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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes, for failing to keep written chiropractic records justifying the course of treatment of one patient.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a chiropractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida pursuant to license number CH 0003164. D. B. first visited Respondent on July 10, 1987. She was 36 years old and complained of depression, headaches, numbness, allergies, dizziness, low back pain, neck pain or stiffness, pain between the shoulders, pain or numbness in the shoulders and hands, pain over the heart, itching, frequent urination, earache. The inception of the back and neck pain and headaches, as well as nausea, dated back to an accident almost two years earlier, which followed another accident about a year earlier. Driving, exercise, and stress aggravated these conditions, which interfered with work, sleep, and daily routines. D. B., who was taking pain, muscle-relaxant, and anti-depressant medication, reported that she had not felt really good for almost two years. During the first visit, Respondent performed a neurological examination. He recorded his findings on D. B.'s chart. He also took x-rays and maintained the exposures among the patient's records. Respondent's diagnosis was that D. B. suffered from subluxation complexes. Respondent practices subluxation-based chiropractic, which is a well- recognized school within the profession. The primary purpose of the practice is to use chiropractic adjustment techniques to reduce the subluxation complex, which may consist of two or more misaligned vertebrae in the spine. The theory of subluxation practitioners is that the misalignment produces pressure on the spinal cord, which results in symptoms elsewhere in the body. As the treatment proceeds, the subluxation practitioner monitors the reduction of the complex and any attendant symptoms. However, his primary concern is achieving a biomechanical change in the spinal structure and not symptomatic complaints of the patient. For example, D. B. showed the symptom of a pelvic deficiency. A pelvic deficiency may manifest itself in a leg that, during clinical examination, is shortened or spongy. Using the Activator, Pierce, and Pierce-Stillwagon techniques, Respondent treated D. B. nine times during July, after the initial visit, then about four times per month through November, 1987, and about eight times thereafter with the final treatment taking place in October, 1988. Using abbreviations well-recognized among other subluxation practitioners, Respondent recorded the salient details of each office visit during the entire course of treatment. He noted the numeric value for the pelvic deficiency, as measured during each office visit. He recorded the nature and location of the adjustments that he performed upon D. B. during each visit. The chiropractic records justified the treatment that Respondent administered to D. B., whose symptoms alleviated under his care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE and ORDERED 14th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 14th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1502 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-2: adopted. 3: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 4-5: rejected as subordinate. 6-7: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 8: adopted in substance. and 11-16: rejected as subordinate. and 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 19-21: rejected as recitation of testimony. Treatent Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1 and 4-7: rejected as not finding of fact. 2-3: adopted. 8-9: rejected as subordinate. 10-15: adopted. 16-18: rejected as subordinate. 19-21: adopted in substance. 22-37: rejected as not finding of fact, recitation or testimony, and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Cynthia Gelmine, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack R. Elliott Arfken & Elliott 100 Rialto Place, Suite 801 Melbourne, Florida 32901 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case as follows: The Respondent, Clifford Fruithandler, D.C. is and has been at all times material hereto [sic] the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 89-7036, (DPR Case Number 0094598) a chiropractor licensed in the State of Florida having been issued license number CH 0004149. The Respondent's address is 5417 West Atlantic Boulevard, Margate, Florida 33063. The Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed chiropractor caused to be published an advertisement in the North West Medical Guide in Broward County. The advertisement was published on September 16, 1987. The advertisement identified the Respondent's chiropractic practice as "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control Center". The Respondent has been subject to discipline by the Board of Chiropractic in DPR Case Number 44292, 40777, and 28914. On or about March, 4, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation wrote a letter to Respondent which stated "Please be advised that the Department has received a complaint based on the enclosed advertisement. The allegations are: (1) Advance Chiropractic implies that you possess skills and or other attributes which are superior to other chiropractors..." Within one week following the receipt of such letter by Respondent, the Respondent changed the name of the clinic and stopped using the name "Advanced Chiropractic and Pain Control". Prior to the receipt of DPR's letter of March 4, 1988, Respondent had received no complaints from DPR, the Board of Chiropractic, or from any patient regarding the use of such name.