The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine, in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Rodriguez was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 9812 on September 17, 2009. Dr. Rodriguez's address of record with the Department is 1840 Northwest 122nd Terrace, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026. Patient D.H. was a 22-year-old patient of Dr. Rodriguez. She had been referred to Dr. Rodriguez by her mother, also a patient. Patient D.H. was the one who suggested initial treatment with Dr. Rodriguez. She had seen him about six times over a period of two months. On or about June 6, 2012, Patient D.H. presented to Dr. Rodriguez for chiropractic treatment. Dr. Rodriguez began treating Patient D.H. in one of the treatment rooms in his practice. As she was turning over on the examination table, Patient D.H.'s left breast was exposed. Dr. Rodriguez commented on her breast being exposed. Patient D.H. replaced her breast under her tank top. As Dr. Rodriguez continued with his treatment, her breast was again exposed, prompting Dr. Rodriguez to say that Patient D.H. was getting him excited, or words to that effect. Dr. Rodriguez touched both of her breasts with his hands. He then kissed her breasts. Patient D.H. testified that she was in shock because his actions were sudden and caught her off guard. Dr. Rodriguez left the room. Dr. Rodriguez's staff placed Patient D.H. in a massage chair in a common area of the office. After Patient D.H. stated that she still had pain, she was taken into another room for an additional treatment on her shoulder. In the new room, Patient D.H. lay down on the treatment table. After placing some patches on her shoulder, Dr. Rodriguez again touched her breasts. He placed his hand inside her pants and inserted two fingers into her vagina. She testified that she told him to stop. Dr. Rodriguez again told her how she excited him. Patient D.H. later testified that she was in shock and unable to react. Dr. Rodriguez and Patient D.H. made a "pinky promise" not to say anything, and then Dr. Rodriguez washed and dried his hands. He placed a Chinese herbal remedy above her left breast, told her to sleep, and left the room. When he returned, Patient D.H. began crying. Dr. Rodriguez gave her a hug and kissed her on the cheek. While Patient D.H. was in a treatment room with Dr. Rodriguez, he engaged in sexual contact with her which was outside the scope of her medical treatment. Other than as described, Patient D.H. made no complaint to Dr. Rodriguez, nor did she complain to an office staff member. Patient D.H. left Dr. Rodriguez's office and started driving to her cousin's house. She then pulled over and called the police and her mother to tell what had happened. Patient D.H.'s mother testified that she received a phone call from her daughter about 5:00 p.m., saying that Dr. Rodriguez had molested her, and immediately went to meet her. Patient D.H.'s parents took her to the Cooper City district office of the BCSO to report the crime. On June 11, 2012, in conjunction with a criminal investigation by the BCSO, Patient D.H. made a controlled telephone call to Dr. Rodriguez while in the presence of a detective. During the conversation, Dr. Rodriguez said that he did not want to discuss things on the telephone because he could not be sure he was not being recorded, and asked Patient D.H. to come see him at the office. Patient D.H. said she would be uncomfortable seeing him and that is why she had called on the telephone. Their conversation included words to the following effect: Patient D.H.: Do you . . . do you really do this to your other patients? Dr. R.: I don't. That's why I'm . . . I couldn't sleep this weekend. I . . . I . . . I'm exhausted. I'm physically and mentally exhausted. Patient D.H.: But why me? Dr. R.: I don't know. It just happened, hon. That's what I'm telling you, it just, it just happened. Patient D.H.: I just want to know why me? Dr. R.: I don't . . . I don't know . . . I, I just don't know. Um . . . you know, and I wasn't sure because you know, um . . . you know you, you um, when you came about, you showed me your breasts, um . . . . Patient D.H.: It wasn't . . . you know, it was an accident, I wasn't trying to personally . . . . Dr. R.: No, but you know, but when you did the other part, you know, then I thought that that was um. Patient D.H.: What other part are you talking about? Dr. R.: No dear, no, your breasts, and that was an invitation . . . or an open, you know, "here" and for some reason we were talking about stuff, it's a blank to me. I do not remember . . . if you asked me . . . it was just, I do not remember, um, how exactly everything happened, but it just happened. Patient D.H.: Don't you remember . . . don't you remember putting your hand on my breasts and putting your two fingers in my vagina? Do you remember that? Dr. R.: Yes. Patient D.H.: Yes, you do remember that, right? Dr. R.: Hon, I don't even want to, I don't even want to go there. I don't even want to be going there, because I didn't feel comfortable with that at all. Patient D.H.: How, how do you think I feel? I'm not comfortable at all myself. Dr. Rodriguez later engaged the services of a forensic audio engineer who generated an enhanced audio version of the above-described controlled telephone call. During this call, Detective Wernath's voice can be heard in the background, coaching Patient D.H. through portions of the conversation. The criminal investigation also found that a DNA sample from a buccal swab taken from Dr. Rodriguez matched DNA collected from Patient D.H.'s breast. As Mr. Rhodes testified, the chance of a false positive was less than one in 30 billion. Dr. Rodriguez has admitted the sexual activity, while maintaining that his conduct was invited by Patient D.H.'s actions. Specifically, Dr. Rodriguez testified that he believed that Patient D.H. intentionally made her breast "slip out" of her tank top several times, that it was not an accident. He testified that when he told her that he could see her exposed breast, she responded, "Oh, I don't mind." He testified that Patient D.H. was being flirtatious and, by her provocative actions, was encouraging his behavior. Dr. Rodriguez's testimony that he believed Patient D.H. encouraged his sexual misconduct is supported by his statements directly to Patient D.H. on the recorded call, when he thought no one else was listening, and is credible. But regardless of what Dr. Rodriguez may have perceived, or the degree, if any, to which Patient D.H. was complicit in Dr. Rodriguez's sexual misconduct, her involvement would not excuse his actions. A chiropractor is not free to engage in sexual activity with his patient even if the patient encourages or consents to it. There was scant evidence in the record to suggest that Dr. Rodriguez accepts or understands this professional responsibility. Patient D.H.'s testimony as to Dr. Rodriguez's actions was clear and convincing. Her testimony as to his actions is credited and is confirmed by his own statements in the controlled telephone call and at hearing. Respondent's touching of Patient D.H.'s breasts with his hand and mouth and insertion of his fingers into her vagina constituted engaging in sexual activity with a patient and was sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine. Patient D.H. engaged in a civil lawsuit against Dr. Rodriguez. She has since executed a release in that case. Dr. Rodriguez has not previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Board. Dr. Rodriguez credibly testified that he has installed video cameras in the treatment rooms to ensure that there will be no further incidents. He noted that the purpose of these cameras was to protect him. Dr. Rodriguez demonstrated little or no remorse, the focus of his spirited testimony being directed towards the provocative conduct of Patient D.H., not his own inappropriate actions. Revocation or suspension of Dr. Rodriguez's professional license would have a great effect upon his livelihood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, enter a final order finding Dr. Enrique Rodriguez in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; revoking his license to practice chiropractic medicine; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 29th day of March, 2019.