The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license to practice medicine for violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent was (is) a licensed physician within the state of Florida, having been issued License No. 84357. At all times material to this complaint Respondent's address of record was 68 East Ludlow Place, Citrus Springs, Florida 34434. On or about May 18, 2004, Patient R.D., a 73-year-old male, presented to Citrus Memorial Hospital, Family Care Center in Lecanto, Florida. Patient R.D.'s chief complaint on May 18, 2004, was of constipation and last major bowel movement on May 16, 2004. On or about May 18, 2004, Patient R.D. was physically examined, and the examination revealed normal vital signs, moderately distended abdomen with slowed, but present bowel sounds in all four quadrants, no masses, and a nontender abdomen. On or about May 18, 2004, Respondent ordered an abdominal flat plate and upright X-ray, which showed "obstruction with stool, air fluid levels." On or about May 18, 2004, Patient R.D.'s diagnosis was constipation with partial bowel obstruction. On or about May 18, 2004, the X-rays were interpreted by a radiologist with an impression of marked dilatation of small bowel, likely due to small bowel obstruction. On or about May 18, 2004, Patient R.D. was instructed for treatment of his diagnosis to take Miralax powder as needed and milk of magnesia in between, keep fluid intake up and go to ER (emergency room) if pain increased in the abdomen or fever or vomiting develop. Respondent prescribed Miralax to Patient R.D. Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), sets forth grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine for gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent's Care of Patient R.D. Respondent received his Doctor of Medicine Degree from George Washington University. He became board certified in family practice in 1980 and was recertified in 1987, 1994, and 2001. Respondent practices at the Allen Ridge Family Care Center, an urgent care facility that is part of Citrus Memorial Hospital. On May 18, 2004, a history was taken from Patient R.D. The patient complained of constant mild abdominal pain. The patient reported that he had not had a stool for two days, that his last bowel movement (bm) had occurred two days earlier. The patient was complaining that he was constipated and that his stomach felt full. When Respondent saw Patient R.D., it was their first encounter. Respondent examined the patient. When Respondent asked the patient if he had blood or black stool, Patient R.D. denied either condition. Having a complaint of GI problems, Respondent was trying to ascertain whether the patient had internal bleeding when inquiring about the condition of the stool. Respondent, when recording information on Patient R.D.'s chart, noted that the distention and constipation were mild and constant. Respondent inquired of the patient concerning diarrhea, chills, vomiting, and issues with his appetite and noted that the patient was not suffering from any of those symptoms, other than to note that the patient's appetite was slightly down. The fluid intake was noted as being adequate for purposes of hydration. A nurse practitioner had noted the nature of the medications the patient was taking. Respondent did discuss those medications with the patient. Respondent was aware of the patient's vital signs and found them to be normal, as taken by a nurse. Respondent noted that the patient was in "no apparent distress," that is, he did not look sick by appearance. Instead the patient appeared well. Respondent noted in the chart that the bowel sounds were slowed but present in all four quadrants. Respondent wanted to determine whether the patient had absent bowel sounds or very rapid sounds that would have alerted Respondent to difficulties experienced by the patient. Absent bowel sounds represent some inflammatory process in the abdominal cavity such as appendicitis or a kidney stone, whereas rapid bowel signs signify a possible obstruction. Respondent noted "negative bruits," referring to the use of the stethoscope on the abdomen to listen for arterial sounds. Respondent found the liver and spleen to be normal upon examination. There was no hernia. There was "no CVA pain," referring to pain in the back that would be accompanied by flank pain. When Respondent palpitated the patient's abdomen light and deep, the patient reported that he experienced no pain. He responded by saying that he "feels full," which Respondent understood was in association with moderate distension. Before the visit, Respondent had experience with the type of patient represented by Patient R.D. Respondent has treated patients over time who have small bowel obstructions and who have constipation. Respondent's working differential diagnosis was that the patient was probably constipated, as had been reported. Respondent decided to have an X-ray made of the patient's abdomen. The decision to order an X-ray was in view of the distension. Respondent reviewed the results of the X-rays. The X-ray series were both flat and upright. The flat X-ray refers to lying flat (supine). That approach was requested in that Respondent was trying to determine how much stool and air were in the abdomen. Respondent was using the results of the X-ray to try to determine if the patient had a potential for obstruction. Respondent's impression of the results of the X-ray was that the rectum area showed stool in it. There was some indication of stool in the colon. Respondent was unsure as to whether there was stool in the small bowel. There were air fluid bubbles in an area that probably reflected the small bowel. Ultimately Respondent reached a diagnosis of constipation with partial bowel obstruction. Respondent, when he looked at the X-rays, went back to discuss the findings with the patient and said: Your x-ray does not look good. It has air fluid levels. You could have a problem here. It does not match up with your exam and your vital signs. You got a bad x-ray. The response by the patient was something to the effect that he did not care if he had a bad X-ray. He was constipated and he wanted something for his constipation. Respondent elected to give the Petitioner Miralax powder and give him precautions if anything developed such as abdominal pain, fever, or vomiting that was not in evidence at the moment, that the patient should go to the emergency room. Based upon the X-ray results, Respondent noted in his testimony that the patient: . . . wasn't out of the woods as far as I was concerned yet. Our standard procedure on a patient like this, is you get these air . . . you get something like that back . . . . probably, went in and recommended that he go to the emergency room. Respondent goes on to say in his testimony: . . . now if everything looked o.k. on this, this guy would have his Miralax prescription, be out of the door, and I wouldn't even see him if he had a normal x- ray. I went in the room and I talked to the guy and I said, look you got this and it could be obstruction, and he goes, 'what's obstruction' I said, well, just what we've been talking about this morning, blah, blah, blah. Pain, increase, bowel sounds, vomiting, 'Do I have any of that?' Respondent then describes the verbal exchange between the patient and Respondent as to the severity of the situation, and Respondent says in his testimony ". . . he won." Respondent indicated that the patient convinced Respondent that he was not ill. In summary, the Respondent told the patient that he could be in trouble or he might be fine. Respondent was also aware of other cases as he describes: . . . a certain percentage of people admitted for partial bowel obstruction like this that go through the hospital and has got to be a significant that go home the next day. They poop and go home the next day, 30 or 40 percent, o.k. So this guy could be that guy easily because he had symptoms so -- and he is not going to the ER because he waited two hours, three hours, whatever it was. I've seen nursing home patient's x-rays twice as bad as that and they are constipated and they are not in pain, so I had experience with these patients that some of them are not in trouble. I told this guy, you could be in trouble and this is -- and he said, 'I just need something for my constipation'. Respondent recognizes that the patient was coming to him for medical care and that he was obligated to determine if the patient was ill and that he could not rely completely upon someone else's ability to convince him of the circumstances. Respondent did not find the patient to look ill and indicated through his testimony that the patient ". . . was not in any trouble." Respondent did not find the patient in acute distress at the time the patient was seen. Respondent believes that had the patient been suffering small bowel obstruction when he was seen, that instead of moderate distension there would have been severe distension, and instead of the bowel sounds slow and present, they would have either been absent or increased. There would have been tenderness in the abdomen. There may have been a mass where none was found on examination. There was no finding of colicky pain, which Respondent considers to be the gold standard of bowel obstruction, crampy abdominal pain in severe waves that "double you over." Respondent called the patient's condition constipation with partial obstruction because of the findings in the X-ray. Respondent recognizes that there was some obstruction. He attributed the bowel obstruction to constipation caused by feces. However, in making his choices for care Respondent recognizes that distension is a symptom of obstruction. The inability to defecate is a symptom of obstruction. Respondent did not rely upon the radiologist's reading and report concerning the X-rays when making his choices for Patient R.D.'s care because he did not have the report at that time. Respondent recognized the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) available on May 18, 2004, as a reference source and in its discussion of Miralax was an authoritative source and that according to the PDR, it considered Miralax as contraindicated for patients who are known or suspected of having small bowel obstructions. Expert Opinion Dr. James Schaus is licensed to practice medicine in Florida and board certified in family practice. He was offered as an expert to express an opinion concerning Respondent's care provided Patient R.D. on May 18, 