The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed medical doctor, holding license number 44726. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a physician holding board certifications in internal medicine, hematology, and oncology. Patient 1 was a patient of another hematologist, Dr. Thomas Katta. On March 17, 2003, Dr. Katta had Patient 1 admitted via the patient's internist (Dr. Frank Leiva) to Sand Lake Hospital in Orlando. The patient was anemic and thrombocytopenic and had been previously diagnosed with autoimmune hemolytic anemia, the treatment for which was transfusion. Failure to transfuse a person suffering from autoimmune hemolytic anemia can lead to death, and such a transfusion had been ordered for the patient. Dr. Katta apparently had personal obligations for the evening of March 17, 2003, and for the following day, and, in the late afternoon of March 17, 2003, he asked the Respondent to "cover" his hospitalized patients. The Respondent agreed to do so. Dr. Katta's office transmitted a list of the patients by fax to the Respondent's office. The list contained the full names and locations of Dr. Katta's other hospitalized patients, but identified Patient 1 only by last name and diagnosis ("AIHA"). The fax did not indicate the patient's first name or gender and did not specifically identify the patient's location. The Respondent made no attempt to obtain additional information from Dr. Katta or his staff. The lab work performed upon admission to the hospital indicated that the patient was severely anemic and had a critically low platelet count. At approximately 6:30 p.m. on March 17, 2003, the Respondent received a telephone call through her answering service from a hospital nurse who reported that the patient was severely anemic and that there were problems obtaining a proper blood match for the transfusion. The Respondent advised the nurse to call the blood bank and tell them to find the least incompatible blood and get the transfusion done. The Respondent did not inquire as to the patient's name or location. At about 10:19 p.m. on March 17, 2003, the Respondent was again contacted by a hospital nurse, who advised that the patient was short of breath and had tachycardia at 133 beats per minute. The nurse also advised that the blood bank had been unable to find an appropriate match for the previously ordered transfusion and that the transfusion remained uncompleted. The Respondent directed the nurse to contact the patient's primary care physician or the cardiologist on call, but did not ask the identity of either practitioner. The nursing notes indicate that the Respondent stated that she did not provide treatment for tachycardia and did not believe that Dr. Katta did either. The Respondent also advised the nurse to call the blood bank and direct them to find the least incompatible blood and perform the transfusion. The Respondent did not inquire as to the patient's name or location and provided no other direction to the reporting nurse. On the next day, March 18, 2003, at about 6:15 a.m., the Respondent was contacted by a hospital nurse, who advised that the transfusion had still not taken place. The Respondent took no action and provided no direction to the reporting nurse. The Respondent did not inquire as to the patient's name or location. Later during the morning of March 18, 2003, the Respondent attempted to locate the patient while making her rounds but was unsuccessful. In attempting to locate the patient, the Respondent talked with various hospital personnel, but had no information other than the patient's last name and diagnosis. Based on her inability to obtain any additional information, the Respondent assumed that the patient had been transfused and discharged. The patient had not been discharged, but had been transferred to an intensive care unit in the hospital. The transfusion had not yet occurred. Patient 1 died on March 20, 2003. The Respondent was unaware of the patient's death until she saw Dr. Katta at the hospital, at which time he questioned her about the patient and informed her that the patient was dead. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. Howard Abel, M.D., regarding whether the Respondent met the standard of care in her treatment of the patient. Dr. Abel's testimony regarding the standard of care issues is credited and is accepted. As to the issue of the uncompleted transfusion, the evidence establishes that the transfusion did not occur while the Respondent provided hematological care for Patient 1. The Respondent should have personally contacted the blood bank to identify the cause of the inability to provide blood for the transfusion and determine whether another option was available. The Respondent should have responded to the 10:19 p.m. call on March 17 by personally examining the patient and reviewing the history and lab test results. While the Respondent's directive to contact a cardiologist was not inappropriate, breathing difficulties and tachycardia are symptomatic of severe anemia for which hematological care was required. If the Respondent determined that the symptoms were cardiac-related, the Respondent should have personally made the cardiology referral and provided the information to the cardiologist. The Respondent did not do so and was unaware of the cardiologist's identity. A review of additional lab test results including observation and evaluation of blood smears would have provided useful information as to whether the patient's condition was deteriorating and to whether the patient was developing thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura ("TTP"), a serious condition which, left untreated, is fatal in not less than 90 percent of cases. The blood smears had been performed by the time of the phone call, but the Respondent reviewed no lab test results and made no inquiries related to the results. The failure to review lab test results may have delayed a diagnosis of TTP. While there was some disagreement between testifying witnesses as to whether or not the patient had TTP, Dr. Katta ordered that the patient be treated for TTP immediately upon his return on March 19, 2003, and there is no evidence that Dr. Katta treated the patient for TTP without reasonable cause to do so. The evidence clearly establishes that the Respondent failed to review the patient's test results that could have provided timely and useful information regarding the patient's condition. As to the Respondent's failure to locate the patient on March 18, 2003, the Respondent testified that the patient's last name was common, but the