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent's license as a chiropractic physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Joseph S. Maddox was licensed by the Board of Chiropractic to practice chiropractic in Florida. His Florida license number is CH0003204 (Exhibit 10). C.G. was a patient of Respondent during the period 1984-1988. In 1984, she presented to Respondent with pain in the coccyx. When external manipulation was unsuccessful in restoring the alignment in the tail bone, Respondent performed the adjustment through the vagina. Six months later, another internal coccyx adjustment was made, this time rectally. Both of these internal adjustments are accepted chiropractic techniques for coccyx realignment, but the rectal procedure is preferred because of fewer layers of tissue between inserted finger and coccyx and proximity to the coccyx. With respect to C.G., it is alleged that, for the purpose of attempting to engage the patient in sexual activity outside the scope of practice or examination, Respondent manually penetrated C.G.'s vagina, penetrated C.G.'s vagina with a vibrator device, manipulated C.G.'s breasts, asked the patient questions regarding her sex life and activities, and these activities occurred when Respondent was in a closed room with C.G. In 1986, C.G. had mammo-plasty reduction surgery. Before this surgery, she asked Respondent if the operation would alleviate her back pain. Respondent then examined her breasts and manipulated them. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever suggested having sex with C.B. Following this surgery there was some seepage from the wound, and while undergoing chiropractic treatment by Respondent, C.G. asked him to look at the wound. This is the occasion Respondent is alleged to have manipulated C.G.'s breasts. On several occasions, Respondent used a vibrator when giving chiropractic treatment to C.G. The vibrator was described by all witnesses as a portable machine with two handles and a rectangular vibrator pad approximately 10 inches by 4 inches. Although the Administrative Complaint alleges Respondent used the vibrator inside the patient's vagina, C.G. testified that during the course of the vibrator treatment Respondent allowed the vibrator to rest on her vaginal area, and he moved the vibrator over the vaginal area. C.G. also testified that Respondent used the vibrator for too long a period which was painful at the time and left her sore after the treatment was over. Between August 1987 and April 1988, C.G. leased space in Respondent's office facility in which she conducted her mental health counseling. During this period, she became close friends with Sara Chasse' who worked in Respondent's office for some three years before she was dismissed by Respondent. While occupying space at Respondent's office, C.G. used Respondent's staff to make appointments, answer the phone and perform other clerical services. C.G. is also an accredited professional astrologer (Exhibit 2) and prepared natal charts for Ms. Chasse' and Respondent's wife. K.T. first came to Respondent for an adjustment in late 1984. She has gone to chiropractors for thoracic problems dating back to childhood. In fact, K.T. has worked in a chiropractic setting for some 17 years and had formed her own company, Chiro Girls, to provide trained personnel to be employed by chiropractic clinics. At her first visit to Respondent's clinic, K.T. discussed with Respondent her ideas of how a chiropractic clinic should be run. K.T. was then employed to conduct a time motion study of the clinic operations and thereafter was employed under contract with Respondent as clinic director. K.T. considered her function at the clinic was to educate and motivate the clinic's staff. Friction developed between K.T. other employees and patients; and the contract was mutually dissolved some eight months later and well short of the year for which the contract was entered into. K.T. related a long history of menstrual cramps to Respondent which he treated with a vibrator. Respondent also queried K.T. regarding her sex life. Although K.T. deemed such questions inappropriate, a sexual history is appropriate to ascertain when treating female patients presenting symptoms of low back pain and dysmenorrhea (Exhibit 12). Further, use of a vibrator is appropriate when treating trigger points that can greatly intensify dysmenorrhea (Exhibit 13). Although K.T. testified that Respondent used a small, hand-held vibrator which he moved over her vaginal area and inserted in her vagina to induce her to climax, Respondent emphatically denies this; and nearly all other witnesses testified that the only vibrator used in the clinic was the large vibrator described in Exhibit 6. K.T.'s testimony that the vibrator treatment was very painful is more consistent with the use of the standard vibrator than with a smaller vibrator that could be inserted in a vagina. Accordingly, I find Respondent did not insert a vibrator into K.T.'s vagina. A.M.T. was treated by Respondent in 1980 when she was 15 years old. Initially she had back problems which were treated by adjustment and spine realignment. Between June and September 1980, A.M.T. worked in Respondent's clinic part-time. During this period A.M.T. developed coccygeal pain, and realignment of the coccyx was accomplished internally through the rectum. A.M.T. testified that Respondent rubbed her clitoris to relax her and discussed sexual techniques with her. She also testified Respondent's wife was in the treatment room while she was receiving therapy. A.M.T. thought the treatment she received was normal until she came in contact with a social services counselor in 1986 and then decided she had been abused by Respondent. When school started in September 1980, A.M.T. was unable to work at Respondent's clinic and get to school on time. Her need for treatment ended when she stopped working at the clinic. Respondent denies he rubbed A.M.T.'s clitoris or engaged in any unethical treatment of A.M.T; however, Respondent testified that he discussed sex with A.M.T. and her boyfriend at the request of A.M.T.'s mother. The mother denies asking for such a consultation with her daughter, and the boyfriend (now husband of A.M.T.) denies ever attending such a meeting. Since this alleged incident occurred approximately 10 years ago it is likely that none of the participants precisely recall what happened, but is more likely that Respondent's version of the sexual conversation with A.M.T. is inaccurate. However, Respondent's and his wife's attempts to justify sexual discussion with A.M.T. on the totally discredited basis that such discussion was requested by A.M.T.'s mother, leads to the conclusion that these discussions and treatments failed to comply with generally accepted standards of chiropractic treatment. Respondent treated M.W. with usual Chiropractic techniques for approximately one year for pain associated with muscular skeletal chassis stemming from a work-related back injury. At this time, Respondent's wife, Marty, was enrolled in massage school. After a discussion among the involved parties, it was agreed that Marty would practice massage on M.W. with Respondent present to point out the muscular skeletal anatomy. These treatments took place in Respondent's clinic in the evening well after the clinic had closed and were given at no cost to M.W. M.W. told Respondent that she experienced pain while having sex with her husband. He suggested vibrator treatment would help in this regard, and M.W. purchased a vibrator. M.W. testified that the massage therapy started on her neck and moved down her back and legs while she lay nude on the table. It is undisputed that the last evening M.W. received a massage she was alone in the clinic with Respondent. Marty was delayed and did not get to the clinic, so the massage was started by Respondent. During this massage a hand-held vibrator was used. M.W. testified Respondent moved it over her vaginal area and inserted the vibrator in her vagina. Respondent contends that M.W. requested he so use the vibrator on her. Both indicate that the other was the aggressor. Respondent acknowledged that he became sexually excited and testified M.W. put her hand on his penis. M.W. testified that Respondent put her hand on the front of his pants, and when he did so she got off the table, dressed and departed, never to return. Respondent testified that when M.W. grabbed him he realized the situation was getting out of hand and he left the room. When he returned, M.W. was dressed and was leaving. Even if Respondent's version of the incident is accepted as true, he voluntarily (if not intentionally) placed himself in an indefensible position and a factual situation that can lead only to the conclusion that he attempted to engage M.W. in sexual activity outside the scope of the practice of chiropractic. T.P. worked