2004. To prepare him for that assignment he reviewed investigative materials from the Department, Respondent's records and other available records that pertain to Patient R.D.'s care. When asked to express an opinion concerning whether Respondent met the applicable standards of care as defined by Florida Statutes in the examination, diagnosis and treatment of Patient R.D., Dr. Schaus expressed the opinion that Respondent: . . . deviated from the standard of care in this case by failing to refer the patient to a hospital for immediate further evaluation of the small bowel as indicated on the abdominal x-ray and the physical examination finding of a distension. The abdominal x- ray revealed multiple air and fluid filled loops in the small bowel which are marketedly dilated and associated small bowel air fluid on upright films. A small amount of air, stool, within colon, impression marked dilation of small bowel likely due to small bowel obstruction. Dr. Schaus' view of the definition of "standard of care," is the "failure to practice medicine at a level of care, skill, and treatment which are [sic] recognized by a reasonably prudent similar acting physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances." Dr. Schaus went on to state the opinion: I believe that these x-ray findings taken together with the fact that the patient was distended on the physical exam and complained of some pain with the distension of abdominal wall obligated Dr. Hopkins for immediate further hospital evaluation of this patient. I also believe that Dr. Hopkins deviated from the standard of care by prescribing Miralax to the patient who had the diagnosis of partial small obstruction. In addition to expressing the opinion that Respondent should have arranged for immediate hospitalization of the patient diagnosed with partial small bowel obstruction, and the problem with Miralax, Dr. Schaus expressed the opinion that there was a deviation from the standard of care for the failure to do a digital rectal exam on the patient. Dr. Schaus expressed an opinion that Respondent should have used a digital rectal exam with this patient to determine the presence of stool, occult blood, and the condition of the prostate and to check for rectal or perianal masses. This was the standard of care that should have been pursued in this case because the patient complained of constipation and possible bowel obstruction. If an impaction of stool were found, this would aid in the diagnosis. It would be properly considered the cause and would constitute the diagnosis. If the digital rectal exam revealed gross blood that is important, or occult blood on the stool sample as detected through a chemical test, those findings would be helpful as well. Gross blood refers to visible blood. It is bright red or darker colored. If a mass is found, it might be an indication of colon cancer. As Dr. Schaus explained, the presence of blood indicates a more serious problem in that the typical constipation does not bleed. Dr. Schaus perceived the case involving Patient R.D. as one in which constipation was the patient's presenting complaint, setting up the possibility that it was in view of constipation as such or could be from bowel obstruction. Dr. Schaus expects the physician to determine that spectrum from the very benign to the very serious. In his review of the record, Dr. Schaus notes that the patient had an obstruction as evidenced by Respondent's diagnosis of obstruction. In particular he emphasizes the diagnosis of "constipation with partial bowel obstruction." In his testimony, Dr. Schaus had referred to small bowel obstruction in his impression of the findings by Respondent but later acknowledged in his testimony that Respondent had described a condition which was "partial bowel obstruction." The obstruction would be found within the intestinal tract. The nature of the blockage in Dr. Schaus' opinion can be a partial blockage that would limit the passage of stool or a complete blockage that can cause more serious problems. In this case, Dr. Schaus believed that it was clearly indicated that the patient had a significant bowel obstruction and that it was a small bowel obstruction and the patient needed to be admitted to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment. Dr. Schaus considers the terms "small bowel" to be synonymous with "small intestine." Dr. Schaus, in expressing his opinion, relies upon Respondent's interpretation of the X-ray where the Respondent notes "abdominal flat and upright obstruction with stool, air fluid levels." Dr. Schaus expressed the opinion that Respondent should have proceeded logically with the next step after discovering the small bowel obstruction, which was to make sure that the patient receives immediate evaluation and treatment in a hospital setting. The treatment that was given was on an out- patient basis with instruction for the patient to use Miralax as needed, with milk of magnesia PRN and to keep his fluid intake up and to report to the emergency room if he had problems with abdominal pain, fever, or vomiting. That approach was not acceptable in Dr. Schaus' opinion given the signs, symptoms, and radiographic findings in relation to Patient R.D. By choosing to have an abdominal X-ray performed on Patient R.D., this was an indication to Dr. Schaus that Respondent believed the patient was experiencing something other than typical constipation. A patient who has only constipation would not be subject to an abdominal X-ray. Concerning the prescription of Miralax, Dr. Schaus noted that this medication is an osmotic agent. It is considered a fairly powerful laxative. It is designed to cause the stool to retain water leading to a softer bowel movement, but it can be a dangerous treatment or contraindicated in a patient with known or suspected bowel obstruction as mentioned in the PDR. Dr. Schaus considers the PDR to be authoritative, and it is a commonly-used reference source for prescribing medications. When explaining the circumstances concerning Miralax, Dr. Schaus commented that the absorption of water is potentially dangerous in the instance where you have a blockage and you are promoting an expansion in the stool. This patient had partial bowel obstruction and Respondent prescribed the medication. Dr. Schaus believed that the patient could have had the entire spectrum from simple constipation to a complete bowel obstruction, because a patient may present with a wide variety of symptoms. In this case, the typical expectation of nausea and vomiting does not overcome the necessity for having a high- end suspicion of serious problems in the interest of not overlooking something. Dr. David A. Weiland, Jr., is licensed to practice medicine in Florida. He is board certified in internal medicine. His practice principally involves care of adult patients. In the past, he has taught family medicine for a period of almost ten years. Patient R.D. was an elderly patient, a type of patient seen in family practice. Dr. Weiland occasionally uses the PDR when he is unaware of a drug, or, if a drug is new, he will look it up in the PDR in discussing dosage or potential drug interactions. He sees the PDR as one reference source. It serves as a guide in prescribing. Dr. Weiland sees the definition of standard of care as being "that practiced by a prudent clinician in similar circumstances, with similar findings." In preparing himself to offer testimony, Dr. Weiland reviewed the Respondent's medical records in association with Patient R.D. He considered those records to be sufficient for him to render an opinion about the care provided Patient R.D. by Respondent. Dr. Weiland in his practice deals with 73-year-old males, such as Patient R.D. He deals with males who have constipation. Dr. Weiland has dealt with patients with distention of the abdomen. At present, Dr. Weiland's predominant practice is in hospice care. Many of his patients are severely constipated because of the use of narcotics due to the nature of their illness in the hospice setting. In deciding the choice of treatment, the choice of medications for addressing a 73-year- old with distention and constipation for two days, in his practice, Dr. Weiland relies on trials and failures or successes with the use of previous medications and an understanding of the illness and the degree of illness. He looks for symptoms such as diarrhea, pain associated with a fecal mass of the rectal wall, nausea, and vomiting, to guide him in deciding where the obstruction may be located and how to address the suspected obstruction. According to Dr. Weiland, you need to encourage the forward motion of the bowels in elderly patients. Dr. Weiland uses Miralax in his practice. He describes it as a promotility agent, an agent that allows the bowel to move more functionally. Miralax is not a drug that Dr. Weiland routinely prescribes. He just does not use the drug often, even though he understands it to be a very popular laxative. Dr. Weiland believes that Miralax is contraindicated for people with mechanical bowel obstruction, meaning anything mechanical that causes the bowel to be obstructed which could be cancer, adhesions, or twisting. The complete bowel obstruction, regardless of the reason, would be contraindicated for use of Miralax. With a partial obstruction, it is not clear to him whether Miralax is contraindicated. If there is stool movement forward, there is no absolute contraindication. The fact that the patient was not vomiting was an indication to Dr. Weiland that the stool was moving forward. With a complete bowel obstruction, the patient would present nausea and vomiting. Dr. Weiland agrees with the PDR warning that Miralax is contraindicated for patients who have known or suspected bowel obstructions. Symptoms suggestive of a bowel obstruction present would be nausea, vomiting, and abnormal distention and should be evaluated to rule out the bowel obstruction before using Miralax therapy, as explained in the PDR. Dr. Weiland thinks the key elements in the evaluation of those symptoms relate to nausea and vomiting and a patient with extreme nausea and vomiting should not be given promotility medication. Therefore, Dr. Weiland's opinion concerning the use of Miralax is conditioned upon those symptoms in relation to nausea and vomiting. Concerning general contraindications for using medications, Dr. Weiland is familiar with a medication by its general use, having looked it up on the PDR, and he has used other texts for medications, pharmacopeia. Dr. Weiland's