The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., committed a violation of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2005), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on July 18, 2006, in DOH Case Number 2006-07801, as amended; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. (2006). Respondent, Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., is, and was at all times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, having been issued license number ME 29814. Dr. Nosovsky’s address of record is 1865 North Corporate Lakes Blvd., Suite 2, Weston, Florida 33326. The Indictment and Conviction. On or about March 23, 2006, Respondent was indicted in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 06-20178 CR, United States of America v. Isaac Nosovsky and Faustina Adela Gonzalez, on seven counts (hereinafter referred to as the "Indictment"): In Count 1, Dr. Nosovsky is charged with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Health Care Fraud. In particular, it is alleged that Dr. Nosovsky committed conspiracy against the United States Department of Health and Human Services in its administration and oversight of Medicare and against Medicare in connection with the delivery of any payment for health care benefits, items, and services, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 371. In Counts 2 through 7, Dr. Nosovsky is charged with Health Care Fraud. In particular, it is alleged that he committed Health Care Fraud against a health care benefit program affecting commerce, that is, Medicare, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1347 and 2, in connection with the delivery and payment for health care benefits, cost of therapies, treatments, and related items and services allegedly performed by the Nosovsky Clinic. Generally, the Indictment was predicated upon the allegation that, in or around August 2004, Dr. Nosovsky and his co-conspirator formed a clinic, the Nosovsky Clinic, which it then used to unlawfully enrichment themselves by "(a) submitting and causing the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare; (b) paying kickbacks and bribes to Medicare beneficiaries so that they would serve as patients at the Nosovsky clinic, thereby furthering the billing fraud scheme; and concealing the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, the receipt and transfer of fraud proceeds, and the payment of kickbacks and bribes." The Indictment alleges the following facts regarding the Nosovsky Clinic: The medical clinic of ISAAC NOSOVSKY (hereinafter the "Nosovsky clinic") was located at 2250 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite 150, in Miami, Florida, and was in business from in or around November 2004 through in or around April 2005, when it closed. The Nosovsky clinic claimed to specialize in the treatment of patients diagnosed with Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV"). HIV is a viral infection that attacks the patient’s immune system. The Nosovsky clinic purposed to provide intravenous infusion treatments, i.e., the insertion of a needle into a patient's vein, in order to administer certain specialized medications. The Nosovsky clinic also purposed to provide injections, i.e., the insertion of a syringe into the patient's arm, in order to administer certain specialized medications. ISAAC NOSOVSKY was a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to license number ME29814. NOSOVSKY was employed by the Nosovsky clinic and purported to treat patients there from in or around November 2004 through in or around April 2005. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ was employed as a medical assistant licensed to in the State of Florida pursuant to license number CNA121032. GONZALEZ WAS EMPLOYED BY THE Nosovsky clinic as a medical assistant and purported to treat patients there from in or around November 2004 through in or around April 2005. The Indictment alleges the following facts concerning the Medicare Program: The Medicare Program (Medicare") was a federal program that provided free or below- cost health care benefits to certain individuals, primarily the elderly, blind and disabled. The benefits available under Medicare are prescribed by statute and by federal regulations under auspices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, through its agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Individuals who receive benefits are referred to as beneficiaries. Medicare was a "health care benefit program," as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 24(b). Medicare Part B paid for a portion of the cost of certain necessary medical services and medications that were provided and ordered by physicians, clinics, and other qualified health care providers. Medicare Part B was administered in Florida by First Coast Service Options ("FCSO"), a company that contracted with CMS to receive, adjudicate, process, and pay certain Part B claims. Physicians, clinics, and other healthcare providers that provided services to Medicare beneficiaries were able to apply for and obtain a “provider number.” A health care provider who had been issued a provider number was able to file claims with Medicare to obtain reimbursement for services provided to beneficiaries. A Medicare claim was required to