in Respondent's clinic for three months some five years ago and received chiropractic treatment from him. While undergoing activator adjustment the vibrator treatment approached the vaginal area, but T.P. inferred no sexual overtones in the procedure. When treated by Respondent she wore undergarments and considered his treatment similar to the other four or five chiropractors with whom she has worked. Sara Chasse' was a patient of Respondent for two years before being employed by him in 1984-1985 and again in 1986 until discharged in 1989. During her employment, she also received chiropractic treatment from Respondent. Chasse' was the back office assistant and was supposed to be in the room with Respondent when he was treating female patients. As the back office assistant she overheard the Respondent ask female patients questions about their sex life. No allegations were made in the Administrative Complaint regarding unprofessional or unethical treatment of Chasse' by Respondent; accordingly, most of her testimony regarding such treatment is irrelevant. Chasse' was a close friend of C.G. and M.W. and knew K.T. and T.P. She discussed with them the treatment they received from Respondent. Chasse' filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent and provided a list of patients treated by Respondent which included those who testified in these proceedings. All of the complaining witnesses testified that Respondent had them stand in front of a full length mirror clad only in bra and panties so he could demonstrate to them the results of the adjustments made during their treatment. They also testified that while they were in the room alone with Respondent the door was closed and sometimes locked. Other witnesses denied the door leading into an examination room was ever locked. Petitioner's expert witness opined that menstrual cycle problems are best left for treatment by an obstetrician/gynecologist; the use of a vibrator is not appropriate to relieve menstrual cramps; that it is not relevant to chiropractic when female patients last had intercourse; and that using a vibrator over and in the vagina, rubbing patient's clitoris, discussing your own sexual activities with patients, and having patients stand nude before a full length mirror constitutes a failure to practice chiropractic at a level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent chiropractic physician as being acceptable under similar circumstances and/or constitutes an attempt to engage the patient in sexual activity outside the scope or practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of the patient. Respondent's expert witness opined that when a female patient presents with low back pain, a reasonable inquiry by the chiropractic physician would be the sexual practices of the patient; that the questions shown in Exhibit 12 are appropriate; and it is appropriate for a chiropractor to treat dysmenorrhea pain, and Exhibit 13 accurately depicts the trigger points; that use of vibrator is appropriate to treat the lower abdominal area of the patient; that there is no fixed standard in the practice of chiropractic whether the door to the examining room is open or closed (but not locked), nor is there a fixed standard of practice regarding the chiropractor having some staff member present when a patient is being examined. Both expert witnesses agreed that prudence demands the chiropractic physician have a staff member present in the examining room when sensitive area's of the patient are being manipulated and that neither intervaginal massage nor clitoral stimulation is an appropriate chiropractic procedure.
Recommendation It is recommended that Joseph S. Maddox be found guilty of Counts II, III and V, and not guilty of all other charges. It is further recommended that his license be suspended for a period of six (6) months, that he pay an administrative fine of $5000 and, upon completion of the suspension, be placed on probation under such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate, for a period of two years. ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by the parties are generally accepted. Those not included in H.O.'s findings or not rejected as noted below, were deemed immaterial or unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected 10. Rejected. 12. Proposed finding that door was locked is rejected. 15. First sentence rejected as irrelevant to the charges. 21-24. Accepted as the testimony of K.T. insofar as inconsistent with H.O.'s 12, those findings are rejected. 27. Same as 15. 30. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #17. Same as 15. Rejected as irrelevant. 40-41. Accepted only insofar as consistent with H.O. #20. 58. Rejected as irrelevant. 59-73. Are generally rejected as irrelevant and hearsay, insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #21 and not merely corroborating testimony of other witnesses whose treatments by Respondent were alleged to violate prescribed chiropractic standards. Respondent's Proposed Findings Rejected 6. Last sentence rejected. Other witnesses testified to use of small hand held vibrators. First sentence rejected. See H.O. #9. Rejected. K.T. testified that a small hand held vibrator was used on her the one time she was treated with a vibrator. She also testified that the treatment was very painful which would lead one to believe the large (10"x4") vibrator was used on pressure points. Rejected insofar as the improper touching of A.M.T.'s vaginal area is concerned. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #16. Rejected. Rejected only insofar as it concludes that the uncalled for discussion of sexual techniques with a 15-year old female patient does not constiti1ite an attempt to engage the patient in sexual activity or malpractice. Last sentence is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Grover Freeman, Esquire Suite 500, 4600 Cypress Street Tampa, FL 33607 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Corrected Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed chiropractic physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Chiropractic Medicine has found probable cause to suspect that the chiropractic physician has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 2363. Background / Arrangement with Dr. Wagner In or around 1975, Respondent completed his training at the National University of Health Sciences and began to practice chiropractic medicine shortly thereafter. Some 15 years later, Respondent and an acquaintance—— Dr. Joseph Wagner, also a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida——matriculated at a medical school in the Dominican Republic. Although both Respondent and Dr. Wagner ultimately earned Doctor of Medicine ("MD") degrees in the mid 1990s, Respondent was not licensed in Florida to practice as an MD until early 2006. Significantly, Dr. Wagner never obtained licensure as a medical doctor. In 2007, Respondent and Dr. Wagner entered into a joint venture designed, in the words of Respondent, to "expand" Dr. Wagner's chiropractic practice. At that time, and for the duration of their business agreement, Respondent's principal place of business was located in Palm Beach County, while Dr. Wagner practiced chiropractic medicine in Daytona Beach. Under the joint venture (which continued until August 2011, when both their offices were raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation), Respondent traveled to Daytona Beach several times each month and interacted with Dr. Wagner concerning some, but not all, of Dr. Wagner's chiropractic clients (hereinafter "joint-venture clients" or "JVCs"). From what can be gleaned of the credible portions of Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony, it appears that Respondent's activity with respect to JVCs included a review of client files, and, in some cases, a determination that one or more medications——including narcotics——should be prescribed. Indeed, Respondent's level of participation was so minimal that his face-to-face interaction with JVCs consisted, at most, of an initial introduction, and on no occasion did Respondent personally examine——or perform treatments upon——any JVC. At the conclusion of an office visit, Dr. Wagner——and Respondent, if the JVC was seen on a day when Respondent was present in the Daytona office——dictated medical notes that Dr. Wagner usually transcribed at a later time. Respondent has acknowledged, both at the final hearing and during his deposition, that he provided Dr. Wagner with blanket authority to create claim forms and medical notes in connection with