Respondent had not called Dr. Katta at the time she received the faxed list of his hospitalized patients to obtain additional identifying information. The Respondent did not request the information from the nursing staff during any of the telephone calls and made no effort to obtain the information prior to arriving at the hospital to make her rounds. The Respondent would have become aware of the patient's location had she attended to the patient's breathing difficulties and tachycardia on the night of March 17. She would have also likely reviewed the medical records and would have become aware of the admitting physician as well as other information regarding the patient's condition. The Respondent consulted with hospital personnel on March 18, 2003, in attempting to identify those patients admitted by Dr. Katta. There were approximately ten to 12 other hospitalized patients with the same last name, none of which had been admitted by Dr. Katta. The Respondent was unaware that the patient had been admitted under Dr. Leiva's name. The Respondent did not visit the ten to 12 patients with the same last name to locate the one for which she was responsible. The Respondent did not contact the blood bank, which had been having difficulty providing transfusion blood to the patient. It is reasonable to assume that the blood bank, charged with the responsibility to provide the appropriate blood supplies to the patient, would have been aware of the patient's location, and could have provided it to the Respondent. The Respondent made no effort to identify patients located in the hospital's intensive care units, despite the critical nature of the patient's condition at last report. Had she done so, she would have located the patient. The Respondent presented testimony that it was not uncommon for a physician, unable to locate a hospitalized patient, to routinely assume that the patient has been appropriately treated and has been discharged, or is deceased. However, the Respondent testified that it was unusual for her not to be able to identify and locate a patient. Even assuming that such practice is routine, it is unlikely that such an assumption could reasonably be made in the case at issue here, where the Respondent did not know the patient's name, had never seen the patient, had personally reviewed no medical records, was unable to find anyone in the hospital who could provide her with any information, and at last communication with the nursing staff had been told that a critically-needed transfusion had not occurred. The testimony is not credited and is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding Vasundhara Iyengar, M.D., in violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), and imposing a penalty as follows: a three-year period of probation; a fine of $10,000; and such additional community service and continuing education requirements as the Department of Health determines necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Forshey, Esquire Dorys H. Penton, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 H. Gregory McNeill, Esquire Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster Kantor & Reed, P.A. Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802-2809 H. Roger Lutz, Esquire Lutz, Bobo & Telfair, P.A. 2 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Mark C. Alsaker, was a registered nurse having been issued license number 1174892 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board or DPR). He has been licensed since September 8, 1980. Respondent presently resides at 2972 Southwest 17th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On November 8, 1984 the Board entered an Order of Reinstatement which reinstated respondent's license and placed it on probation for three years, or to and including November 7, 1987. 1/ Among the terms and conditions contained therein was the prohibition against respondent consuming, injecting or otherwise self-medicating with any legend drug or controlled substance unless prescribed by a duly licensed practitioner. To enforce this condition of probation, the Board required that periodically respondent submit himself to a random urine test. On May 20, 1987 respondent visited DPR's Fort Lauderdale office to give a urine specimen. This was given in the presence of a DPR investigator. The specimen was capped in a container, sealed and placed in a bag. Respondent then initialed the bag and signed the chain of custody form. The bag was thereafter placed in a locked box for pickup by the testing laboratory, SmithKline BioScience Laboratories, Ltd. (SmithKline). SmithKline is an organization that tests urine samples for the presence or absence of various substances. The laboratory performed a qualitative drug profile and an Emit 10 profile on Alsaker's specimen. The former test determines the presence of certain substances in the urine but does not measure the quantity. The latter test is much the same as qualitative testing but is done by automation and is more precise. The testing results reflected a presumptive positive for cannabinoids (marijuana or opiates), a controlled substance. This was confirmed by a gas chromatography mass specimen (GGMS) test, a procedure employing an instrument to confirm the presence or absence of a substance. The GGMS test is considered to be the state of the art in terms of reliability. On September 22, 1987, and under the same conditions as were present on May 20, respondent gave another urine specimen in the presence of a DPR investigator. Using the same testing procedures, SmithKline confirmed the presence of cannabinoids (marijuana or opiates) in respondent's urine. Respondent was advised of both test results. However, he did not ask for a retest although he stated he was not aware of his right to do so. At hearing, respondent contended the tests were not 100 percent accurate and that some error or mix-up must have occurred when his samples were given to the laboratory. He also stated it would be foolish for him to use drugs just before giving a urine sample knowing that the results could violate the terms of probation. However, the contentions as to the unreliability of the testing procedures and the probability of a mix-up occurring were not supported by any independent proof and are contrary to the more persuasive evidence. Respondent is presently employed at a Broward County rehabilitation hospital where he uses his license as a registered nurse. There is no evidence of any complaint by his employer or that he has not adequately performed his job. Other than the two cited instances, there were no other positive test results during the three year probation period. There was no evidence that, by virtue of his using drugs on these two occasions, Alsaker was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety. Finally, the record is silent as to whether his use of drugs equated to unprofessional conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987), and that all other charges be dismissed. It is further recommended that respondent's license be placed on two years' probation, that he regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings during that two year period, and that he submit to random urine tests under such terms and conditions as the Board deems necessary. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of July, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 15, 1988, Respondent received a complaint from Walt Disney World questioning the "type[,] frequency and cost" of treatment that Petitioner was providing to a patient. Petitioner is employed as a physician by the Central Florida Health Center and was providing treatment to the patientin response to allergic-type complaints. As the letter acknowledges, Walt Disney World had denied the patient's claim for Workers Compensation benefits. By December 11, 1989, Respondent's investigator had completed an final investigative report on the matter. The cover sheet of the report notes that Petitioner had not responded to the charges as of December 4, 1989. The cover sheet also notes that the Social Security Administration had determined, by decision dated September 9, 1989, that the patient had suffered a "disability" since July 22, 1987. The cover sheet cites from the decision as follows: "the medical evidence establishes that the claimant has respiratory allergies, especially to molds . . ." and "the claimant's allegations of respiratory distress, nausea, anxiousness, rapid heartbeat, confusion, headaches, and loss of coordination and strength are supported by the objective and clinical laboratory findings of record and are credible." Summarizing an interview on October 26, 1989, with the manager of another allergy clinic in the Orlando area, the investigative report states that the manager stated that fee schedule for the Central Florida Health Center listed fees for patient evaluation that were "high" and for interdermal tests that were "excessive." The investigative file accompanying the investigative report contains numerous documents relating to the patient and his diagnoses and treatments. One document appears to be an independent medical examination referenced by WaltDisney World in its letter to Respondent dated August 15, 1988. By letter dated May 16, 1988, Richard F. Lockey, M.D., of the Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Associates of Tampa Bay, reported the results of his examination of the patient on April 5 and 22, 1988. Dr. Lockey found that the patient "does not have nor suffer from any allergic disease." Dr. Lockey found, among other diagnoses, "vasomotor rhinitis with possible allergic rhinitis." Expressly disagreeing with Petitioner's "impression that [the patient] has multiple problems secondary to his environment at Disneyworld," Dr. Lockey recommended that the patient could return to work without hazard to his health and needed psychiatric counselling to reassure him that he is physically healthy. Dr. Lockey's letter accompanies a complete history that he took of the patient. By letter dated December 1, 1989, and also contained in the investigative file, Diane S. Storey, D.O., employed with Petitioner at the Central Florida Health Center, explained why the only appropriate treatment for the patient was immunotherapy for long-term exposure to mold byproducts. The letter refers to the corroborating opinion of Douglas H. Sandberg, M.D. Dr. Sandberg's undated report, which is also contained in the investigative file, includes a comprehensive history. Dr. Sandberg, who is a Professor of Pediatrics and Director of the Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition at the University of Miami Children's Hospital Center, concludes thatPetitioner has "an excellent grasp of [the patient's] overall problems and should be able to help him significantly and to have him back to work in a few weeks." The letter also states: "Testing and treatment with [Petitioner] has shown that [the patient] does have environmentally triggered illness or complex allergy." By memorandum to the probable cause panel dated February 23, 1990, Respondent noted the allegations that Petitioner violated Section 458.331(1)(t) and (n). The memorandum recommends that the case is "legally sufficient and should be reviewed by an expert to determine whether [Petitioner] operated within the standard of care, if there is a pattern of excessive and unnecessary testing and if he over-charged for his services." The probable cause panel agreed to refer the file to an expert. By letter dated June 18, 1990, Respondent requested Michael P. Pacin, M.D., to offer an expert opinion as to several questions concerning Petitioner's diagnosis and treatment of the patient. Respondent gave Dr. Pacin the entire investigative file to review. By letter dated September 13, 1990, Dr. Pacin, who is a board- certified internist and immunologist, noted the differing opinions of Drs. Lockey and Sandberg. The letter states: there can be more than one opinion regarding treating allergy patients. Dr. Lockey was trained in the same manner as I was, and I agree almost completely with everything thathe has said regarding [the patient's] treatment. On the other hand, Dr. Sandberg's views are quite contrary to mine, although they are along the lines of those which [Petitioner] has followed. [Petitioner] and Dr. Sandberg practice what is known as environmental medicine, a field which is quite controversial and not very well substantiated in the medical literature. I believe [the patient] is a very sick man; however, I do not believe, based upon the information given to me, that much of his problem is due to allergy. Most of the testing and treatment provided to him by [Petitioner] was probably unnecessary, but what surprises me is the fact that [Petitioner] is a psychiatrist who practices allergy and seems possibly to have misdiagnosed a patient with a psychiatric problem as having an allergy problem. The letter describes environmental medicine, which Petitioner practices, as a very unsubstantiated theory. These patients, as in the case of [the patient], have very subjective symptoms, some of which can be explained by other medical problems and some of