response to contraindications depends on whether they are considered as absolute contraindications or relative contraindications. He sees the process of determining the use of the medication as dependent of the patient's underlying situation and the whole clinical condition. Dr. Weiland is also familiar with milk of magnesia, which is a chemical laxative. In addressing a patient's condition, Dr. Weiland treats the symptoms about 95 percent of the time. He uses additional testing when he confronts something unusual. For example, severe nausea would lead him to consider the use of X-rays. Other examples of a patient's circumstances in his experience that might cause the use of an X-ray or CT scan would be severe pain that was in association with a history of a particular malignancy known to cause complete obstruction, ovarian cancer or prostate cancer. Dr. Weiland would be impressed with passing significant amounts of blood in the stool, bloody diarrhea, high fever, nausea, and vomiting. But most constipation he treats initially, medically, and it would be necessary that he would have other of the issues that he described going on before it would warrant further investigation. Dr. Weiland explains that most treatments of small bowel obstruction are conservative initially. If the patient presents with a complete bowel obstruction as evidenced by nausea, vomiting, that patient is admitted to the hospital and the management involves bed rest and the provision of IV fluids to see if the patient resolves the situation. To determine whether there is a small bowel obstruction, two factors enter in, according to Dr. Weiland. One is the clinical presentation, which is abdominal pain, marked distension, nausea, and vomiting. If one of those factors is not present, Dr. Weiland does not believe that it would necessarily be considered as being a small bowel obstruction. He thinks that there is the possibility of confusing obstruction, in the sense of whether it is partial or complete. Dr. Weiland understands the differences between patients and the way they present abdominal pain and distension could be explained by lots of things, among them bowel obstruction. Concerning the Patient R.D. in his clinical presentation, considering the patient's appearance, vital signs, lack of nausea and vomiting no symptoms, Dr. Weiland would not have thought he was dealing with a bowel obstruction. The slow bowel that is described would not lead Dr. Weiland to conclude otherwise. The Respondent's impression concerning the bowel obstruction was based on X-ray findings, as Dr. Weiland perceives the matter. Dr. Weiland would not have gotten those X-rays. He believes that X-rays can sway you in the wrong direction and they do not always represent bowel obstruction. If the patient had presented looking "relatively toxin," Dr. Weiland would have ordered films, and, when he got those films, it would have confirmed the condition. Dr. Weiland proceeded with his opinion based upon the belief that Respondent reached the diagnosis of constipation with partial bowel obstruction after the X-ray results were known. Dr. Weiland looked at Patient R.D.'s X-rays. He found them to be abnormal in that there is evidence of dilation in the case because of striations, and there are fluid levels. In his experience, not all fluid levels are obstructions. Sometimes they are caused by other abnormalities. Dr. Weiland expressed the opinion that the standard of care for a patient like R.D. is that you look at the patient, determine the patient's symptoms, and make a clinical recommendation with a follow-up, and, if the patient systems worsen, then the patient should go to the emergency room for care. Dr. Weiland believes that partial small bowel obstruction could be a life threatening condition. If the patient were facing a life threatening condition, Dr. Weiland would hospitalize the patient. Evidence of a life-threatening condition would be nausea, vomiting, inability to keep down oral medications, and abnormal signs none of which were evidenced in this case in the case of R.D. Dr. Weiland considers abdominal distension to be a non-specific symptom in the patient, as well, abdominal distension with pain is non-specific. Dr. Weiland would not have sent the patient to the emergency room on May 18, 2004. The conservative approach was acceptable. The causation of the problem would often times resolve on its own. Dr. Weiland refers to the Respondent having the luxury of looking at the actual patient and the patient's appearance and the vitals did not appear to be toxic. Dr. Weiland agrees with the Respondent that if the patient developed fever or vomiting he should go to the emergency room. That would be evidence that the patient was experiencing a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Weiland's reading of the Respondent's reference to partial bowel obstruction is that it is based upon information that Respondent had, including the patient had fecal material, and that the patient is obstipated. Dr. Weiland believes that the partial bowel obstruction could be caused by any number of things, that have been mentioned in his testimony and reflected in this discussion and that the patient should be treated conservatively. If the problem resolves then that ends it. If it does not, then a CAT scan should be considered, and only upon the condition becoming a bowel obstruction that is complete will surgery be necessary. Dr. Weiland agrees that the use of a rectal exam can aid in the determination of the cause of an obstruction. Dr. Weiland expresses a preference to have a rectal exam documented in the patient chart. Having considered the opinions of the medical experts in view of the choices Respondent made in caring for Patient R.D., Dr. Schaus' opinions that Respondent fell below the standard of care in prescribing Miralax with a diagnosis of partial obstruction and the opinion by Dr. Schaus that the Respondent's failure to refer the Patient R.D. to the hospital for further evaluation of bowel obstruction fell below the standard of care are accepted. Although the choice to proceed to the hospital or not would have been the patient's decision, Respondent in his approach did not create that option. Rather he deferred to perceived limitations placed on the care by the patient, commenting that he was there principally for difficulties with constipation. That response to the patient's needs was below the standard of care. Respondent left available the choice to proceed to the emergency room if the patient began to have abdominal pain, fever or vomiting. Dr. Schaus' opinion that Respondent fell below the standard of care in not performing a digital rectal examination on Patient R.D. is accepted when addressing the possibility of a bowel obstruction. Mitigation/Aggravation The record does not reveal any adverse outcome attributed to Respondent's care provided Patient R.D. on May 18, 2004. There is no indication that Respondent has ever been disciplined in Florida or other jurisdictions while practicing medicine.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), placing Respondent on a period of probation for one year, issuing a letter of reprimand and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Dory Penton, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire Burton, Schulte, Weekley, Hoeler & Beytin, P.A. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Post Office Box 1772 Tampa, Florida 33602-1772 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent, William Moats, D.D.S., has been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida since 1969, under license number DN0005263. He practices at his office located at 515 Semoran Boulevard in Casselberry, Florida. On March 28, 1990, the patient, S.T. presented to Dr. Moats for a routine teeth cleaning. S.T. had been a regular patient of Dr. Moats since 1979, including a period when S.T. was a military dependent. During the course of the cleaning, acne lesions around S.T.'s mouth and nose area became irritated and began to bleed. Dr. Moats was concerned about the condition and told the patient he would consult a dermatologist. He then called Enrique M. DeArrigoitia, M.D., a dermatologist whom he has known since his medical service with the Navy. Dr. DeArrigoitia was told that Dr. Moats had a patient in his office with acne lesions, with blackheads, papules and pustules, and some bleeding around his mouth, and was asked what he would suggest. Dr. DeArrigoitia recommended five percent Benzoyl Peroxide and Retin-A, .05 cream to be used sparingly at bedtime. He said that the peroxide could be obtained without a prescription but that Retin-A required one. If necessary, Dr. DeArrigoitia said he would follow the patient. Dr. Moats gave S.T. two prescriptions: Pan Oxyl gel 10% and Retin-A 0.025% gel, refillable "PRN" (as needed, or indefinitely up to the limits of the law). Both prescriptions were legend drugs. These were medications the patient indicated that he had used before under the care of a dermatologist; however, his prescriptions had expired and he had not seen anyone recently for the acne condition. Both prescriptions are typically used to treat acne. Dr. Moats suggested that S.T. make an appointment with Dr. DeArrigoitia. S.T. did not follow up on the suggestion because he was too busy at work. He filled the prescriptions twice, the second time because he had left them in his car and they melted. The two parties each presented a witness qualified as expert in general dentistry. Both experts concurred that the treatment of acne is outside the scope of the practice of dentistry. Dentists may diagnose and treat conditions of the human teeth, jaws or oral- maxillofacial region (generally considered the portion of the face from below the eyes, including the nose, down to the border of the chin and the lower jaw). Just because a condition lies within that anatomy, however, does not bring it within the scope of the practice of dentistry. Dentists are not trained to treat acne. While they do treat regions of the lip area -- typically viral sores or irritations, acne is a condition involving the dermis of the face, neck, shoulders and other parts of the body. Dr. Moats contends that he was not treating acne, but rather was concerned that the open and bleeding lesion was a possible site of infection because of its proximity to the mouth and that it needed attention for the patient's protection. He does not know why he wrote the prescriptions "PRN". He never identified himself to others as anything but a dentist. The prescriptions are written on his prescription pads, printed with his name and address and signed by him, with D.D.S. plainly displayed. He did not consider his action to be outside his practice of dentistry. The patient was not harmed nor was evidence presented of other violations or disciplinary actions involving this Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter its final order finding that William A. Moats, D.D.S. violated Section 466.028(1)(q), F.S., and imposing a reprimand and fine of $750.00. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William Buckhalt, Exec. Dir. DPR-Board of Dentistry 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel DPR 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Albert Peacock, Esquire DPR 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dennis F. Fountain, Esquire Suite 250 1250 S. Highway 17-92 Longwood, FL 32750 MARY CLARK 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 20th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents performed a wrong procedure on patient C.C., as set forth in the second amended administrative complaints, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondents were licensed physicians within the state, with Dr. Kenneth D. Stahl having been issued license number ME79521 and Dr. Eddie Ward Manning having been issued license number ME110105. Dr. Stahl has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida since 1999 and in California since 1987. He has never had disciplinary action taken against either license. Dr. Stahl is board certified by the American College of Surgeons in general surgery, cardiac and thoracic surgery, and trauma and critical care surgery. Dr. Stahl's address of record is 3040 Paddock Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33141. Dr. Manning has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida since May 31, 2011. He has never had disciplinary action taken against his license. On June 23, 2011, Dr. Manning was a resident in general surgery. Dr. Manning's address of record is 1900 South Treasure Drive, Apartment 6R, North Bay Village, Florida 33141. In February 2011, patient C.C., a 52-year-old female, was admitted to Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) with a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. She also had a perirectal abscess. Her records indicate that she was treated with percutaneous drainage and a course of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. She was discharged on March 4, 2011. On June 22, 2011, patient C.C. presented to the JMH Emergency Department complaining of 12 hours of abdominal pain in her right lower quadrant with associated nausea and vomiting. Shortly after her arrival she described her pain to a nurse as "10" on a scale of one to ten. A computed tomography (CT) scan of patient C.C.'s abdomen was conducted. The CT report noted that the "the uterus is surgically absent," and "the ovaries are not identified." It noted that "the perirectal abscess that was drained previously is no longer visualized" and that the "appendix appears inflamed and dilated." No other inflamed organs were noted. The radiologist's impression was that the findings of the CT scan were consistent with non-perforated appendicitis. Patient C.C.'s pre-operative history listed a "total abdominal hysterectomy" on May 4, 2005. Patient C.C.'s prior surgeries and earlier infections had resulted in extensive scar tissue in her abdomen. Dr. Stahl later described her anatomy as "very distorted." Patient C.C. was scheduled for an emergency appendectomy, and patient C.C. signed a "Consent to Operations or Procedures" form for performance of a laparoscopic appendectomy, possible open appendectomy, and other indicated procedures. Patient C.C. was taken to surgery at approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 23, 2011. Dr. Stahl was the attending physician, Dr. Manning was the chief or senior resident, and Dr. Castillo was the junior resident. Notes indicate that Dr. Stahl was present throughout the critical steps of the procedure. Dr. Stahl had little recollection of the procedure, but did testify that he recalled: looking at the video image and seeing a tremendous amount of infection and inflammation and I pulled-–I recall that I myself went into the computer program and pulled up the CT scan and put that on the screen right next to the video screen that's being transmitted from the laparoscope and put them side-to-side and compared what the radiologists were pointing to as the cause of this acute infection and seeing on the laparoscopic video image that that indeed matched what I saw in the CT scan and I said, well, let's dissect this out and get it out of her so we can fix the problem. Dr. Stahl further testified that the infected, hollow organ that was dissected and removed was adherent laterally in the abdomen and was located where the appendix would normally be. He recalled that an abscess cavity was broken into and the infected, "pus-containing" organ that was removed was right in the middle of this abscess cavity. Dr. Stahl also recalled the residents stapling across the base of the infected organ and above the terminal ileum and the cecum and removing it. The Operative Report was dictated by Dr. Manning after the surgery and electronically signed by Dr. Stahl on June 23, 2011. The report documents the postoperative diagnosis as "acute on chronic appendicitis" and describes the dissected and removed organ as the appendix. Progress notes completed by the nursing staff record that on June 23, 2011, at 8:00 a.m., patient C.C. "denies pain," and that the laparoscopic incision is intact. Similar notes indicate that at 5:00 p.m. on June 23, 2011, patient C.C. "tolerated well reg diet" and was waiting for approval for discharge. Patient C.C. was discharged on June 24, 2011, a little after noon, in stable condition. On June 24, 2011, the Surgical Pathology Report indicated that the specimen removed from patient C.C. was not an appendix, but instead was an ovary and a portion of a fallopian tube. The report noted that inflammatory cells were seen. Surgery to remove an ovary is an oophorectomy and surgery to remove a fallopian tube is a salpingectomy. On Friday, June 24, 2011, Dr. Namias, chief of the Division of Acute Care Surgery, Trauma, and Critical Care, was notified by the pathologist of the results of the pathology report, because Dr. Stahl had left on vacation. Dr. Namias arranged a meeting with patient C.C. in the clinic the following Monday. At the meeting, patient C.C. made statements to Dr. Namias regarding her then-existing physical condition, including that she was not in pain, was tolerating her diet, and had no complaints. Dr. Namias explained to patient C.C. that her pain may have been caused by the inflamed ovary and fallopian tube or may have been caused by appendicitis that resolved medically, and she might have appendicitis again. He explained that her options were to undergo a second operation at that time and search for the appendix or wait and see if appendicitis recurred. He advised against the immediate surgery option because she was "asymptomatic." The second amended administrative complaints allege that Dr. Stahl and Dr. Manning performed a wrong procedure when they performed an appendectomy which resulted in the removal of her ovary and a portion of her fallopian tube. It is clear that Dr. Stahl and Dr. Manning did not perform an appendectomy on patient C.C. on June 23, 2011. Dr. Stahl and Dr. Manning instead performed an oophorectomy and salpingectomy. It was not clearly shown that an appendectomy was the right procedure to treat patient C.C. on June 23, 2011. The Department did convincingly show that patient C.C. had a history of medical problems and that she had earlier been diagnosed with appendicitis, had been suffering severe pain for 12 hours with associated nausea and vomiting, that she suffered from an infection in her right lower quadrant, that the initial diagnosis was acute appendicitis, and that the treatment that was recommended was an appendectomy. However, substantial evidence after the operation suggests that an appendectomy was not the right procedure. The infected and inflamed organ that was removed from the site of a prior abscess was not an appendix. After the procedure, patient C.C. no longer felt severe pain in her lower right quadrant, with associated nausea and vomiting. She was discharged the following day and was asymptomatic. It is, in short, likely that the original diagnosis on June 22, 2011, was incorrect to the extent that it identified the infected organ as the appendix. The pre-operative diagnosis that patient C.C.'s severe pain and vomiting were caused by a severe infection in an organ in her lower right quadrant was correct. Surgical removal of that infected organ was the right procedure for patient C.C. If that inflamed organ was misidentified as the appendix before and during the operation, that would not fundamentally change the correctness of the surgical procedure that was performed. The evidence did not clearly show that the wrong procedure was performed. It is more likely that exactly the right procedure was performed on patient C.C. That is, it is likely that an oophorectomy and salpingectomy were the right procedures to address the abdominal pain that caused patient C.C. to present at the JMH emergency room, but that the right procedure was incorrectly initially denominated as an "appendectomy," as a result of patient history and interpretation of the CT scan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine, enter a final order dismissing the second amended administrative complaints against the professional licenses of Dr. Kenneth D. Stahl and Dr. Eddie Ward Manning. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2015.