The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Section 458.331(l)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes. In this regard it is alleged that the Respondent failed to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient and also failed to practice medicine with an acceptable level of care, skill and treatment.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent graduated from the University of Maryland Medical School in 1981 and then went on to State University of New York at Stoney Brook where he did an internship and residency for four years in general surgery. He was licensed in Florida in 1985 and, since then, has been practicing emergency medicine in Florida. In January 1992, patient H. G. was hospitalized at Parkway Regional Medical Center (Parkway) under the care of Malcolm G. Goldsmith, a board certified colorectal surgeon. The patient had been a patient of Dr. Goldsmith’s for two or three months prior to admission. The patient was hospitalized for the purpose of reconnecting his intestine after a prior colostomy with detachment of the rectum. Dr. Goldsmith admitted the patient and performed surgery on him. The patient was discharged from Parkway six days after the surgery. At that time he was on a regular diet, was having bowel movements and was ambulatory. The patient, upon discharge on January 27, 1992, remained the patient of Dr. Goldsmith and was given instructions regarding diet, activity, wound care, and pain medications, and was told to return in two weeks for removal of the staples or sutures. He was also instructed to let Dr. Goldsmith know about any unusual difficulties or problems. In the early morning of January 28, 1992, the Respondent was working the 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift at Pembroke Pines Hospital (PPH) when the patient presented with severe abdominal pain and nausea without emesis. The patient stated that he had recently had abdominal surgery, had been released the previous afternoon from the hospital, had been having bowel movements and had been tolerating food for a couple of days. The patient was awake, alert, and able to provide his history to the Respondent. The Respondent obtained a history from the patient and noted that he had a fever of 100.8. He then physically examined the patient’s abdomen noting in the medical record, “abdomen bowel sounds positive but decreased. Firm, distended diffused tenderness.” The Respondent also ordered a complete blood count (CBC) and an x-ray of the abdomen. Although he did not note his findings in the medical record, the Respondent read the x-ray as showing the patient had some dilated small bowel loops with some air-fluid levels which he interpreted as an ileus, a lack of proper motion of the small intestine. The Respondent read the CBC which showed a shift to the left which the Respondent interpreted as showing the patient having either an infeciton or aon inflammatory process going on. A shift to the left could be caused by sepsis which could be caused by a wound infection, which is not an unusual postsurgical event. At 5.55 a.m., after examination of the patient and reading the x-ray and laboratory report, the Respondent telephoned Dr. Goldsmith and consulted with him about the patient. He told Dr. Goldsmith of the results of his physical exam, the blood test results and his interpretation of the x-ray. After discussing the matter, the two physicians agreed that the patient should see Dr. Goldsmith later that same morning at Dr. Goldsmith’s office. Dr. Goldsmith did not have privileges at PPH. The Respondent then gave the patient a pain medication shot (effective for about four hours duration) and told the patient to follow up in four hours with Dr. Goldsmith or Dr. Schalen (the surgeon who was on call that day and on the staff at PPH). The Respondent then authorized the discharge of the patient, noting his diagnosis in the medical records as, “Abdominal pain secondary to surgery.” At discharge, the patient signed the following statement in his medical record: I acknowledge that I have been informed of and understand all of the instructions given to me and have received a copy thereof. I have been instructed to contact a physician as soon as possible for continued medical diagnosis and care, if indicated. I do not have any more questions at this time, but understand that I may call the Emergency Service Department at any time should I have any further questions or need assistance in obtaining follow up care. After being discharged from PPH, the patient delayed in contacting Dr. Goldsmith and was not seen by Dr. Goldsmith until 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. on January 28, 1992. At that time he was obviously sick primarily, in Dr. Goldsmith’s opinion, because he was dehydrated. Dr. Goldsmith ordered laboratory findings which showed a normal white cell count of 8,000 and a very minimal shift to the left. The patient did not have a fever and there were no signs in Dr. Goldsmith’s examination of the patient’s abdomen suggesting a peritoneal inflammatory process. According to both Dr. Mead and Dr. Goldsmith, the minimal shift to the left, late in the afternoon of the 28th is inconsistent with a diagnosis of sepsis. Sometime after being admitted to Parkway, and while under Dr. Goldsmith’s care, the patient died. His proximate cause of death was that he vomited, aspirated the vomitus into his lungs and sustained a cardiac arrest. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Meade, agrees that Respondent is not responsible for the proximate cause of death of the patient. The Respondent went off duty at PPH at 7:00 a.m. Sometime after 8:00 a.m., after conducting an “overreading” of the x-ray, a PPH radiologist interpreted the x-ray as a probable 4444distal colonic obstruction, an interpretation different from that of the Respondent’s. The radiologist’s interpretation is inconsistent with the patient’s history of having bowel movements and tolerating food. The fact that the radiologist had a different interpretation of the x-ray is not proof of any deviation by Respondent from the standard of care required in this case. The Respondent was not notified of the radiologist’s interpretation and was not responsible for notification or recall of the patient after going off duty. PPH had a method for notification and recall of patients in such a situation. That system involved contacting the ER doctor on duty. The medical record shows that PPH staff left a message with the family late in the afternoon of January 28, after the patient had already been readmitted to Parkway Hospital, and spoke to the wife that evening regarding the radiologist’s findings. In his care of the patient, Dr. Galitz was responsible for judging the severity of the abdominal pain, the acuteness of the condition, and for determining whether to admit the patient to the hospital or release him. His physical examination and the tests and x-rays ordered were all appropriate. He appropriately undertook a “consultation” with the patient’s surgeon, Dr. Goldsmith, obtained his recommendation and advice and then decided to discharge the patient. If the patient is stable, it is appropriate to discharge him with a recommendation that he follow up in the morning with his doctor. At the time that the Respondent discharged the patient, he reasonably believed that the patient was stable and that discharge of the patient would not compromise his safety. It is clear from the evidence in this case that the Respondent secured and took into account all of the relevant facts available regarding the patient’s medical condition, consulted with the patient’s surgeon, and then made a reasonable and appropriate decision to discharge the patient to see his surgeon within four hours. The examination, consultation, test interpretations and decisions of Dr. Galitz in this case were consistent with the standard of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for the answer he gave in response to Question 21 on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1999 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November of 1999. The practical examination consisted of three parts: "technique," "physical diagnosis," and "x-ray interpretation." The minimum passing score for each part was 75. Petitioner passed the "technique" and "x-ray interpretation" portions of the examination; however, he failed the "physical diagnosis" portion of the examination (PD Test), with a score of 68. On this portion of the examination, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of "physical diagnosis" by responding to test questions, in the presence of two examiners, verbally and/or, where appropriate, by demonstrating on a "patient." Their responses were independently evaluated and graded by the two examiners. A candidate's final score was the average of the two examiners' scores. Prior to the administration of the PD Test, all examiners were provided with instructions regarding their role in the examination process and the standards they should follow in grading the candidates' performance. Candidates were provided with a Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) in advance of the licensure examination. Among other things, the CIB listed, by category ("acupuncture," "physical diagnosis," "technique," and "x-ray") reference materials that could "be used to prepare for the examination." The list was preceded by the following advisement: The list is not to be considered all- inclusive. Thus, other comparable texts may be used to prepare for the examination. Under the category of "x-ray" the following "references" were listed: Eisenburg, Gastrointestinal Radiology- A Pattern Approach, Hagerstown, MD: Lippencott, Second Edition, 1989. Paul & Juhl, Essentials of Radiologic Imaging, Hagerstown, MD, Lippencott, Sixth edition, 1993. Taveras & Ferrucci, Radiology: Diagnosis- Imaging-Intervention, Hagerstown, MD: Lippencott, 1986. Five-volume set, loose- leaf renewed in July 1994. Yocum, T. R., & Rowe, L. J., Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, First Edition 1986. Not on the list under "x-ray" or under any other category was Dr. Robert Percuoco's Radiographic Positioning for the Chiropractor (Dr. Percuoco's Publication), the text book used by Dr. Percuoco in the radiology classes he teaches at the Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa (Palmer). Palmer was the nation's first college of chiropractic, and is accredited by the Council of Chiropractic Education. Petitioner graduated from Palmer and was taught radiology by Dr. Percuoco. Question 21 on the PD Test was an eight-point "diagnostic imaging" question (with no provision for partial credit) that asked the candidates to "demonstrate a Lateral Thoracic view." Among the six items the candidates had to address in answering the question was the central ray. Page 54 of the Dr. Percuoco's Publication describes what, according to the author, needs to be done to obtain a view of the lateral thoracic spine. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows (Dr. Percuoco's Approach): Center the central ray to the film. The vertical portion of the central ray should pass posterior to the head of the humeri. In responding to Question 21 on the PD Test, Petitioner relied on the foregoing excerpt from Dr. Percuoco's Publication. He told the examiners that the central ray should be centered to the film and that the vertical portion of the central ray should pass one inch posterior to the head of the humerus. The two examiners evaluating his performance both gave Petitioner an "A" (or no points) for his response to Question 21. In so doing, they acted reasonably and in accordance with the grading instructions they had received prior to the administration of the PD Test. Dr. Percuoco's Approach (upon which Petitioner relied) is not generally accepted in the chiropractic community. A reasonably prudent chiropractor, in taking an x-ray of the lateral thoracic spine, would do what was necessary to have the central ray pass, not "posterior to the head of the humeri," but "approximately 3 inches inferior to [the] sternal angle," as Drs. Yocum and Rowe, two of the most respected radiologists in the country today, instruct in their text, Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, which was one of the reference materials listed in the CIB (Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach). Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach yields a more exact and complete view of the lateral thoracic spine than does Dr. Percuoco's Approach. Because Petitioner failed to incorporate Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach in his response to Question 21, the examiners were justified in determining that Petitioner did not answer all six parts of the question correctly and that he therefore should be awarded an "A" (or no points) for his response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1999 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating basic X-ray machine operators in Florida. Sections 468.3001-.312, Florida Statutes. On March 30, 1993, Paul Butler was issued Basic X-ray Machine Operator Certificate Number 7729. The certificate expired December 31, 1994, and Mr. Butler requested renewal by submitting a renewal form and the required fee to the Department on December 20, 1996. Mr. Butler admitted that he knew his certificate expired December 31, 1994, but that he nonetheless took numerous X-rays subsequent to that date. On January 4, 1996, Mr. Butler prepared and submitted an application for employment to Kristie Green, office manager for South Dade Orthopedic Associates. In that application, Mr. Butler signed his name and appended to his name the designation "RMA, CRT." Ms. Green interviewed Mr. Butler, and he provided her with a copy of his certificate that showed an expiration date of December 31, 1995. Ms. Green noted that his certificate had expired four days previously, and Mr. Butler told her he was short of funds and would send in his renewal application when he received his first paycheck. Ms. Green hired Mr. Butler as an X- ray technician and medical assistant. After Mr. Butler repeatedly assured her that he had sent his renewal application to the Department, Ms. Green fired Mr. Butler on June 20, 1996, because he had not obtained a current Basic X-ray Machine Operator certificate. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Butler took X-rays without having an active certificate, and that he identified himself in his employment application to South Dade Orthopedic Associates as a Certified Radiologic Technologist by using the letters "CRT" after his signature. The evidence presented is also sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Butler altered his basic X-ray Machine Operator certificate by changing the expiration date from December 31, 1994, to December 31, 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health issue a final order finding that Paul Butler violated Section 468.3101(h), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 468.302(1) and (2) and that he violated Section 468.3101(f). Based on the violations, the Department of Health should impose the following penalties: Suspend Mr. Butler's Basic X-ray Machine Operator certificate for a period of six (6) months; Impose an administrative fine in the amount of Six hundred twenty-five dollars ($625.00); and Condition the reinstatement of Mr. Butler's certificate on his having completed thirty (30) hours of continuing education. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire Department of Health 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Paul Butler, pro se 30525 Southwest 149th Court Leisure City, Florida 33033 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a physician should be disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Medicine (Petitioner), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Santo S. Bifulco, M.D. (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License Number ME 0056868 on February 13, 1990. He has been continuously licensed since February 1990 and has never been disciplined by the Board of Medicine. Respondent, a physiatrist, specializes in physical medicine and rehabilitation. He entered private practice immediately after completing a four-year residency program in physical medicine and rehabilitation. During his residency, Respondent learned and performed electrodiagnostic and neurodiagnostic tests. He was trained in the use of videofluoroscopy, electroencephalogram, needle and surface electromyography, nerve conduction studies, and other electrodiagnostic tests. Respondent performed far above the minimum 200 required for successful completion of the residency program. As a part of his residency, Respondent also had the opportunity to observe and work with chiropractic