set forth, among other things, the beneficiary's name and Medicare identification number, the services that had been performed for the beneficiary, the date the services were provided, the cost of the services, and the name and identification number of the physician or other health care provider who had ordered the services. For Medicare billing purposes, medical services and medications provided to beneficiaries were identified by a Current Procedural Terminology ("CPT") code. For services purportedly rendered from in or around November 2004 through in or around May 2005, the Nosovsky clinic billed Medicare under a provider number assigned to ISAAC NOSOVSKY, 96542O. The indictment alleges that, having formed the Nosovsky Clinic and obtaining a Medicare provider number, Dr. Nosovsky used the Medicare system in his clinic to defraud the United States and commit Health Care Fraud in the following manner: Co-conspirators established the Nosovksy [sic] clinic, with ISAAC NOSOVSKY agreeing to serve as its medical director. ISAAC NOSOVSKY pre-signed numerous, blank health care-related documents including, but not limited to, "Infusion Therapy" sheets, progress notes, and Medicare superbills. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ failed to provide Medicare beneficiaries with prescribed medications. In some cases, GONZALEZ bandaged patients' arms to give the appearance that a treatment or therapy had been administered. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ falsely stated on the pre-signed "Infusion Therapy" sheets that she had provided Medicare beneficiaries with infusion therapy or treatments with specific dosages of medications. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ, among other co-conspirators, fabricated therapy notes and related documents stating that Medicare beneficiaries had received specific treatments, therapies, and dosages of medications, when, in fact, the beneficiaries had actually not received the treatments, therapies, and medications indicated on the therapy notes and documents. To conceal the fact that the Medicare beneficiaries were not receiving the treatments, therapy, and medications that were described in various documents and that were being utilized to bill Medicare, various co-conspirators and FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ obtained fraudulent and/or falsified documents, including the pre- signed documents from ISAAC NOSOVSKY, and placed them in the patient files of the beneficiaries. To promote and further the billing fraud scheme, co-conspirators paid kickbacks and bribes to Medicare beneficiaries so that they would serve as patients. Co-conspirators submitted and caused the submission of numerous false and fraudulent claims to Medicare on behalf of the Nosovsky clinic, seeking reimbursement for the cost of infusions, injections, medications, and other items and services that were not provided, not provided as claimed, or not medically necessary. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid in excess of $1,300,000 into a bank account in the name of ISAAC NOSOVSKY and a co-conspirator. The Indictment names six patients that were involved in Dr. Nosovsky’s conspiracy to defraud Medicare; E.P., M.P, T.R., J.D., A.C., and J.M. The indictment alleges that Dr. Nosovsky and his co-conspirators used the following means to perpetrate the fraud with regard to Medicare Beneficiary E.P. These alleged facts are, except for dates and the specifics as to medication prescribed, the same for all the other five patients. On or about November 1, 2004, ISAAC NOSOVSKY signed a progress note falsely indicating that he had examined Medicare beneficiary E.P. and that the patient required 80 units of the medication acthar gel . . . . On or about November 1, 2004, FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ prepared an "Infusion Therapy" sheet falsely indicating that GONZALEZ had administered 80 units of acthar gel to Medicare beneficiary E.P. On or about November 1, 2004, ISAAC NOSOVSKY signed a superbill falsely indicating that Medicare beneficiary E.P. had received 70 units of acthar gel. On or about November 1, 2004, a co- conspirator paid a cash kickback to Medicare beneficiary E.P. On or about December 8, 2004, a co- conspirator caused the submission of a false claim to Medicare on behalf of the Nosovsky clinic, seeking reimbursement for a dosage of acthar gel that supposedly had been provided to Medicare beneficiary E.P. on or about November 1, 2004. On or about March 30, 2006, Dr. Nosovsky was arraigned in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on the Indictment and entered a plea of not guilty. On or about May 31, 2006, Respondent was found guilty by jury verdict of all seven counts of the Indictment. On August 14, 2006, United States District Judge Paul Huck adjudicated Dr. Nosovsky guilty of the criminal offense charged in the Indictment. Judge Huck sentenced Dr. Nosovsky to 60 months’ incarceration on Count 1, 65 months’ incarceration on Counts 2-7, to run concurrently; participation in a drug/alcohol treatment program while incarcerated; three years’ supervised probation; 200 hours of community service; and, restitution in the amount of $1,305.066. The Relationship of Dr. Nosovsky's Convictions to the Practice of Medicine. In light