which cannot be explained medically but are quite real to the patient and do, indeed, contribute to their disability. It is quite hard to define what makes them ill and to know how to treat them. Responding to the specific questions asked, the letter states: I do not feel that the [patient's] condition was adequately assessed. Based upon Dr. Lockey's assessment, I, too, feel that the [patient] is suffering from multiple psychiatric problems and that any allergy problems he has are minimal and not contributing to his overall problem. . . . I believe [Petitioner] did not treat the patient in an appropriate manner--i.e., all of the allergy testing and treatment was probably not necessary, and even if they were, they were far in excess of what would be appropriate for a patient who did haveallergy problems. . . . I do believe [the insurance company was] exploited for financial gain by [Petitioner]. Even though [Petitioner] has continued to provide medical care to the patient at no cost, I think this is only being done to cover up the exploitation that has preceded it. . . . I do not believe that [written medical records kept by Petitioner] justify the course of treatment of the patient. The test results were far from conclusive, especially based on the patient's history, to warrant such an extensive treatment regime for allergies. Dr. Pacin's letter responds to the concluding question posed by Respondent's letter as follows: [Petitioner] did not meet the "standard of care" as I and my colleagues practice allergy. I believe his diagnosis was wrong and the treatment, therefore, also was wrong. I believe the treatment would have been wrong even if the diagnosis had been correct, as it was overdone and the patient was being exploited for financial gain. This patient may have had some minimal allergy problems; however, he needs a complete psychiatric evaluation to better have an idea [sic] of what his true medical problems are. The fact that [Petitioner] is a psychiatrist tells me that this case should also be evaluated by a psychiatrist to see if he meets the "standard of care" in the field of psychiatry. It seems that [Petitioner] has missed the psychiatric diagnosis or possibly is treating the patient for allergies because that diagnosis gave him the opportunity to charge for services which would provide a greater cash flow. The only justification that I could find for [Petitioner's] deviating from the standard of care was the fact that another, rather eminent physician agreed with his diagnosis and treatment. However, as I stated above, this is due to the fact that Dr. Sandberg, as well as [Petitioner], seemed to be practicing in the very controversial field known as clinical ecology [also known as environmental medicine]. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Respondentrequested Dr. Pacin to elaborate upon: those factors which lead you to believe that the patient was suffering from multiple psychiatric problems and that any allergy problems were minimal[;] . . . which tests and treatment performed by [Petitioner] were either unnecessary or "far in excess of what would be appropriate for a patient who did have allergy problems"[;] . . . which medications were inappropriate for this patient and whether the quantities given were also inappropriate[; and] . . . what test results would have justified this treatment and . . . [what] tests not performed by [Petitioner] . . . could have definitely established if the patient was actually suffering from these allergies? By letter dated February 12, 1991, Dr. Pacin responded to these questions. The letter states that he could not say that the patient's symptoms were psychiatric and had thus recommended a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Pacin explained that he had based his finding of "excess treatment" upon the billings and services that he had reviewed. The letter states that the patient did not suffer from sufficiently severe allergy problems to warrant immunotherapy. As to the last question, Dr. Pacin opined that "missing symptoms," not missing test results, failed to "warrant allergy testing and allergy immunotherapy." The case was considered by the probable cause panel on May 4, 1991, with a recommendation from Respondent that probable cause be found. Respondent's attorney adequately summarized Dr. Pacin's findings. Expressly relying upon Dr. Pacin's report, one panel member moved to find probable cause and file an Administrative Complaint alleging violations of 458.331(1)(t), (m), and (n). The panel approved the motionunanimously. Pursuant to the probable cause finding, Respondent filed an Administrative Complaint on May 16, 1991, in DOAH Case No. 91-4068. Corresponding to the violations cited by the probable cause panel, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to practice medicine in accordance with a reasonable standard of care due to the misdiagnosis of a patient, failed to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient, and exploited a patient for financial gain. On November 6, 1991, Respondent filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and DOAH Case No. 91-4068 was closed by Order Closing File entered November 13, 1991. The opinion of Dr. Pacin adequately addressed the differing schools and training of Petitioner and Dr. Sandberg, on the one hand, and Drs. Lockey and Pacin, on the other hand. After doing so, Dr. Pacin identified clearly and unequivocally what he opined were deficiencies in Petitioner's diagnosis and, in particular, treatment of the patient. There was a reasonable basis for Dr. Pacin's opinions. Other evidence existed concerning the possible unreasonableness of the fee schedule. Although Respondent might anticipate some difficulty overcoming by clear and convincing evidence what may be a legitimate difference of professional opinion concerning diagnosis and treatment, Respondent had a reasonable basis in law and fact for filing the Administrative Complaint.