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent Bernard Zaragoza, M.D., violated Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health before the Board of Medicine on June 30, 2008; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Bernard J. Zaragoza, M.D., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 67920. Dr. Zaragoza’s address of record is 3100 Coral Hills Drive, Suite 207, Coral Springs, Florida 33065. Dr. Zaragoza is certified in general surgery by the American Board of Surgery. Dr. Zaragoza has not been the subject of any investigation, claim, or complaint relating to his professional career other than this matter. Dr. Zaragoza graduated, Summa Cum Laude, from the University of Miami with a bachelors degree. He earned his medical degree from Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zaragoza performed a five-year surgical residency program at New York Medical College’s Westchester County Medical Center. During his residency, Dr. Zaragoza performed hundreds of laparoscopic procedures, including laparoscopic cholechstectomies (removal of the gallbladder). A laparoscopic surgery is a technique in which the abdomen is entered through small incisions rather than “opening up” the abdomen. Normally, for abdominal laparoscopic surgery, incisions are made at the belly button. This is the point which is usually closest to the peritoneal cavity, thus reducing the distance from the skin the surgeon must work through and the surgeon has a broader view of the abdomen. By October 2007, Dr. Zaragoza had performed in excess of 2,000 laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures. Patient J.C. On October 1, 2007, Patient J.C., a male, 83 years of age, presented at Northwest Medical Center, located in Margate, Florida, for treatment of abdominal pain and vomiting. Patient J.C. had reported with the same symptoms a month earlier and had been diagnosed with chronic cholecystitis, a chronic inflammation of the gallbladder due to the blockage of the bile ducts by gall stones. It is a life-threatening condition. Patient J.C. was admitted by Rafael Rodriguez, M.D., who requested a consultation by Mark Shachner, M.D., Dr. Zaragoza’s partner. Dr. Shachner confirmed a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and, in light of the failed conservative therapy which Patient J.C. had undergone since his first visit and the potential threat to his life, Dr. Shachner recommended surgery. It was concluded that Patient J.C. would undergo an attempted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dr. Zaragoza was to perform the procedure. It was concluded that a laparoscopic procedure was the appropriate procedure for Patient J.C. due to his medical history: atrial fibrillation, Alzheimer’s disease, hypertension, and diabetes. He had also undergone prior abdominal procedures. The parties did not dispute that a laparoscopic procedure, because it was likely to reduce post- operative complications, was the best type of surgical procedure for Patient J.C. Patient J.C., as a result of a prior gastrectomy, had a long midline incision extending from the Xiphoid upper abdomen to below the belly button. As a result of this surgery, Patient J.C. had extensive adhesions of tissue up to the midline. Patient J.C. had also undergone an appendectomy. It was concluded that, due to Patient J.C.’s condition and abdominal surgical history, rather than entering at the belly button and risking injury to any structures that were adhesed to the midline, a “right-sided” incision point would be used. The Department does not dispute the appropriateness of this decision. Unfortunately, by using a right-sided incision point, Dr. Zaragoza’s visualization of Patient J.C.’s abdominal cavity was reduced. Patient J.C. and his family were fully informed of the nature of the proposed surgical procedure and the risks, after which Patient J.C. signed a written consent for surgery. The written consent included an authorization to “take whatever action(s) and to perform whatever procedures(s) they deem necessary and advisable, which may be in addition to or different from those now planned” and an acknowledgement that the surgery to be performed “may result in perforation or injury to adjacent organs or structures.” None of the witnesses convincingly testified that the authorization included the authority to remove healthy organs or that the acknowledgement included any suggestion that a healthy organ might be completely removed. Surgery was scheduled for October 2, 2007. Dr. Zaragoza began the surgery with a right-sided approach, freeing up the area and attempting to identify important structures in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. In particular, the important structures Dr. Zaragoza attempted to locate were the liver, colon, and the gallbladder. Dr. Zaragoza encountered extremely heavy adhesions (8 on a scale of 1 to 10) in Patient J.C.’s abdomen. Dr. Zaragoza considered the risks of continuing or switching to an open abdomen procedure and correctly concluded it was best to proceed. Dr. Zaragoza freed up extensive adhesions and was able to correctly identify the liver. Unable to identify the gallbladder and due to the extensive adhesions in the area of the intestine, Dr. Zaragoza stopped the procedure in order to retrieve a CT scan of the area and personally evaluate the images. In order to expedite receipt of the CT study, Dr. Zaragoza scrubbed out and personally walked to the radiology suite. After returning, Dr. Zaragoza read the CT scan and the radiologist’s interpretation, which indicated that the gallbladder was posterior to the transverse colon. Dr. Zaragoza returned to Patient J.C., mobilized the colon to free it from the liver and attempted to locate the gallbladder behind the colon where he expected it to be. What Dr. Zaragoza found behind the transverse colon was a dark, thickened, and solid structure in the anatomical position which the CT scan and radiologist report suggested the gallbladder would be located. While the gallbladder, which consists of a water sac, is normally soft, pink, and pliable, this is not the case with an inflamed and infected one. Given Patient J.C.’s history of chronic cholecystitis with an acute cholecystitis secondary to the blockage of bile ducts by gallstones, Dr. Zaragoza was expecting to find a dark, thickened, and solid gallbladder in Patient J.C. Concluding that the structure he had located was the gallbladder, Dr. Zaragoza freed the organ of surrounding tissue, freeing away without incision adhesions to the organ, bringing the organ into position for removal. As Dr. Zaragoza began to free up the fat tissue around what he believed were the bile duct and blood vessels of the gallbladder, the organ ruptured, revealing a solid mass. Dr. Zaragoza believed that the mass was a tumor, which Dr. Zaragoza had encountered in other gallbladder surgeries. Dr. Zaragoza continued the procedure, separating the gallbladder for removal. While dividing what he believed was a cystic duct, Dr. Zaragoza encountered a bifurcation that did not correspond to the anatomy of the gallbladder. At this point, Dr. Zaragoza decided that surgery needed to be converted from laparoscopic to an open procedure. After doing so, a frozen section of the organ was sent to pathology for evaluation, in order to obtain a rapid evaluation of the tissue. The pathology report revealed that the organ that Dr. Zaragoza had removed from Patient J.C. was a healthy kidney. Dr. Zaragoza thereupon located the gallbladder by examining the dense adhesions around the colon, a risky procedure. Ultimately Dr. Zaragoza was required to cut into the transverse colon where he located the gallbladder, which had eroded into the transverse colon. Dr. Zaragoza then completed the surgical procedure, removing the gallbladder. Patient J.C.’s family was immediately advised of what had taken place; that Dr. Zaragoza had removed a kidney, in addition to successfully removing the gallbladder. The removal of a healthy kidney involves a medical procedure totally unrelated to removal of an unhealthy gallbladder. Removal of a healthy kidney is not a known or expected complication of gallbladder removal. Dr. Zaragoza’s removal of Patient J.C.’s kidney during gallbladder surgery constituted a “a wrong-site procedure, wrong procedure, or an unauthorized procedure, or a procedure that is medically unnecessary or otherwise unrelated to the patient’s diagnosis or medical condition.” The Department’s proposed findings of fact 12 through 20 contained in the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order, are accurate, support the ultimate findings of fact made in this paragraph and are subordinate thereto. Proposed findings of fact 36 through 38 of Respondent’s Proposed Order in large part accurately reflect the difficulty of the surgery performed on Patient J.C. Even the Department’s own expert noted that he thanked God Patient J.C. had not been his patient. The suggestion in paragraph 26 that the removal of the kidney was “simply an unwanted complication associated with this cholecystectomy procedure” is, however, not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Bernard J. Zaragoza, M.D., has violated Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $5,000.00; issuing a letter of concern; requiring the completion of five hours of risk management education; and requiring that he perform 50 hours of community service. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 6th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Rolando A. Diaz, Esquire Kubicki & Draper 25 West Flagler Street, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33130 Robert A. Milne, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Stanley E. Ross, D.D.S. is licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, and at all times relevant herein was so licensed. His practice is limited to periodontics and Ross is a board certified periodontist. In 1975 Ross was associated with the Professional Association owned by Dr. Marvin M. Rosenberg, also a board certified periodontist. Offices were occupied in Boca Raton and West Palm Beach with each dentist spending part of each week at each office. Although they practiced under the same roofs it was very infrequent one would treat a patient of the other. Nathan Wolfson, a 61 year old retiree, was referred to Rosenberg and Ross for examination and possible periodontal treatment by Dr. Medoff, a dentist engaged in general practice. Following routine pre-operative procedures, extensive periodontal surgery was performed by Ross on Wolfson on Friday, November 7, 1975. Numerous incisions were made in the gums, tissue and bone was removed, and the tissue sutured back to the jaw. The operation lasted three to four hours and Wolfson departed the dental office ambulatory. Ross had prescribed Percodan for Wolfson to take for pain expected following the extensive surgery. On Sunday Wolfson began experiencing pain in the neck and across the shoulders and his wife called Ross. When the latter inquired and was advised that Wolfson was not taking the Percodan that had been prescribed Ross told her that