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 1, 198 claims were paid in the amount of $3,081.30. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. 6/ Patient 2 was recipient N.M., with a date of birth of 8/11/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 2's medical records lacked documentation demonstrating that the treatments were a medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes for the 175 visits from 7/12/94 through 6/27/96. The medical records contained no standard medical notes or examination forms and no orthopedic, neurological or chiropractic examination forms to justify treatments; and were redundant and repetitive. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; but, the x-rays have no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 2's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 2, 175 claims were paid in the amount of $2,726.50. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. Patient 3 was recipient D.A., with a date of birth of 4/6/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 3's medical records lacked justification for the 173 visits from 8/23/94 through 7/30/96. The medical records contained no standard procedures performed by an acceptable chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida. The medical records also indicated that a medical radiologist, Dr. Robert S. Elias, M.D., read the recipient's x-rays for the purpose of a medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Patient 3's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 3, 173 claims were paid in the amount of $2,693.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,604. Patient 6 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 2/5/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 6's medical records lacked justification for the 160 visits from 1/3/95 through 9/3/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no specified diagnosis, and no routine re- examinations. Furthermore, the medical records failed to show why Petitioner was treating Patient 6. X-rays contained in the medical records were not of diagnostic quality and were, therefore, of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays had no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 6's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 6, 160 claims were paid in the amount of $2,502.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $1,882.90. Patient 24 was recipient G.H., with a date of birth of 7/20/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 24's medical records failed to justify the approximately 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no objective findings, and no standardized testing, including range of motion, muscle spasms, and orthopedic or neurological tests. For many of the visits, the only documentation contained in the medical records consisted of the same notation or statement: "Patient doing well." Patient 24's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 24, 72 claims were paid in the amount of $1,158.09. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 25 was recipient O.M., with a date of birth of 4/25/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 25's medical records failed to justify the 87 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no justification of diagnosis, and no standard medical tests. The notes that were recorded were quite sparse and repetitive and typically recorded as "Doing well." Patient 25's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 25, 71 claims were paid in the amount of $1,131.69. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 27 was recipient C.F., with a date of birth of 2/12/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 27's medical records failed to justify the 67 visits from 10/11/95 through 3/25/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no standardized examination forms, and no documentation of Patient 27's progress. Patient 27's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 27, 67 claims were paid in the amount of $1,079.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 28 was recipient K.H., with a date of birth of 8/22/94. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 28's medical records failed to justify the 69 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing, and showed no specific treatment provided based upon the requirements of the Medicaid laws. Patient 28's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 28, 66 claims were paid in the amount of $1,031.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 33 was recipient K.D., with a date of birth of 2/15/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 33's medical records failed to justify the 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing. Patient 33's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 33, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $800.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 35 was recipient T.M., with a date of birth of 10/15/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 35's medical records failed to justify the 51 visits from 2/15/95 through 6/10/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also stated that Dr. Elias read Patient 35's x- rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 35's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 35, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $828.39. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 39 was recipient B.T., with a date of birth of 8/8/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 39's medical records failed to justify the 47 visits from 2/9/95 through 10/19/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 39's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 39, 47 claims were paid in the amount of $765.59. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 40 was recipient T.H., with a date of birth of 7/11/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 40's medical records failed to justify the 46 visits from 11/15/94 through 2/28/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also indicated that Dr. Elias read the recipient's x-rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 40's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 40, 46 claims were paid in the amount of $731.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 45 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 9/26/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 45's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/24/95 through 11/15/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 45's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 45, 26 claims were paid in the amount of $408.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 48 was recipient S.L., with a date of birth of 1/31/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 48's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/11/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 48's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 48, 23 claims were paid in the amount of $388.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 54 was recipient H.A., with a date of birth of 1/31/88. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 54's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 9/6/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 54's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 54, 19 claims were paid in the amount of $298.30. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 58 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 11/19/81. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 58's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/30/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 58's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 58, 17 claims were paid in the amount of $294.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 59 was recipient C.P., with a date of birth of 4/11/93. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 59's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/10/96 through 10/9/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing of the spine, no documentation of standard tests, including orthopedic and neurological tests, and no medical justification for ongoing care and treatment. Patient 59's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 59, 16 claims were paid in the amount of $278.89. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 64 was recipient M.L., with a date of birth of 8/20/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 64's medical records failed to justify the 8 visits from 8/30/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing, and no description of Patient 64's pain or physical condition. Patient 64's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 69 was recipient A.L., with a date of birth of 1/14/92. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 69's medical records failed to justify the 9 visits from 2/27/95 through 3/20/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, and the documentation contained in the records was minimal and repetitious. Patient 69's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 77 was recipient N.J., with a date of birth of 4/16/80. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 77's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 3/6/95 through 3/29/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 77's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 77, 7 claims were paid in the amount of $137.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Dr. Hoffman recommended denial of all claims for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96 due to Petitioner's failure to adequately document medical necessity in the recipients' medical records. For the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, the total of the Medicaid payments was $20,710.69. As a result, the denial amount, the overpayment, for the 20 sampled recipients was the same, $20,710.69. The overpayment for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients was extrapolated to the entire universe or total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, which resulted in a total projected overpayment of $70,518.26. The actual total amount of Medicaid payments for the 85 Medicaid recipients for the covered time period was $71,731.30. Considering the actual total payment of $71,731.30, the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 is very close to the actual total payment and is inherently reasonable. There is an expectation that, because all the claims of the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients were denied, the projected denial for all the claims in the universe of 85 recipients would be very close to the actual total payment. The difference between the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 and the actual amount paid of $71,731.30 is $1,213.04. This difference is negligible and such negligible difference reflects the inherent accuracy and reliability of the statistical methodology utilized. The maximum error range is 5 percent. The difference between the projected overpayment total and the actual payment total is also well within the maximum error range of 5 percent, or $3,587, for a 95 percent statistical confidence interval. To illustrate Respondent's statistical methodology, first, begin with sampled Medicaid recipient Patient 1. As indicated previously, the total number of actual claims for the total population of 85 Medicaid recipients, who were under the age of 21, was 4,499, and the total amount paid for the claims was $71,731.30; the data being taken from Respondent's Medicaid claims database. For Patient 1, 198 claims were audited and $3,081.30 was the total amount paid for the claims. All of the $3,081.30 was denied and determined to be an overpayment. Second, the same process was used with all 20 Medicaid recipients sampled, which produced a total of 1,307 claims, which were all denied, and produced a total of $20,710.69 in overpayment. The total sampled overpayment of $20,710.69 was divided by the total number of sampled claims (1,307) to obtain a mean overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85. The overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85 was multiplied by the number of claims in the total population (4,499) to obtain a point estimate of the total population overpayment, which was $71,291.04. Third, adjusting the point estimate of $71,291.04 for any potential statistical error, Respondent's model reduces the point estimate by 1.73 standard deviations, yielding an error- adjusted total overpayment of $70,518.26. Respondent has a level of confidence that there is 95 percent chance that actual overpayment is a minimum of $70,518.26. The point estimate of $71,291.04 is very close to the actual payment of $70,731.30 for the claims of the total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients; therefore, the overpayment of $70,518.26 is relatively conservative. Respondent's audit was conducted in conformity with Respondent's standards and conformed to Respondent's manner in conducting audits. The audit also had no known deviations or irregularities or deficiencies in the technical processes utilized, except the failure to take into account the prior authorizations granted. As to the statistical aspect of Respondent's audit, Respondent presented the testimony of a statistical expert, Dr. James T. McClave, Ph.D. 7/ Dr. McClave's testimony is considered credible. Using statistical methods in Medicaid overpayment determinations is a common and well-accepted standard of practice. Statistical modeling in Medicaid auditing scientifically and accurately determines the extent of overpayments in a population of payments from a small sample of overpayments drawn from the population of payments. Statistical modeling is capable of providing reliable estimates of the integrity, or lack thereof, of a Medicaid provider's billings, within reasonable time and resource constraints. In the statistical formula, a sample of claims is used to obtain a valid statistical estimate of the overpayment, if any, associated with the entire population of claims from which the sample of claims was drawn. A point estimate, being the best estimate the sample has to offer of the overpayment, is taken; and then a factor, allowing for the uncertainty associated with the sample, is subtracted such that there is a specified level of confidence that what is obtained is the conservative estimate of what the total population overpayment would be. The point estimate is referred to as "the lower 95 percent confidence bound," 8/ and the number obtained is a number which one "can be 95 percent confident that it is an underestimate of what the total overpayment would be" 9/ if the entire population was sampled. Respondent complied with the statistical methodology. The random selection process and the ad hoc computer report were valid and reliable. The results of the sampling and extrapolation were valid and reliable on the basis of the total population of Petitioner's Medicaid patients was pediatric patients and the results were limited to Petitioner's Medicaid patients under the age of 21. Further, the sample size of 20 Medicaid recipients from the total population of 85 was adequate. However, the results of the sampling and extrapolation are not reliable as they pertain to the failure of Respondent to take into consideration the granted prior authorizations. Respondent is compelled and should be provided an opportunity to re-apply its statistical methodology in light of granted prior authorizations not being considered. Uncertainty now exists as to what effect the granted prior authorizations would have on the outcome of the total overpayments. The denial of all of Petitioner's claims was a situation of first impression for Respondent. Prior to the instant case, Respondent had had no chiropractor's Medicaid claims go through peer review and denial recommended. By letter dated February 4, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (Preliminary Audit Report). The Preliminary Audit Report informed Petitioner, among other things, that Respondent's preliminary determination was that Petitioner had received an overpayment of $70,518.26 due to the claims being determined not medically necessary, and requested, among other things, that Petitioner submit any additional information or documentation which may reduce the overpayment. The Preliminary Audit Report also informed Petitioner of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. In response to the request for additional information or documentation, Petitioner forwarded to Ms. Jensen a videotape and testimonials. Ms. Jensen did not send the testimonials and videotape to Dr. Hoffman, the peer reviewer, for his review because these items (1) were determined by her to have been created prior to recording of the medical records at issue, and, therefore, did not constitute a medical record for review; and (2) were, consequently, not relevant. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that the testimonials and videotape were not relevant and need not have been submitted to Dr. Hoffman for his review. By letter dated May 5, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner its Final Agency Audit Report (Final Audit Report). The Final Audit Report, based upon the recommendations of Dr. Hoffman, notified Petitioner, among other things, that the final determination was that he had received an overpayment of $70,518.26, due to the Medicaid claims not being medically necessary. The Final Audit Report also notified Petitioner, among other things, of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. Moreover, Petitioner was notified that his type of violation warranted termination from the Medicaid program and a $2,000 fine, but that, in lieu of termination from the Medicaid program, he could continue as a provider by paying a $5,000 fine. In a subsequent letter to Petitioner, regarding clarification of continued participation in the Medicaid program, Ms. Jensen explained that, as a requirement for continued participation in the Medicaid program, in addition to the $5,000 fine, Petitioner must comply with Medicaid policy and Florida Statutes and rules. Petitioner was placed on notice that to continue as a Medicaid provider he must abide by Medicaid billing requirements. Respondent's Final Audit Report did not contain any notice of mediation being available. Section 120.573, Florida Statutes, requires notice of whether mediation (settlement) is available in agency action that affects substantial interests. There is no dispute that Respondent's Final Audit Report affects Petitioner's substantial interests. No evidence was presented that either Petitioner inquired about mediation or that Petitioner or Respondent sought or desired mediation. Moreover, no evidence was presented that Petitioner was harmed or suffered as a result of not receiving the notice. No evidence was presented to support a finding that the basis of the audit findings involved a conspiracy. A finding of fact is made that the basis of the audit findings does not involve a conspiracy between Respondent and its employees and Dr. Jones and Dr. Hoffman and Dr. McClave or anyone else. Respondent did not initiate any disciplinary action against Petitioner's license as a chiropractor and, therefore, Subsections 455.225(1) and 455.621(1), Florida Statutes, are not applicable. No evidence was presented that any criminal action was referred or taken against Petitioner as a result of Respondent's audit. No evidence was presented that Respondent suspected Petitioner of having committed a criminal violation, that a criminal act had been committed by Petitioner, or that Respondent had determined that Petitioner had committed a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order against Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C. and therein: Sustaining the failure of Dr. Rubinstein's medical records, except as to granted prior authorizations, for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, to demonstrate medical necessity. Sustaining the Final Agency Audit Report, except as indicated and consistent with this Recommended Order. Requiring Dr. Rubinstein to repay overpayments, without interest, in an amount subsequently determined in a proceeding by the Agency for Health Care Administration and within a time period under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. Imposing a fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 11th day of April, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license shall be disciplined for violations of Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes [failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of patients as set out in Counts 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 13-14 of the administrative complaint]. Whether Respondent's license shall be disciplined for violations of Section 458.331(1)(cc) 1, 2, and 3, Florida Statutes [prescription of an amphetamine drug for purposes other than specifically stated in those subsections as set out in Counts 5 (Preludin), 10 (Preludin), and 12 (Ritalin) of the administrative complaint]. Whether Respondent's license shall be disciplined for violations of Section 453.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes [by engaging in gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances as set out in Counts 1-15 inclusive, of the administrative complaint].
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tariq Husam Abdullah, is a licensed medical physician, practicing under license number ME 0021526. He is also known as Henry Nichols. The two are one and the same and there is no dispute over identity. Respondent appears to have been a hard worker, rising from a "bed pan hustler" at the old Fort Walton Hospital to his current level of education, licensure, and community position. Previous to Florida licensure, Respondent received his medical degree from Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee, where he also did his internship in straight medicine. Thereafter, Respondent performed three years of anatomical and experimental pathology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and two years in clinical pathology at the National Institute of Health and the United States Public Health Service in Bethesda, Maryland. Respondent is not board-certified, but is currently board-eligible in both pathology and laboratory medicine. At all times material hereto, Respondent engaged in medical practice in Bay County, Florida. During much of the time in question, Respondent had no assisting staff. His usual fee for each office visit of each of the patients referred to in the fifteen count administrative complaint was approximately $15- 20 maximum. They are a small portion of the approximately 1,000 patients he treated between 1978 and 1982, and in most cases his fees for office visits were $10.00 apiece. Sometimes his fees were paid and sometimes they were not paid. Medicaid and Medicare reimbursed all or a portion of many fees. In the course of his practice Respondent treated the following patients: D.B.; T.B.; Tommy B.; J.C.; L.C.; T.G. a/k/a L.C.; David G.; Dan G.; C.R.; B.W.; and J.M. Petitioner's expert-witness medical doctors were Jabe Armistead Breland and Michael W. Cohen. Dr. Breland was present at the formal hearing and had the advantage of reviewing Respondent's exhibits as well as Petitioner's exhibits in the forming of his opinions. Dr. Breland has been a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida since September 1950. Most of that time he has practiced in the panhandle of north Florida which includes Panama City, Bay County. His office is in Marianna, Florida. He is board- certified in family medicine, licensed by the federal government to prescribe controlled substances, and was stipulated as an expert in the field of medicine. Dr. Michael