The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Schlein was properly graded on the November 1986 practical examination for chiropractic. Preliminary matters At the opening of the hearing, the petitioner, Dr. Stuart Schlein, inquired whether a former member of the Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Dr. Posner, could represent him in this proceeding. After inquiring about Dr. Posner's credentials, Dr. Posner was not accepted as a qualified representative, but Dr. Schlein was permitted to consult with Dr. Posner throughout the proceeding to assist in the presentation of Dr. Schlein's evidence. At the hearing, David Paulson, Ph.D., and Robert Samuel Butler, Jr., D.C., testified on behalf of both parties. Petitioner introduced exhibits 1-14, and respondent introduced exhibits 1 and 2.
Findings Of Fact Stuart Schlein, the petitioner, was a candidate during the November 1986 chiropractic examination. He was exempt from Part I (Basic Sciences Examination) and Part II (Clinical Sciences Examination) because he had already passed the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners' examination. The practical examination consists of three portions, one on x-ray interpretation, one on chiropractic technique, and one on physical diagnosis. There was no dispute with respect to the scoring of Dr. Schlein on the x-ray interpretation portion of the exam, on which he received a grade of 74.2 percent. Dr. Schlein's grade on technique was 75.0 and on physical diagnosis was 72.5, for an overall score on the three portions of practical examination of 73.9 percent. Dr. Schlein would have been eligible for registration for licensure as a chiropractor if his overall grade was 75 percent or better on the practical examination. Rule 21D- 11.003(4), (5), Florida Administrative Code. To conduct the technique and physical diagnosis portions of the practical examination, the Department of Professional Regulation hires examiners who have five or more years experience as licensed chiropractors in Florida who have not been disciplined or investigated by the Board. Rule 21D- 11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. Pairs of examiners question each candidate. There is a standardization training session for examiners which lasts 2-3 hours the morning of the examination. During that training, the examiners learn the scoring scale to be used; candidates are scored on a scale from 1-4, with scores of four being the maximum. Examiners are told to independently evaluate the candidate's performance and are told how to record their answers on a sheet which can be scanned by computer, and are told the different content areas from which they may ask questions of candidates. For example, in the technique examination, there are four sub-areas to be covered, cervical, thoracic, occipital, and soft tissue. The examiner, individually, determines what he wishes to ask candidates from those subject areas. Both examiners' scores on each test are averaged to produce a candidate's final score for each test. The examiners change partners from the morning to afternoon examination sessions. For approximately 30 minutes before the morning or afternoon sessions, the examiners paired for that session may discuss with each other the questions which they intend to ask. To use a legal analogy, this method of testing candidate's practical knowledge is not much different than placing two examining lawyers in a room to question and evaluate a bar applicant, after merely instructing the lawyers to "ask something about evidence, about constitutional law, and about criminal law." (Transcript 137). There is no assurance that the questions posed by the examiners are at a proper level of difficulty to assess minimum qualifications for practice. There is no requirement that a given pair of examiners ask the same questions of their examinees during a morning or afternoon examination session. There is no assurance that the other examiner in the room even knows the answer to a question posed, yet both examiners are required to assign a grade for the candidate's performance on each sub-area. The Department makes a tape recording of the examination of each candidate for review. Dr. Schlein's grades on the technique and diagnosis portions of the practical examination were as follows: TECHNIQUE Examiner I Examiner 4 1. Cervical 3 4 2. Thoracic 3 3 3. Occipital 4 3 4. Soft Tissue 2 2 12 12 16 16 = 75 percent = 75 percent Average score 75 percent DIAGNOSIS Examiner 1 Examiner 4 Case History 3 3 Chiro. Exam. 2 2 Orthopedic 4 4 Neurological 4 3 Laboratory Diagnosis 3 2 Nutrition 2 [examiner failed to assign a grade] 18 14 24 20 = 75 percent = 70 percent Average score 72.5 percent Technique 75 percent Diagnosis 72.5 percent X-Ray 74.2 percent Final Average 73.9 percent Dr. Schlein objects to the grades he received for cervical and occipital on the technique exam and for neurological and nutrition in the diagnosis exam. With respect to the grade for nutrition, the Department of Professional Regulation could not explain why Examiner 4 failed to assign any grade for the candidate's answer with respect to the questions he was asked on nutrition. Dr. Schlein attempted to impeach the explanation given by Examiner 1, Dr. Butler, for the grades assigned on the four portions of the examination Dr. Schlein challenged by introducing portions of text books used in chiropractic schools which tend to support Dr. Schlein's oral answers. While the matter is not free from doubt, Dr. Schlein's text book excerpts have not convinced the Hearing Officer that the grades given are erroneous. Dr. Schlein was not properly graded, however, with respect to the area of nutrition since examiner 4 (who was not called as a witness) failed to assign any grade and the reason for his failure to do so was unexplained.