physicians from the local chiropractic medical school, thereby allowing him to understand the role of chiropractic care and allopathic medicine in the treatment of a patient. Respondent first saw E. C. on December 9, 1991. At the time, he had been practicing physical medicine and rehabilitation for a little more than a year since completion of his residency program. Prior to coming under the care of Respondent, E. C. had been involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 9, 1991. The patient had been treated by both her family physician, Dr. George Harris, and her chiropractic physician, Dr. Richard Thomas, D.C., for the injuries which resulted from the accident. Dr. Harris prescribed medications for E. C. and Dr. Thomas provided and was continuing to provide several modalities for E. C.'s injuries resulting from her motor vehicle accident. Despite ongoing treatment by Dr. Thomas, E. C. was not significantly improving. Because E. C. was not improving under his care, Dr. Thomas referred her to Respondent. The purpose of the referral was for consultation and a second opinion. Respondent was also asked to determine what, if any, medications should be given to the patient and to provide them to the patient if it were appropriate. Respondent was not asked to nor did he assume direct primary care for the patient. Rather, Respondent's role was to provide Dr. Thomas with guidance as to the diagnosis and treatment direction for E. C. In his written report dated November 25, 1991, Dr. Thomas indicated that he was referring the patient to Respondent for further evaluation and for medication that might assist in the improvement of her symptoms. He noted that he would continue to provide palliative care to E. C. until such time as Respondent evaluated her and he had received Respondent's report and recommendation. When E. C. first came under Respondent's care, it was four months after the accident. However, her overall condition had not significantly improved. She had constant headaches, which were extreme and associated with dizziness, a history of high blood pressure, constant cervical pain radiating into her arms, thoracic pain or pain between the shoulder blades, numbness and tingling, and was limited in her physical activities. The pain was interfering with all aspects of her life, including her ability to work and sleep. Respondent performed a physical examination of E. C. on December 9, 1991. On physical examination, Respondent found that E. C.'s neck range of motion was markedly limited and associated with pain; that her lower back range of motion was markedly limited and associated with pain; and that she had positive findings on orthopedic examination, as well as, on neurologic examination. From Respondent’s examination, it appeared that E. C. had suffered injuries from the motor vehicle accident. Moreover, Respondent determined that E. C. was in need of continuing care and because she had not improved, was also in need of further diagnostic studies to evaluate the extent and nature of her injuries and her complaints. E. C. presented as a complicated case due to the length of time that had passed since the motor vehicle accident and the lingering and persistent complaints experienced by E. C. associated with that accident. Respondent’s impression was that E. C. had post- traumatic headaches and injuries to the soft tissues of the neck with radiating pain. Respondent believed that E. C. was involved in what is commonly known as a medical/legal case. Consistent with this belief, Respondent reasonably concluded that his role was to thoroughly evaluate E. C.'s condition by addressing and objectively documenting answers to the questions relative to the cause, extent, and nature of her injuries. Respondent obtained Dr. Thomas’ records to evaluate the care E. C. had been receiving and reviewed E. C.'s X-rays with her on her first visit. Based on his review of the records and his examination of E. C., Respondent believed that the care provided by Dr. Thomas was appropriate for E. C.'s condition and that she would benefit from continued conservative care. However, Respondent felt that for E. C. to reach her maximum potential, additional diagnostic tests could reasonably assist him in arriving at a diagnosis and recommendation for treatment of the patient’s condition. Respondent initially recommended that E. C. undergo diagnostic testing or studies including: nerve conduction studies; a Dermatomal Somatosensory Evoked Potential (DSEP); an electroencephalogram (EEG); a cervical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI); and cinefluoroscopy or videofluoroscopy studies of the cervical spine. These tests were ordered and/or recommended because Respondent reasonably believed that they could assist him in determining the nature and extent of E. C.'s injuries and complaints and arriving at a recommendation for treatment. E. C. subsequently underwent the recommended testing. To assess the discs and other cervical soft tissues, Respondent recommended that E. C. receive imaging studies. Respondent recommended an MRI study of the cervical spine. This study was conducted on December 19, 1991, at the Access Imaging Center. The purpose of the MRI was to evaluate whether E. C. was suffering from a condition that could be treated by surgery. An MRI is a static exam and is the "gold standard" in looking for a herniated disc. E. C.'s MRI was normal, thus, ruling out the possibility of the need for surgical treatment of her condition. To assess ligamentous structures and capsular stability, Respondent also recommended that E. C. receive a videofluoroscopy of the