W. Cohen testified by means of a deposition taken prior to formal hearing and did not have the advantage of review of Respondent's exhibits admitted in evidence at the formal hearing. He is a family physician with an M.D. from the University of Miami School of Medicine (1975), a graduate of Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Regional Medical Center Family Practice Program, and has been a board-certified family physician for six and one-half years. His practice is limited to Tallahassee and he has testified on contract for Petitioner six times previous to this case. He is accepted by the undersigned as an expert medical witness, but because of the unavailability to Dr. Cohen of Respondent's exhibits which were admitted in evidence at the formal hearing held subsequent to his deposition and because some of the materials upon which Dr. Cohen's opinions were predicated were excluded from evidence at the formal hearing, the weight and credibility of his prior deposition testimony is significantly impaired through no fault of Dr. Cohen and without any unfavorable reflection upon him. Dr. Wilson, Respondent's expert medical doctor who testified by after-filed deposition knew nothing of Respondent's records and was unaware of the precise charges against him. In the absence of appropriate predicate as to medical opinion, his testimony has been accepted only as to facts of which he had personal knowledge and as to character. It is his opinion that Respondent is the kind of person who deserves not to have his license suspended or revoked. Dr. Wilson partly financed Respondent's education. The parties by Request for Admission have established that Preludin is an amphetamine; more accurately Preludin is phenmetrazine. Ritalin is methylphenidate. Dioxan is a methylamphetamine. At all times pertinent these were Schedule II controlled substances pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Percodan is also a Schedule II controlled substance. Valium is a Schedule IV controlled substance. Darvon Compound and Tylenol 4 are Schedule III controlled substances. Respondent frequently talked to police, Sheriff's deputies and pharmacists in an effort to avoid his patients becoming addicted to drugs. He never was made aware from any source of any drug addiction or any arrests of any patients concerned in this action. He testified that he performed a physical examination in every case and verified all prior medications in every case, but he also conceded not verifying prior medications with previous doctors or hospitals. It is specifically found that in many instances none of these precautions appear in his records as set out infra. D. B. (Counts I; XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admission) and found that between February 19, 1979, and April 23, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of controlled substances to his patient, D. B.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 02/19/79 Percodan Approximate 04/30/79 Darvon Compound 03/23/82 Valium 05/13/82 Tylenol #4 06/03/82 Percodan Demi 40 06/16/82 " " 18 07/10/82 " " 07/17/82 " " 36 08/14/82 " " 18 08/28/82 Percodan 08/28/82 Valium 01/15/83 Percodan 03/26/83 " 03/26/83 Valium 04/23/83 Percodan Respondent's treatment of his patient, D.B. with controlled substances was predicated upon his diagnosis of "traumatic arthritis." His records reflect, "hurting ankle, leg, and back" as the chief complaint. In no instance of prescribing scheduled drugs for this patient did Respondent maintain a record of the strength (dosage) and on only a few occasions did he record the quantity prescribed. This particular inadequacy of record-keeping seems also to have applied to additional non- scheduled drugs prescribed by Respondent for this patient. Although Dr. Breland acknowledged that many doctors only record the word "refill," good medical practice dictates that Respondent should have recorded at least the quantity and dosage at the time of the initial prescription. Normal protocol would be to also record the method of taking the medication. On this analysis, in Dr. Breland's professional medical opinion, Respondent's medical records for his patient, D.B. (Composite P-1) were inadequate and did not justify the course of treatment upon the recorded chief complaint. Dr. Cohen concurs. Further record inadequacies as noted by Dr. Breland include failure of the records to indicate which bone was fractured in relating the patient's medical history, recording only blood pressure as a vital sign, and failure to state what condition was being treated on subsequent visits. Dr. Cohen recited the same inadequacies in forming his professional medical opinion that Respondent's records do not justify the treatment received. Dr. Cohen further opined that if the patient had traumatic arthritis, the treatment prescribed was wholly inadequate due to the absence of any recorded plans for therapy. Dr. Breland, on the other hand, felt that a Percodan prescription is consistent with good medical practice for a patient who complains of traumatic arthritis and that Valium, a benzodiazepine drug which is a calmative or tranquilizer, may also be properly used for traumatic arthritis but that Valium would be contraindicated if there were associated patient nervousness and anxiety. Dr. Breland's opinion is that it would not be medical malpractice to prescribe Valium upon the basis of Respondent's records nor would it be medical malpractice based upon the continued prescribing of Percodan unless the patient became addicted. Dr. Breland's experience is that 1-3 months on Percodan would cause individuals to run the risk of addiction but knows of doctors in the Panama City locale who have prescribed Percodan in excess of three months with addiction resulting in some patients and not in others. Respondent conceded that his records for this patient should show greater detail but according to his recollection independent of the medical records, he recalled that on the first visit, he had accepted D.B.'s representation that D.B. had had prior surgery on the left ankle because the pins could be seen through that swollen ankle. Respondent's independent recollection was that D.B. did not ask for Percodan. Respondent testified that he prescribed the Percodan because "after codeine I can't think of another drug with potential for comfort." His failure to record further detail he explained as his belief that writing down prescriptions was a sufficient reference back to the original first visit diagnosis. Respondent admittedly did not record, but expressed independent recollection of also accepting D.B.'s representation of previous unsuccessful medication with codeine from a Dr. Smith and of recommending acupuncture as an alternative pain therapy but admitted he also did not record this latter instruction. The medical records themselves confirm Respondent's testimony in the course of the hearing that Respondent prescribed the scheduled drugs in addition to a number of other medications such as Roboxin and anti-inflammatories which he did record and which Dr. Breland confirmed were appropriate as treatment for traumatic arthritis. A portion of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 15, court certified records, show one "Donald Richard Bozeman" was charged in two counts of illegally selling Valium in Bay County on September 2 and September 11, 1982. This person was subsequently tried and found guilty of one count and entered a plea of guilty to the other. A Circuit Court Judgment was entered. The date of the commission of this person's offenses are close to the date of a prescription by Respondent to his patient "D.B." but there is absolutely nothing in the court documents to connect them to the D.B. treated by Respondent except a partial similarity of name. Nor does the similarity of name of a co-defendant, Tereza Ann Bozeman (see infra.) prove an inescapable link of "Donald Richard Bozeman" to Respondent's patient, "D.B." who was married to someone of partially similar name. Accordingly, the