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Schlein be granted the opportunity to be reexamined on the practical portion of the chiropractic examination, at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact proposed by the petitioner. Rejected as introduction. Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 5. Covered in paragraph 6. Covered in paragraphs 1 and 5. Rejected because it is not possible to tell what the effect of the failure of Examiner 4 to give a grade on nutrition was, other than to draw the conclusion expressed in paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law that the examiner did not completely understand the grading instructions. Rejected for the reasons stated in paragraph 8. The finding that the testimony establishes there is no uniform method for grading examinees is implicitly accepted in paragraph 3, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The following are my rulings of findings of fact proposed by the respondent. The Department filed no proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 STUART SCHLEIN, D. C. 1035 FRANKLING ROAD APARTMENT N-208 MARIETTA, GEORGIA 30667 PAT GUILFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a chiropractor under license number CH 0000997, first issued on January 12, 1952. In mid-April, 1983, Karen Surrency, a 35-year old divorced heavy equipment operator, suffering from low back pain resulting from a hip problem, went to Respondent at his office in Ft. Meade, Florida for assistance and treatment of the condition. When she arrived at the Respondent's office, which was located in his home, Respondent and his wife were both there. Shortly thereafter, Respondent's wife went back into the house. Respondent took a 10- minute history from Ms. Surrency in which she explained her physical problem. When the history was completed, Respondent asked her to go into the examining room where, he said, he was going to take x-rays. He advised her to go into the dressing area and disrobe, removing everything, including her underwear. He gave her a hospital gown to put on. Ms. Surrency did not question his request to remove all her clothing. When she came out of the dressing area wearing the hospital gown, Respondent placed her in front of the x-ray unit and told her he could get a better picture if she would throw the gown up over her shoulder. She did this and he placed her at the machine with her back to it, facing him. In the course of doing this, he placed his hand under her right breast, jiggled it, and advised her that her muscle sagged there. After completion of the x-ray, Respondent asked Ms. Surrency to sit on the examining table. He then told her to walk around the room with the robe pulled up over her shoulder so that he could see her posture. During this period, Respondent was seated on a chair observing her and when she asked him why the gown had to be placed up on her shoulder, he replied that he could see her hip and leg better that way. When this was finished, however, Respondent sat in the middle of one side of the table and had her stand between his legs. He then put his arm around her and turned her so that she faced off to one side with her side toward him. In so doing, he touched her breast, through the material of the gown, with his left hand. After this, he told her to lay face down on the examining table and when she did, he adjusted her back with the gown open from the neck down. After completing the spinal adjustment, Respondent indicated he would like to see Ms. Surrency twice a week and set up a second visit for her two days later. When she came for this second visit, Respondent again asked her to disrobe. She asked him if it was necessary to fully disrobe and he indicated it would be better. Once she had done so, wearing a hospital gown again, Respondent had her walk around with the robe up over her shoulders as he had done on the previous visit while he observed her and then told her to do some push-ups. She got down on the floor and complied and when she did the gown, which was open at the back, fell down to her sides and she was bare. Neither at this time nor prior to this visit had Respondent indicated or instructed Ms. Surrency to exercise at home. Once she completed the push ups, Respondent advised her to again lay face down on the examining table and when she did so, he completed another spinal adjustment. While she was still laying face down, he spread her buttocks apart and told her she did not have any hemorrhoids. This struck her as odd since she had not complained to him about any problem of that nature and there was no need for him to do this. In any event, Respondent then told her to turn on to her back. When she did so, Respondent sat on one end of the table facing inward, with one of his legs over each side. This put him in a position of facing the patient. He then told her to slide down closer to him and place her spread legs one over each of his. He told her he was going to massage her muscles which he did by rubbing in a circular motion starting above the pubic hair and working down inside her thighs. At