of the jury conviction on all counts of the Indictment, it is concluded that Dr. Nosovsky engaged in the activities alleged in the Indictment for purposes of this proceeding. All of those activities related to the practice of medicine. But for Dr. Nosovsky's license to practice medicine in Florida, Dr. Nosovsky would not have been able to commit the crimes for which he was committed. It was his license to practice medicine that facilitated his ability to open the Nosovsky Clinic, to obtain a Medicare provider number, and to fully participate in the Medicare program. All of the activities he engaged in, such as signing necessary Medicare documents and medical backup, were carried out in his capacity as a licensed Florida physician. Based upon the Affidavit of John P. Mahoney, M.D., which is found credible, the crimes for which Dr. Nosovsky was committed evidenced a lack of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, good judgment, and sound morale character, all attributes expected of physicians licensed in Florida. The scope and severity of Dr. Nosovsky's conduct evidences a lack of these qualities. Prior Disciplinary Action. Dr. Nosovsky was previously disciplined by the Board of Medicine in Department of Business and Professional Regulation v. Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., DBPR Case No. 92-00411. In particular, Dr. Nosovsky was found to have violated Section 458.311(1)(m), Florida Statutes (failure to maintain medical records justifying a course of treatment), and Section 458.311(1)(t), Florida Statutes (the standard of care expected of physicians).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., has violated Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; and revoking his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Bogenschutz, Esquire Bogenschutz, Dutko & Kroll, P.A. 600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2802 April Dawn M. Skilling, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact On February 4, 1980, the Office of Medicaid Quality Control advised Respondent that a review of his Medicaid claims revealed that he billed the Medicaid Program for psychiatric services and further advised him that only Board-certified or Board-eligible psychiatrists were entitled to bill the Program for such services. The letter further requested that Respondent provide Petitioner with a copy of his Board certification. (Although the letter admitted in evidence bears the date of February 4, 1979, it is obvious that the date contains a typographical error, since the letter pertains to services previously rendered in April of 1979, and refers to a rule which became effective January 1, 1980.) By letter dated February 8, 1980, Respondent replied, by advising Petitioner that he was neither Board-certified nor Board-eligible. Respondent included in his letter a recitation of his extensive experience and qualifications as a psychiatrist. In spite of Petitioner's failure to reply to his letter or to authorize him to do so, Respondent continued to bill Petitioner for psychiatric services rendered to Medicaid recipients, and Petitioner continued to pay Respondent's claims. During the summer of 1981, Petitioner determined that ineligible psychiatrists were billing the Medicaid Program for psychiatric services rendered to Medicaid recipients. In order to ascertain those qualified to bill the Program, form letters were sent to all providers of psychiatric services requesting documentation of Board eligibility or Board certification and further advising that only Board-certified or Board-eligible psychiatrists were entitled to bill the Program. On August 5, 1981, that form letter was sent to Respondent. On August 11, 1981, Respondent replied to the August 5 form letter by again advising Petitioner that he was not Board-certified or Board-eligible and his extensive background and qualifications as a psychiatrist. Although no reply was made to his August 1981 letter to Petitioner, Respondent continued to bill the Medicaid Program for psychiatric services, and Petitioner continued to pay Respondent's claims. Respondent is not presently, and has never been, a Board-certified psychiatrist or a candidate for Board certification. During the period from January 1, 1980, through February, 1982, Respondent billed for and was paid $38,252.75 by the Medicaid Program for providing psychiatric services to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner never advised Respondent that he was entitled to bill the Medicaid Program for providing psychiatric services to Medicaid recipients notwithstanding the fact that he was not a Board-certified psychiatrist or a candidate for Board certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered directing Respondent to reimburse to Petitioner the sum of $38,252.75 for payments received by him for psychiatric services rendered from January 1, 1980, through February, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 15th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Medicaid Program Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 233 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce M. Boiko, Esquire 1000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 212 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims, for the period of