each JVC. Incredibly, Respondent also granted Dr. Wagner complete authority to affix his (Respondent's) signature to claim forms and submit them——without Respondent looking at the forms beforehand——to insurance carriers for reimbursement. This was accomplished not by the use of a stamp, which medical professionals often provide to their subordinates to expedite business affairs, but by Dr. Wagner manually signing, in cursive, "John P. Christensen" inside the box of the claim form labeled "signature of the physician or supplier." Another unusual aspect of the business arrangement between Respondent and Dr. Wagner was the manner in which they dealt with reimbursement checks from insurance carriers. By agreement, reimbursement checks for claims that related to JVCs were received by mail at Dr. Wagner's place of business in Daytona Beach. Upon their receipt, Dr. Wagner deposited the checks into a SunTrust checking account for which Respondent had sole signatory authority. At the end of each month, Respondent would transfer the entire balance of the SunTrust account into his business account at PNC Bank. Shortly thereafter, Respondent would draft a check on the PNC account to Dr. Wagner in an amount equal to 50 percent of the monthly proceeds.2/ Against the foregoing backdrop, the undersigned will turn to the specific allegations enumerated in the Complaint, namely: that Dr. Wagner, in connection with JVCs, submitted claims to an insurance carrier for services that were never provided——i.e., he overbilled——and that Respondent approved, authorized, and/or knew or should have known of the misconduct (as charged in Counts One and Three); and that the Respondent and Dr. Wagner's billing practices with respect to the four JVCs constituted fraudulent, deceptive, or untrue representations related to the practice of a profession (Count Two). The undersigned will begin with a discussion of the facts relating to Count Two. Deceptive Billing Practices In or around August 2009, three individuals——S.J., J.J. (S.J's cousin), and L.J. (S.J's mother)——were involved in an automobile accident. Thereafter, in late 2009 and early 2010, S.J., J.J., and L.J. presented themselves on a number of occasions for chiropractic services at Dr. Wagner's office in Daytona Beach. Roughly one year earlier, patient C.H. was likewise involved in a car accident. C.H. was subsequently referred to Dr. Wagner for chiropractic treatment by her personal injury attorney, Joshua Wagner, who happens to be the son of Dr. Joseph Wagner. It appears from the record that C.H. was treated at Dr. Wagner's clinic on multiple dates. Pursuant to the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, it is undisputed that S.J., J.J., L.J., and C.H. each had personal injury protection (PIP) insurance from Direct General Insurance Company ("DGIC"). PIP insurance coverage allows a medical or chiropractic provider to treat insured persons and then submit a reimbursement claim to the insurance company for the service(s) provided. Beginning with the claims associated with C.H., Respondent has consistently maintained that C.H. was not a joint-venture client, that he had no knowledge of C.H., and that any claim submitted by Dr. Wagner in connection with C.H. was without his knowledge or authorization. The undersigned credits this portion of Respondent's testimony; thus, any bills that relate to C.H. cannot sustain a finding of a deceptive or fraudulent practice. However, the cases of S.J., J.J., and L.J. are another matter. Based upon Respondent's deposition testimony, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Wagner, with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, submitted reimbursement claims to DGIC in connection with S.J., J.J., and L.J. that bear the following dates: January 30, 2010 (S.J.); January 30, 2010, and March 13 and 27, 2010 (L.J.); and April 10 and 24, 2010 (J.J.).3/ While the exact services billed to DGIC varied by JVC and date, the content of each of these claim forms represented unambiguously that the examinations and/or treatments——e.g., a trigger point injection for L.J. on March 27, 2010——were performed by Respondent and no other. This was unquestionably deceptive in light of Respondent's consistent testimony that he never physically conducted medical examinations or treatments in connection with any joint-venture client. Alleged Overbilling In contrast to Count Two, the charges that relate to overbilling (Counts One and Three) cannot be sustained merely by proof that claims for reimbursement——i.e., the claims identified in paragraph 16 above, which Respondent authorized——were submitted for services that Respondent did not perform. Rather, it is incumbent upon Petitioner to demonstrate that the services billed were not performed at all. In this regard, the deposition transcripts of L.J. and S.J., which consist entirely of hearsay, are the only evidence that the billed services were not performed by anyone. While the deposition testimony of L.J. and S.J. is credible, there is a complete absence of non-hearsay evidence as to what procedures or services were never provided to these specific patients during their office visits. All that was proven——based upon Respondent's admissions and supplemented by the hearsay testimony of the JVCs——is that Respondent did not perform the billed services, which, as explained in greater detail in the Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order, is insufficient to satisfy Petitioner's burden. Ultimate Findings of Fact It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of his profession. It is further determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent submitted to a third-party payor a claim for a service or treatment that was not actually provided to a patient. Finally, as a matter of ultimate fact, it is determined that that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent, in connection with a personal injury protection claim, intentionally submitted a bill or claim for reimbursement for services that were not rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine: Dismissing Counts One and Three of the Corrected Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count Two; Suspending Respondent's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of one year; Placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years, with conditions deemed appropriate by the Board; and Imposing a fine of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 16th day of March, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here to, Respondent has been a chiropractic physician licensed under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent placed the following ad, which appeared in the Miami Herald newspaper on Sunday, November 8, 1981, only: DRUGS? (note: A picture of Dr. is on the original document on file HEART PROBLEMS with the Clerk's Office.) HEADACHES Dr. Bob Bacher DIABETES Director HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE SKIN PROBLEMS 15.27 billion dollars spent in drug storeslast year. This does not include other sources, such as hospitals, clinics, etc; How can your lives be normal depending on drugs? To take a pill each day is dependency. Dependency is addiction. Pushed or prescribed you are an addict. Chiropractic can free you from drug dependency. Chiropractic finds the cause of sickness, corrects it, and allows the life within to heal the body. Come talk to us. We will tell you what you can do to get well and then it's up to you. \ALL CASES ACCEPTED REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY/ \ / We Accept: FREE X-RAYS Workers Compensation FOR MEDICARE PATIENTS Auto Accident Insurance $50-$100 Value When Necessary! Group Health Insurance Individual Health Insurance- Family Plan BACHER CHIROPRACTIC LIFE CENTER 9001 N.E. 2nd AVE. 756-LIFE CALL TODAY (5433) Some persons who have undergone chiropractic treatment and who have also suffered from the conditions listed in Respondent's advertisement have experienced, during the course of that treatment, some improvement in those conditions to the extent that some could reduce the medication taken for those conditions. The conditions listed in the ad encompass broad categories of diseases and include subcategories of those diseases for which a person must take medication in order to live. In a number of the diseased states listed, the medications being taken are not optional but rather are life-saving. The ad fails to distinguish among persons taking a daily multi-vitamin pill, persons requiring medication to remain alive due to some genetic defect, and