court documents are probative of nothing in connection with Respondent's records or his patients, including but not limited to Petitioner's assertions that Respondent prescribed to his patient, "D.B." for a non-medical or criminal purpose or that the patient was drug-addicted. Upon all the foregoing information taken together it is clear Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of his patient, D.B. This finding is made despite both of Petitioner's experts' testimony that there is no affirmative professional requirement that dosage and number of tablets be recorded anywhere except on a prescription. That concern is only a portion of the inadequacies of these records. However, in light of Dr. Breland's greater familiarity with all of Respondent's records and the standard of medical practice in the community, and the greater detail provided by his testimony and the explanations provided by Respondent at formal hearing, Dr. Breland's opinion that the course of treatment for this patient, isolated from all others, does not represent malpractice is accepted over Dr. Cohen's opinion that it does. T. B. (Counts II, XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admission) and found that between approximately May 1, 1982, and April 9, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of schedule- controlled substances to his patient, T.B.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 05/01/82 Valium 05/01/82 Percodan Demi 07/10/82 " " " 30 08/14/82 " " " 08/14/82 " " " 18 08/14/82 Valium 09/11/82 Percodan 09/11/82 Valium 12/12/83 Percocet #5 Although in some respects, Drs. Breland and Cohen emphasized different faults or inadequacies of Respondent's records which they reviewed concerning T.B. (Composite P-2), both experts concur that the records do not justify the course of treatment of this patient. Dr. Cohen bases his opinion on his analysis that the history Respondent recorded for this patient was not sufficiently detailed. Specifically, the initial office visit record is flawed by only writing down patient's vital signs and recording no physical findings. Dr. Cohen stated it is unjustifiable to prescribe a narcotic analgesic on the first office visit and to continue to refill the prescription on subsequent visits without recording how the patient had done on those medications and further without recording physical examination, assessment of how the patient is responding to the medication, a plan outline for prophylactic care, and patient education. Further, both Drs. Breland and Cohen assert that although there is no affirmative professional requirement to record dosage and tablet numbers except on prescriptions, it is the custom of reasonably prudent similar physicians to record amount, dosage quantity of drugs prescribed, and method of taking drugs, and Respondent's records do not do so. Respondent's records for this patient also offend custom and usage of the profession in that they indicate several office visits for which there are no recorded findings or treatments whatsoever. Dr. Breland's opinion that the records do not justify the treatment and that they fall below the customary standard of care are based on his analysis thereof emphasizing that the records of the first office visit do not evidence a physical examination other than taking a blood pressure reading and weighing the patient. There is a brief history of migraine headaches for three months recorded and also recorded is a past diagnosis and treatment with codeine and talwin; the records note no previous surgery, no previous fracture, and no physical findings. Then, Cafergot PB #2, Valium #3 and Percodan-demi were prescribed by Respondent. The records should have specified whether or not previous treatment was successful and if it was successful, Respondent could have subsequently prescribed less addictive drugs. In Dr. Breland's opinion, it is "hard to justify" a Class II drug without trying some other modalities available. Respondent first saw this patient on May 1, 1982, for migraine headaches and prescribed Cafergot PB and Percodan-demi. He selected Percodan- demi because Percodan is habit-forming. In the course of the formal hearing, he testified, "I just didn't know another medication to go to after you pass codeine that would be effective with patients, other than giving them Demerol and the harder narcotic medications" and that when he first began seeing this patient he was less aware of the similar use of the less addictive drug, Inderal, than he is now. On the physical examination portion of his clinical notes, Respondent indicated that the patient had been using Codeine, Talwin, and "Dx" and "Rx". He then and thereafter (8/14/82 and 9/11/82) prescribed analgesics and vasoconstrictors (Cafergot PB and Ergotamine) together with the Valium because Valium, in his opinion, is often ineffective without more because of the significant emotional components of migraine headaches. Respondent also expressed his independent recollection of discussing with this patient the alternative treatment of acupuncture but admitted he did not record this instruction. Respondent's explanation is not sufficient justification for the repeated prescriptions of controlled substances in light of Dr. Breland's more knowledgeable and thorough explanation of the standards of record-keeping necessary to justify continued prescription of the particular controlled substances here at issue. Dr. Breland faults another of Respondent's prescriptions dated 12/4/82 of Cafergot PB#2 (a combination of drugs primarily containing an Ergotamine derivative and caffeine), Percocet, and Valium because Respondent's records do not show how many pills were prescribed nor do they give directions for taking them. For prescriptions on 1/8/83, 8/14/82, 9/11/82, and 2/12/83, Dr. Breland expressed as his chief concern that there was an absence of recorded physical findings, history, and blood pressure plus no recorded amount of dosage listed for most prescription drugs, but Dr. Breland also determined that prescribing Cafergot is consistent with Respondent's diagnosis of vascular headaches and his prescriptions for these dates is an appropriate lesser treatment to be tried before prescribing a Schedule II drug, and, further, that Respondent's records justify prescribing Cafergot. However, the opinion expressed in the prior sentence is not compelling in face of the records having no notations to show the effect, if any, of Cafergot or other drugs or to show why Respondent prescribed stronger medication. Dr. Breland also felt Respondent should have prescribed other less addictive drugs before going to the Schedule II-controlled substances as he did, and that if Respondent's findings were negative, he should have recorded them as negative rather than leaving the record blank, because without such records it cannot be determined if a physical examination was ever made and because in absence of recorded physical findings, no Schedule II drugs should have been prescribed. A portion of Petitioner's Composite 15, court-certified records show one "Tereza Ann Bozeman" was charged in two counts of illegally selling Valium in Bay County on September 2 and September 11, 1982. This person entered a plea of guilty to a lesser-included misdemeanor. The Circuit Court withheld adjudication and placed her on probation. The date of one of the offenses coincides with one of the dates of a prescription by Respondent to his patient, "T.B." but there is absolutely nothing in the Court documents to connect them to the "T.B." treated by Respondent, except a partial similarity of name. The court documents also charge "Donald Richard Bozeman" who has a similar name to that of another of Respondent's patients (see supra.) but the court documents do not indicate the charged individuals are married or provide any other link to Respondent's patient(s). Accordingly, the court documents are probative of nothing in connection with Respondent's records or his patients, including but not limited to Petitioner's assertions that Respondent prescribed to his patient, T.B., for a non-medical or criminal purpose or that the patient was drug-addicted. Tommy B. (Counts III, XV) It is admitted (Request for Admissions) and found that between approximately August 16, 1981, and February 19, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of schedule controlled substances to Tommy B.