the medication had been given him to take care of the pain and to start using them. Sunday night or Monday morning part of the packing fell out and on Monday Wolfson went to the Boca Raton office to have this replaced. Ross was not in the Boca Raton Office that day and a dental hygienist replaced the packing. One witness testified that Dr. Rosenberg was seen coming out of the operatory with Wolfson and was overheard telling Wolfson that the pain in his neck and across the shoulders was very normal following such surgery. Rosenberg denied ever seeing or talking to Wolfson. On Tuesday November 11, 1975 Wolfson was still uncomfortable and again returned to the Boca Raton office. He told one of the dental assistants that he was experiencing pain in the jaw, neck, across the shoulders and "pressure in the chest". She advised him to describe these pains to Ross. Shortly thereafter Ross came in, looked in Wolfson's mouth and listened to Wolfson's complaints of pain in the neck, jaw and across the shoulders. He gave Wolfson 1 cc of Demerol and 1 cc of Tigan, both intramuscular. Ross remained with Wolfson 10 or 15 minutes until the Demerol took effect and Wolfson's pain eased. Wolfson then departed in company with his wife and his wife's sister-in-law. Wolfson occupied the back seat of their car and the two ladies sat in front. Shortly after leaving Ross' office Mrs. Wolfson turned to look back at her husband and saw he was dead. A passing car directed them to Boca Raton Community Hospital where Wolfson was pronounced dead on arrival after emergency resuscitation steps had failed. An autopsy was subsequently performed on Wolfson and the cause of death reported as "coronary insufficiency following severe atherosclerosis of coronary arteries". The right coronary artery was described as showing "more than 95 percent narrowing of the lumen by atherosclerosis 2.0 cm away from the coronary ostium." A medical witness described the autopsy report as showing such extensive cardiovascular disease as to have made Wolfson a poor risk for heart surgery. On September 2, 1975 Wolfson received a physical examination from Dr. Robbins and the EKG taken was considered normal. Other tests performed at this examination were just outside the range of normalcy and Dr. Robbins would have rated Wolfson's physical condition as fair at the conclusion of this examination. He considered Wolfson physically fit for the periodontal surgery performed. Wolfson had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Robbins on November 10, 1975 which was not kept. Mrs. Wolfson, the widow of Nathan, testified that Nathan Wolfson at his November 11, 1975 visit to Ross told Ross that he was experiencing pain in the neck, jaw, back, chest, and down both arms. Ross denied being told of any pain other than in neck and jaw. Shortly after Wolfson's death Mrs. Wolfson and her son visited Dr. Medoff and told him that Wolfson's complaints of pain following his oral surgery was in the back of his neck and shoulder area. No mention was made to Medoff of any pain in the chest or pain radiating down the arms. Boca Raton Community Hospital records of Nathan Wolfson on November 11, 1975 contain the notation "wife states: left dentist office and suddenly had SOB." Again following Wolfson's death, Mrs. Wolfson, in discussing Wolfson's death with Dr. Robbins, mentioned Wolfson having pains following his oral surgery in the jaw and shoulder. She asked Dr. Robbins if pain in the jaw could be from a heart attack and he told her "yes, sometimes." A medical witness specializing in emergency medicine opined that pain in the jaw, neck and across the shoulders four days following extensive oral surgery would not be recognizable as stemming from cardiac problems as all of these symptoms could be attributed to the oral surgery. Another medical witness whose specialty is internal medicine testified it would be extremely unusual for pains across the back and down both arms to lead to medical practitioner to the conclusion the patient was experiencing cardiac failure. He described classic pre-cardia pain to be in chest radiating down left arm. It also can be from chest radiating down the back. He identified pain across shoulders down back and down both arms as that resulting from a dissecting aneurism of the aorta. No evidence, other than Mrs. Wolfson's testimony, showed Ross was ever made aware Wolfson had pain in the chest or pain radiating down either or both arms. As noted above, shortly after Wolfson's death his widow made no mention of pain in chest or arms to the doctor and dentist to whom she spoke. Pain in the jaw can be indicative of cardiac problems when other significant cause for such pain is not present. Here it is obvious there were other significant causes of pain. Three to four hours in the dentist chair with head back, jaws extended having tissue and bone cut away would undoubtedly result in pain in the jaw for several days. From the evidence presented regarding the condition of Wolfson's cardiovascular system as shown by the autopsy performed, it is questionable that Wolfson would have survived even had medical treatment been available and administered at the time he experienced his actual attack. In the building occupied by Ross in Boca Raton two medical offices were also present. One is occupied by internists and the other office has doctors engaged in family practice. Ross has in the past consulted with both of these offices when medical problems occurred during or prior to performing surgery on his dental patients. These consultations and referrals involved anesthetics as well as actual medical symptoms. Respondent Ross is a well trained and gifted periodontal surgeon. He is held in very high esteem by his colleagues and peers. He serves as visiting professor and guest lecturer of periodontics at the University of Pennsylvania, Boston University, Loyola University (Chicago), Emory University, and Medical College of Georgia. He has lectured at various dental meetings in the U. S., Europe, Mexico, and South America. Here the ultimate factual issue is whether or not from the symptoms presented by Nathan Wolfson to Ross during his office visit on November 11, 1975 Ross should, in the exercise of the degree of care and knowledge expected of a dentist, have recognized that Wolfson was experiencing cardiac problems and required the immediate services of a medical practitioner. From the factual situation as noted in the above findings that question must clearly be answered, no. The evidence presented at this hearing was tainted by animosity and avarice as well as close friendship. The calibre of the latter was more impressive than the former.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Jose A. Mijares is a general and thoracic surgeon who has practiced medicine in Tampa, Florida since 1967. He received his medical degree from the University of Havana in 1943. He served a five-year residency at Tampa General Hospital which was completed in 1967. He is Board certified in general surgery and limits his practice to that field. He is licensed to practice medicine in Florida and was so licensed at all relevant times herein. (Testimony of Respondent, stipulation) In 1977, Respondent was on the staffs of five hospitals in the Tampa area, including Centro Asturiano Hospital. The allegations of the Administrative Complaints deal with Respondent's treatment of six patients at Centro Asturiano Hospital at various times during the period 1977 to 1979. Ricardo Larzabal This sixteen-year-old patient was admitted to the hospital by Dr. A.B. Perez on May 12, 1977, with a diagnosis of abdominal pain and nausea. At admission, the patient's white blood count was slightly elevated at 11,000, but was at a normal range of 10,500 the following day. Respondent was called in for consultation on May 13. His impression was abdominal pain with possible appendical colic, and recommended a barium enema. The results of the barium enema showed that only about on-third of the appendix filled. On May 16, Respondent performed an exploratory laparotomy and appendectomy. He found the appendix kinked with a band in the proximal third of the appendix and fecalith in the distal two-thirds of the appendix. The pathological report reflected a congested vermiform appendix with lymphoid hyperplasia. Respondent's discharge diagnosis was "Abdominal pains. Appendical colic due to fecalith in the appendix. Chronic appendicitis." (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Vivian Morejon Dr. C. Castellanos admitted this seventeen-year-old patient to the hospital on May 15, 1977, with a diagnosis of epigastric pain and colitis. On admission, the patient had a normal white blood county of 9,000. A barium enema was administered and reflected no abnormality. Respondent was called in for consultation on May 18 and his impression was "Abdominal pain, appendical colic." He performed an exploratory laparatomy and appendectomy on May 19, at which time he found blood in the peritoneal cavity caused by a ruptured follicle of an ovary. The appendix was retrocecal and covered by adhesions as in chronic appendicitis. His final diagnosis was "Abdominal pain, appendical colic due to chronic appendicitis, and ruptured follicle of the right ovary." The pathology report reflected that the patient had a vermiform appendix with lymphoid hyperplasia. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) Ramiro Companioni, Jr. This fourteen-year-old patient was admitted to the hospital by Dr. C. Castellanos on September 24, 1977, due to pain in the right lower quadrant which had not been relieved with medication, and vomiting for two days prior to admission. The patient had been admitted to the hospital during the previous February with the same condition. At time of admission, he had a white blood count of 5,200 which was slightly lower than normal. Respondent was consulted on the day of admission and his impression was abdominal pain, appendical colic. A barium enema was ordered, but the appendix could not be observed. On September 27, Respondent performed an exploratory laparatomy and appendectomy. He found that the appendix was congested, edematous with fecalith in mid-portion covered by adhesions. The pathology report showed a microscopic diagnosis of acute appendicitis, as did Respondent's discharge diagnosis. The patient recovered without complications. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Shirley Alvarez This fifteen-year-old patient was admitted to the hospital by Dr. C. Castellanos on September 26, 1977, with acute abdominal pain in the right side with nausea and vomiting, which was diagnosed as possible appendicitis. Her white blood count was 6,900 and a barium enema did not visualize the appendix. Respondent was consulted on September 28, and his impression was that the patient had abdominal pain, appendiceal colic. He performed an exploratory laparotomy and appendectomy on September 29. The appendix was retrocecal and covered with adhesions as in chronic appendicitis. The pathology report showed on microscopic diagnosis a vermiform appendix with multiple serosal adhesions. The patient was discharged with a final diagnosis of chronic appendicitis. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Luisa Areu This forty-two year old patient was admitted by Respondent to the hospital on July 18, 1978, complaining of abdominal pain in the right flank. On examination, Respondent's impression was cervical polyp and possible enlarged uterus. The patient had experienced an exploratory laparotomy some 10 years before, but no records were available to determine the cause or results of the operation. On July 21, 1978, Respondent performed a dilation and four quadrant biopsy of the cervix. Although no polyp was found, there was severe chronic cervicitis and the uterus on palpation was enlarged. Respondent determined that a hysterectomy was advisable due to the enlargement of the uterus and the advanced severe chronic cervicitis. On July 27, Respondent removed the uterus, both fallopian tubes, and the appendix. The ovaries were not removed. The uterus was found to be of normal size, but both tubes were congested and edematous as in salpingitis. The pathology report confirmed the diagnosis of chronic cervicitis but found no significant abnormalities with the patient's tubes or appendix. Respondent's discharge diagnosis was severe chronic cervicitis. His discharge summary stated that in spite of the pathological report that the tubes looked normal, both tubes were congested and edematous like chronic salpingitis. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Deborah Fisher This 22-year-old patient was admitted by Respondent to the hospital on February 4, 1979, complaining of lower abdominal pain. Approximately seven months prior to her admission, she had had a tubal ligation and had experienced pain and occasional vomiting thereafter. The patient's history indicated that intercourse was very painful and that she had not had menstrual periods since September, 1978. Respondent's impression was "lower abdominal pain, rule out chronic pelvic inflammatory disease." All laboratory and other tests of the patient were negative. On February 8, 1979, Respondent performed a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and appendectomy. He found the tubes to be congested and edematous as in sub-acute salpingitis. The pathology report on microscopic diagnosis showed chronic cervicitis, mild with reserve call hyperplasia and slight dysplasia. No patholgoical diagnosis was found as to the fallopian tubes and appendix. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 1) It is difficult to diagnose acute appendicitis, particularly in the case of children between 12 and 18 years of age. About 70% to 85% of appendices removed incident to an operating diagnosis of appendicitis are pathologically acute. This generally is because physicians are reluctant to permit the possibility of appendices developing abscesses and perforations if appendectomies are forestalled for too long a period. It is particularly difficult to diagnose acute appendicitis in females between the ages of 14 and 18 because they often have other causes for pain, such as an ovarian cyst. It is an accepted and customary practice to remove a normal appendix in conjunction with other surgery in the right lower quadrant, unless there are contra- indicating problems. This precludes the later possibility of appendicitis attacks, and also lessens the probability of erroneous diagnosis later because of the presence of a lower incision scar. (Testimony of Myers, [Deposition- Respondent's Exhibit 4], Mason [Deposition-Respondent's Exhibit 5] Respondent) In cases that are difficult to diagnose, particularly in young children, the use of the barium enema as a diagnostic tool for appendicitis is accepted medical practice. It helps to determine if an appendix is normal. If the appendix fills completely, it is considered to be normal, but if it does not fill normally and there is also swelling and other complaints, a physician can imply pathology in the area near the appendix. (Testimony of Respondent, Myers, Ferris, Respondent's Composite Exhibit 2, 4) Expert testimony at the hearing established that all six of the operations in question were necessary and proper, and that the care and treatment rendered by Respondent to the patients met acceptable and medical standards in the community. In the case of patient Larrabal, although his white blood count had subsided on the second day of admission, his prior history, coupled with the fact that the barium enema only partially filled the appendix, showed, in the opinion of one expert, that there was a "diagnostic dilemma" which justified the operation after waiting an appropriate time. Although the pathology report reflected a normal appendix, the fact that lymphoid hyperplasia was also found indicated the presence of an abnormality. As to patient Companioni, Respondent testified that he saw no need to operate immediately because the white blood count was normal which could have indicated the presence of viral rather than bacterial infection. Again, however, the barium enema only partially filled the appendix, thus justifying the operation when considered along with the patient's complaints and other indications. Expert opinion established that Respondent's delay was justified in waiting an appropriate time to determine if the patient's illness was minor in nature or acute. The exploratory laparotomy which Respondent performed on patient Morejon was justified in that it was impossible to determine in advance whether the pain she had experienced was caused by appendicitis or something else. It was discovered upon operating that she had had a ruptured follicle of the ovary which was the source of pain. The removal of her normal appendix as incident to the surgery was necessary and proper under the circumstances. Even Petitioner's expert testified that it had been a "close call" as to whether or not to operate on the patient, and he agreed that the appendix should have been removed as incidental to the surgery. As to patient Alvarez, the fact that the appendix didn't "visualize" as a result of the barium enema indicated something was blocking the appendix and warranted the operation. The fact that fibrous adhesions were found showed that the appendix was abnormal. Although Petitioner's expert, Dr. Charles F. James, testified that the presence of adhesions indicated that the patient had probably had previous attacks of appendicitis, he felt that the operation was unjustified because there was no acute inflammation. However, he acknowledged that it is common to remove an appendix in such a case and could not be considered improper. (Testimony of Respondent, Myers, Mason, James, Respondent's Exhibit 4, 5) Petitioner's expert had reviewed the records of 15 appendectomy cases of Respondent, including the four which are the subject of charges herein. He testified that, although his opinion might be different from that of Respondent as to the treatment in question, none of the cases justified disciplinary action. (Testimony of James) There was conflicting expert testimony at the hearing with regard to the property and necessity of Respondent's surgical procedures regarding patients Area and Fisher, but the opinions expressed in the testimony of Dr. Robert W. Withers are accepted. He found that patient Areu's complaints, past medical history, and the fact that a sonogram reflected that she had an enlarged uterus indicated that the only reasonable location for her pain was in the uterus. It was therefore his opinion that such pain related to the uterus is best cured in someone who has had previous surgery in that area by the surgical procedures performed by Respondent. As to patient Fisher, similar surgical procedures performed by Respondent. As to patient Fisher, similar surgical procedures performed by Respondent were considered indicated and proper by Dr. Withers based on the patient's complaints and the prior history of tubal ligation which had resulted in the existence of post-tubal sterilization syndrome. In the opinion of Dr. Withers, there could be no other effective treatment for the patient to relieve her problem than the surgical procedures employed by Respondent. Additionally, it was found that the patient had a precancerous condition known as dysplasia, indicative that Respondent's operative procedures were fortuitous and to the patient's benefit. (Testimony of Respondent, Withers)
Recommendation That Petitioner dismiss the Administrative Complaints herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Freeman and Lopez, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Tony Cunningham, Esquire Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan and McLaughlin, P.A. 708 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 81-3183 82-823 JOSE A. MIJARES, M.D., License Number: 12114, Respondent. /