persons addicted to illegal drugs for recreational purposes. The words "pill," "medication," and "drugs" are interchangeable only sometimes. A person can take a pill each day without being dependent or addicted. The words "dependency" and "addiction" mean the same thing to some medical professionals only. Many kinds of heart problems, headaches, diabetes, high blood pressure, and skin problems have never shown a response to chiropractic care alone, and there is no scientific or medical data showing that chiropractic treatment can curtail or eliminate the use of prescribed medication in all of the listed conditions. The implication of the ad, read in its entirety, is that every person who has the listed conditions can be helped by chiropractic and can be taken off pills/drugs/medication. Chiropractic does not have a high success rate of freeing people from drug dependency. Respondent's advertisement has the ability to endanger the health of the public for two reasons. First, persons may cease taking life-sustaining medication simply because they have gone to a chiropractor. Second, in situations involving true addiction to certain drugs, it is necessary that any attempts by the person addicted to withdraw from use of that drug be made only under the supervision of a medical doctor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of each and every allegation contained within the Administrative Complaint and assessing against him an administrative fine of $1,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Frances Carter, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence M. Malman, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 412 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Michael F. Petrie, was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. The Petitioner introduced no evidence relating to Count I of the Administrative Complaint. On or about February 3, 1982, the Respondent placed an advertisement in the Pompano Shopper's Guide, advertising the Petrie Chiropractic Life Center. (See Joint Exhibit 1.) This advertisement states, in pertinent part, ". . . To take a pill or more each day is dependency. Dependency is addiction! Whether these drugs are pushed or prescribed, you are an addict! CHIROPRACTIC can many times free you from drug dependency. . ." The advertisement makes reference to specific medical conditions, such as headaches, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure and skin problems, which can be helped by chiropractic treatment. The testimony of Kenneth C. Lasseter, M. D., was offered via deposition as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Dr. Lasseter stated his professional opinion that dependency on a drug is not the same as addiction. Drs. Michael Nathanson, Thomas Pasterski and Richard Hodish, all of whom are doctors of chiropractic and were accepted as experts in this field, testified that addiction and dependency are synonymous. (See Transcript, pages 48, 49, 95 and 101.) Their testimony was further substantiated by the definitions of addiction and dependency as found in the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medical and Nursing. Joyce Quintavalli, R. N., a psychiatric nurse specializing in the treatment of young people for drug problems, stated that from the practical standpoint there was no difference between dependency and addiction. Dependency and addiction are synonymous. Robert S. Butler, Jr., D. C., who was accepted as an expert in chiropractic, testified that the advertisement indicated that the Respondent's treatment could reduce a patient's need for medication for the enumerated conditions or illnesses and therefore opined that the advertisement was misleading. However, Dr. Butler stated that the medical conditions enumerated in the advertisement fall within the scope of practice of chiropractic, that chiropractic can treat patients for these problems with good results, and that treatment can lessen or free the patient from drug dependency. Dr. Butler stated his concern that the advertisement could encourage people to stop their medications, although he admitted that the advertisement does not urge or recommend to people that they cease taking medication. The chiropractic physicians enumerated in Paragraph 5 above testified that the conditions enumerated in the advertisement were within the scope of treatment of chiropractic, that they had treated patients for these diseases or conditions with good results, and that as a result of treatment their patients had reduced or ceased altogether taking medication which had been necessary prior to their treatment for control of their condition. The statements made in the advertisement are accurate and do not mislead the public concerning the scope of chiropractic, the benefits of chiropractic, or the Respondent's qualifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed against Michael F. Petrie be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Frances Carter, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael F. Petrie, D. C. 410 NE 44th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on February 6, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
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 chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been licensed in Florida since 1985. Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice has not been previously disciplined. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Practice. At the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld operated Foundation Chiropractic (hereinafter referred to as "Foundation"), a chiropractic clinic located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Foundation employees three individuals, in addition to Dr. Mitzelfeld's wife, daughter, father, and mother.2 It is, and was at the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld's practice to open the offices of Foundation between 5:15 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day the clinic was open.3 Dr. Mitzelfeld opened the clinic early in order to see patients who needed adjustments prior to reporting to their jobs. Once Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door at Foundation, the door remained unlocked and open to the public. After Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door and before staff arrived, whenever anyone arrived at Foundation and opened the front door, a buzzer or bell sounded to announce their arrival. Dr. Mitzelfeld established and maintained an "open- door" policy at Foundation. Pursuant to this policy, the doors to all of the treatment rooms at Foundation remained open at all times and staff were allowed to enter a treatment room at any time. Dr. Mitzelfeld did not as a matter of course, however, have a staff member present whenever he was seeing a female patient. The evidence failed to prove that, even though the front door of Foundation was unlocked at all times relevant to this matter and Dr. Mitzelfeld maintained an open-door policy, Dr. Mitzelfeld could not have from engaged in the conduct described in this Recommended Order. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Treatment of Patient C.H. On or about September 6, 2001 Dr. Mitzelfeld began treating patient C.H. C.H., a female, earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1992, and was, therefore, in all likelihood in her 30's during the times relevant to this matter. During the period of time that Dr. Mitzelfeld was treating C.H., he was also treating C.H.'s husband.4 From the time that C.H. began coming to Foundation until approximately January of 2002, C.H. was seen by Dr. Mitzelfeld during the afternoon, when staff and other patients were present. Most often, her appointments were at approximately 3:00 p.m. In approximately January 2002 C.H.'s appointment time was moved, at her request, to the early morning, before staff arrived. C.H. began arriving at approximately 6:30 a.m. for treatments and, although on occasion there were one or two individuals in the waiting room, she usually saw no one else at Foundation other than Dr. Mitzelfeld during her appointments. After C.H. began seeing Dr. Mitzelfeld in the early morning, their relationship began to change from that of a purely doctor-patient relationship to a more personal one. Their conversations started to become more personal and, gradually, they became verbally flirtatious. For example, Dr. Mitzelfeld began to tell C.H. that she was pretty and that she looked good in whatever she was wearing. Dr. Mitzelfeld's personal comments were welcomed by C.H. She responded by telling him personal things about her life, telling him that her marriage was "terrible," that her husband no longer slept in the same room with her, and that they no longer had sexual relations. Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments to C.H. continued to become more flirtatious and suggestive. Among other things, he told her that he found her attractive and that he could not understand why her husband did not find her attractive and desirable. He also told her that, if her were married to her, "I would treat you so good and I would definitely be sleeping in the same bed with you and I'd be making love to you every night." Lines 11-14, Page 69, Transcript of June 19, 2003. As C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld became verbally flirtatious, C.H. began to perceive that the manner that Dr. Mitzelfeld touched her was no longer just professional, but more personal and intimate, a change she welcomed. The change in their relationship was not unwelcome to C.H. C.H. believed, without having discussed the matter directly with Dr. Mitzelfeld, that they "had a relationship" and that she "was in love with him and [she] thought he was in love with [her]." Lines 22-24, Page 67, Transcript of June 19, 2003. C.H. naively believed that the physical lust they were experiencing, amounted to something more emotionally meaningful. In approximately February 2002 Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that he wanted to give her a hug after her treatment. They hugged and he kissed her on the cheek. After that, they hugged after each visit. Over time, their hugs became more lasting and intimate, with Dr. Mitzelfeld eventually becoming aroused to the point where he had an erection and "he would rub it all over [C.H.]." Lines 11-12, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. Dr. Mitzelfeld began performing a new treatment on C.H. for her upper back where she held her arms out to the side, he lifted her up from behind, and her body rested against his. Dr. Mitzelfeld would become aroused during these treatments; his penis would become erect.5 The increased intimacy between C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld, was not unwelcome to C.H., because". . . it was very obvious we were very attracted to each other and there was chemistry." C.H. was "happy about it. I mean, I was attracted to him so it didn't bother me at all." Lines 14-15, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. On May 9, 2002, during a prolonged hug, C.H. kissed Dr. Mitzelfeld on the cheek, then quickly on the mouth, and then passionately on the mouth, a kiss which Dr. Mitzelfeld returned. C.H. continued to naively believe that she was in love with Dr. Mitzelfeld and, although he had not said so, that he was in love with her. She took time prior to each visit to look as good as she could, doing her hair, nails, and make-up, and carefully selecting what she would wear, all in an effort to please Dr. Mitzelfeld and further the relationship she believed they had. On May 13, 2002, C.H. saw Dr. Mitzelfeld for the first time after the May 9th kiss. During this visit, Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that they should not let anything like the kiss happen again "because if it does, [my] hands are going to start traveling and [your] clothes are going to come off." C.H.'s next visit was the morning of May 16, 2002. After receiving her adjustment, C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld began hugging and kissing passionately. Dr. Mitzelfeld put his hand down C.H.'s jeans and she began to rub his penis through his clothes with her hand. After a while, C.H. told Dr. Mitzelfeld that she "wanted to do something to him" although she did not specify what. Dr. Mitzelfeld took her by the hand and led her into a bathroom, locking the door behind them. Given the circumstances, Dr. Mitzelfeld correctly assumed that what C.H. wanted to do to him was sexual. Once in the bathroom, they continued to hug and kiss while she attempted to pull down his pants so that she could perform fellatio on him. He eventually pulled his pants down for her and C.H. began to fellate him. While she did, Dr. Mitzelfeld told her to "take it deep, baby." C.H. caused Dr. Mitzelfeld to have an orgasm, after which he told her repeatedly how much he had enjoyed it. She told him that next time she would bring whipped cream. Eventually, Dr. Mitzelfeld, having been sexually satisfied, realized the possible consequences of what had happened and told C.H. that what had just happened should not have; and that he had a great marriage and that he loved his wife. Dr. Mitzelfeld became cold and distant. Dr. Mitzelfeld knew that what had happened was unethical. C.H. left Foundation upset and, because of Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments and cold treatment of her, she spoke with a neighbor and her mental health counselor and told both what had happened. Her mental health counselor told her that what had happened was unethical and that she should report it. C.H., however, was not yet realized that Dr. Mitzelfeld did not have deep emotional feelings for her. By the next morning, May 17, 2002, C.H. had recovered from her concern over Dr. Mitzelfeld's reaction the day before and convinced herself that they indeed had a relationship. C.H. naively believed that Dr. Mitzelfeld had to have feelings for her because they had engaged in a sexual act. She decided to surprise him with an unscheduled visit to his office. C.H. dressed in a black negligee which she covered with a denim dress. She entered Foundation at approximately 6:30 a.m. She did not sign in upon arrival,6 which she normally did when she arrived for a scheduled appointment. She had not come to Foundation that morning for any medical treatment. Dr. Mitzelfeld, who was upstairs in his loft-like office, came downstairs to see who had come in and met C.H.. When he asked what she was doing there that morning, she told him she had something to show him, walked up the stairs to his office, taking off her dress as she went and leaving it on the stairs, and waited for him wearing only the negligee and black high- heeled shoes. She intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him. When Dr. Mitzelfeld came into his office and saw C.H. standing there, he told her that they could not do anything like they had done the day before. Dr. Mitzelfeld had realized that what he had done was unethical and he told C.H. so. He also told her that he could be in trouble for the incident, a prophetic comment. Dr. Mitzelfeld also told her that they could not kiss, hug, or have any other sexual contact again. Dismayed and confused, C.H. dressed, as Dr. Mitzelfeld instructed her, and left the Foundation, never to return. Later the same day, Dr. Mitzelfeld discussed C.H. with a colleague, Dr. Robert McLaughlin. Dr. Mitzelfeld asked Dr. McLaughlin for advice about what he should do about a patient, C.H., who had become agitated when he rejected her sexual advances. Dr. McLaughlin correctly advised Dr. Mitzelfeld that he should discontinue any doctor-patient relationship with C.H., an act which Dr. Mitzelfeld should have taken earlier when his relationship with C.H. started to become more than just a doctor-patient relationship.7 Dr. Mitzelfeld did not admit the events found is this Recommended Order to Dr. McLaughlin. Upset, disappointed, and angry about her May 17, 2002, visit with Dr. Mitzelfeld, C.H. reported the foregoing incidents to the Department on May 22, 2002, after finally realizing that her relationship with Dr. Mitzelfeld was based upon lust and not some deeper emotional feeling. The Department's Administrative Complaint and Dr. Mitzelfeld's Request for Hearing. On February 6, 2003, after investigating C.H.'s allegations, the Department filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Mitzelfeld before the Board alleging that he had committed "sexual misconduct" in the chiropractic physician-patient relationship, which is prohibited by Section 460.412 and, therefore, that he had violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), which provides that "[v]iolating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto" constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. On or about March 18, 2003, Dr. Mitzelfeld, through counsel, filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, indicating that he disputed the allegations of fact contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(a). On March 19, 2003, the matter was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, with a request that an administrative law judge be assigned the case. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 03-0946PL and was assigned to the undersigned. C.H.'s Legal Name. At the times relevant to this proceeding and up until May 21, 2003, C.H.'s legal name was S.C.H.H. The "C" in her legal name and the last "H" are the same names in "C.H.," the name that she has gone by during the times material to this case and throughout this proceeding. When sworn in during her deposition in this matter on May 13, 2003, rather than stating that her name was S.C.H.H. she stated that her name was C.H. She did so simply because she has always gone by the name C.H. The evidence failed to prove that, because of her technical error, her testimony in this matter was not believable. On May 21, 2003, C.H.'s name was changed to C.S.L. as a result of her divorce. Throughout this proceeding, including when she was sworn in on June 19, 2003, to testify at the final hearing of this matter, she indicated that her name was C.H. Again, it is concluded that her technical error was insufficient to conclude that her testimony in this matter was not believable. C.H.'s Use of Prescription Medicines. At all times material to this matter, C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. The evidence failed to prove why C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. C.H. was prescribed and has taken Wellbutrin, Adderall, and Serzone. She also was prescribed and took Zolof for a period of two months. While these drugs, taken singly or in combination may have serious side effects,8 including hallucinations, the evidence failed to prove that C.H. had any such side effects. While C.H. admitted taking the drugs in question, the evidence failed to prove that she took them during the times at issue in this matter or, if she did, what dosage she took them in. Finally, while the evidence proved that C.H. has suffered from a number of maladies, the evidence failed to prove whether she was suffering from those maladies between September 6, 2001, and the date of C.H.'s testimony at final hearing or that any of her medical problems affected in any way her memory or truthfulness in this proceeding.
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 Chiropractic Medicine finding that Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., has violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), by violating Section 460.412, as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint; suspending Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of three months from the date the final order becomes final; requiring the payment of a $1,000.00 administrative fine within a reasonable time after the final order is issued; placing Dr. Mitzelfeld's license on probation for a period of two years; requiring that Dr. Mitzelfeld attend ethics courses relating to the practice of chiropractic medicine as it relates to sexual misconduct, as directed by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine; and requiring the presence of a third person during any examination and treatment by Dr. Mitzelfeld of any female patient during his probation and for a period of not less than ten years thereafter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2003, 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 28th day of August, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Jens Emilio Valle, is entitled to licensure by virtue of a passing grade on the May 1988 Chiropractic examination, specifically on the technique portion of the examination.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Valle was an unsuccessful candidate for the May 1988 Chiropractic examination. As part of the practical examination, Dr. Valle took the technique portion and received a score of 73.9. A score of 75 is required for certification for licensure. The technique portion is part of an oral practical examination and is subjectively graded by two independent graders. All graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida for at least five years and have received several hours of standardization training prior to serving as graders on the practical examination. The grade range on each section is one to four. A score of three is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency and a score of four is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge. These scores are then added with other factors and scores to produce a total. Dr. Valle claims that he was underscored on the technique portion of the examination. His scores were as follows: Grader 27--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (3.5). Grader 37--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (3), rib (3), and soft tissue (3). Dr. Valle presented the expert testimony of Jim Terrell, D.C., who has been licensed in Florida for less than five years. Dr. Terrell has received no training in grading practical examinations. He has never participated in the administration and grading of a chiropractic examination for licensure. Dr. Terrell based his testimony solely on his observation of the videotape. His opinion was that Dr. Valle's performance in the pelvic technique was "essentially" correct. Dr. Terrell's opinion related solely to the mechanical performance. Steven M. Ordet, D.C., is a chiropractic physician licensed in Florida since 1974. He is the past Chairman of the Peer Review Committee of the Florida Chiropractic Association, a Director of the Florida Chiropractic Association, and has been an examiner for the chiropractic examination for the last seven years. He was not an examiner on the May 1988 examination. Dr. Ordet also reviewed the videotape. In his opinion as a trained grader, he would have awarded the following scores based on Dr. Valle's performance: Cervical (3), thoracic (2.5), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (2.5). Dr. Ordet would have given these scores in part because Dr. Valle failed to describe the technique he was demonstrating. The preliminary instructions given for the examination and shown on the videotape require, in part, that the candidate describe the technique as it is demonstrated. The opinion of Dr. Ordet is persuasive based on his experience as a grader and on his explanation for the grades he would give.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the request for relief filed by Jens Emilio Valle and dismissing the petition for relief. DONE and ENTERED this 17th of August 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 17th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0886 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4 (1-7). COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jens Emilio Valle, D.C. 901 Cedar Canyon Square Marietta, GA 33067 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C., is duly qualified and licensed to practice as a Chiropractor in the State of Florida. Dr. Johnson holds a license issued by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. From on or about July 18, 1975 until August 18, 1975, Dr. Johnson treated Mabel-Ann Miller. Ms. Miller had been having pain in her back and legs and was seeking chiropractic treatment in the hope of alleviating the pain. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on approximately twenty occasions during the one month that she was under his care. The testimony from several of the witnesses was understandably somewhat vague with respect to what was said or done on any given visit. It is apparent, however, that during the early consultations with her, Dr. Johnson told her that he could help her, and that more than a year of treatment would be necessary. Dr. Johnson initially represented to her that the cost of treatment would be approximately $200, and that she would be permitted to pay $5 per week and the remainder when she finished her schooling. Dr. Johnson diagnosed a degenerated or herniated disc, a scoliosis or curvature of the spine, and a pelvic obliquity. Dr. Johnson told Ms. Miller that she was loosing fluid from her spine, and that unless she received immediate chiropractic treatment she would require an operation within a year, that the operation would have only a 50/50 chance of success, and that without chiropractic treatment she would stand a very good prospect of spending her life in a wheelchair. Mabel-Ann Miller's boyfriend, Chuck Alexander, had been Dr. Johnson's patient prior to the time that Ms. Miller went to Dr. Johnson. Alexander told Dr. Johnson about Ms. Miller, and prior to Ms. Miller's seeing Dr. Johnson as a patient, Alexander agreed to pay all of