The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Medicine, has been the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the medical profession in Florida. Respondent was a licensed physician in Florida under license number ME 0039846. On September 23, 1988, Respondent saw Patient #1, a 55 year old female, who presented with a primary complaint of chronic pain in the neck and low back resulting from an automobile accident. The patient history taken by the Respondent revealed a head injury, a back injury and a whiplash injury, all within the previous five years. The patient also had a history of unstable blood pressure, especially in times of stress, and a history of alcohol abuse which had been in remission for the past two years. Respondent examined the patient and found she was suffering from depression but evidenced no suicidal ideations or indications of psychosis. Respondent diagnosed a major depressive reaction and myofacial syndrome of the neck and low back. Dr. Morales treated this patient from September 23, 1988 to February 1, 1990, prescribing various antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications including Limbitrol, Prozac, Valium, Halcion and Tranxene for her. He also prescribed various opiates including Percodan and Percocet. Respondent claims he made a copy of each prescription he wrote for the patient medical records of each patient so that he could keep track of the number of pills he prescribed for that patient. He claims that the quantity of a prescribed medication was kept in a separate area of the patient's chart and not with the clinical notes. Though Respondent claims this procedure was a common office practice and done consistently in every patient's chart, the evidence indicates otherwise. His method of recording medication in the clinical record was inconsistent. At some places in the record he would indicate the exact number of a specific pill prescribed. At other places in the record, he would not. Examples of this practice, as seen from the medical records of Patient #1 available, shows the following entries: October 20, 1988, Rx for Valium for patient #1 but no indication of the amount prescribed is found in the records. March 2, 1989, Rx for Percodan QID (4 times a day), but no indication in records of the amount prescribed. July 8, 1989 Rx for Percodan - 60 tabs. August 2, 1989 Respondent notes to continue with Percoset, but no notation in records as to amount. September 7, 1989 Rx for Percocet but records do not reflect amount prescribed. November 15, 1989 Rx for 60 Percocet. December 6, 1989 Rx for 30 Percocet pills. While Patient #1 was under Respondent's care, she was admitted to the hospital twice. On September 18, 1989 she was admitted to Largo Medical Center for narcotics addiction and was discharged on September 28, 1989. On September 18, 1989, while the patient was in the hospital, Dr. Farullah, a staff physician, called Respondent to discuss the patient with him. This conversation, including the Respondent's name, is itemized in the hospital records for this patient. It is appropriate practice protocol upon the admission of a patient to the hospital for the admitting physician to notify the patient's attending physician about the patient's diagnoses and condition. It would appear this was done here by Dr. Farullah. Nonetheless, Respondent claims he did not know the patient was hospitalized, contending he did not recall the conversation, and noting that the information regarding hospitalization might not have been included in it. Respondent claims he never heard of Dr. Farulla until a subsequent visit from the patient in his office on October 24, 1989. After the patient's discharge from the hospital, she came to Respondent's office for a 30 minute visit on October 4, 1989. Though this visit occurred only 6 days after her discharge from the hospital, Respondent claims the subject of her hospitalization was not discussed. Two days later, on October 6, 1989, the patient returned to Respondent's office for another 30 minute visit and again, the subject of her hospitalization did not come up. This patient was readmitted to the hospital on October 10, 1989 with a diagnosis of, among other things, drug dependency. She was discharged on October 20, 1989, but, again, Respondent claims he did not know of her hospitalization. He saw her on October 24, 1989 for another 30 minute visit during which, he claims, the subject of her hospitalization did not come up. This appears to be a conflict with his previous testimony , noted in Paragraph 8, supra, wherein he stated he never heard of Dr. Farullah until he met with the patient in his office on October 24, 1989. On April 10, 1990, in the course of filing a disability claim with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (DHRS), the patient signed a medical release form. Thereafter, HRS requested the patient's records from the Respondent, but they were not forthcoming. A second request was transmitted to the Respondent who replied that the records requested had been copied but not dispatched because no release form accompanied the request. Respondent indicated that upon receipt of the release form, the records would be forwarded, and on June 4, 1990, they were, in fact, sent by the Respondent. This was approximately 17 months before the burglary of Respondent's office to be discussed, infra. Respondent claims it was his policy, however, in responding to requests for information to the Social Security Administration, (disability claims are paid by Social Security), to provide only clinical notes, initial evaluation, and a medical summary update. Other records, including prescription records, are not sent. Respondent's office was burglarized on November 30, 1991 by one of his former employees. According to Respondent, all the medical records he had were taken during the break-in. Though they were ultimately returned, he claims they were incomplete when returned. However, comparison done by the Department's investigator, of the medical records of Patient #1 which were sent to HRS before the burglary with those taken from Respondent's office after the burglary, indicated they were the same, except for some duplicates. Nonetheless, Respondent claims that some of the records pertaining to Patient #1, including prescription records, were not recovered. This could explain the absence of prescription records in both sets of records, but that is not found to be the case here, however. According to the Board's expert, Dr. Boorstin, a Board Certified Psychiatrist who specializes in addiction psychiatry and opiastic medicine, the benzodiazepins prescribed for Patient #1 by the Respondent, were inappropriate because of her known alcoholism, and he failed to adequately monitor her for possible addiction or dependence. Even though her condition had been in remission for two years, Dr. Boorstin concluded it was below standard practice to prescribe those drugs to this patient. Dr. Boorstin also concluded that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records for this patient and did not justify the less than conservative prescription of anti-anxiety and pain medications to a known alcoholic. A physician must keep track of the drugs being used by a patient to be sure no abuse trends exist. The Respondent should have detailed with exactitude in his records the number of each specific medication. From September 30, 1988 to February 1, 1990, a period of 16 months, he prescribed various opiate-based pain killers to Patient #1, including Tylenol #3, Codeine, Percodan and Percocet. His prescription of the latter two, in Dr. Boorstin's opinion, fell below the appropriate standard of care. The patient's hospital records indicate she was suffering from drug addiction, and if, as the Department claims, Respondent knew of her hospitalizations and the reason therefor, his prescription of liberal amounts of opiate based drugs was inappropriate. The evidence shows the patient was admitted to the hospital on two occasions, both times for, among other problems, drug addiction. Less than one month after her second discharge, Respondent prescribed Percocet for this patient for pain relief at a rate of two tables every six hours. According to Dr. Boorstin, the usual adult dosage is one tablet every six hours. This is outlined in the Physician's Desk Reference, (PDR), a compendium of drugs and medications with manufacturer's recommendations for dosage. Though authoritative in nature, the PDR is not mandatory in application, and physicians often use it as a guide only, modifying strength and dosage as is felt appropriate for the circumstance. On at least one occasion, Respondent's medical records for this patient show he prescribed Percocet but not the amount prescribed. This is below standard. The same is true for the noted prescription for Percodan. Both Percodan and Percocet are Schedule II drugs. A notation in the records for a prescription for Valium also reveals no indication was given as to the amount prescribed. Again, this is below standard. Dr. Boorstin's opinion is contradicted by that of Dr. Wen-Hsien Wu, the Director of the Pain Management Center at the Schools of Dentistry and Medicine of New Jersey, the New Jersey Medical School, who testified by deposition for the Respondent. Dr. Wu claims he has prescribed medications in amounts and dosages far in excess of those prescribed by Respondent and for a much longer period of time. Wu is Board certified in anesthesiology and has published numerous articles on pain management. Dr. Wu contends there is no contraindication for the use of narcotic therapy in Patient #1's alcoholism. The use of narcotics is appropriate if the patient can return to function with careful monitoring. Here, it would appear that Patient #1 was monitored through her frequent visits to the Respondent's office. It is impossible to tell from the Respondent's patient records just how much medication he prescribed for his patient. Because of the failure to indicate the number of pills of each type Respondent was prescribing, it is impossible to form a conclusion as to whether the amount prescribed was appropriate or excessive. Notwithstanding Respondent's claim in his Proposed Findings of Fact that "...there is no indication of drug abuse in the prescribed drug area", the medical records show that on each admission of Patient #1, a diagnosis of drug addiction was made. To be sure, these records do not reflect the drug to which the addiction relates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered herein finding Respondent guilty of all allegations except prescribing in inappropriate amounts. It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $3,500 within 90 days of the date of the Final Order herein, be reprimanded, and within one year of the date of the Final Order herein, attend continuing medical education courses at the University of South Florida Medical School in appropriate medical record keeping and in the prescribing of abusable drugs. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 21. Accepted as a representation by Respondent. Accepted as Respondent's position but not accepted as fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. & 30. Accepted but repetitive of other evidence previously admitted. 31. & 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 38. Not appropriate Findings of Fact but merely recitations of the contents of records. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 42. Restatement of witness testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted as testimony of Respondent, but not as probative of any issue. 8. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein 12. & 13. Accepted. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted. 18. & 19. Accepted. 20. Accepted. 21. Accepted. 22. - 24. Accepted. 25. - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted. 32. Accepted. & 34. Accepted as opinions of the witness, but not as the ultimate fact. Accepted as to admissions but rejected as to Respondent not being advised. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven A, Rothenberg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33617 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Moheb Ishad Girgis El-Far was licensed as a physician in Florida under license number ME 0026895, and the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing and monitoring of physicians in this state. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent practiced medicine with a specialty in obstetrics at his clinic located a 401 East Olympic Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida. Patient 2, C.L., first went to see Respondent at his office in Punta Gorda in January, 1989 because she was pregnant and had heard he was delivering babies in his office. She was referred to the Respondent by the Sarasota Health Department when she indicated she wanted to have her child in a birthing center. During that first visit, the doctor and patient agreed on a treatment plan which would culminate with the baby's being delivered in his office and C.L. paid for this pursuant to their agreement. During the period of the patient's prenatal care with the Respondent, he told her her baby was due on August 30, 1987, and when labor began, she was to come to his office and bring her own sheets. On August 24, 1987, C.L. began her labor and went to Respondent's office as agreed. By the time she got there, she was about ready to deliver and a few minutes after her arrival, she did so in a birthing room with her husband present. At the time of the delivery, both Respondent's wife and Ms. L.'s boss, neither of whom played any part in the proceedings, were standing in the doorway to the birthing room. No nurse was present and C.L. cannot recall seeing any sterilization or resuscitation equipment in the room. C.L. experienced little pain during the delivery, which appeared to go smoothly. Afterwards however, Respondent told her she had sustained an inverted uterus and when Respondent attempted to remove the afterbirth, she started to hemorrhage. When this happened, Respondent gave her a shot and towels with which she was to try to stem the bleeding while he tried to correct the uterine problem. He was unsuccessful and thereafter called the paramedics who came to his office and took C.L. to St. Joseph's Hospital in Punta Gorda for treatment. Respondent did not treat her at the hospital because he had no hospital privileges. While there she required 6 units of blood and 2 units of plasma. At no time during the course of her prenatal care did Respondent advise her to go to the hospital. She fully recovered. C.L. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by Department investigators at some time subsequent to her delivery. With the exception of the fetal monitor which she had seen in his office, the pictures she saw bore little similarity to the condition of the office whenever she was there. Though the office was not as messy as the pictures show, she was, nonetheless concerned about its condition at the time of her delivery. The carpet was dirty and so was the aquarium. She could not do anything about it at that time, however, and it was not so bad as to cause her to feel unsafe. S.K., Patient 1, first went to the Respondent for her pregnancy care in November, 1987 on a referral from a friend. They agreed on a fee of $1600.00 for prenatal care and delivery in his office. During these initial discussions, Respondent did not discuss in detail with the patient the possibility of complications. He stated only that if there were complications, they could probably be treated in the office. S.K. went to Respondent's office about 6 times after that initial visit. During this period, on an early visit, Respondent gave her some medicine samples and a prescription for vitamins. When she asked about the cost, he said he would include the cost of the samples when he billed her insurance company. During these visits, she also saw his personal office, an examining room, and a small room where the patient's blood pressure was taken. She noted that the office was not as clean and orderly as others she had seen, and in fact, was usually in a state of disarray. On one occasion when Respondent examined her, he was wearing a wrinkled shirt with a blood spot on it. The next time she went for a visit, Respondent was wearing the same shirt. S.K. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by investigators and several were similar to conditions she observed there. His personal office was not well organized and there was clutter about but not as aggravated as appears in the photos. Based on her experience with other doctors, Respondent's office was far more untidy and in disarray but not necessarily nonsterile or unsafe. On February 5, 1988, S.K. went to Respondent's office because she was having pains and thought she was in labor. When she called him and explained her symptoms, he told her to come in and he examined her when she did. He gave her something to calm her and to try to stop her labor in an attempt to save her baby. He gave her a shot of demerol and put her in an examining room to lie down. She slept there for quite a while with her husband present. When she awoke she again began to have pains but Respondent would not give her any more medicine. After a while, the baby spontaneously delivered while Respondent was sleeping in another room. He was called but by the time he came in, the baby was dead. He asked S.K. if she wanted to see the fetus but she declined. After a period of recovery, she was released to return home. When this patient came into the office that day and it appeared she was going to deliver, her husband asked Respondent if he thought she should be in the hospital. Respondent replied that it was up to her because the baby, if delivered, was too premature to survive. The decision not to go to the hospital was hers. Respondent did not try to dissuade her from going. In fact, in most ways she considered Respondent's treatment of her to have been satisfactory. During the period she was in his office Respondent was in and out of the room checking on her. The only complaint she has relates to his handling of the fetus she delivered. About 2 weeks after delivery she again went to see Respondent at his office where he showed her her baby which he had preserved in a jar of formaldehyde. This was a strange and sad experience for her. Mr. K. basically confirms that testified to by his wife. While she was in labor or sleeping prior to the delivery, he wandered about the building into other parts of the clinic. He also rested in one of the examining or birthing rooms and observed the general state of cleanliness of the facility was poor. For example, the floor and rugs were spotted throughout with a dark stain and the examining table also had a dark stain on it. These stains looked to him like blood. In addition, the hallway carpets were dirty, there were bags off debris laying out, spare pieces of wood were stacked in the halls, and medical instruments were left out in the birthing and examining rooms. In his opinion, many of the pictures shown to him displayed scenes similar to what he saw when he was there with his wife. Both Dr. Borris and Dr. Marley agreed that Respondent's treatment of Ms. K. had no relationship to her miscarriage. By the same token, neither claims that his treatment of Ms. L.'s inverted uterus was inappropriate. Both agree, however, that other factors in Dr. El Far's operation of his practice as regards both patients failed to conform to generally accepted standards of care in providing obstetrical services. Specifically, he failed to have a nurse present during the delivery; he failed to have emergency equipment in the form of resuscitative and lifesaving equipment available to handle potential surgical complications which might have arisen; he had no emergency backup care available; and he had no hospital privileges in Punta Gorda, the area in which he was engaged in an obstetrical practice. Without those privileges, it was not prudent for him to undertake a delivery in the office. While the prenatal care of patient 1 was within standards, the balance of Respondent's practice was below standards because: the patient was not monitored while in the office; if the conditions as appearing in the pictures existed at the time he was seeing patients, he did not meet sanitation standards because of the general disarray.; he attempted a delivery in his office when a hospital was only 1.5 miles away, (not prudent in light of the patient's condition when there was no emergency to justify it); and his records were not complete. The standard of a reasonably prudent physician is the same regardless of the locality. Acceding to the wishes of a patient, when to do so is not in the patient's best interests, is not necessarily acceptable medical care. Mr. Cook, the Department's investigator, inspected Respondent's office on September 16, 1988, in the company of investigator Clyne, as a result of a call he received from an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who was then on the premises. When they arrived, they observed a female sitting on the couch in the waiting room changing a baby's diaper. From conversation he had with Respondent at the time, Mr. Cook inferred the lady was a patient. In addition to the previously mentioned lady and the state investigative personnel, Cook also noticed two children, who Respondent indicated were his, running freely about throughout the building. Cook examined the patient log maintained by Respondent for that day and noted that two patients were scheduled. Nonetheless, while he was there, there were no nurses, receptionists or office staff present. Though Respondent claims he did not have any patients that day, and though Cook did not see any other than the lady aforementioned, from the patient log and the fact that at least one patient was there, it is found that Respondent was engaged in at least a minimum practice and was available to see patients. Mr. Cook observed conditions in Respondent's office on the day in question that were inconsistent with a proper medical practice. Trash was not contained, food was left open, and dust and dirt were in evidence, all in the area where medical services were or would be rendered. Mr. Cook took photos and a video tape of the condition of Respondent's office. The photos were those shown to the two patients who testified herein and to Mr. K. Though he looked throughout the office, Mr. Cook could find no sterilization equipment, no general anesthesia equipment, no blood transfusion equipment, and no emergency resuscitation equipment. When asked about his sterilization capability, Respondent stated his "heater" was broken and in for repairs. When during a visit to Respondent in October, 1988, Ms. Clyne told him he needed sterilizer equipment, he indicated it had recently been purchased. On that visit, Respondent had a patient in the office. Ms. Clyne again went to Respondent's office on February 15, 1989 and observed it to be still in a state of disarray. Ms. Hampton, another Department investigator, visited with Respondent in his office on January 11, 1989 and found it to be unsatisfactory. The waiting area was cluttered, the carpet was dirty, the walls stained, and magazines were laying around. The clinic area was piled up with mail leaving no counter space. Respondent took Ms. Hampton on a tour through the office during which she observed the computer, patient records, and the typewriter to be unclean. Her examination of the halls, examining rooms, birthing rooms, and the like revealed that in one room, a sink had an unclean speculum in it and others were lying about. The paper on one examining table was soiled and when Respondent saw that, he quickly tore it off. The spread in one of the birthing rooms was soiled and the floor needed sweeping. Trash cans were not lined and needed cleaning. The covering on the baby examining table was soiled and there were bloody cotton balls on a table in the room. She, too, saw no evidence of any sterilization, anesthesia, or emergency resuscitation equipment. On this visit, Respondent indicated he was not seeing any new patients; only those former patients who were still pregnant. Respondent indicates that during the period from July 4 through September 16, 1988 he had closed up his office for an extensive vacation and was living in his office on that latter date. He does not deny that his office was in the condition as depicted in the photos when they were made but contends he has since cleaned it up and put new carpet down. During the period his office was closed, he referred his patients to other doctors and has not been actively practicing while waiting for his malpractice insurance to come through. Respondent also does not deny that the Certificate of Education form he signed and submitted to the Board was in error. He contends, however, that at the time he signed it he believed it to be a certificate of regular continuing education hours, not a certification used for approval for dispensing drugs. He also claims that at no time did he intend to defraud the Board, and when Ms. Clyne brought the error to his attention, he wrote to the Board explaining what had happened. He contends that when he affirmed the statement that he had the appropriate hours, he considered the "a" in "affirm" to be a negative prefix indicating he did not have the required hours. This contention is both ingenuous and unbelievable. It is found that Respondent well knew the meaning and effect of the certification he signed and his affixing his signature thereto was both false and with intent to mislead.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida be suspended for two years and that he thereafter be placed on probation for an additional period of three years under such terms and conditions as are imposed by the Board of Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1507 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1.- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected in so far as it editorializes on the condition of the clinic. While below standard, there was no evidence of health hazard to patients. 6.-8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted. For the Respondent: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of expert testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as it finds that Respondent's performance of medical procedures was within standard. Rejected as to the finding that overall care and practice was within standards. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David K. Oaks, Esquire The Professional Center 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 205, Box 3288 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine DPRB 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The administrative complaint charged Respondent in Count I with violating Section 458.331(1)(t), F.S., failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and in Count II with violating Section 458.331(1)(m), F.S., failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME004552. On October 24, 1988, Patient #1, a 67 year old female, presented by wheelchair at the Physicians Referral Center (PRC) emergency room of the Marion Community Hospital in Ocala, Florida. Respondent was on duty there at that time. Patient #1, arrived at the emergency room at approximately 1:50 a.m. complaining of gas, no bowel movements for three days, feeling weak, and a highly elevated blood sugar of 412 as of 5:00 p.m. the evening before. Patient #1 was accompanied by her husband, who provided some of the foregoing information. Alicia Ables, R.N., attended Patient #1 when she arrived, took her vital signs which appeared to be within normal limits, and noted in the patient medical records, at the bottom of the nurse's notes, that the patient had heart problems, diabetes, kidney problems, and was taking medications. The nurse attached to the patient's medical records a list of the patient's current medications which had been provided by the husband. These medications included Isordil, Trental, Ascriptin, Lasix, Lanoxin, Depyridamole, Capoten, Riopan Plus, Mylicon 800, Pilocarpine eye drops, Tylenol and Humulin N-100, 30 units in the morning and 6 units in the evening. Humulin N-100 is a low level prescription for insulin diabetic maintenance. Mylicon is an anti-gas preparation. The foregoing history was on the patient chart when Respondent saw the patient a few minutes later. Respondent saw the patient at approximately 2:10 a.m. At that time, only the patient, her husband, and Respondent were present in the examining room. No nurse was present in the examining room with them, but Ms. Ables testified that the absence of a nurse during a rectal examination of a female patient occurred occasionally if not regularly at PRC. Nurse Ables was not present in the examination room at the time of the examination and is without knowledge of the extent of Respondent's examination of Patient #1. The patient, who is now deceased, did not testify. The patient's husband did not testify. The only person who was present in the examining room on October 24, 1988 who did testify was Respondent, and his testimony is unrefuted that he performed a routine examination of the patient's chest, abdomen, and skin, that he also performed a rectal examination during which he found the patient's rectal vault "empty," and that he concluded that there was no fecal impaction but some retention of gas. He concluded that a soap suds enema was not warranted, given the patient's condition. He stated that despite believing that the patient had some retention of gas, he considered her to be "fixated" in her mind on the gas problem. When the Respondent examined the patient on October 24, 1988, he contemporaneously noted on her chart that her chief complaint was accumulation of gas, that she wanted a soap suds enema, and that she had spoken earlier with Dr. Sunkavalli, who had referred her to the emergency room. Dr. Sunkavalli was the patient's primary treating physician. Respondent also noted on the chart at 2:25 a.m. on October 24, 1988 that Dr. Sunkavalli would follow the patient as an outpatient. He also wrote down that he diagnosed her as having "gas retention fixation." He ordered Mylicon 80 to be administered to her. She was not given a soap suds enema, was not admitted to the hospital, and was not transferred to another hospital. Respondent did not order any laboratory tests or x-rays. Administration of the Mylicon 80 was noted on the patient's chart by a nurse other than Ms. Ables at 2:40 a.m. That nurse also noted on the patient records that Patient #1 was discharged home at 3:00 a.m., in stable condition. None of the typically observable symptoms of ketoacidosis in the patient were observed or noted by Respondent or by Ms. Ables while the patient was at PRC. Patient #1 was admitted to Citrus Memorial Hospital six and one-half hours after being discharged from Respondent's care. Three hours after her admission to Citrus Memorial, the patient died. After autopsy, the principal pathologic diagnosis and cause of death was listed as "marked three vessel artherosclerosis with large, old myocardial infarction." The gross summary reads, "Death of this 67-year old, white female was due to marked three vessel arteriosclerosis secondary to arteriosclerotic heart disease. A contributing factor was diabetic acidosis." There was also evidence of a gastro-intestinal bleed. When Patient #1's death became an issue the next day, Respondent was unable to recall the patient or his examination and treatment of her. The Respondent reviewed the emergency room records and spoke with Ms. Ables in order to recall the care he had rendered to the patient. Respondent prepared an addendum to the patient's medical records three days after he actually examined Patient #1. Only at that late date, October 27, 1988, did Respondent document a history, document that he had made a physical examination, and document that he had had a telephone consultation with Dr. Sunkavalli on October 24, 1988 while the patient was in the emergency room, and further document that he and Dr. Sunkavalli had concurred at that time in treating the patient with Mylicon. Adding the addendum was deemed appropriate under the circumstances by Marion Community Hospital personnel, and Petitioner's expert did not specifically find that adding it was inappropriate or improper. Respondent had not documented the telephone consultation with Dr. Sunkavalli or a history or physical examination of Patient #1 at the time he examined her on October 24, 1988. Neither on the date of examination/treatment nor in his later addendum did Respondent ever document that he had performed a rectal examination on Patient #1. In his testimony at formal hearing, Respondent explained and supplemented his October 27, 1988 addendum notation of a telephone conversation with Dr. Sunkavalli on October 24, 1988 to add that Dr. Sunkavalli was aware at that time of Patient #1's elevated blood sugar reading the previous evening but, hearing Respondent's examination results, Dr. Sunkavalli had recommended no further tests and had said nothing to disagree with Respondent's assessment and treatment of the patient and that while Respondent had not deferred to Dr. Sunkavalli, he had relied on the consultation. Dr. Sunkavalli was not called to corroborate or refute Respondent's testimony on this score. Jack Kareff, M.D., was accepted as an expert in emergency room medicine. He opined that, under similar circumstances, and particularly with an elderly diabetic patient, the minimal acceptable level of care, skill, and treatment of a reasonably prudent similar physician would have been to examine Patient #1's abdomen, perform a rectal examination, and perform a dipstick of urine for both glucose (sugar) and acetone. Dr. Kareff also expressed the opinion that the rectal examination should have been made to eliminate the chance of fecal impaction and that such rectal examination should have included treating a sample of fecal matter found in the rectal vault with a paper reagent to determine if there were occult blood in the patient's stool so as to rule out gastro-intestinal bleeding. Dr. Kareff testified that there is sufficient fecal matter for such a test in the rectal vault 99% of the time. He conceded that an enema might not be warranted and could be potentially traumatic, given such a patient's condition. Dr. Kareff indicated that the urine dipstick test should be done to ensure that the patient was not headed for diabetic ketoacidosis. The urine dipstick test proposed as a minimal requirement by Dr. Kareff was also described by him as actually "problematic" in that he admitted that such a dipstick test can "fool you" occasionally because not enough aceto acetate is formed to tell the patient's true condition. According to Dr. Kareff, ketoacidosis may take anywhere from 2 hours to several weeks to develop in a diabetic. On the foregoing information, the efficacy of a dipstick test was not established. Because he believed that Respondent had not done the abdominal examination, rectal examination with stool testing, and urine dipstick test, Dr. Kareff further opined that Respondent had fallen below the acceptable level of care, skill and treatment as recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances. In forming his foregoing opinions, Dr. Kareff had not had the benefit of hearing Respondent's unrefuted testimony that Respondent had, in fact, performed a rectal examination, determined that there was no fecal impaction, and found the patient's rectal vault empty. Accordingly, the record is devoid of Dr. Kareff's opinion, if any, as to what should have or could have been done as regards a fecal test when the patient's rectal vault is "empty." Dr. Kareff's opinions assumed and relied on some material contrary to the facts established in this proceeding. Dr. Kareff's opinion also relied upon much uncorroborated hearsay evidence, such as the agency's investigative report. These reliances and assumptions on Dr. Kareff's part detract from the weight and credibility of his opinion on minimal professional treatment, and therefore that opinion is not persuasive. The parties have stipulated that Respondent's medical records were inadequate. This stipulation and Dr. Kareff's opinion that Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment are accepted.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 458.33(1)(t), F.S. and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent is guilty under Count II of the Administrative Complaint of violating Section 458.331(1)(m), F.S., failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results; and Reprimanding Respondent for the single violation, fining him $1000.00, and requiring him to complete one basic level continuing medical education course in record keeping responsibilities and techniques within one year of the entry of the final order. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 24th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-5014 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-12 Except as to subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative material, accepted. 13-14 Rejected because it is largely subordinate to the facts as found in FOF 18-21. 15 Rejected as a conclusion of law but also for the reasons set forth in FOF 18-19. Respondent's PFOF: 1 Covered in the preliminary statement, the FOF, or the Conclusions of Law. Accepted as covered in the rulings on Petitioner's PFOF. Rejected as legal argument. 4-6, 20-21, 37-38, 44, 46-48 Accepted but subordinate to the facts as found. 7-8 Covered in FOF 3-4. 9 Accepted with time adjustment per greater weight of the evidence. 10-11, 13-18, 22-24, 39-40, 45, 49-63, 66 Except as to subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative material, accepted. 12 Accepted, except as to characterization "necessary". 19 Covered in FOF 17. 25 Covered in FOF 8. 26-28 Covered in FOF 18-21. 41-42 Covered in FOF 18-21. 29, 31 Rejected as irrelevant. 30 Covered in FOF 15. 32-36, 67 These proposals are irrelevant, out of context, or misleading as stated, since Dr. Kareff did not specifically advocate a soap suds enema and Respondent did not feel it was warranted. To the extent necessary, the subject matter is covered in FOF 7-9, 14-17, and 18-22. 43 Covered in FOF 7. 64-65, 68 Rejected as unnecessary and/or unproven. COPIES FURNIISHED: Louis Kwall, Esquire Gross and Kwall, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615 Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth 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 The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 99-4377, charged Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (failure to practice medicine with care, skill and treatment); Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (failure to keep written records justifying treatment); Section 452.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (violation of a rule of the Board or Department) by violating Rule 64B8-9.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, relating to legibility of medical records, in connection with Respondent's emergency room treatment of Patient B.W. on July 21, 1995. The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 99-4378, charges Respondent with violation of Section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes (being unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness, use of any material, or as the result of any mental or physical condition).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the incidents alleged in the Administrative Complaints, Respondent was a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. ME 0016828. Respondent specialized in internal medicine and emergency medicine but has never been board certified in any specialty. Respondent's license has been delinquent since January 31, 2000, but because delinquent licenses may be subject to renewal, the Petitioner has persisted in prosecuting these cases. DOAH Case No. 99-4377 On July 21, 1995, B.W., a 56-year-old female, presented to Respondent in the emergency room of Florida Hospital Waterman, with complaints of chest, epigastric, and left shoulder pain. B.W. had a history of dermatomyositis, for which she had been taking 100 mg of Prednisone for a month, along with other medications. Prednisone in such large doses can cause gastrointestinal irritation, ulceration, and bleeding. The day before, B.W. had been prescribed Imuran by her rheumatologist for immunologic problems. Dermatomyositis is a degenerative disease of skeletal muscle that can lead to a multitude of complications, including rheumatologic problems evidenced by abnormal laboratory results. The standard of care in the examination and treatment of a patient with chest pain requires an emergency physician to obtain a history including a complete medical history, family history, and social history. Additionally, in order to meet the standard of care, the emergency physician must perform a complete physical examination, including a review of systems. The emergency room records for Respondent's treatment of B.W. show the information contained above in Finding of Fact No. 4. The emergency room records do not show that Respondent obtained or documented a complete medical history, family history, or social history of B.W. Respondent violated the standard of care in that he failed to obtain or document a complete medical history, family history, or social history of B.W. Respondent also violated the standard of care in that he failed to perform or document a complete physical examination, including a review of systems. Respondent ordered an electrocardiogram (EKG), a chest X-ray, a complete blood count (CBC), complete cardiac enzymes testing (CPK and CKMB), and a metabolic profile or