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Rolando C. Jamilla, was licensed as a physician in Florida. The Board of Medicine is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine in this state. Respondent's office for the practice of general medicine in located in Ft. Myers, Florida and Respondent is also the medical director at the Lee Convalescent Center, a nursing home for the elderly with between 140 and 160 beds. Patient A. J. entered the emergency room at Lee Memorial Hospital in Ft. Myers on the afternoon of August 13, 1983, complaining of shortness of breath. A 55 year old male, he previously had been diagnosed as having chronic lung disease, and was a heavy smoker. The physician on duty in the emergency room, Dr. Gavin, treated A.J. with intravenous aminophylline, a bronchodilator, and ordered a theophylline level drawn. Theophylline is a medication the level of which can be measured in the patient's serum. It is a drug which falls within the purview of the proscription in Section 458.331(1). The theophylline test ordered by Dr. Gavin indicated that A.J. had a theophylline level of 11.0 mcg/ml. A normal therapeutic range for theophylline is 10 to 20 mcg/ml. Excessive levels of the substance can result in theophylline toxicity manifested by rapid cardiac rhythm disturbances and possible cardiac arrest. It can also cause neurotoxicity and neurologic seizures. Respondent first saw A.J. at about midnight after his admission and confirmed the orders previously given by Dr. Gavin, continuing the aminophylline. When he saw A.J. the following day, Respondent continued the aminophylline regimen for another day at which time A.J.'s breathing was much more regular and easy and the aminophylline treatment was discontinued. Respondent did not order an aminophylline level test at that time because, in his opinion, since the therapy was being discontinued, the test would not have been of value. A.J.'s condition continued to improve after Respondent discontinued the aminophylline therapy on August 15, 1983 and on the morning of August 18, 1983, Respondent indicated his intent to discharge the patient the following day. However, during that evening, prior to discharge, A.J.'s condition worsened and the proposed discharge for the following day was cancelled by Dr. Bercau, the on-call physician. At this time, A.J. was again suffering severe shortness of breath, and aminophylline, along with other broncodilators, was again ordered by Dr. Bercau. Since, on August 19, 1983, A.J. was still experiencing breathing difficulties, Respondent continued the aminophylline therapy and ordered a series of tests be run on the patient which included an electrocardiogram, a chest x-ray, and a CPK (measure of blood enzyme). Respondent also requested that A.J. be seen in consultation by Dr. Charles, a cardiac specialist. On August 20, 1983, Dr. Bercau, believing that the patient was experiencing cardiac problems, had him transferred to the telemetry unit for continued and detailed monitoring of his cardiac situation and ordered a theophylline level test run on him. This showed that the patient's theophylline level was 36.8 mgc/ml, considered to be in the toxic range. Both Respondent and his expert agreed that at this point, A.J. was experiencing theophylline toxicity. As a result of the chemical tests, Dr. Bercau ordered the aminophylline therapy be discontinued as of the evening of August 20, 1983 and directed another theophylline level test be run. The result of this test, done on the morning of August 21, 1983, indicated A.J.'s theophylline level had reduced to 27.6 mcg/ml, still considered to be in the toxic range, and the doctor's notes for this day indicate that though the theophylline level was high, it was much better than it had been. Notwithstanding this entry in the doctor's notes, on August 22, 1983, Respondent again ordered the resumption of aminophylline therapy. The records do not reflect any indication that Respondent attempted to determine his patient's theophylline level before resuming this therapy. On August 24, 1983, A.J. began to have premature ventricular contractions, a cardiac rhythm disturbance. When Dr. Charles saw the patient that same day, he indicated that these arrhythmias were "most likely" due to the effect of the aminophylline administered. Dr. Charles ordered this drug be discontinued at that time. On August 30, 1983, A.J. was examined by Dr. Dosani, a pulmonary specialist, who ordered the administration of steroids in an effort to counteract the patient's bronchospasms. This apparently was successful since the patient's condition improved and he was discharged from the hospital on September 3, 1983. Aminophylline is a drug which can produce cardiac arrythmia and both cardiac and neurological toxicity can be an outgrowth of theophylline toxicity. Respondent admitted at the hearing he was aware that aminophylline can produce cardiac arrythmia. Respondent's expert, Dr. Chadha, a specialist in lung diseases, utilizes aminophylline on a daily basis since it is widely used in his specialty. Dr. Chadha could find no reason for Respondent to order a theophylline level test when there were no indications of problems manifested to Respondent and he had discontinued the administration of the drug. The patient presented no evidence of toxicity and the two other physicians who were treating the patient at the time both prescribed administration of aminophylline as well as other medication at the time Respondent did. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Cohen, opined that the prescribing of aminophylline simultaneously with oral choledyl is inappropriate and excessive and life-threatening to the patient. According to Dr. Chadha, a review of theophylline level test results at Lee Memorial Hospital for June, 1989, revealed that 31% showed a level in excess of the maximum therapeutic level of 20 mgc/ml. In Dr. Chadha's opinion,, levels of this drug within the body are extremely hard to control. Whereas Dr. Cohen was of the opinion that the Respondent's treatment of his patient, A.J., in these particulars, constituted a failure to practice medicine with the appropriate level of care, skill and treatment recognized as reasonably prudent by similar physicians under similar circumstances, Dr. Ratnesar, an internist testifying as an expert for the Respondent, was of the opinion after reading the medical charts involved, that the care and treatment given in this case by Respondent was well within medical standards. This opinion was confirmed by Dr. Charles, the cardiologist mentioned previously. Respondent admitted another patient, J.H., to the hospital on August 27, 1983. The admitting documents indicated the patient was being admitted for the treatment of pulmonary distress when in reality as admitted by Respondent at hearing, the hospital admission was primarily a "social admission" necessary as a prerequisite to the placement of the patient in a nursing home. The patient, J.H., was not in any actual pulmonary distress either at the time of admission nor at any time during his stay, and Respondent admits this. Nonetheless, Respondent prescribed Theo-Dur, a theophylline bronchodilator, and Halcion, a tranquilizer, for