her expenses that she could not pay herself. He signed an agreement to this effect (licensee's Exhibit 6). The existence of this side agreement was not revealed to Ms. Miller until her second, third, or fourth visit. Ms. Miller became incensed at the arrangement, and told Dr. Johnson that she would pay her own bills. Dr. Johnson then related to her that the cost of her treatments would exceed $1,000. He told her that he would treat her on a "case fee" basis for $1,060.30. It was agreed that she would pay him a small portion of this case fee until she finished her schooling and was able to pay the entire bill. There after Dr. Johnson endeavored to have Ms. Miller sign a note for the "case fee". He initially requested 7 percent interest on the note, but later changed that amount to 5 percent. A copy of an agreement to pay which Dr. Johnson presented to Ms. Miller was received in evidence as Board Exhibit 6. Ms. Miller never signed the agreement. The testimony respecting Mabel-Ann Miller's condition varied somewhat. Dr. Johnson's diagnosis did not vary to an extraordinary degree, however, from the diagnosis given by other chiropractors, and by Dr. Hobby, a Medical Physician. The most creditable testimony demonstrates that Ms. Miller had a very mild curvature of the spine or scoliosis. She suffered a pelvic obliquity. Her left pelvis was 1.2 centimeters higher than her right pelvis. The pain being suffered by the patient was primarily muscular in nature. Ms. Miller would have benefited from chiropractic treatments, but her condition was not so severe as to require more than a year of intensive chiropractic therapy. Primarily she needed a good exercise program. After leaving Dr. Johnson's care, Ms. Miller submitted to the care of Dr. Hobby, who advised that she use an elevation on her shoe to level the pelvis and engage in an exercise program. She followed Dr. Hobby's advice, and at least up until the time of the hearing her condition improved, and she was no longer suffering pain. As has been said, Dr. Johnson's diagnosis of Ms. Miller's condition was not inaccurate. His statements respecting the severity of the condition were, however, quite exaggerated. Any disc deterioration that Ms. Miller suffered was very slight. Her scoliosis was not so severe as to require intensive chiropractic treatment. Her pelvic obliquity was not a severe problem. Dr. Johnson's statement that she would require surgery if she did not receive immediate chiropractic attention was not true. Neither was it true that she would require more than a year of intense chiropractic treatment. Dr. Johnson frequently utilized the "case fee" system of billing, and he attempted to utilize this system in billing Mabel-Ann Miller. Under the "case fee" system, a patient pays a lump sum for all needed chiropractic treatment rather than a per-visit fee. The testimony revealed that the average per-visit fee for chiropractic services in the St. Petersburg area varied from $8 to $12. Dr. Johnson's quoted "case fee" of more than $1,000 is so out of line with typical fees charged in the St. Petersburg area as to raise suspicions respecting Dr. Johnson's motives. There was no reason to expect that Ms. Miller required so many treatments as to justify such a case fee. Dr. Johnson's exaggerated statements respecting her condition could only have been motivated by his desire to have her contract for a fee far out of line with fees normally charged in the St. Petersburg area, and far out of line with the nature of treatment that Ms. Miller needed whatever fees were charged. Since Ms. Miller never signed a note agreeing to a "case fee" Dr. Johnson rendered her a statement for services on a per-visit or per-service basis. The statement was for $1,411.16. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on fewer than twenty occasions. Although she enjoyed the full range of services available at Dr. Johnson's office during these visits, the treatment and services she received were not remotely worth the amount which Dr. Johnson billed her. Dr. Johnson never had any agreement with the patient which would have justified such a bill which so far exceeds the community standards of the value of chiropractic services. During the time that Ms. Miller was under Dr. Johnson's care she received treatment known as Galvanic treatment in his office. A Galvanic machine renders heat to areas of the patient's body where the pads from the machine are placed. Use of the machine is somewhat risky in that a patient can be burned as a result of errors that are easy to make. Galvanic treatment was rendered to Ms. Miller at Dr. Johnson's office by Barbara Duynslager. Ms. Duynslager was trained in use of the Galvanic machine primarily by Dr. Johnson's wife, who served as Dr. Johnson's office manager. Dr. Johnson witnessed Ms. Duynslager using the machine on two occasions. Generally she was supervised in use of the machine, if at all, by Dr. Johnson's wife. It is normal procedure in the St. Petersburg area for chiropractic assistants to watch from five to ten Galvanic treatments and to be closely supervised on from five to ten more treatments before they are permitted to administer treatments unsupervised. Ms. Duynslager was given less training than that. Given the community standards, and given the risk involved in using the machine, it is apparent that Ms. Duynslager was not adequately trained. During the time that she was being treated, Ms. Miller received a minor burn on her lower back. There was no direct testimony from which it could be concluded that the burn came from the Galvanic machine; however, there is ample circumstantial evidence from which it can be determined that she did receive the burns from the machine. The burns appeared during the time she was receiving Galvanic treatment, the nature of the irritation is consistent with a Galvanic burn, and no other source of such an irritation was known. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that Barbara Duynslager was negligent in using the machine; however, the existence of the burn dramatizes the necessity for careful training on the machine. During late September and early October, 1975, Dr. Johnson consulted Philip W. Settepani, as a patient. Mr. Settepani was experiencing back pains, and he sought chiropractic assistance from Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson showed Settepani x-rays of his back, and described what Dr. Johnson characterized as "spurs" on the x-rays. Mr. Settepani was quite upset at what he saw on the x- rays, and he eventually sought and received chiropractic treatment from a Dr. Tilka rather than Dr. Johnson. Dr. Tilka did not describe Mr. Settepani's condition as "spurs". This led Mr. Settepani to believe that Dr. Johnson either made an erroneous diagnosis or misrepresented the diagnosis in order to scare the patient. Several of the expert witnesses who testified identified Mr. Settepani's condition as spurs . It is apparently the use of that term which caused Mr. Settepani to complain to the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Dr. Johnson made an erroneous diagnosis of Mr. Settepani, or made any fraudulent or misleading statements to Mr. Settepani. In early February, 1976, Ms. Shirley Sabo visited Dr. Johnson's office as a patient. Dr. Johnson's wife told Ms. Sabo that Dr. Johnson never had a patient he couldn't cure, and that the cure would be quick. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that these statements were authorized by Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson informed the patient that she would require approximately one year of treatment, and that the cost would be $1,000. Ms. Sabo did not continue treatment with Dr. Johnson. She eventually received treatment from another Chiropractor and was billed $160 for x-rays and twelve visits. The fee quoted by Dr. Johnson was far out of line with customary fees in the St. Petersburg area, and is difficult, if not impossible, to justify. Nonetheless, there is no evidence from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson misrepresented any facts to Ms. Sabo. Dr. Johnson instituted two law suits under the name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. The name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. was recorded in the public records of Pinellas County as a fictitious name for Johnson Chiropractic Clinic. Dr. Johnson performs as a sole practitioner. There was no other evidence respecting any advertising undertaken by Dr. Johnson in the name of a clinic, or any announcements made by Dr. Johnson that his office was a clinic.