chemistry panel (MPC). He also did a rectal exam which was negative for blood. He did all appropriate tests. He did not fail to order any appropriate tests. The EKG and the chest X-ray yielded normal results, but B.W.'s blood count revealed several abnormal values, including a decreased platelet of 21,000 and a markedly elevated white count of 24,000. A platelet count of 21,000 is extremely low and grounds for major concern, as is the elevated 24,000 white count. Together, in the presence of the other symptoms and abnormal blood values present, which included low RBC, anemic hemoglobin, and low hemocrit, the standard of care requires that an emergency physician obtain a consultation with a specialist, such as a rheumatologist or a hematologist. In light of all the foregoing results and normal corpuscular volume, which B.W. also had, the emergency physician should have recognized that B.W. did not have simple iron deficiency anemia. Under some circumstances, the emergency room physician's consultation with B.W.'s primary care physician, who in this case was also a rheumatologist, would have been sufficient. Respondent maintained that he had obtained a history from B.W. as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 4, and an oral report from the hospital lab technician to the effect that a blood test ordered by B.W.'s treating rheumatologist the preceding day, July 20, 1995, had shown a platelet count of 18,000, and that because Respondent presumed B.W.'s platelets were increasing with the use of Imuran plus other factors, Respondent did not admit B.W. to the hospital, but, instead, discharged her without even consultation. Despite Respondent's foregoing explanation, it is clear that Respondent did not record or document on B.W.'s chart his oral conversation with the lab technician, if, in fact, such a conversation occurred. This was below the acceptable standard of medical care and record-keeping for an emergency room physician. Respondent stated that he felt that because the treating rheumatologist had not admitted B.W. to the hospital or transfused B.W. the previous day, she should not be admitted or transfused on July 21, 1995. He stated that he also relied on a medical text (Merck's Manual) which allegedly states that platelet transfusions should not be given until the count falls to 10,000. Respondent stated that he ruled out a myocardial infarction on the basis that both the CKMB on B.W. and the CKMB Index were not elevated and B.W.'s EKG was normal. However, Dr. Tober, who is certified in emergency medicine, testified more credibly that he had never seen a CPK test so high; that interpretation of CPK and CKMB in such a patient as B.W. would be confounded by the co-existence of the dermatomyositis, grossly throwing off these tests in an acute cardiac setting, sometimes causing several EKGs to come back normal in the course of a myocardial infarction; that B.W.'s extremely low platelet count should cause great concern about the hemologic system and clotting response if B.W. started to hemorrhage; and that the suspiciously low lymphocytes and all blood parameters should have caused Respondent not to discharge B.W. prior to a consultation with a specialist. Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by the treatment he rendered to B.W., in that he did not obtain a consultation from either the primary care physician, another rheumatologist, or a hematologist, before discharging her. That standard of care requires an emergency physician to determine an appropriate diagnosis and treatment as related to the patient's complaint and results of examinations. Respondent violated the standard of care in that he merely wrote into B.W.'s chart a portion of her medical history, "dermatomyositis," instead of a current diagnosis which addressed her current abnormalities when she presented in the emergency room. Thus, Respondent did not discern an appropriate diagnosis while appropriately treating B.W.6 Respondent's chart on B.W. is illegible to the extent that Dr. Tober was unable to read most of 23 lines of it. Because proper care of patients requires that medical records be sufficiently legible for successive professionals to discern what the writer has done and analyzed, I find that Respondent is guilty of keeping written medical records that are illegible and difficult to decipher. I do not consider Hospital Waterman's failure to provide dictation or transcription equipment and/or personnel to excuse this flaw. DOAH Case No. 99-4378 On or about July 14, 1995, Respondent was convicted of driving under the influence and placed on probation for 12 months, and his driver's license was revoked for 12 months. About two years later, on July 12, 1997, Respondent's vehicle collided with another vehicle. Respondent and the driver of the other car were injured. Blood was drawn from Respondent at the hospital. Laboratory studies performed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revealed that Respondent's blood alcohol level was 0.10 grams of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml. Under Florida law, a driver is legally intoxicated when his blood alcohol level is 0.08 grams of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml or higher. On August 12, 1997, Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of serious bodily injury while driving under the influence, and two counts of property damage while driving under the influence. On July 2, 1998, Respondent entered a plea of guilty7 to one count of serious bodily injury while driving under the influence and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years, one month, and eight days. On or about January 13, 1998, Walter J. Muller, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist, performed a psychiatric evaluation of Respondent. Dr. Muller diagnosed Respondent with major depression, dysthymic disorder, and alcohol abuse, pursuant to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV. At that time, these conditions were active and not in remission. The diagnosis of major depression correlates with impaired social and occupational functioning. A diagnosis of dysthymic disorder is an indication of impairment and the inability to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients. A diagnosis of alcohol abuse can be an indication of inability to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients, but would depend upon when the abuse is occurring and how long it has been since the abuse occurred. In the expert opinion of Dr. Raymond Pomm, who is board certified in adult psychiatry and general psychiatry, with added qualifications in addiction psychiatry, and who relied on Dr. Muller's evaluation, the combined three diagnoses of major depression, dysthymic disorder, and alcohol abuse revealed that, to a degree of reasonable medical certainty, Respondent was unable to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients on the date of Dr. Muller's report. Respondent was evaluated at Menninger Clinic in Kansas, on or about May 26, 1998, and diagnosed with alcohol dependence. After six weeks of treatment at the Menninger Clinic, Respondent was released as being "in early remission." The treating physician made a number of recommendations for rehabilitation of Respondent, including treating his alcohol dependence by entering into a monitoring contract with the Physician's Resource Network in Florida and requiring a further evaluation by a neurologist of Respondent's apparently diminished cognitive skills. Dr. Pomm did not have the opportunity to read the entire evaluation by the Menninger Clinic, and did not rely upon it in forming his opinion of Respondent's inability to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients. However, according to Dr. Pomm, there is no cure for alcohol dependence. It is a life-long illness, which is incurable, and which at best, can only be "in remission." In Dr. Pomm's opinion, one who is alcohol-dependent cannot practice with skill and safety to patients without undergoing a monitoring program. While I accept Respondent's testimony that he has remained sober since approximately May 27, 1998, because he has been in prison, I also note that Respondent has not entered into a monitoring contract or been monitored in a recovery program because he has been in prison. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Respondent's circumstances have changed sufficiently since January 13, 1998, so as to demonstrate that he is able to practice medicine with skill and safety to patients in the real world.
Recommendation Upon 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 all violations charged, and as a penalty therefore, suspending Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida until such time as Respondent presents to the Board and proves that he can practice with skill and safety. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 15th day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint, specifically for: 1) Respondent's failure to meet the acceptable standard of care for osteopathic medicine in his treatment of Patients S.R., K.P., R.Y., V.E., C.K., and S.P.; and 2) Respondent's failure to keep adequate medical records for the named patients.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, is the state agency vested with the statutory authority to enforce the disciplinary standards for the practice of osteopathic medicine under Chapters 455 and 459, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Vincent Sundry, D.O., is and at all material times was, a licensed osteopathic physician in Florida, having been issued license number OS 001383. Central to the standard of care issues in this case is Respondent’s use of vitamin B-12 injections. Respondent testified that it is his practice to give patients 2 cc injections of B-12 "to get rid of lethargy and malaise." Respondent testified that he does not use B-12 to treat medical conditions. Respondent believes that B-12 improves the flow of oxygen in the blood and provides a boost of energy. It is also Respondent’s practice to mix ½ cc of B-12 with other medications to ease the sting of injections. Respondent testified that he learned this technique from a supervising physician at his osteopathic college in the 1950’s. In those days, medications such as penicillin were delivered in a heavy, syrup-like suspension, and the needles were of a larger gauge than is now common. Respondent’s supervising osteopathic physician believed that thinning the medicine with B-12 resulted in a less painful shot. Respondent adopted the practice and has maintained it throughout his career. Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Taylor, testified that B-12 shots are indicated only for pernicious anemia or an inability to absorb B-12 naturally. He testified that the only way to test for anemia or a B-12 loss is to draw a complete blood count ("CBC") and test the values of the hemoglobin. Dr. Taylor testified that giving B-12 injections to patients can be misleading, suggesting that it will make them feel better or have more energy when in fact it has no more effect than a placebo. Dr. Taylor stated that under some circumstances a placebo may be useful, but only as a last resort when conventional medications have failed. Dr. Taylor was also concerned that use of B-12 for such imprecise complaints as "lethargy" or "malaise" could lead to a delay in the correct diagnosis and treatment of the patient’s condition. Dr. Taylor conceded that B-12 is harmless, and that he has never seen a toxic or allergic reaction to B-12. Petitioner’s other expert, Dr. Latus, agreed that the accepted conditions for B-12 injections are pernicious anemia or a B-12 deficiency proven by blood tests. Dr. Latus also agreed that he was aware of no contraindications for B-12, and that the amounts of B-12 administered by Respondent were appropriate and not dangerous. Dr. Latus testified that some patients respond to placebos, but had no opinion on whether administering placebos constituted malpractice by an osteopathic physician. Respondent’s expert witness, Dr. Diamandis, also served as Respondent’s monitor during the 1992-1997 probation imposed on Respondent by an earlier order of the Board of Osteopathic Medicine. Dr. Diamandis testified that he has given B-12 injections to patients at their request, when the patients believed it would help them and after he had examined them. Dr. Diamandis summarized his view of B-12 as follows: It’s a funny thing, you can’t draw lines on B-12 and limit B-12, the use. You also cannot draw any lines and say you’re treating something when you give B-12, because it’s only a treatment for pernicious anemia, and it might also be a treatment for something else these days. Who knows. We’ve been drinking wine for a long time. Now they say it’s good for platelets to thin the blood a little bit . . . So I don’t think you can draw the line and say you shouldn’t use B-12. You can draw a line that says it’s only good for this that we know of. But a lot of people feel good when they get the shots. Maybe someone can come along and tell you why they feel good. Maybe a psychiatrist could do it. Dr. Diamandis did not accept Respondent’s use of ½ cc of B-12 to take the sting out of an injection as a method he would use in his own practice. However, he also declined to opine that Respondent’s method would constitute a deviation from the standard of care. Dr. Latus could not recall having been taught this method in his osteopathic training. As to several of the patients discussed in detail below, Petitioner pursued a theory that Respondent was using B-12 to treat conditions such as contact dermatitis, viral sinusitis, and ear infections, because the B-12 injections coincided with Respondent’s efforts to address those conditions. As stated above, Respondent denied that he ever used B-12 to treat any medical condition other than complaints of "lethargy" and "malaise." Respondent’s testimony on this point is credited. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent’s unorthodox use of B-12 constitutes a deviation from the standard of care. Patient S.R. Patient S.R., a 26-year-old female, first visited Respondent’s office on February 3, 1994, complaining of headaches caused by stress and tension. On March 2, 1994, Respondent treated S.R. for two abscesses in the upper right leg. Respondent cleaned the area of the abscesses, did a xylocaine block, incised and drained the abscesses, and bandaged the area. He gave S.R. injections of 1 cc of dexamethasone, a corticosteroid; 1 cc of lincomycin, an antibiotic; and ½ cc of B-12. Respondent testified that these injections did not go into the muscle tissue, but were done surficially around the abscesses. Respondent prescribed tetracycline, an antibiotic, and Librax to ease "the stress and strain going on in her nerves." Dr. Taylor testified that the dexamethasone was contraindicated, because injections of cortisone or steroids given at the time of an infection tend to blunt the immune system and slow the healing process. Dr. Taylor found this especially significant because S.R.’s infection was so serious that it had to be incised and drained. Dr. Taylor also found problematic Respondent’s failure to schedule a follow-up visit a few days later to assess the healing process. Dr. Taylor testified that lincomycin has a side effect profile so bad that the Food and Drug Administration removed oral lincomycin off the market. He testified that in 1994 there were other injectable antibiotics with fewer potential side effects that could have been given to S.R. Dr. Taylor testified that Respondent’s progress notes for S.R. simply set out a diagnosis and plan of treatment, without recording the size and duration of the abscesses, or the patient’s temperature, vital signs, or blood pressure. Dr. Latus testified that dexamethasone is not normally given in the case of an abscess or infection because it would have no effect. He agreed with Dr. Taylor that dexamethasone is a steroid that blunts the natural immune system, and thus should not have been used to treat S.R.’s abscesses. He also agreed that Respondent’s records did not sufficiently explain the situation or the reasons for the course of treatment Respondent pursued. Dr. Diamandis testified that he would not criticize the use of dexamethasone or some other anti-inflammatory in certain situations involving infections. However, the situations he described involved relatively extreme situations such as a patient with her throat so swollen there is concern that breathing will become obstructed, or a patient who is running a fever in the range of 104 degrees. These situations are not analogous to Respondent’s use of dexamethasone to treat S.R. Respondent testified that he administered the dexamethasone to take down the inflammation of the abscesses, in conjunction with the lincomycin to take down the infection. The evidence establishes that Respondent did not meet the applicable standard of care by administering dexamethasone for the treatment of Patient S.R.’s abscesses, and by failing to monitor the patient’s progress after the initial treatment. Respondent’s other actions in treating S.R., though subject to differences of opinion, met the standard of care. The evidence establishes that Respondent’s medical records failed to justify the course and scope of treatment concerning the use of dexamethasone. Respondent’s records failed to record such basic information as the patient’s vital signs, and recorded no specific observations concerning the abscesses. Patient K.P. On February 1, 1994, Patient K.P., a 56-year-old female, first presented to Respondent with a severe gastric upset. Respondent diagnosed gastritis and esophagitis. On March 4, 1994, Patient K.P. again visited Respondent. No complaint is noted for K.P. in Respondent’s notes. The notes indicate that K.P.’s weight was 193 pounds, her blood pressure was 130/82, and her heart tones and lungs were normal. Respondent decided to place K.P. on a weight regimen. He placed K.P. on thyroids; Lasix, a diuretic; and human chorionic gondatropin (HCG), a hormone produced during pregnancy. During a subsequent visit for the weight regimen on April 5, 1994, Respondent also prescribed Zestoretic, an antihypertensive combined with a diuretic. Respondent noted K.P.’s weight at 192 pounds during this visit. On April 26, 1994, K.P. visited Respondent complaining of bouts of vertigo. Respondent noted that her blood pressure had dropped to 114/78, and her weight was 188 pounds. Respondent also noted that K.P. was leaving for Canada, and he continued all the prescribed medications in larger quantities. Dr. Taylor testified that the use of HCG for obesity is inappropriate, because HGC is no more effective than a placebo for weight loss. Respondent testified that the HCG was not prescribed for weight loss but to treat menopausal syndrome in K.P., to "quiet her nerves" and help her lose weight. Respondent denied ever using HCG for diet patients. However, Dr. Diamandis, the probation monitor, recalled that Respondent had used HCG is the past for weight loss. Dr. Taylor disagreed with the use of Lasix for weight loss. He testified that Lasix artificially induces dehydration, giving the false appearance of weight loss. When the medication is stopped, the volume of fluids returns. Dr. Taylor testified that thyroids could induce a hypometabolic state, and has an adverse effect on the patient’s thyroid gland itself by discouraging the natural production of thyroid hormone. The thyroid gland can begin to dysfunction or decrease the amount of thyroid hormone it would make. Dr. Taylor stated that giving a patient thyroid for a period of weeks or months could induce hypothyroidism. Dr. Taylor also questioned the use of Zestoretic, noting that nothing in Respondent’s records for K.P. indicates hypertension. Dr. Taylor pointed out that this prescription, coupled with Lasix, meant that K.P. was now taking two diuretics, which would result in low blood pressure and a lower level of potassium and other salts in the bloodstream. Dr. Taylor testified that he was not surprised that K.P.’s chief complaints on April 26, 1994 were bouts of vertigo and decreasing blood pressure, as these symptoms were to be expected with the medications Respondent prescribed. Dr. Taylor concluded that Respondent’s treatment constituted a major safety issue for K.P. Respondent continued the prescriptions for K.P. when she went to Canada, without taking any steps to monitor her condition. Respondent’s records indicated no monitoring of the patient’s electrolytes, no chronic medication list, no chronic problem list, and no discussion of diet for K.P., despite the fact that she was seeing Respondent for weight loss. The evidence establishes that Respondent did not meet the applicable standard of care by administering thyroid, Lasix, HCG, and Zestoretic for the treatment of Patient K.P.’s weight problem. The evidence establishes that Respondent’s medical records failed to justify the course and scope of treatment concerning the use of thyroid, Lasix, HCG, and Zestoretic. Patient R.Y. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient R.Y. visited Respondent 39 times over the period from early March 1993 through September 26, 1994. Twenty-one of those visits, from March 1993 through February 1994, involved persistent contact dermatitis, a skin rash resulting from exposure to a primary irritant or to a sensitizing antigen. Upon his initial diagnosis of contact dermatitis, Respondent gave R.Y. injections of dexamethasone and Vistaril, a tranquilizer, as well as B-12. Respondent also prescribed an oral antihistamine. On nine subsequent visits, Respondent gave B-12 injections to R.Y. Dr. Latus testified that nothing in the medical record or his experience indicated that B-12 injections were appropriate treatment for contact dermatitis. As found above, Respondent denied that he used B-12 as a treatment for any condition other than lethargy and malaise, and that denial was credited. Aside from the use of B-12, Dr. Latus found nothing inappropriate in Respondent’s treatment of R.Y. Dr. Taylor joined Dr. Latus’ objection to the B-12 injections, and also criticized Respondent for seeing the patient 21 times over an 11-month period for contact dermatitis. Dr. Taylor opined that such a large number of visits without resolving the problem should have caused Respondent to refer R.Y. to a dermatologist. Respondent testified that he tried to refer R.Y. to a dermatologist, but that he refused to go because of the expense. Respondent stated that R.Y.’s condition was responsive to the treatment he was giving, but that the condition was caused by R.Y.’s working with concrete and stucco, and that R.Y. refused to find another line of work. Respondent concluded that until R.Y. was willing to quit working with the materials that were causing his problem, a specialist could not achieve any better result than Respondent. The evidence failed to establish that Respondent did not meet the applicable standard of care as to his treatment of Patient R.Y.’s contact dermatitis. Respondent’s medical records, while lacking descriptive detail of the color and quality of the rash, adequately justify the course and scope of treatment of Patient R.Y. Patient V.E. On March 15, 1994, Patient V.E., a 38-year-old female, presented to Respondent with a complaint of pain in the lateral left foot. Respondent’s records attribute the pain to a cheap pair of shoes that V.E. had worn for four or five days. Respondent diagnosed a severe ligamentous sprain, and possible falling arch. Respondent gave V.E. a one cc injection of prednisone, a steroid, and eight 375 milligram tablets of Naprosyn, an anti-inflammatory. On March 31, 1994, V.E. returned to Respondent, again indicating pain in her left foot, in the third and fourth metatarsal area, accompanied by edema. Respondent injected the area with xylocaine, a pain killer, then with dexamethasone. He prescribed Lasix to reduce the swelling. The only item in the treatment of V.E. that either Dr. Taylor or Dr. Latus found to be objectionable was an unrecorded injection of ½ cc of B-12. Both doctors opined that B-12 is not indicated for a foot sprain. Respondent testified that the B-12 was not administered to remedy the foot sprain, but to ease the sting of the dexamethasone injection. Respondent testified that he did not chart the B-12 because it was not used to treat anything, and it was only 1/2 cc to thin out the medicine. Respondent did record the 1/2 cc of B-12 in the shot records he was required to submit to the Board of Osteopathic Medicine as part of his probation. Dr. Taylor opined that the failure to include the 1/2 cc B-12 injection in the patient record constituted improper documentation. However, Dr. Latus expressly declined to opine on the question whether the failure to include the B-12 injection constituted improper documentation. The evidence failed to establish that Respondent did not meet the applicable standard of care as to his treatment of Patient V.E.’s ligamentous sprain. Despite their failure to include the 1/2 cc injection of B-12, Respondent’s medical records adequately justify the course and scope of treatment of Patient V.E. Patient C.K. Patient C.K.’s first visit to Respondent was on September 10, 1982, when he completed a medical history questionnaire indicating he was diabetic and took a "diabetes pill." The visits at issue in this case occurred in 1993 and 1994, when C.K. was in his early eighties. On March 9, 1993, Respondent diagnosed C.K. with back spasms and a pelvic tilt. Respondent applied osteopathic manipulative therapy, gave an injection of dexamethasone and ½ cc of B-12, and prescribed an anti-inflammatory medication. On April 1, 1994, C.K. visited Respondent with a complaint of pain in his left hip over the sciatic notch. Respondent repeated the injection of dexamethasone and B-12, and gave C.K. a refill of the anti-inflammatory medication. On April 2, 1994, Respondent recorded that C.K.’s hip pain had curtailed most of his activities, and a "probable need for radiological evaluation." Respondent recorded that C.K. was responsive to the osteopathic manipulative therapy, which restored some ability to bend, stoop, and move without pain. Respondent’s records do not indicate follow-up regarding the radiological examination, and do not indicate that X-rays were ever taken of C.K. Patient C.K. testified that he used to go to Respondent for his neck and back, but that Respondent never treated his diabetes. He recalled the manipulative therapy, and recalled requesting and receiving a B-12 shot from Respondent. He could recall receiving no X-rays. C.K. testified that he now works-out at the gym five or six days a week and suffers no back problems, but would return to Respondent if he did. Dr. Latus concluded that, aside from the B-12 injection, Respondent provided satisfactory and adequate care to Patient C.K. Dr. Taylor expressed concern about the B-12 and, more significantly, about Respondent’s administering corticosteroids to a diabetic patient, particularly where there is no record of what medication C.K. was taking for his diabetes. Dr. Taylor testified that corticosteroids elevate blood glucose, and should be avoided for diabetic patients unless they are in severe pain or unless corticosteroids are mandated for the patient’s condition. Dr. Taylor also criticized the lack of follow-up on the probable need for radiological examination. The evidence establishes that Respondent did not meet the applicable standard of care by administering dexamethasone for the treatment of Patient C.K.’s hip pain, given that C.K. was a diabetic. Because C.K. appeared to respond positively to the osteopathic treatments, Respondent’s failure to refer C.K. to a radiologist was within the standard of care. The evidence establishes that Respondent’s medical records failed to justify the course and scope of treatment concerning the use of dexamethasone. The