the patient. It is well accepted in medical circles that Halcion should be used with caution when a patient is known to have a respiratory condition because the medication effects the central nervous system which, when depressed, can have an adverse effect on the respiratory function. Dr. Cohen is of the opinion that the prescription of Theo-Dur and Halcion, conjunctively, to the patient was inappropriate and the medical records on this patient fail to indicate a medical basis for it. The records make no reference to diagnostic tests ordered by Respondent for the patient and in Cohen's opinion, they are inadequate and do not justify the treatment provided. Respondent rebuts this contention urging that the use of the two drugs together is neither contraindicated nor harmful. This position is supported by information from the manufacturer of Halcion that there is no known contraindication for its use with Theo-Dur. In fact, none of the witnesses, including Dr. Cohen, could provide any firm evidence of contraindication in the use of the two drugs. Further, the four physicians who testified on behalf of Respondent were of the opinion that his records regarding this patient were adequate. Patient C.T. was a 79 year old woman admitted to the hospital on April 13, 1983, suffering from vaginal bleeding. She was admitted from a nursing home where Respondent had been her treating physician. She was a patient in the nursing home as a result of a stroke she sustained in 1976. Several days prior to her admission to the hospital, Respondent had attempted a pelvic and a bimanual examination of the patient at the nursing home to attempt to confirm the area from which the patient was bleeding. The bimanual examination was unsatisfactory due to her obesity and, because she had a protruding hernia in the abdominal wall. Upon admission, Respondent did not perform any additional specified area examination of the patient either with a speculum or bimanually because of her advanced age and the fact that her family preferred no further discomfort be imposed on her. As a result, Respondent made a presumptive diagnosis that the patient was suffering from cancer of the uterus/cervix, but this was not confirmed by actual examination. The patient was treated medically to stop the bleeding and she was returned to the nursing home with no further complications. Though the examination at the nursing home by the Respondent was characterized as satisfactory and though no positive diagnosis could be confirmed of the cause of the bleeding, Respondent failed to request a gynecological consultation for the purpose of further diagnosis. Due to the family's wishes, however and the advanced age of the patient, this may not necessarily constitute a failure to take proper care. When Dr. Cohen gave his opinion that the failure to do a bimanual and pelvic examination was improper, he was apparently unaware that Respondent had done these examinations at the nursing home three days prior to the patient's admission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Rolando C Jamilla, M.D., be placed on probation by the Board of Medicine for a period of two (2) years under such terms and conditions as are specified by the Board, and that as a part thereof, he complete no less than 40 hours of continuing medical education in subjects specified by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 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 18th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5414 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2.-4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and, as it pertains to failure to monitor theophylline levels, incorporated herein. 6.-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13.&14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for the finding that the patient's life was endangered. Rejected. 21.&22. Accepted and incorporated herein., Accepted and incorporated herein but not necessarily dispositive. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. &29. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3.&4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6.&7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8.-11. Not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. 12.-16. Restatements of the evidence. 17.&18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19A-D. Not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 James A. Neel, Esquire 3440 Marinatown Lane, N.W. North Fort Myers, Florida 33903 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida pursuant to Sections 20.165 and 20.43, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is at all times material to this case a licensed physician in the state of Florida. As such, he is subject to disciplinary action for failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable, prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Iribar has been disciplined on two prior occasions. Both cases involved standard of care violations. In Case No. 113487, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order on April 20, 1992, disciplining Respondent for multiple violations of Section 458.331(1)(t) related to, among other things, prescribing errors. In Case No. 1991-03407, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order on July 17, 1995, disciplining Respondent for additional prescribing violations. On August 25, 1997, C. H. required medical attention for pain and swelling in his left knee. By the time he was "worked in" at the office of his primary care physician, C. H. was unable to get around without the aid of crutches. In seeking relief for his knee problem, C. H. set in motion a chain of events which would cost him his life. C. H. had been for years a patient at the clinic where Iribar practiced medicine in partnership with Dr. Raul Alvarez (Alvarez). C. H. had a complex medical history, and had long been under the care of Alvarez. Iribar had never seen C. H., but was covering his partner's emergencies on August 25, 1997. C. H.'s knee swelling, which was visible from across a medical examining room, plainly qualified as a matter which needed prompt attention. The clinic had an extensive chart on C. H. It contained records of many office visits, tests, and information concerning care received at other locations which occurred over a period of years in which Alvarez served as C. H.'s primary care doctor. As a partner in the practice, Iribar would of course have been authorized to read every word on the chart before, during or after C. H.'s visit. Numerous references in