no time, according to Ms. Surrency, did he touch her in the vaginal area. Respondent then, upon completing this procedure, told her to get dressed. Ms. Surrency did not go back to Respondent for any further treatment after this second visit because, in her opinion, she did not believe Respondent should have done the things to her that he did. In the first place, she did not think it was appropriate for him to examine her nude without a witness, preferably a female present. In the second place, on one of the two occasions, while she was getting dressed, though she had not complained about having any difficulty in removing her clothing, Respondent asked her if he could help her with her bra. Ms. Surrency subsequently went to another chiropractor, Dr. Tucker, for the same physical complaints. Dr. Tucker took x-rays of her but she was allowed to wear a robe, her panties, and socks. Dr. Tucker also had her walk but in so doing, she was allowed to wear her uniform pants, her bra, and the hospital gown. Dr. Tucker never asked her to remove all her clothing or to pull the hospital gown up over her shoulders as Respondent did. He also did not touch her breasts or check her for hemorrhoids. He did not perform a massage of the pubic area. In addition to Dr. Tucker, Ms. Surrency also visited a Dr. Haig, also practicing in Ft. Meade, for the same problem. Dr. Haig, who also took x- rays and also had her walk, treated her the same as Dr. Tucker did. Ms. Surrency did not complain either to or about Respondent at the time he did the things to her which offended her as described above nor did she attempt to stop him from doing them while he was doing them. In fact, she has no quarrel with the diagnosis that Respondent made of her condition and his suggested course of treatment which included several subsequent spinal adjustments. In fact, the other two chiropractors to whom she went after leaving Respondent's care suggested the same treatment. Her complaint is more toward the method of examination; the failure to have a witness present and the requirement for nudity in the course of the examination. Ms. Surrency did not actually complain to anyone until some five or six months after leaving Respondent's care. At that time she filed a complaint with the Petitioner, Board of Chiropractic Examiners. She had in the interim, however, called Respondent on the phone on several occasions regarding securing his signature on certain insurance papers and getting a release of her records. On one of these occasions, Respondent asked her why she had stopped coming to see him. Thereafter, when she went to his office to pick up her papers, Respondent refused to give them to her until she went in to talk with him about her alleged complaint. Dr. Tucker was visited by Ms. Surrency, in June, 1983, when she complained of an unusual indentation in her left hip and pain between her shoulder blades. This pain radiated down through the lower back to her leg. On her first visit, she advised Dr. Tucker that she had seen the Respondent prior to that time for two visits but did not want to talk about what had happened. It was only after she had seen Dr. Tucker two or three times that she began to describe her problems with the Respondent and asked if the procedures he had followed were normal. Whenever she would talk of these incidents she would break down and cry. It was the opinion of Dr. Tucker and that of Dr. Walper as well, both qualified chiropractors licensed in Florida, that the procedures followed by Respondent in many respects were outside the boundaries of normal and proper chiropractic treatment. For example, when Dr. Tucker does an x-ray of a female patient, depending upon the area to be photographed, the patient is not required to be totally nude. In a situation such as Ms. Surrency's, the patient would wear a hospital gown and keep her underpants on. In Dr. Tucker's opinion, contrary to that of the Respondent, it is quite possible to get an x-ray of good quality with the patient wearing a gown and nonmetallic underclothing, and has never had a patient completely nude with the gown up over her shoulder. As to requiring the patient to walk, a patient with Ms. Surrency's complaint would do so wearing a gown with her underwear. There is no medical reason for total nudity and for the patient to have a gown up over her shoulder. Since this was a hip problem, it would be necessary to observe the hip but caution is required not to embarrass the patient as was done in this case. Dr. Tucker could see no reason for an examination of the buttocks area as was accomplished by Respondent for the complaints that Ms. Surrency had. Dr. Walper, who has practiced as a chiropractor since 1950 and in Florida since 1976, did not examine Ms. Surrency but did review the report of investigation completed by Petitioner's investigator which included the statements given under oath by the patient. Based on this review, be concluded that Respondent's techniques were totally unacceptable and did not meet community standards. As to the nudity involved in the x-ray, be was of the opinion that it was totally unnecessary because the x-rays will penetrate clothing except metal and there is no reason to require the patient to pull the hospital gown up over her shoulder. Admitting that substantial medical authority indicates that clothing should be removed for x-rays as far as possible, he contends that the operative words here are "as far as possible" and