records do not indicate the type of diabetes medication that C.K. was taking, or even an acknowledgment by Respondent that he took C.K.’s diabetes into account before administering dexamethasone. Patient S.P. Patient S.P., a 61-year-old female, visited Respondent only once, on April 1, 1994. She complained of vertigo, lethargy and malaise. She also indicated that, two to three weeks previously, she had a severe ear infection that was never treated. Respondent characterized S.P. as displaying overall myalgia, aching in her joints, hardly able to move. Her throat was swollen and inflamed. Respondent manipulated her back for the aches and pains, and manipulated her sinuses. Respondent diagnosed S.P. as having viral sinusitis, though he took no cultures to definitively diagnose the viral origin. He gave S.P. an injection of dexamethasone with ½ cc of B-12, and prescribed a ten-day course of vibramycin, a tetracycline antibiotic. Respondent testified that S.P. was on her way home to Michigan, but felt too sick to fly. His goal was to make her feel well enough to get home, at which point she would visit her own physician. Dr. Latus testified that, except for the B-12, the treatment of Patient S.P. was appropriate. Dr. Taylor testified that, aside from the B-12, Respondent misprescribed antibiotics to treat what he had diagnosed as a viral illness. Viral illnesses are not treated with antibiotics. However, Respondent could not definitively diagnose whether the infection was viral or bacterial without taking cultures. Under the rushed circumstances, Respondent prudently prescribed an antibiotic. At worst, the antibiotic would be ineffective; if the sinusitis was in fact a bacterial infection, the antibiotic would have a salutary impact. The evidence failed to establish that Respondent did not meet the applicable standard of care as to his treatment of Patient S.P.’s symptoms. Respondent’s medical records adequately justify the course and scope of treatment of Patient S.P. Conclusion In summary, the weight of the expert testimony and other evidence establishes that Respondent did not practice with an acceptable level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances as to Patients S.R., K.P., and C.K. The weight of the expert testimony and other evidence establishes that Respondent did practice with an acceptable level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances as to Patients R.Y., V.E., and S.P.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Osteopathic Medicine enter a final order determining that Vincent Sundry has committed three violations of Section 459.015(1)(o), Florida Statutes, three violations of Section 459.015(1)(x), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 14th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Practitioner Regulation-Legal A Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Pamela A.M. Campbell, Esquire 535 Central Avenue, Suite 403 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Howard H. Whittington, Esquire 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, Florida 33755 Bill Bukhalt, Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medicine Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William Large, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, committed medical malpractice in delivering a baby and/or failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of the mother's treatment; if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's medical license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Mark N. Scheinberg, M.D., was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida. He is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Dr. Scheinberg. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Scheinberg committed two such offenses——namely, medical malpractice and failure to keep records justifying the course of treatment——in connection with the vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery of an infant born to Patient L.G. on February 2, 2005, at West Boca Medical Center. The crux of this case (though not the sole issue) is whether, as the Department contends, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg to perform a Caesarean section ("C- section") on L.G. due to the passage of time, instead of allowing her to continue to labor for approximately 13 hours and, ultimately, deliver vaginally. The events giving rise to this dispute began on February 1, 2005, at around 11:00 a.m., when L.G., whose pregnancy was at term, checked into the hospital after having experienced ruptured membranes. At 12:30 p.m. that day, L.G. signed a form bearing the title "Authorization for Medical and/or Surgical Treatment," which manifested her consent to a vaginal delivery or C-section together with, among other things, "such additional operations or procedures as [her physicians might] deem necessary." Immediately above L.G.'s signature on the form is an affirmation: "The above procedures, with their attendant risks, benefits and possible complications and alternatives, have been explained to me " The evidence is not clear as to when, exactly, Dr. Scheinberg first saw L.G., but that fact is unimportant. The medical records reflect that at 8:30 p.m. on February 1, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg gave a telephone order to initiate an IV push of the antibiotic Ampicillin; therefore, he had taken charge of L.G.'s care by that time. The nurses' notes indicate that at 10:00 p.m., L.G.'s cervix had dilated to "rim" or approximately nine centimeters—— meaning that the dilation was complete, or nearly so. At this time, and throughout the duration of L.G.'s labor, an external fetal heart monitor was in place to detect and record the baby's heartbeats and the mother's uterine contractions. An intrauterine pressure catheter ("IUPC")——a device that precisely measures the force of uterine contractions——was not inserted into L.G.'s uterus at any time during this event. The Department argues (although it did not allege in the Complaint) that, at some point during L.G.'s labor, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg either to place an IUPC or perform a C-section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 10, ¶36. The Department's expert witness, Dr. John Busowski, testified unequivocally and unconditionally, however, that the standard of care does not require the use of an IUPC. T. 36. The undersigned credits this evidence and finds that Dr. Scheinberg's nonuse of an IUPC did not breach the standard of care. Dr. Scheinberg conducted a physical at around 2:00 a.m. on February 2, 2005, which included taking L.G.'s complete history and performing a vaginal examination. L.G.'s cervix remained dilated to approximately nine centimeters, and her labor had not substantially progressed for about four hours. Dr. Scheinberg noted in L.G.'s chart that the baby was in the posterior position at 2:00 a.m. The Department argues, based on Dr. Busowski's testimony, that as of 2:00 a.m., the standard of care required [Dr. Scheinberg to] choose one of the following options: (1) watch the patient for a few more hours to allow for progress; (2) place an IUPC to determine the adequacy of Patient L.G.'s contractions; (3) start Pitocin without the placement of an IUPC; or (4) perform a C- section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 9-10, ¶ 32. The Department contends that Dr. Scheinberg breached the standard of care by choosing "simply to watch the patient for approximately 10 more hours"—— which was tantamount to "choosing to do nothing." Id. at 10, ¶¶ 33-34. In fact, Dr. Scheinberg chose to watch the patient, which was, according to Dr. Busowski, within the standard of care. Obviously, at 2:00 in the morning on February 2, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg did not choose to wait for 10 more hours, because at that point he (unlike the parties to this litigation) did not know what was about to happen. The nurses' notes reflect that L.G. was under close observation throughout the early morning hours, and that Dr. Scheinberg was following the situation. At 4:30 a.m., L.G. was set up to push and at 4:45 a.m. was pushing well. At 6:15 a.m., the notes indicate that Dr. Scheinberg was aware of the mother's attempts to push. At 6:45 a.m., he reviewed the strips from the fetal heart monitor. At 7:45 a.m., he was present and aware of L.G.'s status. From 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., no contractions were identifiable on the external monitor. At 8:00 a.m., however, L.G. was comfortable and pushing well. She stopped pushing at 8:30 a.m., but remained comfortable. Dr. Scheinberg then ordered the administration of Pitocin, a medicine which is used to strengthen contractions and hasten delivery. Although the Department faults Dr. Scheinberg for giving L.G. Pitocin at this relatively late stage of her labor, Dr. Busowski (the Department's expert witness) admitted being unable to say "that Dr. Scheinberg should have started Pitocin earlier " T. 72. The Department therefore has no clear evidential basis for second-guessing Dr. Scheinberg's professional judgment in this particular, and neither does the undersigned. At 9:10 a.m., L.G. resumed pushing. The baby's fetal heart tones (heartbeats) were stable. L.G. continued pushing, with her family present, until around 11:00 a.m., at which time Dr. Scheinberg discussed the situation with the patient and her family. Dr. Scheinberg explained to L.G. or her husband the risks of, and alternatives to, performing a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. Either L.G. or her husband gave verbal consent to the use of a vacuum device to assist in the delivery. Between 11:00 a.m. and 11:10 a.m., the fetal heart monitor detected some variable decelerations, meaning a decrease in heart rate that could be a sign of fetal distress. Dr. Scheinberg delivered the baby at 11:23 a.m., using a vacuum device to help pull the infant out of the birth canal. In his post-operative notes, Dr. Scheinberg wrote that his "pre-operative diagnosis" was "+3 station — prolonged second stage 2½ hrs." As a "post-operative diagnosis," Dr. Scheinberg recorded, "same + tight cord." He reported the following "findings": "tight cord cut on perineum[;] mec[onium] aspirated on perineum."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Dr. Scheinberg not guilty of the charges set forth in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, as stated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated May 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) was the state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C., (Petitioner) was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and was providing chiropractic services to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner provided the services pursuant to a contract with Respondent under the Medicaid provider number 0503517-00. His Medicaid patients for years have included children and multi-handicapped children. Petitioner has published in peer review journals and is a board certified chiropractor. Dennis L. Jones, D.C., is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida. 1/ He was involved in the creation of Florida's Medicaid program and monitors the Florida Chiropractic Medicaid Program. Dr. Jones also serves as a Medicaid chiropractic consultant, including the issuance of prior authorizations for treatment. Prior authorizations are required for a chiropractor to provide and bill for visits by Medicaid recipients in excess of the set limited number. The maximum number of visits allowed per year prior to July 1, 1994, was 12, and after July 1, 1994, was 24. After July 1, 1994, prior authorization was required for visits beyond 24 for Medicaid recipients under the age of Prior authorization was granted for requests that demonstrated medical necessity. Dr. Jones denied many of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization. He denied the requests on the basis that the treatments were extending for periods of up to two years without detailed explanation of medical necessity to substantiate such extended periods of care. Dr. Jones observed that Petitioner's requests for such extended care routinely lacked substantiation and documentation for such extended care, such as x-rays, orthopedic and neurological findings, and subjective/objective descriptions. However, Dr. Jones granted some of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization to exceed the maximum number of visits. Dr. Jones had concerns as to the sufficiency of the documentation of Petitioner's requests for prior authorizations. As a result, when such requests were granted, Dr. Jones noted on the request forms that supplemental medical necessity needed to be documented more completely in the future. In 1996, Dr. Jones related his concerns about Petitioner in a letter to Respondent and included with the letter prior authorizations for primarily special needs children covering the years 1994 through 1996. Twenty-nine prior authorizations were included, with 25 of them for special needs children. His concerns related primarily to Petitioner's Medicaid patients who were special needs children and for whom Dr. Jones had reviewed only prior authorizations submitted by Petitioner. Further, in his letter, Dr. Jones requested an investigation into possible patient brokering, a criminal act. However, a request from a complainant for an investigation into a particular area of alleged violation does not prevent Respondent from identifying and investigating other areas of possible violation revealed by the documents provided. Dr. Jones' letter was referred to one of Respondent's employees, Judith M. Jensen. At that time, Ms. Jensen was also in the process of reviewing another complaint lodged against Petitioner by Dr. Jones, regarding prior authorizations for children, but covering a different time period--from 1993 through 1995. Ms. Jensen was, and is, employed by Respondent as