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 08/15/81 Valium 08/15/81 Percodan 08/15/81 Dalmane 10/30/81 Tylox 12/05/81 " 12/05/81 Valium 12/06/82 Darvon compound 02/17/82 Percodan 30 04/01/82 " Demi 04/01/82 Percodan 30 05/29/82 Percodan Demi 06/21/82 Tylox 24 07/12/82 Percocet #5 30 02/19/83 Percocet 02/19/83 Valium In the course of the hearing, Respondent independently recalled that this patient presented on 8/15/81 and that Respondent himself personally recorded the notes for that date including a history, diagnosis of L-S syndrome, and treatment. On that date he observed scars on the patient's back from back surgeries which the patient related had been done at Southern Baptist Hospital in New Orleans. Respondent conceded that he failed to record the physical findings of scars and failed to record full details of the related surgeries so that at first glance it might appear to others, in this case Dr. Breland, that Respondent was only filling in a history of surgeries without making his own diagnosis. Respondent stated that he had relied on the Physician's Desk Reference, which he characterized as a "bible of the medical profession", and which recommends Percodan as a pain-killer. The treatise itself was not offered in evidence. Respondent also stated that the Percodan-based drugs he prescribed effectively relieved this patient's pain. There is no contrary evidence on this point of effectiveness but it still was not contemporaneously recorded by Respondent in the patient's record. Both Drs. Cohen and Breland opined that Respondent's records for Tommy B. did not justify the prescribing of these controlled substances, most specifically Percodan. These opinions have not been accepted for the following reasons. In the absence of any supporting evidence, Dr. Cohen's considerable testimony concerning his belief that this must have been a scam or scheme of Respondent to indirectly charge for a controlled substance prescription by requiring frequent office visits is rejected as conscientious but pure conjecture. Dr. Breland expressed concern that Percodan-demi was among the drugs prescribed by Respondent in the presence of a record notation within the physical findings which relates that "patient says he can't take Percodan". Respondent denied he made this notation, and related it is in someone else's handwriting and not true. Respondent's testimony on this score is corroborated by clear observation of the records. Most of Dr. Breland's other complaints concerning Respondent's record of this patient devolve to Dr. Breland's inability to read Respondent's handwriting and his original erroneous belief that the history and exam was chronologically incorrect and taken by someone other than Respondent. Dr. Breland's opinion that the records are deficient because the fracture of the back was not specifically recorded by Respondent's indicating whether there was an old fracture or current pain and by Respondent's not indicating whether there was thoracic or lumbar distress, and because there is no recitation of whether the fracture is pelvical or in any body of the vertebrae, and his objection to failure of Respondent to either record "no x- rays" if none or to record x-rays if there were some instead of leaving a blank space constitute technique over professional custom requirement of record- keeping. Dr. Breland also described the two month fluctuation down to Percodan- demi and then up to the stronger drug of Percocet from 4/1/82 to 2/19/83 as unjustified because no less addictive medicines had been tried and no degree of relief from less addictive drugs was attempted by Respondent, but Dr. Breland described the Percodan- based drugs and the Valium as medically acceptable where based on the degree of relief the patient had received. In such a situation Dr. Breland would use these drugs for pain treatment and consider them medically justified. Like Dr. Cohen, Dr. Breland also found unacceptable the failure of Respondent to record amounts and dosages in his office medical records, but on many occasions throughout their testimony, both of Petitioner's experts observed the requirement of listing amount and dosages is for prescriptions only and not for a doctor's office records. Upon the failure of adequate predicate for Dr. Cohen's conclusion of unjustified prescriptions, the absence of any admissible evidence of any addiction in this patient, and the only positive evidence of the effect of these prescriptions being Respondent's opinion that it was effective, the opinions of both Drs. Cohen and Breland that the medical records do not justify the course of treatment of Tommy B. are rejected. J. C. (COUNTS IV; XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admissions) and found that between January 4, 1982, and February 26, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following schedule-controlled substances to J.C.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 01/04/82 Percodan 24 03/23/82 Tylox 30 04/17/82 Percodan 04/17/82 " " 05/01/82 Tylenol #4 30 05/01/82 Valium 30 05/04/82 Tylox 30 06/12/82 Valium 06/16/82 Tylox 36 07/17/82 " 30 08/14/82 " 30 10/03/82 " 30 10/30/82 Tylenol #4 11/13/82 Percodan 30 01/15/83 Percocet 01/15/83 Valium 28. J.C.'s chief complaint was migraine headaches, "nerves", and back trouble. Respondent prescribed Percodan for pain, Valium for "nerves", and Cafergot-pb for migraines. He diagnosed hypertensive heart disease, anxiety neurosis, migraine headaches, and lumbosacral syndrome. He only used Percodan four times over a year's period due to the severity of the symptoms brought on by the tug and strain on this 200-pound woman's back. Dr. Cohen ranks the relatively minimal fault of writing progress notes in two corners and across the top and side of a page in the same category as overprescribing. Dr. Cohen's concern over the absence of recorded physical findings for this patient was not confirmed by Dr. Breland (see infra.) and his concern because the number and dosage of Cafergot-pb (non-scheduled), Valium (scheduled) and Percodan (scheduled) were frequently not recorded by Respondent is less significant in light of Dr. Breland's testimony that the best custom and practice of the medical profession is to record these matters but such recordation is not required for office records but only for prescriptions. Dr. Cohen also faulted Respondent for prescribing symptomatically with no effort to educate the patient to prevent or "prophylax" against migraines or to prescribe common anti- inflammatory medications usually prescribed for migraines. Dr. Breland noted that Tylenol #4 is a controlled substance but made no specific objection to Respondent's prescription of it for this patient. Cafergot-pb is not a controlled substance and its prescription by Respondent was not faulted by Dr. Breland. All of Dr. Breland's testimony on this patient is couched in vague terms of "it is hard to justify" Respondent's prescription of Percodan and Percocet on just this work-up and Dr. Breland felt Respondent's prescription of Percodan on the first visit was not justified without obtaining a further medical history, but he would have approved eventual (not first visit) use of Percodan for this patient's migraine headaches if it were not for the presence of hypertensive heart disease or her neurosis. Although the records fail to state why Percodan-based drugs were used, Dr. Breland felt these drugs would have been appropriately prescribed for the lumbosacral syndrome. By comparison, J.C's recorded medical history is more extensive than that of most of the patient records involved in this action. The history taken by Respondent lists previous