January 1, 2004, through January 1, 2006, as stated in Petitioner’s Final Audit Report (FAR), dated July 19, 2006, due to Respondent’s failure to properly document for services billed and collected, in violation of Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2006),1 and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the single state agency under federal law, charged with administration of the Medicaid Program in Florida, and is charged with recovering overpayments to providers. Petitioner’s Bureau of Medicaid Integrity (MPI) has the primary responsibility to audit medical service providers who participate in the Medicaid program. MPI is a Bureau under the AHCA Inspector General. MPI conducts audits to review provider’s compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and policies regarding billing Medicaid for services rendered. An MPI audit is separate and distinct from an annual or other licensure survey or inspection conducted by Petitioner. The MPI audit is a compliance audit not a licensure one. MPI is mandated to review for provider fraud and abuse to ensure that the recipients are receiving the service for which Medicaid is paying. Respondent is a Florida licensed Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) and provided medical services, including psychological counseling to Medicaid recipients, pursuant to a contract with Petitioner under her Provider number 302123800. Respondent participated in the Medicaid program at least from July 1, 2001, and continuously through December 31, 2005 (end of the Audit Period). Petitioner was paid for the services rendered. The audit period for Respondent was determined to be from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2005. Claims for services were reviewed for a standard two-year audit period, and were audited for coding, records and visits. Thirty recipients were picked as a sample of recipients to examine during the two-year audit period. The selection was random and computer generated. Respondent was notified that Petitioner was conducting an audit. Respondent provided the charts on the 30 recipients to be examined and each of their claims during the audit period, which comprised all of her medical records. Gary Mosier is a Registered Nurse (RN), and holds a master’s degree in health care administration. Mosier is employed by the AHCA Inspector General, MPI, and is a nurse consultant and investigator. He was lead analyst and investigator in this matter. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist with 35 years of experience, was retained by Petitioner as a peer review expert to review the charts and give a coding opinion. Billing codes are five-digit numbers. There are general guidelines for establishing the degree of difficulty which are set forth in documents such as Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, published by the American Medical Association. However, the correct coding can only be established through expert testimony, which is based upon established and identified criteria. With respect to each of the services reviewed, Petitioner relied upon the opinion of its expert, Dr. Edgar, as to whether or not Respondent billed Medicaid correctly. Dr. Edgar based his opinion on a review of documents regarding each service which were provided to him by Petitioner. In each instance where the Billing Code 90807, Individual Psychotherapy, Insight Orientation, appeared on Respondents charts for all 30 patients, Dr. Edgar down-coded the charts to Code 90862, medical management. He did not disallow payment, he adjusted each of them. His opinion was that, without the time spent with the patient being delineated on the medical chart, then the visit must be down-coded, or it could be denied completely. Dr. Edgar’s testimony was credible and persuasive. A Preliminary Audit Report (PAR) was sent to Respondent on September 12, 2006. The PAR informed Respondent of an alleged overpayment and explained her options prior to the completion of a FAR. It also put Respondent on notice of possible sanctions for lack of response to Petitioner. AHCA pays for mental health counseling when the face- to-face time spent with the recipient is documented. The medical records resulting from these services are required by law to be maintained for five years following the dates of service. These records must be made available when requested by Petitioner. Respondent was requested to produce office appointment sheets or calendars in order to document her face-to-face time with patients. Respondent sent non-contemporaneous time listings, rather than chart materials or office materials to verify and document time spent. There existed no charted or office records of the time spent with patients. Although Respondent testified that these time listings were implied because of the code that she submitted to Petitioner, this testimony is not persuasive in proving a material fact in dispute. The FAR was sent to Respondent on November 7, 2006, with the spreadsheet attachment. As with the PAR, it informed Respondent of the issues involved with the audit and the overpayment calculations and sought to levy a sanction, if one applied. There was no documentation in the charts of the time expended in the patient encounter, as required under the law. Although Petitioner agreed that the use of the Code 90807 implied that there was one hour of face-to-face contact with a patient, CPT policy requires both medication management and therapy, not just medication management. There was no time of service, time spent, and no start or stop times noted in the medical records. These notations are specifically required under Medicaid policy. A record must reflect the time spent face-to-face with a patient. The final overpayment calculation and final audit reports document that the overpayment to be recouped, and which Petitioner seeks, is $12,500.70, with an added sanction of $1,500.00. The preponderance of evidence has shown that Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $12,500.70, and that Petitioner is authorized to impose a penalty of $1,500.00.