this does not envision the necessity for total nudity inasmuch as the shadow created by something as flimsy as underpants would be inconsequential to an adequate evaluation of the radiographic picture. With regard to the walk Respondent had Ms. Surrency perform, Dr. Walper agrees that it would be appropriate for a patient with Ms. Surrency's problem to be asked to walk so that the physician might observe the gait. However, the technique used here, requiring the patient to walk nude with the gown up over her shoulder, was inappropriate and unnecessary. There was, in his opinion, no need whatever for the patient to be naked. Dr. Walper can also see no medical reason for Respondent to touch the patient's breasts, even though the second touching was done through the gown and to do so would be inappropriate. As to the buttocks examination, this would not be medically necessary for the type of complaint this patient had. It would be appropriate if the patient had complained of hemorrhoids or if it were accomplished during a routine physical. However, Ms. Surrency had not complained of a hemorrhoid problem and had come in with a specific complaint, not for a routine and general physical examination. Walper is unable to understand any reason for requiring the patient to do push-ups. Admittedly there are some exercises to be done for Ms. Surrency's condition after the symptoms have been relieved, but certainly not push-ups and not in the nude during a physical examination. As to the pubic and thigh rubbing accomplished by Respondent when he had Ms. Surrency place her legs over his, this type of touching for this patient's complaint, in his opinion, would be most inappropriate. Dr. Walper indicated, and it is so found, that practice standards for chiropractors are reasonably similar throughout the State of Florida. In his opinion, the treatment afforded Ms. Surrency by Respondent in the incidents set out in the Administrative Complaint, were outside the scope of chiropractic and Respondent did not perform here with reasonable skill or in a manner which would be followed by a reasonably prudent doctor of chiropractic under the circumstances. What Respondent did here, in Dr. Walper's opinion, constitutes sexual impropriety and misconduct. Respondent has been a chiropractor since 1952 when he graduated from the Lincoln Chiropractic College and has practiced in Florida since 1953. He located his practice in Ft. Meade in 1960. Chiropractic education is divided into two schools of thought. One is made up of "mixers" and the other is made up of "straights." Respondent attended a "mixer" school. The difference in his education was that he was taught to (a) take a good case history, (b) treat for any problem found; and (c) treat to cure the problem rather than the symptoms. He defines chiropractic medicine as dealing primarily with the skeletal system, the joints, and adjacent tissues. Respondent recalls the first visit he had from Ms. Surrency and basically confirms her comments regarding it. While he indicates that it is routine for him to require total nudity under the gown on a first x-ray, from that point on, be says, the patient is allowed to keep their underpants on. He requires the patients to remove the clothing so that it does not get into the way of the x-ray and also because he wants to cut down on the strength of the x- ray required to accomplish the picture. Respondent contends that synthetic fibers such as found in women's underwear are metal and require the use of stronger x- ray. There is no evidence, save Respondent's allegations, to support this theory and it is rejected. Respondent denies that when he spread Ms. Surrency's buttocks he was examining the rectum. Instead, he claims, he was palpating the large muscle of the buttocks area during the examination of everything as he was taught. His examining table has a pelvic roll, he says, which would present the buttocks of a patient on her stomach more prominently than would a table used by graduates of a Palmer school of chiropractic medicine. There is a substantial difference between palpating of muscle and the spreading apart of a buttock and the comment which Ms. Surrency made regarding her hemorrhoids supports a finding that he did in fact spread her buttocks since it would be impossible to see hemorrhoids were the buttocks not spread apart. Respondent admits that he may have touched Ms. Surrency's breast and if he commented on it, he claims, it was merely a casual observation of something he saw. He meant nothing by it. As to the requirement that Ms. Surrency walk nude in front of him, he contends he wanted to observe her feet, knees, and shoulders to see how she looked all over. He again wanted to see her walk after he had performed the adjustment to see if the treatment had done any good. He admits having required the patient to pull the gown up over her shoulder contending that it was just some procedure he picked up during his practice. It works for him and as far as he is concerned, that's all that matters. When Ms. Surrency returned to him the second day before the examination he sat with her and discussed what he had found on the x-rays he had taken during the first visit. He told her that her spine was off center and there were five areas in it that required adjustment. He also told her he could not tell her how long it would take to resolve the problem because the numerous variables involved made it impossible for him to accurately