surgery of a hysterectomy, of a previous fracture to the left hip, and of a tonsillectomy. Also given is an elevated blood pressure of 160 over 100, height and weight, state of parity, and diagnoses. The date of her last period and of her hysterectomy are not given. Petitioner's two expert witnesses each would have made separate and different judgment calls on all prescriptions here related, except that each concurs that Respondent's initial prescription of Percodan on this patient's first visit was unjustified without a further recorded history; therefore, Dr. Breland's summation that the records justify overall treatment of this patient is accepted. L. C. (COUNTS V; VI; XV) It is admitted (Requests for Admission) and found that between approximately March 27, 1978, and April 23, 1983, Respondent prescribed at least the following quantities of schedule-controlled substances to L.C.: DATE DRUG STRENGTH QUANTITY 03/27/78 Darvon Compound 07/21/78 Darvon 07/21/78 Darvon Compound 07/21/78 Valium 10/23/79 Percodan 10/31/79 Preludin 11/17/80 Preludin 11/28/81 Darvon Compound 12/28/81 Percodan 24 01/14/82 " " 30 04/02/82 " " 36 06/08/82 " " 36 07/17/82 " " 36 08/28/82 " " 36 09/25/82 " " 24 09/25/82 Darvon Compound 12/03/82 Percodan 30 01/15/83 " " Dr. Cohen's opinion that there had been prescription of an amphetamine drug for an unjustified purpose and that the patient's records did not justify the Respondent's prescribed course of treatment is rejected as partially predicated upon inadmissible and unadmitted exhibits. The opinion of Dr. Breland is accepted that most of these prescriptions as only part of the course of treatment as a whole were acceptable. More particularly, Dr. Breland indicated there are other doctors similarly geographically situated who use Percodan similarly; there was a very adequate history taken, although the date appears out of order on the page; Respondent's early prescribing of Roboxin and Darvon (one of the less addictive controlled substances) would be a good treatment for osteoarthritis which was part of Respondent's diagnosis of this patient; there was not enough Percodan prescription here for Dr. Breland to say it was not justified in this patient's case. Dr. Breland was unsure when Preludin became a scheduled substance and so would not comment on that aspect of the case. This is an issue of law and is discussed under "Conclusions of Law." T. G. (COUNTS VII; XV) Between approximately July 23, 1978, and April 26, 1983, Respondent treated a patient by the name of T.G. During that period, the stipulated records reveal at least the following prescriptions, among others: DATE APPROXIMATE QUANTITY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 7/23/78 30 Percodan 7/23/78 Darvon Compound 9/21/78 Percodan 10/14/78 Percodan 10/14/78 Darvon Compound 11/21/78 24 Percodan 11/21/78 Darvon 12/6/78 30 Percodan 12/6/78 Darvon Compound 12/28/78 Percodan 12/28/78 Darvon 1/23/79 Qualudes 1/29/79 24 Percocet 1/19/82 24 Percocet 3/4/82 Valium 3/4/82 Percodan 4/29/82 Percocet 8/19/82 Percodan 8/19/82 Valium 10 mg 9/25/82 Valium 9/25/82 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium 10 mg 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium 10 mg 10/14/82 40 Valium 10/14/82 40 Percocet #5 10/14/82 40 Percocet 10/14/82 40 Valium Additionally, the Respondent occasionally prescribed Tetracycline and Actifed Syrup for colds, and the parties have stipulated these are not controlled substances. Although Dr. Breland tagged Respondent's use of Roboxin 750, Percodan 30, Darvon compound and Prednisone (a Cortisone- like anti-inflammatory) on the first visit as "borderline acceptable," it was his and Dr. Cohen's mutual opinions that in the absence of recorded physical findings, the Respondent's prescribing of controlled substances in these quantities and with this frequency to this patient was not justified by the records Respondent kept. Dr. Breland, in particular, found unacceptable the Respondent's diagnosis of lumbosacral syndrome without detailed physical findings or any x-ray diagnosis, and both experts took exception to the continued and repeated prescriptions of the addictive drugs, Valium and Percodan, in a case where Respondent's records repeatedly indicate a good response. Both further opined against Respondent's delayed attempt to diminish the use of these addictive drugs. The doctors' opinion that the records do not justify the prescriptions are accepted. DAVID G. (Counts VIII; XV) The stipulated records reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, David G., between December 17, 1981, and February 12, 1983. DATE APPROXIMATE CONTROLLED QUANTITY SUBSTANCE 12/17/81 Ativan 12/30/81 Ativan 2/12/82 Valium 3/06/82 Seconal 3/11/82 Valium 4/08/82 Seconal 8/28/82 Seconal 8/28/82 Valium Respondent saw this patient 12 times in approximately 2 years and accepted David G.'s representation that he had been previously prescribed Ativan, a controlled substance of the same chemical family as Valium. Although Respondent claims he verified all prior medications, the verification here is not reflected in his record. The records themselves do not reflect for most occasions why this patient was being treated nor do they set forth an assessment of why Respondent switched from less to more addictive sedative hypnotics. Ativan is a tranquilizer on Schedule III. Seconal is a sedative on Schedule II. In an isolated response, Dr. Breland testified that if the Respondent's initial diagnosis of insomnia and anxiety neurosis had been arrived at after taking a proper history and after a proper physical examination which was not recorded, he would not find Respondent's use of these medications, including Seconal, improper, because there are doctors in the same geographical area who would also use Seconal. However, the ultimate opinion of both of Petitioner's experts is accepted that in the absence of a recorded initial physical examination and a recorded history beyond merely recording height and weight and an unverified former medical treatment, the course of this patient's treatment was not justified by the records kept. DAN G. (Counts IX; XV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, Dan G., Jr., between January 9, 1979, and April 22, 1983. DATE APPROXIMATE CONTROLLED QUANTITY SUBSTANCE 01/09/79 Percodan 02/22/79 Talwin (50 mg) 11/18/81 Percodan 11/30/81 Percodan 01/02/82 Percodan 01/19/82 Percodan 02/05/82 Percodan 03/30/82 Percodan 04/12/82 Percodan 05/01/82 Percodan 05/01/82 Valium 05/18/82 24 Percodan 06/05/82 Valium 06/22/82 Percodan Demi 06/22/82 Darvon Compound 06/22/82 Valium 07/24/82 Percodan 07/24/82 Valium 08/28/82 Percodan Demi 08/28/82 Valium 09/25/82 Percodan 09/25/82 Valium 10/30/82 Valium 10/30/82 Percodan 12/03/82 Percodan 02/19/83 Percocet 03/26/83 Percodan 03/26/83 Valium 04/22/83 Tylox 04/22/83 Valium Respondent's records for this single patient sometimes specify "Jr." and sometimes do not. The initial record indicates a surgical incision along the lateral aspect of both femurs and pain on palpation of both hips, and records a history of total hip arthroplasty (two total hip replacements) in 1979 with the patient evidencing pain secondary to a post-operative procedure to correct aseptic necrosis of both femurs. At formal hearing, Respondent stated that this patient first presented in a wheel chair and returned frequently, due to chronic pain and was already on Demerol when first seen by Respondent. The chronic pain was not always repeatedly recorded in Respondent's records. Both of Petitioner's experts concede that prescriptions of Percodan would be consistent if that were all that were relieving the pain when the patient presented to Respondent, and Dr. Cohen opined that Percodan and Talwin were possibly consistent with aseptic necrosis of a femur. Respondent had admitted (R-1), a hospital summary of subsequent surgery (conversion of left total hip arthoplasty to girdlestone on 8/19/83) at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Gainesville. This exhibit of subsequent