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order instructing Respondent to repay the sum of $12,500.70, and imposing a fine if appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 2nd day of March, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 2009, 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:1 At the times material to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See § 456.072, Fla. Stat. (2004-2005). At the times material to this proceeding, the Board of Medicine ("Board") was the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes (2004-2005). See § 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. (2004-2005). At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Genao was a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 58604. Dr. Genao practiced in the field of pediatric medicine, and he was board-certified in pediatrics. His practice was located at 13059 Southwest 112th Street, Miami, Florida. In or about 2005, Dr. Genao became aware that so-called "infusion centers" were opening in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, to treat patients who had been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and who required injections and infusion treatments for HIV/AIDS-related conditions. Dr. Genao visited one such center and observed a physician, a Dr. Fauler, as he provided infusion treatments to HIV/AIDS patients. Dr. Genao believed that Dr. Fauler's treatment of the HIV/AIDS patients was appropriate. Dr. Genao had training in intravenous treatments, and, after observing Dr. Fauler and working for a time under Dr. Fauler's supervision, Dr. Genao considered himself ready to begin treating HIV/AIDS patients in an "infusion center" that he intended to operate out of the office housing his pediatric practice. By his own admission, Dr. Genao had no formal training or experience treating patients with HIV/AIDS. Dr. Genao's first patient was G.M., whom Dr. Genao treated for HIV/AIDS-related conditions between May 25, 2005, and June 20, 2005. At the end of July, Dr. Genao was approached by two men who offered to bring him HIV/AIDS patients for injections and infusion treatment for HIV/AIDS-related conditions. Dr. Genao felt he was competent to treat HIV/AIDS patients with infusion therapy, and he signed a contract with the two men in which he agreed to see HIV/AIDS patients in exchange for a salary. Dr. Genao assumed that the patients he would see also had primary care physicians who were treating the patients for HIV/AIDS. In mid-August, 2005, Dr. Genao began to see HIV/AIDS patients regularly at his office in the mornings, before his pediatric patients arrived. Between August 15, 2005, and October 14, 2005, Dr. Genao treated 11 HIV/AIDS patients. Dr. Genao diagnosed these patients as suffering from conditions associated with HIV/AIDS, such as neuropathy; neutropenia; thrombocytopenia; and diarrhea. Dr. Genao ordered various treatments for these patients, including intramuscular injections of drugs such as Sandostatin and infusion of such drugs as Rituxan, Neupogen, and Neumega. Shortly after he began treating these HIV/AIDS patients, Dr. Genao began to question the appropriateness of the modes of treatment he had observed at Dr. Fauler's infusion center and to feel uncomfortable about treating the HIV/AIDS patients. He sought training at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida, and attended training sessions during which he observed a physician who specialized in the treatment of HIV/AIDS patients and who ran the HIV/AIDS clinic at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Dr. Genao attended these training sessions three days per week for two weeks. Dr. Genao realized that the treatment given by the physician at Jackson Memorial Hospital was completely different from the treatment he was providing the HIV/AIDS patients in his office. Dr. Genao also realized that the patients he was treating for HIV/AIDS-related conditions were not being treated for the underlying HIV/AIDS by primary care doctors. Dr. Genao decided to stop treating the HIV/AIDS patients that he was seeing pursuant to the contract with the two men, who were not physicians. When he told the men that he wanted to renege on the agreement, they told Dr. Genao that he had to continue treating the HIV/AIDS patients until they could find another physician to provide them treatment. Dr. Genao felt threatened by the men, and he continued to treat the patients until on or about October 14, 2005. During the time that