the chart address real or perceived allergies. At many places in C. H.'s chart, an allergy to aspirin in indicated. In many other places, C. H. is said to be allergic to penicillin as well as aspirin. Iribar's focus in his lone encounter with C. H. was totally upon the need for emergency attention to the swollen and sore knee. On August 25, 1997, it was the routine in the Iribar/Alvarez practice to maintain a form detailing the patient's history, including allergies, on the inside left cover of the file. C.H.'s chart had such a document and it reflected an allergy to penicillin. Iribar freely admits that he never looked at C. H.'s chart prior to prescribing penicillin for his injured knee. Instead, Iribar testified that he conversed with C. H. while examining him and felt that he could obtain from C. H. an accurate answer to the question of whether he was allergic to any medications. During the examination and treatment process, C. H. was articulate regarding his complex medical history. He enumerated at least six medications which he was currently taking. Iribar testified that he asked C. H. if he was allergic to any medications and C. H. responded "aspirin." Iribar states that he informed C. H. that he was going to place him on oral penicillin, which might later be discontinued depending upon the outcome of lab results. According to Iribar, C. H. failed to inform him of a penicillin allergy. For reasons more fully set forth below, the undersigned does not credit Iribar's recollection that he in fact asked C. H. if he had allergies. Neither does the undersigned credit Iribar's testimony to the effect that he informed C. H. of his intent to administer penicillin. Apart from that dispositive fact, the undersigned does credit Iribar's account of his encounter with C. H. Based upon that testimony and the corroborating opinion of the experts for both sides, the evidence established that Iribar entered the examining room and noted that C. H. had a large left knee effusion with pain, redness, and increased temperature to touch. Iribar properly performed an arthrocentesis (a puncture through a joint capsule to relieve an effusion), removing 20cc of yellow pus-like material to relieve the pain. He then prescribed ibuprofen for pain and Pen VK, which is in fact penicillin, to prevent infection. Penicillin is, for most patients, safe and effective for the prevention of infection following a procedure such as the one performed on C. H. Alternative antibiotics exist and would have been prescribed for C. H. had Iribar been aware of the existence of a possible allergy. For an allergic patient such as C. H., the result of taking penicillin can be, and in this case was, swift cardiac arrest followed by a coma from which the patient never emerged. He died five months later. Expert witnesses for both sides agree, and the undersigned finds, that it would have been a gross violation of the standard of care to prescribe penicillin to a person known to be allergic. There is no contention that Iribar actually knew of the allergy, and Iribar did not intend any harm to C. H. Instead, the evidence established that Iribar was covering his partner's emergency and trying to help the patient. Thus, the issue is whether Iribar fell below the standard of care of failing to take reasonable steps to determine whether C. H. had a penicillin allergy. In this case, the totality of the record compels the conclusion that Iribar did not take even a first step. He did not inquire of C. H. as to whether he had any allergies, nor did he look at the patient's chart, which would have placed him on inquiry notice regarding the existence of a penicillin allergy. In failing to take either precaution, he fell below the standard of care. Iribar's disciplinary history reveals prior failures in adhering to the standard of care with respect to the professional obligation to ask the questions a doctor needs to ask to determine if a drug should or should not be prescribed. Additionally, his careless response to the Board of Medicine's inquiry regarding his treatment of C. H. is telling. In an undated letter to Board investigator, Lidice Muniz, Iribar stated, ". . . I asked the patient in front of two medical assistants aiding me [Ana Dickinson and Barbara Olesco] if he was allergic to any medication, he replied 'Aspirin' and he denied all other drug allergies." Common sense suggests that Iribar would have been scrupulously accurate in communicating in writing to state investigators about a matter of such importance. Thus, the undersigned takes seriously Iribar's statement that two assistants witnessed the exchange referenced in the letter. Yet, at the final hearing, neither Iribar nor Olesco claimed that this exchange was witnessed by one, let alone two medical assistants. The undersigned carefully observed Iribar's demeanor while under oath. His recollection that he engaged C. H. on the question of allergies is determined to be untrustworthy. Specifically, the undersigned does not credit Iribar's assertion that he asked his patient about allergies. In light of this finding, it is not necessary to address whether Iribar would have been bound to review the chart had C. H. in fact been asked about allergies. With respect to C. H., Respondent failed 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 in that he failed to take any step to afford himself the opportunity to know what if any allergies C. H. had prior to prescribing the medication which caused the patient's death.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the Recommended Range of Penalty under the Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty and imposing the following penalty: A fine of $10,000; continuing medical education classes specified by the Board of Medicine; a six- month suspension; two years of probation, with terms set by the Board of Medicine; a letter of reprimand; and requiring Respondent to report to the Board of Medicine regarding procedures he has or will implement to assure appropriate inquiry of patients regarding their allergies in accordance with the standard of care currently prevailing. It is also RECOMMENDED that the Board impose costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this case in compliance with Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Sean M. Ellsworth, Esquire Dresnick, Ellsworth & Felder, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle Sun Trust Plaza, Suite 701 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5108 John E. Terrel, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Through the several administrative complaints to which these cases pertain, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the medical license held by the Respondent. The alleged misconduct is more fully described in the discussion that follows.