surgery corroborates the previous 1979 history taken by Respondent which indicated that medications on discharge from the VA Hospital included Demerol 50 mg. po q 4h prn for pain. In light of no evidence of patient addiction and no evidence of poor response by this patient to Respondent's prescribing and treatment, the opinions of Dr. Breland and Dr. Cohen that Respondent's prescribing was excessive and necessarily addictive and therefore was unjustified are rejected, however the undersigned accepts their mutual opinions that the Respondent's records by themselves without the subsequent corroboration of the VA Hospital report do not justify the treatment Respondent administered to Dan G. Respondent admits R-1 was not relied on in treating this patient. C. R. (Counts X; XI; XV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, C.R., between July 3, 1978, and April 22, 1983: 2/ DATE APPROXIMATE CONTROLLED QUANTITY SUBSTANCES 07/03/78 Percodan 07/03/78 Percodan Compound 07/20/78 30 Percodan 08/14/78 30 Percodan 11/01/78 30 Percodan 12/05/79 Desoxyn 12/05/79 Percodan 01/02/79 Desoxyn 02/05/79 Percodan 02/12/79 18 Percodan 03/28/79 Percodan 04/16/79 Percodan 05/03/79 Percodan 05/17/79 Percodan 05/17/79 Darvon Compound 05/17/79 Percodan 05/17/79 Darvon Compound 06/14/79 6 Percodan 06/14/79 24 Desoxyn 09/18/79 Desoxyn 10/04/79 Percodan 11/10/79 Preludin 01/28/80 P 06/12/80 Preludin (75 mg.) 09/18/80 Preludin (75 mg.) 11/17/80 Percodan 01/27/81 Darvon Compound 04/27/81 Percodan 07/28/81 Percodan 08/31/81 24 Percodan 09/21/81 24 Percodan 12/16/81 Percodan 01/06/82 Percodan 01/29/82 Percodan 03/02/82 Percodan Demi 03/02/82 03/28/82 Percodan 04/20/82 Percodan 05/13/82 06/04/82 Percodan Demi 07/03/82 Percodan Demi 08/03/82 36 Percodan Demi 08/28/82 Percodan 08/28/82 Valium 12/20/82 24 Percocet 5 12/20/82 30 Valium (10mg) 01/15/83 6 Tylenol #6 01/22/83 Percodan Preludin and Desoxyn are amphetamine drugs. Desoxyn was legitimately prescribed for weight control in 1978. Respondent's prescription of both drugs was ostensibly to modify the amount of weight supported by the patient's leg bones. Dr. Breland is not sure whether both drugs were reclassified for control in 1979 or not but this is an issue of law resolved in "Conclusions of Law" supra. Despite Dr. Breland's testimony that if he did not have to base his opinion on the Respondent's inadequate recorded history and findings, he would term the prescribing of Percodan and Roboxin as recorded to be borderline acceptable, the undersigned accepts his and Dr. Cohen's mutual opinion that the frequent prescriptions of Percodan, Percodan- demi or Percocet (narcotic analgesics) for the Respondent's recorded diagnosis of arthritis and right leg pain resulting from previous right thigh surgery are unjustified by the records. Their respective opinions that this pattern of prescribing was excessive and unjustified in light of the potentially addictive nature of these drugs is also accepted. B. W. (Counts XII; XIII; IV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, B.W. between June 7, 1979, and January 29, 1983. 3/ DATE APPROXIMATE QUANTITY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 10/01/79 Valium 10/15/79 Tylenol #3 06/19/80 Tylenol #3 06/08/81 Ritalin (20mg) 08/11/81 Valium 08/15/81 Valium 09/15/81 Talwin 11/14/81 Talwin 12/07/81 24 Ritalin (20 mg) 12/20/81 Talwin 01/23/82 Talwin 02/12/82 Percodan Demi 02/27/82 Tylenol #4 03/04/82 Ritalin 03/18/82 Percodan Demi 04/02/82 30 Talwin 07/03/82 24 Ritalin 08/28/82 30 Ritalin 09/22/82 24 Percodan 10/14/82 Talwin (50mg) 12/21/82 24 Percodan 01/29/83 Tylox Ritalin is a sympathomimetric amine drug, which may only be properly prescribed in certain types of cases more specifically set out in the following "Conclusions of Law." Respondent's diagnosis, that this patient had chronic anxiety and back pain, is reflected in his written records. This is essentially the only recorded history on this patient. Respondent did not record a diagnosis of narcolepsy. Respondent did, however, introduce R-2, a consultation report to a Dr. Yankovich dated 1/5/82 from a Dr. Elzawahry which states the impression: "narcolepsy; low back syndrome. . . maintain on Ritalin 10 mg. po tid." Respondent testified that he had received similar information concerning the narcolepsy and psychiatric disturbance earlier than 1/5/82 first by telephone and then by written reports thereon from consulting neurologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists, and that through inadvertence this document was not turned over to Petitioner's investigator. However, Respondent did not explain why his files did not contain these other consultants' reports or why he did not write-up their contents or the dates they were received by him or why his prescriptions of 20 mg were so much greater than those recommended by Dr. Elzawahry. Dr. Breland felt that if Respondent were aware when he first prescribed Ritalin to this patient that the consultant had recommended it because of a good response, then Respondent's Ritalin prescriptions would be justified. It was also noted by Dr. Breland that Ritalin once was believed by the medical profession to be appropriately prescribed in the treatment of depression but that method had ceased and was statutorily proscribed by the time periods in question. Dr. Breland's expert opinion on prior belief of the medical profession is accepted. His conclusions of law invade the province of the hearing officer and are rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in the "Conclusions of Law." Dr. Breland did not feel under the circumstances that the Ritalin was contraindicated. Accordingly, Dr. Cohen's testimony that Ritalin is very dangerous if prescribed for chronic anxiety and depression is hereby discounted in that unlike Dr. Breland, he did not have the benefit of R-2 when testifying by earlier deposition. Dr. Cohen felt Valium was useful for chronic anxiety and that Tylenol #3 and Talwin were useful for pain but that there were excessive prescriptions of these drugs with few or no notations indicating any pain. In most instances all that is noted in Respondent's records on this patient is a prescription listed beside the date. Dr. Breland remarked that even the forms used by Respondent did not include a space for physical findings. J. M. (Counts XIV; XV) The records stipulated in evidence reveal at least the following controlled substances were prescribed by Respondent to his patient, J. M., between October 25, 1980, and March 9, 1982: 4/ DATE APPROXIMATE QUANTITY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 10/25/80 Percodan 01/05/81 Percodan 05/19/81 Emprin #4 06/03/81 Emprin #4 07/29/81 18 Percodan 09/25/81 12 Percodan 09/25/81 18 Tylenol #3 11/07/81 24 Tylox 11/21/81 Percodan 12/17/81 Percodan 01/02/82 Percodan 02/22/82 Percodan 03/09/82 Percodan The records of history and findings on this patient are reasonably complete and were faulted by Dr. Breland mostly because without appropriate dates one cannot tell if the history was taken on the initial visit as it should have been or later, and because the dates given are frequently out of order. In Dr. Breland's opinion, some of the modes of therapy utilized by Respondent were not of his choice but Dr. Breland only seriously objected to Respondent's continued and excessive use of Percodan as unsafe. Dr. Cohen's opinion was that the Respondent's conduct constituted mal- prescribing over malpractice. Dr. Breland's opinion was that Respondent's overall conduct with regard to these eleven patients constituted malpractice in that it was the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment of a reasonably prudent similar physician, under similar circumstances. Dr. Breland has had the benefit of reviewing all of Respondent's exhibits and he practices in the same geographical locale as Respondent. His opinion in this regard is accepted as to the overall pattern of practice with these eleven patients, despite his previous opinions that specific cases might not evidence malpractice.