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, issuing a reprimand to the Respondent and assessing a fine against Respondent in the amount $750.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 29th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Roger W. Calton, Esquire Qualified Legal Representative 30131 Town Center Drive Suite 177 Laguna Niguel, CA. 92677-2040 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November of 1997. The examination consisted of four parts: "x-ray interpretation"; "technique"; "Florida laws and rules"; and "physical diagnosis." The minimum passing score for each part was 75. Petitioner passed the "Florida laws and rules" and "technique" portions of the examination. She failed the "x-ray interpretation" and "physical diagnosis" portions of the examination, with scores of 63.20 and 70.50. respectively. As noted above, Petitioner's evidentiary presentation at hearing addressed only the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination. On this portion of the examination, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of physical diagnosis by responding to test questions, in the presence of two examiners, either verbally or, where appropriate, by demonstrating on a "patient." Their responses were independently evaluated and graded by the two examiners. A candidate's final score was the average of the examiners' scores. Prior to the administration of the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination (PD Test), examiners were provided with written instructions (Examiners' Instructions) regarding their role in the examination process and the standards they should follow in grading candidates' performance. In addition, examiners were required to attend a pre-examination organizational meeting at which they were provided with further instructions and training designed to enhance grading standardization. Questions 11 through 13 on the PD Test covered the subject of orthopedics. Candidates were presented with a written case history to which they were to refer in responding to these questions, as well as to all subsequent questions on the PD Test (including those at issue in the instant case). In question 11, candidates were asked to select (from a list) four orthopedic tests which, under the circumstances presented in the case history, were appropriate to administer to the "patient." As Petitioner conceded at hearing, of the four tests she selected, only three were appropriate. The fourth test she selected, Yergason's Test, was not an appropriate test to administer in view of the "patient's" case history. In question 12, candidates were asked to demonstrate on the "patient" how they would administer the tests they selected in response to question 11. Question 12 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting and properly demonstrating four appropriate tests; three points for selecting and properly demonstrating three appropriate tests; two points for selecting and properly demonstrating two appropriate tests; and one point for selecting and properly demonstrating one appropriate test. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 12. Although she selected three appropriate tests, she properly demonstrated only two of these three tests. The test she did not properly demonstrate was Tinel's Sign. The "patient's" case history suggested that ulnar nerve, not median nerve, testing needed to be done on the "patient." There are five types of Tinel's Sign tests. One is designed to test the ulnar nerve and involves tapping on the "funny bone." Another is for testing the median nerve and involves tapping on the wrist. Petitioner demonstrated the type of Tinsel's Sign test used to probe the median nerve, when she should have demonstrated the type used to test the ulnar nerve. Because she selected only three appropriate tests and demonstrated only two of these tests properly, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 12. Question 13 required candidates to state what conditions would be suggested by positive results from the tests selected and demonstrated. Question 13 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting four appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; three points for selecting three appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; two points for selecting two appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive results; and one point for selecting one appropriate test and correctly stating, as to that test, what condition would be indicated by positive test results. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 13. Petitioner did not correctly name the condition suggested by a positive Cervical Compression test, one of the three tests she correctly selected in response to question 11. Because Petitioner selected only three appropriate tests and, with respect to one of these tests (the Cervical Compression test), failed to correctly state what condition would be indicated by positive test results, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 13. Questions 14 through 16 on the PD Test covered the subject of range of motion. In question 16, candidates were asked to explain the difference and significance between active range of motion and passive range of motion. Question 16 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for answers to question 16. Neither examiner awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 16. In responding to the question, Petitioner gave an accurate explanation of the difference between active range of motion and passive range of motion (by noting that the former, unlike the latter, is performed by the patient without assistance), but she did not accurately explain the significance of the difference, as required by the second part of the question. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in attempting to answer this part of the question, that active range of motion is characterized by ligament involvement. Because Petitioner did not correctly answer question 16 in its entirety, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for this question. Questions 17 through 19 on the PD Test covered the subject of neurology and focused upon muscle testing. Question 17 required candidates to name all relevant muscles that that they would test in light of the case history with which they were presented (which reflected that the "patient" had neck pain and numbness radiating down her right arm into her ring finger and little finger). Question 17 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for naming four relevant muscles; one and a half points for naming three relevant muscles; one point for naming two relevant muscles; and a half point for naming one relevant muscle. Neither of the two examiners awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 17. There was no connection between the muscles Petitioner named and the nerve root that the symptoms (described in the case history) suggested was the cause of the "patient's" problems. Inasmuch as Petitioner named no relevant muscles, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for question 17. Question 18 required candidates to demonstrate on the "patient" how to test two muscles selected by the examiners. Petitioner was asked to test the "patient's "triceps muscle and the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points (full credit) for correctly demonstrating both tests and one point for correctly demonstrating one of the two tests. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her demonstration in response to question 18. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received one point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 18. Petitioner tested the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand in a manner that is unconventional, but nonetheless acceptable. She did not test the "patient's" triceps muscle correctly, however, inasmuch as she did not, during her demonstration, do what was necessary to isolate that muscle. Because she performed only one of the two tests correctly, awarding Petitioner more than the one point she has already received for her response to question 18 would be inconsistent with the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions. To receive credit for question 19, candidates had to explain and interpret a grade level of muscle testing selected by the examiners. (There are six such grade levels: zero through five. The examiners were instructed to select one of these six grade levels.) Petitioner was asked by the examiners to explain and interpret grade level three testing. Question 19 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for responses to question 19. One examiner awarded Petitioner one point for her response to question 19. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received a half point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 19. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in response to question 19, that grade level three testing involves range of motion without gravity. Grade level three testing actually involves range of motion with gravity. Accordingly, pursuant to the scoring guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should not have received any credit for her response to question 19. Questions 20 and 21 on the PD Test covered dermatomes and sensory testing. Question 20 required candidates to name all relevant dermatome patterns that they would test for in light of the "patient's" case history and to demonstrate one of these tests (selected by the examiners) on the "patient." Petitioner was asked to demonstrate dermatome C5 testing. Question 20 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for correctly naming all relevant dermatome patterns and correctly demonstrating the selected test, and one point if they correctly named all relevant dermatome patterns or correctly demonstrated the selected test (but failed to do both). One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 20. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 20. Petitioner correctly named all of the relevant dermatome patterns, but she incorrectly demonstrated dermatome C5 testing inasmuch as she focused upon the trapezium ridge, rather than the lateral aspect of the arm. Accordingly, pursuant to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should have received one point for question 20. Question 21 was worth two points. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 21. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 21. Respondent concedes that Petitioner should have received full credit (two points) for her response to question 21, and there is no evidence indicating otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue Should Petitioner receive a passing grade for the technique portion for the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination (the examination) administered by Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner practices chiropractic in Massachusetts. In November 1997, Petitioner took the Florida chiropractic licensure examination. To pass that examination it was necessary for Petitioner to score 75 points on the technique portion of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 70 points. Petitioner disputes the scores received on several questions, described as questions 1, 4, and 7. Each contested question is worth five points. As a candidate for licensure, Petitioner received an information booklet which contained a reading list informing the candidates of writings of experts in various subjects covered by the examination, upon whom the candidates should rely. This included a list of experts in the technique portion of the examination. Respondent intended to defer to the opinions of those experts in grading the candidates. Additionally, Petitioner and other candidates in the November 1997 examination, were provided written instructions concerning the technique portion of the examination. Those instructions stated: TECHNIQUE EXAMINATION FORM 1 Demonstrate the following chiropractic techniques on the patient. For each technique, indicate the patient and doctor position. location of the segment. patient and doctor contact point. line of drive. Do not actually perform the techniques, but set them up and indicate how you would perform them. If the technique is grossly inadequate and/or clinically inappropriate, no credit will be given for that technique. Technique 1: Bilateral Anterior-Superior Ilia Technique 2: Posterior Radial Head on Left Technique 3: Plantar Cuboid Technique 4: Posterior Superior Occiput on Right Technique 5: L-2, Left Posterior Spinous Yes or No for position, location, contact, and line of drive/correction CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICAL EXAMINATION 11/97 TECHNIQUE (EXAMINER) The expectation was that each candidate in the examination would set up and indicate the manner in which the candidate would perform the five techniques and the four specific positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive related to the five techniques, without actually performing to conclusion. Petitioner and other candidates were graded by two examiners. The examiners, in scoring the candidates, used a grading sheet which described the activities by referring to the five techniques as cases. The various positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive were numbered 1 through 20, with the first four numbers referring to case 1, numbers 5 through 8 referring to case 2, et cetera. Before performing as examiners in the November 1997 session, the examiners who graded Petitioner underwent training to ensure that they followed the same criteria for scoring the Petitioner. Petitioner contests the scores that he received in relation to technique 1 position a./case 1 position 1; technique 1 line of drive d./case 1 line of drive 4; and technique 2 patient and contact point c./case 2 contact point 7. Those items respectively correspond to questions 1, 4, and 7, referred to by the parties. After the two examiners entered the individual scores for the various items within a technique, the scores by the individual examiners were added to arrive at an aggregate score. The aggregate score was then divided by two to reach the final results on the technique portion of the examination. By that arrangement Petitioner received a score of 70 points, insufficient to pass the technique portion of the examination. Although examiner 07, in the score sheet reference case 1 position 1, marked "Y" to point out that the Petitioner had achieved compliance with the expectations of that technique, the examiner did not assign five points to the Petitioner indicating credit for that item. Instead the score sheet reflects zero points for the item. Examiner 15 in relation to that item, wrote "N" on the score sheet signifying non-compliance and provided zero points for non-compliance. In all other respects the scores of the two examiners in relation to the technique portion of the examination, to include the disputed items, were in accord. Notwithstanding the determination by the initial examiners that Petitioner had failed the technique portion, Respondent instituted a non-rule policy to have three additional examiners review Petitioner's performance on the technique portion, by resort to the audio-video tape that had been made during the pendency of the technique portion of the examination. Apparently, Respondent in view of the reference by examiner 07 to "Y," indicating compliance with case 1 position 1, treated the item in a manner which signified compliance. Thus Petitioner was entitled to 5 points on the score sheet of examiner 07. The activities of the discrepancy reviewers were designed to determine whether that view finding compliance should be upheld in a setting where examiner 15 had entered "N" for that item signifying non-compliance. The review was expected to break the impasse. The three reviewers determined that Petitioner had not complied with the requirements of case 1 position 1. As a result, the score of 70 points, the average arrived at by adding and then dividing the two 70-point scores assigned by the original examiners was upheld. When Petitioner was given notice of the examination results, the 70-point score for the technique portion was reflected in those results. By inference it is found that the original examiners and discrepancy reviewers practiced chiropractic in Florida. In reference to case 1 position 1, examiner 15 commented about "contact P.S.I.S. should be ischium." P.S.I.S. stands for Postier Superior Iliac Spine. Examiner 07 made no comment concerning that item. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, both examiners felt that Petitioner had not complied with that requirement. Examiner 07, in commenting, stated "not on ischium." Examiner 15 commented "wrong line of drive." In reference to case 2 contact point 7, examiner 07 commented, "Not thumb-thenar." Examiner 15 commented, "No thumb contact." At the hearing to contest the preliminary determination finding Petitioner to have failed the technique portion of the examination, Petitioner offered his testimony as an expert in chiropractic concerning the several items at issue. To rebut that testimony, Respondent presented Dr. Darryl Thomas Mathis, an expert who practices chiropractic in Florida. Dr. Mathis also served as an examiner in the licensure examination, but did not test Petitioner. In his opinion Petitioner feels that he is entitled to additional points on each of the several questions at issue. In his opinion, Dr. Mathis disagrees. In explaining his performance related to case 1 position 1, Petitioner opined that his placement of the patient in the side posture position was correct. Petitioner also opined that his position for the case was correct. By contrast to the Petitioner's opinion concerning case 1 position 1, Dr. Mathis expressed the opinion that Petitioner's position in addressing the patient was incorrect. According to Dr. Mathis, Petitioner had his hand pointing upward parallel to the spine of the patient and not 90 degrees to the spine when contacting the ischium as required. In Dr. Mathis' opinion the table height for the examination area Petitioner was working in did not prohibit Petitioner from positioning himself appropriately to demonstrate his position reference to the patient. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 1 position 1. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, Petitioner offered his explanation in the examination that he would use the opposite of the actual listing. He opined that given the way that the inter-joint subluxates, one would go in the opposite direction to get a more neutral setting. Therefore when dealing with anterior-superior, one would go postier and inferior to accomplish the opposite of the listing. In contrast, Dr. Mathis, in offering his opinion about this item, referred to the anterior-superior listing as one in which the pelvis, in the circumstance that is bilateral, makes it such that both hip bones, or the pelvis in its entirety, has tipped forward and up over the femur heads or leg bones. Noting that Petitioner stated in his examination that he would thrust in the opposite manner, postier to anterior, meaning back to front, and superior to inferior, from top to bottom, Dr. Mathis opined that Petitioner was partially correct. However, Dr. Mathis was persuaded that additional information was required as to the actual angle or direction of thrust determined by the shaft of the femur or leg bone, and this additional information was not addressed by Petitioner. Dr. Mathis criticizes Petitioner's explanation of the technique to be employed on this item by leaving out the shaft of the femur as constituting the determinate of the angle employed. Moreover, Dr. Mathis did not believe that Petitioner could, in the attempt to demonstrate the technique at issue, perform adequately. The Petitioner was on the upper portion of the pelvis or ilium as opposed to being on the ischium, or lower portion of the pelvis. Consequently, according to Dr. Mathis, if Petitioner was going to thrust in the direction that Petitioner stated he would, he could not get the correction that he was attempting to obtain because Petitioner was on the wrong segment or portion of the pelvis. As Dr. Mathis perceives it, Petitioner could not physically accomplish by demonstration, what he claimed he could do because Petitioner was in the wrong location to make that correction. Dr. Mathis' opinion about case 1 line of drive 4 is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for this item. Case 2 contact point 7 is what Petitioner refers as to tennis elbow. Petitioner concedes that normally he would use the thumb as the contact point; however, he offers his opinion that during the time of his practice, he has learned other techniques. According to Petitioner, those other techniques are especially useful to address an acute patient with a lot of swelling, where a thumb contact can be painful. Therefore, Petitioner believes that the thenar, the soft part of the palm of the hand below the thumb, is appropriate as a contact point in an acute situation. Given this alternative, Petitioner did not believe that his use of the thenar in the examination was harmful. By contrast Dr. Mathis believes that the thumb is the only acceptable answer. Further, Dr. Mathis stated that the reference list provided to Petitioner and other candidates prior to the examination, in association with A.Z. States' description of the appropriate technique, upon which the Respondent relied in determining the appropriate answer for this item, concludes that the thumb is to be employed in this technique. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 2 contact point 7.
Recommendation It is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued finding that Petitioner did not pass the technique portion of the 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John Bisanti 150 Sumner Avenue Springfield, Massachusetts 01108 Ann Marie Frazee, Esquire Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0752