a Human Services Program Specialist. Her duties include monitoring Medicaid claims and investigating Medicaid complaints and aberrant billings for Respondent's Medicaid Program Integrity Office. In investigating all billing irregularities or specific complaints, a review is typically made of the Medicaid provider's medical records. Substantiation of Medicaid claims that are submitted and paid is by adequate and proper medical record documentation. An audit, based upon a billing irregularity or complaint, is usually begun with the selection of a provider or a group of providers. Next, a sample of the chosen provider's Medicaid claims is chosen for a particular time period, which is the audit period. An analyst for Respondent then requests from the provider the medical records for the Medicaid recipients sampled for the audit period. The medical records are provided to and analyzed by a medical peer reviewer. If the medical peer reviewer recommends denial of payment for any of the claims, resulting in overpayment, Respondent forwards a preliminary audit letter to the Medicaid provider, describing the audit findings and requesting any supplemental medical records. A review of any submitted supplemental medical records is conducted, and the audit findings are adjusted in accordance with the results of the review. If an overpayment continues to be indicated after the review, Respondent forwards a final audit letter to the Medicaid provider. Respondent has a limited number of analysts and medical peer reviewers. Due to such constraints on Respondent, sampling is utilized due to its reliability, cost-effectiveness, and commonly accepted method for review of high volumes of Medicaid claims. Ms. Jensen initiated Respondent's review of Petitioner's Medicaid claims. She began the audit by requesting an ad hoc computer report on Petitioner's billing history for all Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Ms. Jensen's request concentrated only on Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 because Dr. Jones alerted Respondent primarily to prior authorizations for children. Ms. Jensen received the ad hoc computer report, which was a detail of all of Petitioner's Medicaid billings for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. The report provided that for the time period indicated, Petitioner billed and was paid for 4,499 claims for 85 recipients, for a total amount of $71,731.30. Having received this information, Ms. Jensen requested a computer-generated selection of a random sample of 20 recipients from the total population of the 85 recipients. Twenty recipients were randomly selected from the total population of the 85 recipients, which showed, among other things, claims totaling 1,307 and payment for the claims totaling $20,710.69. Afterwards, Ms. Jensen requested Petitioner to provide all the medical records for the 20 sampled recipients for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Petitioner complied with Ms. Jensen's request. Having received the medical records, Ms. Jensen engaged a peer review consultant, Dr. Ronald J. Hoffman, D.C., to evaluate the records submitted by Petitioner. She provided the medical records to Dr. Hoffman.. 2/ He was provided with the medical records of only 10 Medicaid recipients on two separate occasions, instead of all 20 at the same time. The Medicaid recipients' medical records were not "sanitized" when they were submitted to Dr. Hoffman, meaning that the names of the Medicaid recipients and provider, Petitioner, were not redacted. Dr. Hoffman, as a peer reviewer, rarely reviews files which have been sanitized. The failure to sanitize the medical records found to be of no consequence to Dr. Hoffman's determinations. Dr. Hoffman is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and has been practicing for over 30 years. His practice includes patients who are pediatric and multi-handicapped, but these patients comprise a very small number of his patients. He performs chiropractic Medicaid utilization review for Respondent and is a Medicaid provider. He has performed chiropractic utilization review for more than 15 years. For the Medicaid program, Dr. Hoffman has been a consultant since 1997, but Petitioner's review was the first peer review performed by Dr. Hoffman for the Medicaid program. When Dr. Hoffman performs peer reviews for Respondent, he relies upon State statutes and Respondent's guidelines, specifically, The Chiropractic Coverage and Limitation Handbook, and his years of experience Dr. Hoffman is knowledgeable about what a medical record should contain in order for the medical record to demonstrate medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes. The medical record should contain the complete medical history; an examination showing the condition of the patient and why the patient is being treated; symptoms; standardized testing, including orthopedic and neurological tests; treatment notes; a treatment program; objective findings; special procedures; and an evaluation of the patient's progress. 3/ Petitioner agrees that, according to the Medicaid provider reimbursement handbook, the following are requirements for medical records: patient history; chief complaint for each visit; diagnostic tests and results; diagnosis; treatment plan, including prescriptions; medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; progress reports, treatment rendered; original signatures and dates; dates of service; and referrals to others. Dr. Hoffman was aware from review of the medical records provided by Petitioner that the Medicaid recipients were special needs children. However, he was unaware of Florida's special needs statutes (Subsections 409.803(1)(c) and 409.9126(1)(b), and Section 409.9121, Florida Statutes), which address, among other things, health care needs for special needs children, and he did not use the statutes in his determination. The failure to use the special needs statutes had little or no effect on Dr. Hoffman's review. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that Dr. Hoffman's failure to use the special needs statutes in his review did not invalidate his determinations. Dr. Hoffman was tendered and is accepted as an expert in chiropractic medicine. He is also found to be an appropriate peer reviewer for Petitioner's situation. Dr. Hoffman's testimony is found to be credible. After having reviewed the medical records, regarding the 20 randomly sampled Medicaid recipients, pursuant to Respondent's Medicaid peer review, Dr. Hoffman produced two reports of his findings. 4/ During his review, Dr. Hoffman considered all of the Medicaid recipients' visits, including those that had been granted prior authorization. Patient 1 was recipient K.K., with a date of birth of 5/18/86. 5/ Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 1's medical records did not support a finding of medical necessity. The medical records failed to support justification for Patient 1's 198 visits from 11/10/94 through 9/10/96. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Petitioner's medical notes were practically the same for each visit, with Petitioner noting practically the same comment(s); and there was no recorded orthopedic or neurological testing and no standard chiropractic evaluation forms justifying the number of treatments billed. Patient 1's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 1, 198 claims were paid in the amount of $3,081.30. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. 6/ Patient 2 was recipient N.M., with a date of birth of 8/11/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 2's medical records lacked documentation demonstrating that the treatments were a medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes for the 175 visits from 7/12/94 through 6/27/96. The medical records contained no standard medical notes or examination forms and no orthopedic, neurological or chiropractic examination forms to justify treatments; and were redundant and repetitive. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; but, the x-rays have no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 2's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 2, 175 claims were paid in the amount of $2,726.50. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. Patient 3 was recipient D.A., with a date of birth of 4/6/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 3's medical records lacked justification for the 173 visits from 8/23/94 through 7/30/96. The medical records contained no standard procedures performed by an acceptable chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida. The medical records also indicated that a medical radiologist, Dr. Robert S. Elias, M.D., read the recipient's x-rays for the purpose of a medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Patient 3's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 3, 173 claims were paid in the amount of $2,693.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,604. Patient 6 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 2/5/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 6's medical records lacked justification for the 160 visits from 1/3/95 through 9/3/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no specified diagnosis, and no routine re- examinations. Furthermore, the medical records failed to show why Petitioner was treating Patient 6. X-rays contained in the medical records were not of diagnostic quality and were, therefore, of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays had no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 6's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 6, 160 claims were paid in the amount of $2,502.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $1,882.90. Patient 24 was recipient G.H., with a date of birth of 7/20/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 24's medical records failed to justify the approximately 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no objective findings, and no standardized testing, including range of motion, muscle spasms, and orthopedic or neurological tests. For many of the visits, the only documentation contained in the medical records consisted of the same notation or statement: "Patient doing well." Patient 24's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 24, 72 claims were paid in the amount of $1,158.09. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 25 was recipient O.M., with a date of birth of 4/25/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 25's medical records failed to justify the 87 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no justification of diagnosis, and no standard medical tests. The notes that were recorded were quite sparse and repetitive and typically recorded as "Doing well." Patient 25's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 25, 71 claims were paid in the amount of $1,131.69. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 27 was recipient C.F., with a date of birth of 2/12/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 27's medical records failed to justify the 67 visits from 10/11/95 through 3/25/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no standardized examination forms, and no documentation of Patient 27's progress. Patient 27's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 27, 67 claims were paid in the amount of $1,079.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 28 was recipient K.H., with a date of birth of 8/22/94. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 28's medical records failed to justify the 69 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing, and showed no specific treatment provided based upon the requirements of the Medicaid laws. Patient 28's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 28, 66 claims were paid in the amount of $1,031.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 33 was recipient K.D., with a date of birth of 2/15/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 33's medical records failed to justify the 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing. Patient 33's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 33, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $800.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 35 was recipient T.M., with a date of birth of 10/15/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 35's medical records failed to justify the 51 visits from 2/15/95 through 6/10/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also stated that Dr. Elias read Patient 35's x- rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 35's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 35, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $828.39. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 39 was recipient B.T., with a date of birth of 8/8/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 39's medical records failed to justify the 47 visits from 2/9/95 through 10/19/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 39's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 39, 47 claims were paid in the amount of $765.59. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 40 was recipient T.H., with a date of birth of 7/11/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 40's medical records failed to justify the 46 visits from 11/15/94 through 2/28/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also indicated that Dr. Elias read the recipient's x-rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 40's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 40, 46 claims were paid in the amount of $731.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 45 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 9/26/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 45's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/24/95 through 11/15/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 45's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 45, 26 claims were paid in the amount of $408.