cervical spine or dynamic motion studies. The videofluoroscopy was obtained on December 11, 1991, and was performed at the Tampa Bay Dynamic Imaging Center. The videofluoroscopy was the only test available to observe the movement of the cervical spine through a full range of motion versus the limited views obtained in extension and flexion X-rays, where the patient's neck is seen in a fully extended position, neutral position, and fully flexed position. In E. C.'s case, videofluoroscopy served to confirm the presence of a soft tissue injury. The videofluoroscopy exam revealed hypomobility of the cervical spine at the level of C5-6 and C6-7. This result was consistent with the extension and flexion X-rays of E. C. that had been taken while she was under Dr. Thomas' care. However, Respondent felt the videofluoroscopy was an appropriate diagnostic tool to determine if E. C. had deteriorated since her last exam or had greater instability than was thought to be present from review of the static flexion/extension films. The videofluoroscopy and the MRI allowed Respondent to determine the extent and nature of the patient’s injuries and make recommendations for continuing treatment to her primary physician, Dr. Thomas. Both imaging tests provided useful information in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient’s condition. E. C., who worked as a florist, was experiencing problems working, lifting, and performing many routine activities in her daily life. Because E. C. was not progressing in treatment, Respondent wanted an objective assessment of her strength and ability to lift. Respondent believed that this information would help guide E. C. and Dr. Thomas in advising the patient concerning what she should or should not be lifting. To accomplish this objective, Respondent ordered a N.I.O.S.H. lift test and a Range of Motion test. These tests were performed on December 19, 1991, in Respondent's office. The N.I.O.S.H. lift and Range of Motion tests are components of a battery of tests that make up what is commonly known as a functional capacity evaluation. A functional capacity evaluation is an extensive series of tests to determine a patient’s ability to return to work. By itself, a N.I.O.S.H. lift test is not a functional capacity evaluation and was never intended to be used in that manner by Respondent. Though E. C. had not significantly improved under Dr. Thomas' care, it appeared to Respondent that she had reached a plateau in that her condition was not improving. The N.I.O.S.H. test is appropriate when a patient like E. C. has reached a plateau in her care and is not progressing. It gives the physician information from which to base recommendations on the scope and nature of the activities in which the patient may participate. Furthermore, it helps the physician in designing a strengthening program appropriate to the patient’s physical limitations. It can also provide a baseline for future tests and serial evaluations of the patient’s progress. Respondent was unable to make use of the results from the N.I.O.S.H. test or obtain comparison tests because E. C. failed to return to his office after February 1992. To assess the presence or absence and the extent of any neurologic dysfunction in the upper extremities, Respondent recommended that the patient undergo nerve conduction studies. E. C. underwent those studies on December 30, 1991, in Respondent's office. The purpose of nerve conduction studies is to objectively evaluate peripheral nerve function. It is an average measure of the time it takes an electrical nerve impulse to travel down a segment of the nerve from the spinal column to a particular muscle group. It also includes a measure of the time it takes an electrical nerve impulse to travel from the point of stimulation up to the brain and back. Respondent’s use of nerve conduction studies to objectively look for pathology of the spine or peripheral nerves was warranted given her continued complaints and failure to improve after four months of conservative care. The nerve conduction studies were interpreted by Respondent as abnormal. However, many physicians would have interpreted the studies as normal because, in part, the latency was less than 30 and the difference was less than three milliseconds when compared to both sides. Nonetheless, it is also recognized that these interpretations are judgment calls by physicians based on several factors. To differentiate between problems with the peripheral nerves from those in the central nervous system, Respondent also recommended a DSEP of the upper extremities. This study was conducted on December 30, 1991, in Respondent's office. The DSEP was a companion exam to the nerve conduction studies and supplemented information learned from those studies. The combined exams assisted Respondent with localization of the source of the patient’s complaints and it was appropriate for the Respondent to have obtained both studies. In 1991, the use of the DSEP was relatively new, but it was a test that held out promise to physicians in helping them objectively quantify the functioning of nerves in all of their segments. Over time, it has been found that the DSEP does not provide any greater information than that gained by use of electromyography combined with imaging studies. However, in 1991, the thinking was different. In addition to the nerve conduction studies and the DSEP, Respondent recommended that E. C. undergo a standard awake or EEG. This test was performed on December 30, 1991, in Respondent's office. The purpose of the EEG was to evaluate the source of the patient’s continued complaints of