predict a course of treatment. He also admits that he had Ms. Surrency place her legs over his as described in her testimony but defends it on the basis that because he suffers from phlebitis and cannot stand long on his legs, this being the end of the day and since he was tired and his leg was hurting, he utilized this procedure so that he could be sufficiently comfortable to apply equal pressure to the area he was massaging. He applied the "goading" technique of accupressure to various areas above and on the pubic bone to get the patient's muscles to relax and to prompt the lymphatic system to start flowing. Respondent contends this method of treatment is a long standing and accepted practice. The massage technique may well be an accepted practice but the method applied here by Respondent in having the nude patient's legs draped over his with her genital area facing him was not. Respondent then had the patient do the push-ups to determine her muscle balance, a factor important in relationship to the adjustment of the spine. This was related to the pain in between the shoulder blades, not for the low back. Respondent's testimony was not based on his actual recollection but instead is primarily his speculation as to what happened based on his normal practice. He does not recall a majority of the events on either day he saw Ms. Surrency. She is quite sure of her testimony. There is little equivocation and even less speculation. On balance, then, it is clear that the story as told by Ms. Surrency is more credible and worthy of belief. Consequently, it is found that her allegations as to the actual occurrences are accurate. Respondent's explanations do not deny the occurrences, but tend to present some self justification for it. In 1977, a Final Order of the Board of Chiropractic revoked Respondent's license to practice in the State of Florida based on an administrative hearing which resulted in findings that Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct the circumstances of which we are not concerned with here. An appeals court subsequently sustained the findings of fact but reduced the revocation to a suspension for six months and Respondent's license was subsequently reinstated after he had served the period of suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, IVAN C. ROSS' license as a chiropractor in the State of Florida, Number CH 0000997, be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 18th day of February, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Hill, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas H. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 1145 Lake Alfred, Florida 33850
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint filed against him? If so, what penalties should be imposed by the Board of Chiropractic?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence received at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Dr. Jordan Breslaw is now, and was in 1987, licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida. Dr. Breslaw is the owner of Jordan Chiropractic Center. The Center is located in Margate, Florida. On or about November 11, 1987, Dr. Breslaw placed an advertisement in the Quad City News announcing that the Jordan Chiropractic Center would be hosting a "Community Appreciation Day" at its location in Margate on November 16, 1987. The advertisement contained the following representation: As an act of Community Service the Jordan Chiropractic Center will DONATE ALL SERVICES to anyone who wants to experience the benefits of Chiropractic. Everyone Welcome! [emphasis in original.] Appearing beneath this statement were drawings of gift- wrapped boxes and balloons. Next to these drawings were the following words in italics: "Entertainment," "Door Prizes," "Food and Refreshments," and "Meet The Merchants." The advertisement did not set forth the usual fees and charges for chiropractic services rendered at the Jordan Chiropractic Center; nor did it state that any patient or other person responsible for payment had the right to refuse to pay, cancel payment, or be reimbursed for payment for any service, examination, or treatment which was performed as a result of, and within 72 hours of responding to, the advertisement. Dr. Breslaw examined and treated patients at the Jordan Chiropractic Center on Monday, November 16, 1987. He charged these patients his usual fee for these services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order finding Dr. Jordan Breslaw guilty of the offenses charged in the administrative complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 and placing him on probation for three months, as described above, for his transgressions. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Shaw, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suit 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dr. Jordan Breslaw 201 North State Road 7 Margate, Florida 33063 Pat Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Petitioner passed the 1987 chiropractic examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mary Campilii, was a candidate for the May 14-17, 1987 chiropractic examination. Petitioner achieved an overall score of 72, as reflected by an upward revision to her original score of 66, on the practical section of the examination. Petitioner achieved a score of 76 on the Florida laws and rules section of the examination. A minimum score of 75 is required to pass both the practical and laws and rules sections of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the method of grading utilized by the Respondent contending that it is subjective as it elates to her, and did not properly reflect her level of achievement and knowledge to the questions that she answered on the May 1987 examination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she demonstrated expert or superior knowledge in her answers to any of the questions on the May 1987 exam that she now challenges. The oral practice examination for chiropractic certification is an independent, subjective grading of a candidate's responses to questions asked by two graders. The graders have all been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five (5) years in Florida and have undergone several hours of standardization training prior to examining the candidates for license certification. One of the techniques required of graders is that they must write their comments if they give a candidate any score less than a 3, which is a passing grade. The grade range is from 1-4. A score of 3 is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimum competency and a score of 4 is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested. Petitioner presented Thomas P. Toja, an expert in grading chiropractic examinations for the Board, who offered his opinion that had the grading system utilized by Respondent been different, i.e. a system whereby a candidate could be accorded a score somewhere between a 3 and 4, when such candidate has demonstrated more than minimum competency but less than superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested, a candidate, such as Petitioner, could have achieved an additional 3 points to her score of 72, and thereby received a passing score of 75. Petitioner has not, however challenged validity of the existing rule which permits Respondent to utilize the grading procedures applied in this case. Stephen Ordet, a licensed chiropractor in Florida for more than 7 years was received as an expert in the grading of chiropractic examinations in Florida, and was one of the graders during the May 1987 examination. Ordet's opinion, which is credited, was that Petitioner did not earn a score of 4 on any of the questions that she now challenges, and was correctly assigned a score of 3 for each of the responses she gave to questions she challenged. Thomas P. Hide, a chiropractor who specializes in the area of sports related injuries, was tendered and received as an expert in the area of reviewing x-rays and the grading of the chiropractic examination. Hide credibly testified and it is found that Petitioner was properly assigned a score of 3 on questions 8, 12, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30 and 33.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met the minimum criteria to pass the challenged chiropractic examination and deny her request for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dr. Mary Camiplii 2921 Buckridge Trail Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, the Respondent Karl Cohen was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. On or about September 5, 1976, Maxine Grebin sustained injuries in a roller skating accident. Mrs. Grebin sought treatment from the Respondent on September 24, 1976, and her treatment continued through December 3, 1976. Thereafter, Mrs. Grebin instituted a civil proceeding against Gold Coast Roller Rink. During the pendency of the civil suit, Mrs. Grebin requested that the Respondent provide her or her attorney an itemized statement of the services rendered for purposes of the damages suit. Mrs. Grebin never received an itemized statement from the Respondent. On February 14, 1977, the Respondent mailed a bill and report to Mrs. Grebin's attorney and copy of the bill to Mr. Joel Grebin, the complainant in this case, on March 11, 1977. When the Respondent failed to receive payment for services rendered by him to Mrs. Grebin, he filed suit in Dade County and after a trial, at which the Grebins appeared, received a final judgment on May 4, 1981, for $388 plus costs. On September 25, 1981, the Respondent was visited at his office by Martin Brandies, a Department investigator. The Respondent furnished Brandies with his entire file concerning Maxine Grebin, and made copies of pertinent documents for him. Subsequently, on June 22, 1982, the Respondent was served with a subpoena by John McDonough, investigator for the Department. The documents requested were virtually identical to the documents previously provided to Brandies. 1/ Since the documents were previously voluntarily provided to the Department, the Respondent did not believe that he was required to furnish a second set of documents, and accordingly, did not comply with the subpoena duces tecum. At the hearing on February 8, 1983, the Petitioner moved to amend Count II of the Administrative Complaint to charge a violation of Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes, rather than Section 460.413(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The motion to amend was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Board of Chiropractic enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(w), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand pursuant to Section 460.413(2), Florida Statutes DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January 1984.
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