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 48 was recipient S.L., with a date of birth of 1/31/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 48's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/11/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 48's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 48, 23 claims were paid in the amount of $388.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 54 was recipient H.A., with a date of birth of 1/31/88. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 54's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 9/6/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 54's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 54, 19 claims were paid in the amount of $298.30. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 58 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 11/19/81. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 58's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/30/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 58's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 58, 17 claims were paid in the amount of $294.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 59 was recipient C.P., with a date of birth of 4/11/93. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 59's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/10/96 through 10/9/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing of the spine, no documentation of standard tests, including orthopedic and neurological tests, and no medical justification for ongoing care and treatment. Patient 59's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 59, 16 claims were paid in the amount of $278.89. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 64 was recipient M.L., with a date of birth of 8/20/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 64's medical records failed to justify the 8 visits from 8/30/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing, and no description of Patient 64's pain or physical condition. Patient 64's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 69 was recipient A.L., with a date of birth of 1/14/92. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 69's medical records failed to justify the 9 visits from 2/27/95 through 3/20/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, and the documentation contained in the records was minimal and repetitious. Patient 69's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 77 was recipient N.J., with a date of birth of 4/16/80. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 77's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 3/6/95 through 3/29/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 77's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 77, 7 claims were paid in the amount of $137.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Dr. Hoffman recommended denial of all claims for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96 due to Petitioner's failure to adequately document medical necessity in the recipients' medical records. For the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, the total of the Medicaid payments was $20,710.69. As a result, the denial amount, the overpayment, for the 20 sampled recipients was the same, $20,710.69. The overpayment for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients was extrapolated to the entire universe or total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, which resulted in a total projected overpayment of $70,518.26. The actual total amount of Medicaid payments for the 85 Medicaid recipients for the covered time period was $71,731.30. Considering the actual total payment of $71,731.30, the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 is very close to the actual total payment and is inherently reasonable. There is an expectation that, because all the claims of the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients were denied, the projected denial for all the claims in the universe of 85 recipients would be very close to the actual total payment. The difference between the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 and the actual amount paid of $71,731.30 is $1,213.04. This difference is negligible and such negligible difference reflects the inherent accuracy and reliability of the statistical methodology utilized. The maximum error range is 5 percent. The difference between the projected overpayment total and the actual payment total is also well within the maximum error range of 5 percent, or $3,587, for a 95 percent statistical confidence interval. To illustrate Respondent's statistical methodology, first, begin with sampled Medicaid recipient Patient 1. As indicated previously, the total number of actual claims for the total population of 85 Medicaid recipients, who were under the age of 21, was 4,499, and the total amount paid for the claims was $71,731.30; the data being taken from Respondent's Medicaid claims database. For Patient 1, 198 claims were audited and $3,081.30 was the total amount paid for the claims. All of the $3,081.30 was denied and determined to be an overpayment. Second, the same process was used with all 20 Medicaid recipients sampled, which produced a total of 1,307 claims, which were all denied, and produced a total of $20,710.69 in overpayment. The total sampled overpayment of $20,710.69 was divided by the total number of sampled claims (1,307) to obtain a mean overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85. The overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85 was multiplied by the number of claims in the total population (4,499) to obtain a point estimate of the total population overpayment, which was $71,291.04. Third, adjusting the point estimate of $71,291.04 for any potential statistical error, Respondent's model reduces the point estimate by 1.73 standard deviations, yielding an error- adjusted total overpayment of $70,518.26. Respondent has a level of confidence that there is 95 percent chance that actual overpayment is a minimum of $70,518.26. The point estimate of $71,291.04 is very close to the actual payment of $70,731.30 for the claims of the total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients; therefore, the overpayment of $70,518.26 is relatively conservative. Respondent's audit was conducted in conformity with Respondent's standards and conformed to Respondent's manner in conducting audits. The audit also had no known deviations or irregularities or deficiencies in the technical processes utilized, except the failure to take into account the prior authorizations granted. As to the statistical aspect of Respondent's audit, Respondent presented the testimony of a statistical expert, Dr. James T. McClave, Ph.D. 7/ Dr. McClave's testimony is considered credible. Using statistical methods in Medicaid overpayment determinations is a common and well-accepted standard of practice. Statistical modeling in Medicaid auditing scientifically and accurately determines the extent of overpayments in a population of payments from a small sample of overpayments drawn from the population of payments. Statistical modeling is capable of providing reliable estimates of the integrity, or lack thereof, of a Medicaid provider's billings, within reasonable time and resource constraints. In the statistical formula, a sample of claims is used to obtain a valid statistical estimate of the overpayment, if any, associated with the entire population of claims from which the sample of claims was drawn. A point estimate, being the best estimate the sample has to offer of the overpayment, is taken; and then a factor, allowing for the uncertainty associated with the sample, is subtracted such that there is a specified level of confidence that what is obtained is the conservative estimate of what the total population overpayment would be. The point estimate is referred to as "the lower 95 percent confidence bound," 8/ and the number obtained is a number which one "can be 95 percent confident that it is an underestimate of what the total overpayment would be" 9/ if the entire population was sampled. Respondent complied with the statistical methodology. The random selection process and the ad hoc computer report were valid and reliable. The results of the sampling and extrapolation were valid and reliable on the basis of the total population of Petitioner's Medicaid patients was pediatric patients and the results were limited to Petitioner's Medicaid patients under the age of 21. Further, the sample size of 20 Medicaid recipients from the total population of 85 was adequate. However, the results of the sampling and extrapolation are not reliable as they pertain to the failure of Respondent to take into consideration the granted prior authorizations. Respondent is compelled and should be provided an opportunity to re-apply its statistical methodology in light of granted prior authorizations not being considered. Uncertainty now exists as to what effect the granted prior authorizations would have on the outcome of the total overpayments. The denial of all of Petitioner's claims was a situation of first impression for Respondent. Prior to the instant case, Respondent had had no chiropractor's Medicaid claims go through peer review and denial recommended. By letter dated February 4, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (Preliminary Audit Report). The Preliminary Audit Report informed Petitioner, among other things, that Respondent's preliminary determination was that Petitioner had received an overpayment of $70,518.26 due to the claims being determined not medically necessary, and requested, among other things, that Petitioner submit any additional information or documentation which may reduce the overpayment. The Preliminary Audit Report also informed Petitioner of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. In response to the request for additional information or documentation, Petitioner forwarded to Ms. Jensen a videotape and testimonials. Ms. Jensen did not send the testimonials and videotape to Dr. Hoffman, the peer reviewer, for his review because these items (1) were determined by her to have been created prior to recording of the medical records at issue, and, therefore, did not constitute a medical record for review; and (2) were, consequently, not relevant. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that the testimonials and videotape were not relevant and need not have been submitted to Dr. Hoffman for his review. By letter dated May 5, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner its Final Agency Audit Report (Final Audit Report). The Final Audit Report, based upon the recommendations of Dr. Hoffman, notified Petitioner, among other things, that the final determination was that he had received an overpayment of $70,518.26, due to the Medicaid claims not being medically necessary. The Final Audit Report also notified Petitioner, among other things, of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. Moreover, Petitioner was notified that his type of violation warranted termination from the Medicaid program and a $2,000 fine, but that, in lieu of termination from the Medicaid program, he could continue as a provider by paying a $5,000 fine. In a subsequent letter to Petitioner, regarding clarification of continued participation in the Medicaid program, Ms. Jensen explained that, as a requirement for continued participation in the Medicaid program, in addition to the $5,000 fine, Petitioner must comply with Medicaid policy and Florida Statutes and rules. Petitioner was placed on notice that to continue as a Medicaid provider he must abide by Medicaid billing requirements. Respondent's Final Audit Report did not contain any notice of mediation being available. Section 120.573, Florida Statutes, requires notice of whether mediation (settlement) is available in agency action that affects substantial interests. There is no dispute that Respondent's Final Audit Report affects Petitioner's substantial interests. No evidence was presented that either Petitioner inquired about mediation or that Petitioner or Respondent sought or desired mediation. Moreover, no evidence was presented that Petitioner was harmed or suffered as a result of not receiving the notice. No evidence was presented to support a finding that the basis of the audit findings involved a conspiracy. A finding of fact is made that the basis of the audit findings does not involve a conspiracy between Respondent and its employees and Dr. Jones and Dr. Hoffman and Dr. McClave or anyone else. Respondent did not initiate any disciplinary action against Petitioner's license as a chiropractor and, therefore, Subsections 455.225(1) and 455.621(1), Florida Statutes, are not applicable. No evidence was presented that any criminal action was referred or taken against Petitioner as a result of Respondent's audit. No evidence was presented that Respondent suspected Petitioner of having committed a criminal violation, that a criminal act had been committed by Petitioner, or that Respondent had determined that Petitioner had committed a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order against Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C. and therein: Sustaining the failure of Dr. Rubinstein's medical records, except as to granted prior authorizations, for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, to demonstrate medical necessity. Sustaining the Final Agency Audit Report, except as indicated and consistent with this Recommended Order. Requiring Dr. Rubinstein to repay overpayments, without interest, in an amount subsequently determined in a proceeding by the Agency for Health Care Administration and within a time period under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. Imposing a fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2000.