Dr. Genao treated the HIV/AIDS patients brought to him by the two men, the men prepared all of the bills to be submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid. Dr. Genao signed each bill in the large stacks of bills presented to him without reviewing any of them. The Department's expert testified at length about the treatment that Dr. Genao provided to the 12 HIV/AIDS patients he had treated, and the expert enumerated the ways in which Dr. Genao had violated the standard of care in their diagnosis and treatment. In his responses to the Department's request for admissions, Dr. Genao admitted that he failed to diagnose and treat these patients properly.2 Furthermore, in his testimony at the final hearing, Dr. Genao admitted that his treatment of these patients fell below the standard of care, and he agreed with the Department's expert that he misused some of the drugs he prescribed for the patients, failed to follow through with necessary treatment for these patients, and neglected their care.3 Based on the patients' medical records, on testimony of the Department's expert, and on Dr. Genao's admissions and testimony, the ways in which Dr. Genao failed to meet the applicable standard of care in treating the 12 HIV/AIDS patients may be grouped into categories and summarized as follows: Dr. Genao treated patients S.B. and J.S. for diarrhea with intramuscular injections of Sandostatin; Sandostatin is a medication that is not appropriate for the treatment diarrhea but is used to treat the very rare disease, acromegaly. Dr. Genao treated patients S.B. and G.M. for thrombocytopenia with multiple intravenous infusions of Rituxan, a drug that is not appropriate for the treatment of thrombocytopenia, which is a bleeding disorder caused by an abnormally low level of platelets. Rituxan is used to treat lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis, and it is a very expensive and dangerous drug that can sometimes cause death. Dr. Genao failed to follow-up with diagnoses and treatment for seriously abnormal values that showed up in the results of blood work ordered by Dr. Genao for patients S.B., S.E., L.G., G.M., J.S., and J.T. Dr. Genao failed to refer patients S.B., S.E., M.E., L.G., J.T., E.T., and J.T. 2 to specialists for evaluation when such evaluation was indicted by the patients' complaints and symptoms. Dr. Genao failed to notify patient M.E., whom Dr. Genao saw only once, of abnormal blood test results that should have been evaluated and treated. Dr. Genao failed to revise his treatment of patients S.E., L.G., J.T., and E.T. when it became clear that there had been no improvement in the conditions of the patients after Dr. Genao had treated them for a month or more. Dr. Genao administered Neupogen to patients E.T. and J.T. 2 when treatment with this drug, which is used primarily to treat patients with a critically low white blood cell count resulting from chemotherapy, was not indicated by the results of blood tests. Dr. Genao failed to diagnose accurately and/or timely conditions that were indicated by the complaints, symptoms, and results of blood tests for patients S.B., S.E., M.E., L.G., G.M. J.S., J.T., E.T. and J.T. 2. By his own admission, Dr. Genao failed to keep appropriate medical records of the treatment of these 12 patients. Dr. Genao's medical records were often illegible4; there were no medical records for patients M.C. and R.M., just billing records; and the medical records were incomplete and generally failed to justify the course of treatment for patients S.B., S.E., M.E., L.G., G.M., J.S., M.S., J.T., E.T., and J.T. 2. Summary and findings of ultimate fact The evidence presented by the Department, together with the admissions and testimony of Dr. Genao, is sufficient to support a finding that Dr. Genao committed medical malpractice because he did not provide to the 12 HIV/AIDS patients he treated the level of treatment, skill, and care that would be found acceptable by a reasonable prudent similar physician under similar circumstances. Even though the evidence presented by the Department, together with the admissions and testimony of Dr. Genao, is sufficient to support a finding that Dr. Genao prescribed and administered Rituxan, Sandostatin, and Neupogen inappropriately and in excessive quantities for some of his HIV/AIDS patients, the evidence is not sufficient to establish that this conduct occurred outside Dr. Genao's professional practice. The evidence presented by the Department, together with the admissions and testimony of Dr. Genao, is sufficient to support a finding that Dr. Genao failed to keep medical records that were legible and complete and that justified the treatment that he provided his HIV/AIDS patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding that Estaban Antonio Genao, M.D., violated Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes (2004 and 2005), and revoking the license of Estaban Antonio Genao, M.D., to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 30th day of November, 2010.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent for Case No. 2012007833. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. The Respondent waived the right to receive an Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form for Case No. 2012010596. (Ex. 2) 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 4. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 5. The Respondent’s assisted living facility licenses for Northwest Care Center ] (License No. 7365) and Northwest Care Center III (License No. 8425) are relinquished and cancelled. 6. The Respondent and Ethelene B. Moore, individually, shall not seek licensure nor operate any facility licensed by the Agency for a period of 5 years from the date of execution of this Agreement. 7. Administrative fines and survey fees of $20,500.00 are imposed against the Respondent, but STAYED for purposes of collection as long the Respondent and Ms. Moore not seek any licensure from the Agency. In the event that the Respondent or Ms. Moore seeks licensure from the Agency after the period set forth above, the applicant shall pay $20,500.00 before any application for license can be considered. 1 Filed April 17, 2013 1:30 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 8. The Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may be due to any clients. 9. The Respondent shall remain responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing client records as prescribed by Florida law. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions as well as any other statute that may apply to health care practitioners regarding client records. 10. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity and is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this. 7D day of Mr . 2013. Elizabeth Duddk, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and tne oo ee of wis Final Order was re on the below-named persons by the method designated on this / potas “pe , 2013. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Facilities Intake Unit (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shaddrick Haston, Unit Manager Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Patricia Caufman, Field Office Manager Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) George F. Indest UI, Esq. The Health Law Firm 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 (U.S. Mail) Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearing (Electronic Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity.-- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until 3 compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether certain provisions of the Florida Medicaid Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Handbook) that exclude non-emergent services rendered in the emergency room from covered Medicaid outpatient services and require revenue Code 451 to be billed with CPT Code 99281 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsection 120.56(3), Florida Statutes (2010).1
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the Medicaid agency for the State of Florida as provided under federal law. § 409.901(2), Fla. Stat. “'Medicaid agency' . . . means the single state agency that administers or supervises the administration of the state Medicaid plan under federal law." § 409.901(15), Fla. Stat. AHCA must administer the Medicaid program pursuant to a state plan that is approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 and 1396a(a). AHCA reimburses Medicaid providers in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in rules promulgated by AHCA and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference in the rules. AHCA has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.030, which incorporates by reference the Florida Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan, Version XIX (the Outpatient Plan), with an effective date of July 1, 2009. Reimbursement to participating outpatient hospitals, such as Petitioners, is to be provided in accordance with the Outpatient Plan. AHCA has issued the Florida Medicaid Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. The Handbook is incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.160. The Outpatient Plan and the Handbook identify those outpatient hospital services that are covered by the Medicaid program by revenue code. Only those revenue codes listed in Appendix A of the Outpatient Plan (Appendix A) and Appendix B of the Handbook (Appendix B) are covered outpatient services. Petitioners have challenged the following provisions of the Handbook: Handbook at page 2-7: EMTALA Medical Screening Exam The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires emergency rooms to conduct a medical screening exam on any patient presenting to the emergency room for medical services . . . . If the medical screening exam determines that no emergency medical condition exists, Florida Medicaid reimburses only for the screening and the ancillary services required to make the determination (e.g., lab work or x-rays). Medicaid policy does not provide for reimbursement of non-emergency services beyond the medical screening exam required by EMTALA. Handbook at page 2-40: Non-Emergency Care in the Emergency Room Medicaid policy does not provide for reimbursement of non-emergency services beyond the medical screening exam required by Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA requires emergency rooms to conduct a medical screening exam on any patient presenting to the emergency room for medical services. The purpose of the medical screening exam is to determine if an