Findings Of Fact Findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order as modified by the Board's rulings on the Supplemental Exceptions, are approved and adopted and incorporated herein. Specifically, Paragraphs of the Findings of Fact 15, 24, 34, 43, 46, 60, 79, 98, and 108 were modified. There is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of fact of the Board.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which revokes Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 December, 1992. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Facts on Expert Witnesses: Paragraphs 1 through 31 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 32 through 38 constitute legal argument. Patient Kelly John: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are not relevant in that the D&C was not performed. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 21 through 28 are subordinate to facts found. Patient Dottie Akers: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 3, the surgery by Dr. Becker and its findings standing alone do not form the basis for determining the appropriateness of Respondent's efforts to reestablish fertility. Paragraphs 4 through 18 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 19 through 22 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 23 through 54 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 55 and 56 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 57 and 58 are subordinate to facts found. Patient Lillian Andrews: Paragraphs 1 through 18 are subordinate to facts found. Patient Emily Rivera: Paragraphs 1 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found in that the patient had taken birth control pills for thirteen years not ten years. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is not accepted. Paragraph 29 is subordinate to facts found. Patient Balenda Fulton: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 7 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute nor is paragraph 11. Facts were found found concerning the patient's two children. Paragraphs 12 through 15 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 16 is not accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 20 through 34 are subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 2 through 4 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 5 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 7 through 9 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. It is noted that notwithstanding Dr. Rudolph's reservations concerning his objectivity, on balance his testimony was deemed an appropriate subject for consideration together with the observations of the other experts. Paragraph 10 is spoken to in the preliminary matters to the Recommended Order. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the reported advice to the patient to have a tubal reanastomosis that is not accepted. Paragraph 16 through 25 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 26 is is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 27 through 30 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 31 is rejected in that it suggests that there were existing fimbriated ends of the fallopian tubes. Paragraphs 32 through 39 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 40 through 42 constitute legal argument. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 44 through 47 are contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 50 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 51 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 52 is contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 53 while it is not necessary to record instructions about the use of Danazol, Respondent did not perform the needed task of oral instruction. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of references to pain two to three days prior to menses. That suggested fact finding is rejected as is Paragraph 55 to the extent that it is dependent upon that fact. Paragraph 56 is rejected in its suggestion that extensive endometriosis was present. The same response is made to the fact finding suggested in Paragraph 57. Paragraphs 58 through 63 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 64 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 65 is not accepted as to the extent that the proposed finding suggests performing a laparoscopic examination on that limited information. Reference in Paragraph 66 to the civil suit is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The balance of Paragraphs 66 through 71 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 72 through 77 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 78 is contrary to facts found in its suggestion that there was any pelvic exam performed. Paragraph 79 is rejected in its indication that there were any reports of pelvic pain prior to menses. Paragraph 80 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 81 is contrary to facts found in its suggestion that an adequate basis was being present to justify the laparoscopy. Paragraph 82 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 83 is rejected as to purported findings on laparoscopy and laparotomy. Paragraph 84 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 85 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 86 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 87 through 94 constitute legal argument. Paragraph 95 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 96 is not accepted in its depiction of a complaint of menometrorrhagia, same for paragraph 97. Paragraphs 98 through 101 are contrary to facts found in their suggestion that the D&C and hysterocopy were performed. Paragraphs 102 and 103 are subordinate to facts found. As to Paragraphs 104 and 105 and their suggestion that Respondent instructed the patient concerning ectopic pregnancy those Paragraphs are contrary to facts found as are Paragraphs 106 through 108. Paragraphs 109 and 110 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 111 through 117 constitute legal argument found. Paragraphs 118 through 121 are accepted but are not necessary to be reflected in the fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Michael Blazicek, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Julie Gallagher, Esquire Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