headaches and of difficulty with sleeping. According to E. C., these problems had persisted for four months. The EEG was an inexpensive tool to evaluate whether E. C. was suffering from an intracranial bleed or from some other pathologic condition unrelated to her soft tissue injuries. Given the intensity and persistence of the headaches, Respondent felt that there was the possibility of trauma having gone undetected; he believed that such trauma could not be ruled out even though the patient had not related a history of having hit her head during the motor vehicle accident. The EEG came back as a normal study, thus, allowing Respondent to rule out more serious causes for the E. C.’s headaches. The results of the diagnostic tests allowed the Respondent to report to her primary treating physician his conclusions concerning the extent of the care to be provided, prescribe medications for E. C., identify the distribution of ligamentous instability, the etiology of her complaints, and her safe lifting capacities. It allowed him to rule out the possibilities of serious intracranial lesion and serious neurologic abnormalities. The data was suggestive of a problem in the thoracic outlet. In February 1992, E. C. returned to Respondent for re- evaluation and discussion concerning her medications. She was still experiencing headaches and was reporting that Dr. Thomas’ care was helping but she was unsure if her overall condition was improving. E. C. also reported a new problem with a burning sensation in the right foot at night, which Respondent had not assessed to be problematic. During this visit, Respondent altered her medications and scheduled her for surface electromyography exam (EMG) of the face and neck. The EMG was performed on February 28, 1992, in Respondent's office. The purpose of the surface EMG was to objectively evaluate whether E. C. had muscle spasms, and if so, the degree, interest and location of the spasms. The surface EMG also confirmed the clinical finding of muscle spasms. From the information gained from the study, Respondent could also objectively assess E. C.’s response to existing treatment and her need for further treatment including potential adjustments to be made to her medications in type and quantity. In 1991 and 1992, the results obtained from the surface EMG were thought to be important in providing care to patients or evaluating the treatment being provided. However, over time, it has been learned that muscle spasm can vary on a daily basis and, thus, the data obtained from the surface EMG may not be the best indicator as to how the patient is progressing in treatment. As physicians have learned more about the usefulness of surface EMG, they have come to rely upon it in biofeedback training. The exam provides the patient with an objective visual representation of muscle spasm, which then allows the clinician to teach the patient to relax the affected area. In E. C.’s case, the surface electromyography allowed Respondent to identify areas of muscle spasm for the purpose of planning her continued care. His use of the test in this manner, given the time period in which it was administered, was not inappropriate. E. C. left Respondent’s care after February 28, 1992, and subsequently came under the care of a neurologist, Dr. Alan Spiegel. Dr. Spiegel, who assisted in the treatment of the patient after she left Respondent’s care, did not have any criticisms of the care she had received from her prior treating physicians. As he formulated his treatment plan, Dr. Spiegel had the benefit of the records from E. C.'s prior physicians, including Respondent’s records. While receiving treatment from Dr. Spiegel, E. C. was still under the care of Dr. Thomas. Dr. Thomas’ role was to provide physical therapy while Dr. Spiegel provided medications to reduce inflammation and spasm. In fact, because she had received prior diagnostic exams, there was no need for Dr. Spiegel to perform any additional tests. Dr. Spiegel placed E. C. at maximum medical improvement on April 20, 1992, and found that there was a significant impairment of her physical condition. She experienced an exacerbation of her condition, received additional treatment, and was again placed at maximum medical improvement on October 9, 1992. At the time of the formal hearing, E. C. was still suffering from the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident of August 9, 1991. She continues to experience flare- ups of her condition and continues to receive treatment for her condition. Respondent's use of the diagnostic tests was not exploitative and was medically indicated at the time they were ordered. Respondent’s use of diagnostic tests was reasonably calculated to assist him in reaching a diagnosis and in making recommendations for continued treatment to her primary physician, Dr. Thomas. The tests were also used by her subsequent treating physicians in rendering care to the patient. This avoided the necessity of having the patient undergo further testing. As with many new practitioners, Respondent ordered more diagnostic tests than a more experienced practitioner might have thought necessary under the same circumstances. Moreover, since Respondent was fairly new in the practice, it was not unreasonable for him to have ordered more diagnostic exams than a more experienced practitioner might have ordered under similar conditions and circumstances. However, the fact that Respondent ordered more tests than a more experienced practitioner does not mean that the tests he obtained were not reasonably calculated to assist him in arriving at a diagnosis and recommendation for treatment