emergency medical condition exists. If the screening determines that an emergency medical condition exists, the provider must either stabilize the condition or appropriately transfer the patient to a facility that can stabilize the condition. If the medical screening determines that no emergency medical condition exists, Florida Medicaid reimburses only for the screening and the ancillary services required to make the determination (e.g., lab work or x-rays). Recipients are responsible for a coinsurance on such claims. Handbook, Appendix B at pages B-6 and B-7: EMERGENCY ROOM 0450 General Classification Use General Classification code 0450 when recipients require emergency room care beyond the EMTALA emergency medical screening services. Code 0450 cannot be used in conjunction with 0451 (99281). All other appropriate and covered outpatient revenue codes can be billed with 0450 to reflect services rendered to the patient during the course of emergency room treatment. No MediPass authorization is required when billing 0450, if the type of admission in Form Locator 19 on the claims is "1" (Emergency). MediPass authorization is required when the condition of the patient is not an emergency. 0451(99281) EMTALA Emergency Medical Screening Services (Effective 7/1/96) Report the EMTALA Medical Screening code 0451 (99281) when, following the screening and exam, no further emergency room care or treatment is necessary. If ancillary services are not necessary to determine whether or not emergency or further treatment is required, report the ancillary charges using the appropriate revenue center codes in conjunction with code 0451 (99281). Note that 0451 (99281) cannot be used in conjunction with 0450. Effective 10/16/03, HCPCs code 99281 replaces code W1700, used prior to 10/16/03, when billing revenue code 0451. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.160 provides that the specific authority for the promulgation of the rule is Section 409.919, Florida Statutes, and the law implemented is Sections 409.905, 409.908, and 409.9081, Florida Statutes. Petitioners are acute care hospitals that are and were enrolled as Medicaid providers of outpatient service in Florida at all times material to this proceeding.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Florida license to practice medicine should be revoked for malpractice under section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed to practice medicine in Florida, holding license number ME 66823. He is a radiologist and is certified by the American Board of Orthopedic Radiology and Diagnostic Radiology. On June 17, 2004, the Board of Medicine (Board) disciplined Respondent's medical license by issuing a letter of concern, imposing a $15,000 fine, assessing $4,010.59 in costs, requiring eight hours of continuing medical education, and prohibiting him from treating or prescribing medication to members of his family. On or about October 4, 2006, while working at Drew Medical, Inc., Respondent performed a diagnostic procedure called an intravenous pyelogram (IVP) without tomograms for Patient G.P., who had complained of right-side pain and had a history of kidney stones. An IVP without tomograms is a series of time- lapse x-rays using a dye material to provide radiographically contrasting images to detect a stone in a kidney or ureter. The resulting x-ray images revealed a partial obstructing stone in the right-side kidney/ureter area, which Respondent detected and reported. One of the resulting x-ray images contained an anomaly having the classical appearance of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, including conspicuous tissue displacement and rim calcification. It had an elongated, water balloon-type appearance with calcifications on one of the walls. It was alarming or life- threatening in size, such that it could cause death by bleeding. Respondent did not mention the aneurysm in his report or recommend any further evaluation of the anomaly. Although he was tasked to look for kidney stones, Respondent's failure to report the aneurysm or recommend any further evaluation of the anomaly fell below the level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized by reasonably prudent, similar physicians as being acceptable. Patient G.P. was admitted to Orlando Regional Hospital with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on October 6, 2006. Attempts were made to repair the rupture, but they were not successful. The patient died on October 12, 2006. By his conduct in disappearing without a trace, despite the diligent efforts of DOH to find him, and not participating in any manner in the hearing he requested to dispute the Administrative Complaint, Respondent effectively abandoned his license to practice medicine in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of medical malpractice, revoking his medical license, and imposing a $10,000 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of July, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Robert Dean Marshall, M.D. Apartment 310 400 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32803 Robert Dean Marshall, M.D. 5987 Southwest Moore Street Palm City, Florida 34990 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Joy Tootle, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