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 13-16, 1992, petitioner, James S. Moore, a chiropractic physician, was a candidate on the chiropractic licensure examination. Doctor Moore is a recent graduate of Life Chiropractic College and was taking the examination for the first time. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Chiropractic (Board). On July 2, 1992, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that while he had received passing grades on the X-ray interpretation and technique portions of the examination, he had received a score of 70.5 on the physical diagnosis portion of the test. A grade of 75.0 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated September 23, 1992, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Dr. Moore generally contended that he had been denied licensure without any reason or explanation, and that during the review process his contentions were not given meaningful consideration. As further clarified at hearing, petitioner contended that he should have received higher scores on procedures 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination, and thus he should have received a passing grade. That portion of the test is a practical examination requiring the candidate to give verbal and demonstrative responses to a series of questions designed to test the candidate's diagnostic skills. Among other things, the candidate is required to perform certain tests and procedures on a volunteer patient. To memorialize a candidate's performance, the examination is videotaped, and a copy of petitioner's performance is found in joint exhibit 1 received in evidence. Petitioner generally contends that he should have received a higher grade on the above questions. To support his position, petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his uncle-employer, a chiropractic physician in Jacksonville, Florida, who has seven years experience in the field. Respondent offered the testimony of a Miami chiropractic physician who has been a grader on the examination for the last twelve years and was accepted as an expert in the field of chiropractic. It is noted that both physicians reviewed petitioner's examination prior to giving testimony. However, respondent's expert did not regrade the examination but rather evaluated the questions, petitioner's responses and the grades of the two examiners who graded petitioner to determine if the scores were within acceptable guidelines. As might be expected, the two physicians offered conflicting opinions regarding petitioner's examination scores. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and this testimony is embodied in the findings below. There are two independent chiropractors who grade each candidate on the physical diagnosis part of the examination. Each examiner is given one hour of standardization training prior to the examination, there is no discussion by the examiners during the examination itself, and they grade independently of one another. There is no evidence to support a finding that the two examiners who graded petitioner conferred with each other prior to assigning a grade or otherwise acted improperly in the performance of their duties. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the examination, the questions or information given to a candidate will not be repeated verbatim here but rather only a general description will be given. As to question 1, petitioner was penalized one point (or given a grade of three out of four points) because he stated that the normal range for a particular joint was at 100 degrees. He derived this answer from the American Medical Association Guidelines for Impairment, which is the standard used for disability evaluation. Because impairment standards are not synonymous with a normal range of motion, petitioner's response was incorrect and his score of three should not be changed. In procedure 2, the candidate was given a hypothetical case history of a female patient and was required to choose four appropriate orthopedic tests that related to her condition and to then perform each test. The question noted that if an incorrect test was selected, no credit would be given even if the test was performed correctly. Petitioner selected only two correct tests and accordingly received a grade of two out of four possible points. Respondent's expert confirmed that only two correct answers were selected, and thus petitioner's grade should not be changed. Among other things, procedure 7 required the candidate to use and interpret the Wexler scale, a reflex scale used by chiropractic and orthopedic physicians. Petitioner contended that the Wexler scale is considered zero to five, and he used this range to fashion his answer. Although at hearing respondent asserted that the scale is actually zero to four, it now concedes that petitioner's response was correct and that his grade on this question should be adjusted upward by 1.5 points. Procedure 10 related to diagnostic imaging and generally required the candidate to select the appropriate x-rays to be taken for a given set of facts. Because petitioner failed to take a necessary spot hip x-ray, he did not receive full credit on the question. At hearing, petitioner contended that the omitted x-ray would over-radiate the patient and that the large views taken of the patient would give sufficient detail of the primary complaint area. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Therefore, the request to change the grade on this procedure should be denied. In procedure 15, petitioner was given certain information concerning a patient and was required to make a specific diagnosis to be written in the patient's records. The question also provided that if an incorrect diagnosis was selected, the candidate would receive no credit. In this case, petitioner failed to select the proper diagnosis. His response that the patient suffered from a "sprain/strain" of a particular muscle was incorrect since there is no such thing as a sprain of a muscle. Indeed, only joints and ligaments can be sprained. Although respondent's expert conceded that the correct answer was not "easy" to ascertain, all candidates faced the same level of difficulty on the question and thus no change in petitioner's grade is warranted. Petitioner next contends that he was given an incorrect grade on procedure 17, which required him to identify which physical examination procedures (more than one) he would use based upon a hypothetical patient history. The question provided that unless all procedures were identified, no credit would be given. Because petitioner did not state that he would take the patient's vital signs, a necessary procedure for a new patient, he properly received a zero score. Finally, procedure 18 used the same hypothetical patient history given in procedure 17 and required the candidate to demonstrate on a volunteer patient the necessary examination procedures. Of particular significance was the requirement that the candidate not only correctly perform the procedures, but also demonstrate those procedures in the usual and customary order. Unfortunately, petitioner performed the first of four procedures last, which would affect the reliability of the findings, and thus he received no credit. Therefore, petitioner's grade on this question should not be changed. In summary, with the exception of procedure 7, the scores given to petitioner on each of the challenged procedures are supported by logic and reason, and there is no justification in changing the overall score to a passing grade. In addition, the test was fairly administered in every respect to all candidates, including the provision in some questions that unless the entire question was correctly answered, no partial credit would be given. Thus, petitioner's contention that he should have received partial credit instead of no credit on several questions is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order raising petitioner's grade on the physical diagnosis part of the May 1992 chiropractic licensure examination from 70.5 to 72.0 but denying his petition in all other respects. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of January, 1993. Respondent: APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6162 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 3-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dr. James S. Moore P. O. Box 229 Doctor's Inlet, FL 32030 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued October 2, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses in the health professions and occupations, including chiropractic physicians. See § 456.073, Fla. Stat. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing penalties against chiropractic physicians for violations of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes. See § 460.413(2), Fla. Stat. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Falowski was a chiropractic physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 5108. Dr. Falowski was first certified in Florida to practice chiropractic medicine in 1986. Dr. Falowski also is certified to administer propriety drugs. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Falowski did business as Rainbow Rehabilitation, and his address of record was 4201 North State Road 7, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33319. On or about August 25, 2997, Dr. Falowski submitted an application for acupuncture certification to the Department. He paid a fee and was certified to take the acupuncture certification examination. His application reflects that he completed 105 hours of acupuncture training at the University of Miami. Dr. Falowski took the acupuncture certification examination in November 1997, but he did not pass the examination. On or about April 15, 1998, Dr. Falowski submitted a second application for acupuncture certification to the Department. He paid a fee and was again certified to take the acupuncture certification examination. His application reflects that he completed acupuncture training at the University of Miami. Dr. Falowski took the acupuncture certification examination in May 1998 and attained a passing score. On or about July 7, 1998, the Department mailed an Examination Grade Report to Dr. Falowski, advising him that he had passed the chiropractic certification examination for acupuncture. A Request for Registration Form for the Board of Chiropractic Medicine was included with the Examination Grade Report, and the instructions stated that the form and a check or money order must be returned to the Department within 45 days. The form listed a $100.00 fee for the Chiropractic Acupuncture Certification. There is nothing in the records of the Department indicating that it received the Request for Registration Form or check in the amount of $100.00 from Dr. Falowski, nor do the records reflect that Dr. Falowski has been issued an acupuncture certification.4 On or about December 28, 2005, writing was observed on the window of the Rainbow Rehabilitation office which stated: WE DO PHYSICALS & BLOOD WORK LICENSED ACUPUNCTURE EKG No acupuncture license number was listed on the window. Dr. Falowski intended to perform acupuncture treatments for any member of the public who requested these treatments at Rainbow Rehabilitation.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order Finding that Francis J. Falowski, D.C., offered to practice acupuncture when he was not certified to do so, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(t); Imposing an administrative fine against Dr. Falowski in the amount of $5,000.00; and Placing Dr. Falowski on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2008.
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.