of E. C.'s condition. Nor do more tests mean that they were not medically indicated. Several practitioners testified at the hearing and in their depositions that the tests were appropriate, particularly in 1991. Reasonable practitioners will differ as to the number and type of tests they will order to arrive at a diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s condition. At the formal hearing and in the written reports submitted into evidence, the opinions of seven physiatrists (Respondent, Dr. Gerber, Dr. Goodgold, Dr. Kelley, Dr. Krimshtein, Dr. Lichtblau, and Dr. Narula), a neurologist (Dr. Spiegel), a psychiatrist (Dr. Sprehe), and a neurosurgeon (Dr. Meriwether) were offered by the parties. Each of the physicians had a different belief as to the tests that he would order to evaluate E. C.'s condition. The Department provides appropriate and comprehensive training to members of the Board of Medicine as required by Section 458.307(4), Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, such training was provided to Board members when they were initially appointed as well as periodically throughout their tenure on the Board. Various methods utilized to implement and accomplish the required training included the following: viewing of appropriate videotapes; attendance at seminars and retreats; regular presentations at Board meetings; and dissemination of newsletters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order in this case dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 7th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Terrel, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Grover Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner, Michael Selinsky, was a candidate for the chiropractic examination given in November of 1987. The practical examination is composed of three portions, X-ray interpretation, technique and physical diagnosis, and a score of 75% must be achieved on all three subject areas in order to pass. The petitioner received a score of 77.1 on the X-ray interpretation area, a score of 77.5 on the technique area and a score of 72.5 on the physical diagnosis area. In this proceeding, petitioner challenges two of the scores he received on the examination in the area of physical diagnosis. The physical diagnosis portion of the examination consists of oral questions posed to the candidate by two examiners. The answers are graded on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest grade. Petitioner challenges the grade of 3 one of the examiners gave him for the "neurological" portion of the exam and the grade of 2 another examiner gave him for the "X-ray technique & diagnosis" portion of the examination. On these two areas of the examination, Examiner number 14 awarded petitioner a grade of 3 on both areas. Examiner number 23 awarded petitioner a grade of 4 on the "neurological" portion anal a grade of 2 on the "x-ray technique & diagnosis" portion. During the neurological section of the oral examination, petitioner was requested to demonstrate upon a live model how he would test the extensor hallicus longus muscle for the L-5 mytome. In response, he extended the great toe in the wrong direction. In responding to a question concerning an upper motor neuron lesion and a lower motor lesion, petitioner's answers were very incomplete. During the X-ray technique portion of the oral examination, petitioner was requested to demonstrate with a live model how he would position a patient for a lateral shoulder x-ray. The petitioner responded that he had never heard of such a position, but then attempted to position the patient. In fact, there is no way to take an x-ray of the lateral shoulder view because two bones would be superimposed. While this might be viewed as a "trick" question, petitioner should have been aware that no such x-ray could be taken. During another x-ray positioning question, petitioner failed to turn the patient's head. Also, during the X-ray technique portion of the oral examination, petitioner was asked to identify three factors that affected his exposure to radiation as an operator. The petitioner's answer included such things as lead- lined booths, lead-lined walls in the x-ray room and proper film developing to decrease the number of retakes. Several times, the examiners asked him questions regarding his answers, and the petitioner responded that he was not sure. When considering an operator's safety with regard to radiation exposure, there are three fundamental and established factors to take into account: time of exposure, distance and shielding. The petitioner's answers had relevance to patient safety, but not to the safety of the operator. In spite of prodding and grilling by the examiners with regard to operator safety, petitioner was unable to elucidate the three fundamental factors of radiation safety.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Copies furnished: William A. Leffler, III, Esquire Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael Selinsky Pat Guilford, Executive 5259 Wayside Court Director Spring Hill, Florida 34606 Board of Chiropractic Examiners Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Wayne A. Bryan, is a chiropractic physician holding license number 0001861 issued by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent engaged in the practice of chiropractic at the Bryan Chiropractic Clinic, 155 Ridgeway Drive, Sebring, Florida. On April 24, 1981, Jeanne Speight went to the Respondent's office for treatment of low back pain, which she attributed to work in her garden. Upon her arrival at the Respondent's office, Mrs. Speight was advised by an unknown female office employee that she would have to be "X-rayed before she was seen by the Respondent. A total of ten x-rays were taken of Mrs. Speight by an unknown employee before she was seen by the Respondent. After a physical examination, the Respondent told Mrs. Speight to return the next day with her husband because she had a serious, life-threatening problem. On the following day, Mrs. Speight returned to the Respondent's office with her husband. The Respondent spoke with the Speights and advised them that Mrs. Speight required an intensive treatment program consisting of four treatments per week over a three-month period with complete x-ray work-up each month during the treatment. When Mr. Speight questioned the necessity of so many x-rays and suggested they obtain a second opinion, the Respondent became angry and predicted that Mrs. Speight would lose 99 percent of the use of her legs and be paralyzed if she did not take his treatment. After her visits with the Respondent, Mrs. Speight sought treatment from another chiropractic physician, Dr. O. A. Speigel. Dr. Speigel requested Mrs. Speight's x-rays from the Respondent; however, the Respondent did not provide the x-rays, but furnished Dr. Speigel with a full report of the Respondent's findings, which Dr. Speigel described as excellent. Mrs. Speight's records and x-rays were later examined by Dr. Richard Carr, a chiropractic physician. According to Drs. Speigel and Carr, Respondent's diagnosis concerning Mrs. Speight's condition was consistent with the x-rays and reports. Further, did Respondent's prognosis as stated to the Speights that Mrs. Speight would lose 99 percent of the use of her legs was inconsistent with his diagnosis. On January 6, 1981, J. C. Hickman sought chiropractic treatment from the Respondent for a muscle spasm in his leg. Upon Hickman's arrival at the Respondent's office, prior to being seen by him but after a medical history was taken, Hickman had a series of spinal x- rays taken by Barbara Bryan, the wife of the Respondent. Mrs. Bryan was not licensed as a radiologic technologist in the State of Florida until February 12, 1982. During Hickman's first visit, an unknown female employee of Respondent's demanded and obtained a sample of Hickman's hair without explaining the purpose for obtaining this sample. Hickman was examined by the Respondent, who advised him that he had serious problems and proposed a series of chiropractic treatments. The Respondent told Hickman that he did not use his hands directly on a patient in rendering treatment. According to Hickman, the Respondent had him lie on the examining table in a prone position, and while he was in this position he received a mechanized blow or thrust to his chest. This description by Hickman of his treatment is not rejected but given less weight than his testimony on other aspects of his treatment with which Hickman was more familiar than the nature of Respondent's manner and method of treatment. The Respondent advised Hickman to return the following day in order to receive the same treatment for his leg. At no time did the Respondent examine or touch Hickman's leg. On or about July 11, 1980, Don Payne sought chiropractic treatment from the Respondent. Prior to examination by the Respondent, his wife, Barbara Bryan, took a series of x-rays of Payne. As stated above, Mrs. Bryan was not licensed as a radiologic technologist in the State of Florida until February 12, 1982. Thereafter, without explaining the purpose of it, Mrs. Bryan demanded a sample of hair from Payne. The manner in which the sample of hair was demanded annoyed Payne, who, although he permitted her to take the sample, did not advise Mrs. Bryan that he wore a full hairpiece from which the sample was taken. The medical records of Mary Scofield were received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The only other evidence presented concerning Ms. Scofield was the deposition of Dr. Richard Carr based upon his examination of her medical records. Dr. Carr could not conclude from the records that the Respondent's diagnosis and treatment of Ms. Scofield were improper. Based upon their medical records, Dr. Carr opined whether hair analysis was proper with regard to the Respondent's patients. Dr. Carr based his opinion of the appropriateness of using this technique upon whether heavy metal poisoning was indicated in these patients. Because the test is recognized but controversial with regard to testing for vitamin deficiency, Dr. Carr's opinion is appropriately qualified. Mrs. Speight did not testify to any hair analysis performed. Hickman and Payne stated, and it is found that Respondent performed hair analysis.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Wayne A. Bryan, guilty of the allegations contained in Count Three, Count Six, Count Seven, and Count Ten of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners revoke the license of Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane F. Kiesling, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wayne A. Bryan 12837 Township Road, 168-RR3 Findlay, Ohio 45840 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice dentistry and for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent practices general dentistry under license number DN 0002494.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 466.028(1)(y) and (m), issuing a reprimand, imposing a fine of $6,000, and placing Respondent on probation for one year pursuant to the terms of probation prescribed in Petitioner's PRO. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 1st day of August 1995.