The Issue Did the Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 2, 2001, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. Respondent, Carl W. Liebert, Jr., M. D. (Dr. Liebert) is and, at all times material hereto, has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0047601. Respondent is Board-certified in surgery. On January 29, 1997, Respondent performed an abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and an aortobifemoral graft on E. T., a male patient, approximately 70 years of age. The site of the graft for the left femoral artery intruded partially upon the site of a previous graft of the femoral artery performed in 1986. This graft failed immediately after the procedure. Respondent sutured the graft at the left femoral artery partially into old scar tissue from the 1986-failed graft. After the surgery, on the Sunday before his release from the Naples Community Hospital (Hospital) on Thursday, February 6, 1997, E. T. suddenly and abruptly fell in his hospital room. Respondent was concerned about the possible damage this fall may have caused to the surgical repair. Although E. T. experienced pain in his left groin area, the location of one of the aortobifemoral grafts, while in the Hospital, there is no evidence that any harm resulted from the fall or that the pain was a result of the fall. After the surgery, during E. T.'s stay in the Naples Community Hospital (Hospital), there was lymphatic drainage, a pinkish colored fluid, from the incision in his left groin. While the lymphatic fluid may have been blood stained resulting in the pinkish color, the lymphatic drainage was not as described in the nurse's notes as being "a bloody discharge." On Thursday, February 6, 1997, E.T. was discharged from the Hospital. After E. T.'s discharge from the Hospital, his wife cared for him in their home in Naples, Florida. As expected by Dr. Liebert, the incision in E. T.'s left groin area continued to have lymphatic drainage after E. T.'s discharge from the Hospital. The incision in E. T.'s left groin area continued to drain a pinkish colored fluid. The lymphatic drainage from the incision in E. T.’s left groin continued over the weekend and on Monday, February 10, 1997, E. T.'s wife contacted Respondent's office to advise Respondent of the drainage and of the pain E. T. was experiencing. Although E. T.'s wife did not speak directly to Respondent, she assumed that the person to whom she spoke with over the telephone conveyed her message to Respondent. E. T.'s wife was given a prescription for Percocet for pain and told that Respondent would see E. T. in his office on Thursday, February 13, 1997. On Wednesday, February 12, 1997, while showering and cleansing the incision on his left groin, E. T. inadvertently disturbed the incision on his left groin, which caused the incision to drain profusely. After leaving the shower, E. T.'s wife assisted E. T. in drying-off his body and controlling the drainage from the incision. The wife stemmed the flow of the drainage with a towel and called the Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Respondent's office. The wife explained to the person answering Respondent's telephone, the circumstances of the occurrence with E. T., and that she had called the Collier County EMS personnel. The wife also requested that Respondent come to the Hospital. On February 12, 1997, in response to E. T.'s wife's call, the Collier County EMS personnel responded to E. T.'s home at approximately 7:25 a.m., performed an initial treatment for the drainage from E.T.'s left groin and transported E. T. by ambulance to the Hospital. The EMS personnel noted that E. T. complained of bleeding and it was their initial impression that E. T. was bleeding from his femoral artery. However, the EMS personnel did not confirm that E. T. was bleeding from his left femoral artery. The EMS personnel also noted what they considered to be a large amount of thick, clotty blood, which they estimated to be approximately 1000 milliliters (ml's) or 1000 cubic centimeters (cc's), surrounding E. T. Based on the records of the EMS personnel and on E. T.'s description given to Dr. Mulert, E. T.'s wife's testimony that the incision spurted blood for approximately 3- 4 feet appears to be somewhat exaggerated. The EMS personnel, assuming that E. T. had recently loss blood, administered 300 cc of fluid intravenously to E. T. When the EMS personnel attempted to move E. T., the drainage from the incision started again, but was controlled with a trauma dressing and pressure applied by a sandbag. The EMS personnel presented E. T. at the Emergency Room (ER) of the Hospital at approximately 7:52 a.m. on February 12, 1997. The ER nurse noted that a pressure dressing along with a sandbag had been applied and that the drainage or bleeding was under control. The ER nurse drew blood from E. T. and noted in her record that it was for a "type and cross" in preparation for a blood transfusion should one become necessary. However, Dr. Robert Mulert, the ER physician who attended E. T. while in the ER, noted in his records that he had requested a "type and hold," a less elaborate procedure than a "type and cross," which requires checking the antibodies and making sure the blood in question is compatible blood. Based on his estimate of E. T.'s blood loss and E. T.'s vital signs and other health conditions, Dr. Mulert did not consider E. T. as a patient in need of a blood transfusion. Upon E. T.'s arrival at the Hospital, Dr. Mulert made a brief assessment of E. T.'s condition to confirm that there was no active bleeding and that the patient did not need emergent intervention. Although Dr. Mulert is not a vascular surgeon or even a general surgeon, he has one year of residency training in surgery and is a Board-certified emergency room physician who has been working as an emergency room physician for approximately 27 years. Dr. Mulert is qualified to examine patients such as E. T. and advise the primary treating physician of his findings. Dr. Liebert has worked with, and relied on, Dr. Mulert's expertise as an emergency room physician in treating many of his patients who are presented at the Hospital for emergency treatment for approximately 15 years. Dr. Mulert discussed E. T.'s condition by telephone with Dr. Liebert on two separate occasions during E. T.'s visit to the Hospital on February 12, 1997. The first occasion was shortly after E. T. was admitted to the Hospital ER. During this first occasion, Dr. Mulert advised Dr. Liebert that his patient, E. T. had been admitted to the Hospital with a reported acute hemorrhaging or bleeding of the incision in the area of his left groin and that E. T.'s wife was asking for Dr. Liebert. In some instances, the primary physician will assume treatment at this juncture. However, it is not unusual for the ER physician to continue treatment. The decision was for Dr. Mulert to continue treatment and to keep Dr. Liebert advised as to E. T.'s condition. There is nothing in the record to indicate Dr. Liebert's location on the morning of February 12, 1997; nor is there any evidence to indicate that Dr. Liebert was prevented from examining E. T. on the morning of February 12, 1997. Also, during this first discussion, Dr. Mulert advised Dr. Liebert, based on the information that he had gathered, that E. T.'s blood loss was approximately 500 cc's but that there was no active bleeding at that time. Dr. Mulert also advised Dr. Liebert that he intended to deal with the patient's problems by proceeding with his plan to assess E. T.'s blood count, to monitor E.T.'s vital signs, and to see if the patient met Dr. Mulert's criteria for stability: Can he get up? Can he walk? Can he talk? Does the patient make sense? Does the patient have discharge stability? Subsequent to this first discussion, Dr. Mulert made a more detailed examination of the wound to determine if the wound was infected, the depth of the wound, and the need to pack the wound with sterile dressing, etc. After reviewing the EMS personnel records, E. T.'s history, talking with E. T., and reviewing the results of his examination, Dr. Mulert's impression was that E. T. had a hematoma under a surgical wound; that the wound had come apart; and that the collection of blood (old blood) within the hematoma had expressed from that surgical wound. The blood within the hematoma is referred to as "old blood" in that it was no longer in the vascular system and was not being replenished with oxygen. While E. T.'s vital signs were low compared to his vital signs taken while in the Hospital on visits prior to February 12, 1997, they were not significantly lower and were within a normal range for a patient, such as E. T., who was on beta blockers. E. T.'s vital signs were inconsistent with an aggressive femoral graft leak. The hematocrit and hemoglobin values on February 12, 1997, were slightly lower than the hematocrit and hemoglobin values while in the hospital during his most recent visit in January 1997. However, based on the testimony of Dr. Liebert, which I find to be credible, that was to be expected since E. T. had been given a significant amount of auto-transfused blood during his surgery on January 29, 1997. Also, the lower values were consistent with a 500 cc or less blood loss by a patient that had just recently undergone surgery. During either the first or second conversation, Dr. Mulert advised Dr. Liebert that the surgical site had come apart. During his care of E. T., Dr. Mulert became aware that Dr. Liebert had performed an abdominal aortic aneurysm repair earlier in the year, and that the repair was under the nine-inch incision on E. T.’s left groin but did not know the exact location of the repair. If Dr. Liebert made a diagnosis, he did not convey such diagnosis to Dr. Mulert. Neither Dr. Liebert nor Dr. Mulert discussed or made a differential diagnosis. However, it was the testimony of both Dr. Mulert and Dr. Liebert, which I find to be credible, that based on the facts presented in respect to E. T. by Dr. Mulert, a differential diagnosis was unnecessary. A differential diagnosis is a mechanism physicians use to identify and evaluate possible alternative causes for observed symptoms. During the second telephone conversation, Dr. Mulert advised Dr. Liebert that the patient had been stable for approximately four hours, that his vital signs were within normal ranges, that his blood counts were basically unchanged, that there was no active bleeding and had not been any active bleeding for approximately four hours, that the patient was up and walking around the ER, that the patient was asymptomatic when vertical that the patient was not orthostatic when walking, that the patient wanted to go home, and that the incision in the left groin area needed to be repaired. There was no discussion between Dr. Mulert and Dr. Liebert concerning the admission of E. T. to the Hospital for the purpose of further examining the possibility of arterial bleeding. Ultrasound and computerized tomography (CT) were available to patients at the Hospital. While these tests don't always "rule out" internal bleeding or suture line disruptions, they can, in certain instances, "rule in" these conditions. Based on the facts in respect to E. T.'s condition presented by Dr. Mulert on February 12, 1997, particularly that they were dealing with an open wound, and Dr. Liebert's feelings as to the somewhat limited use of these tests in this type situation, there was no ultrasound or CT scan performed. Based on the facts in respect to E. T.'s condition as presented by Dr. Mulert on February 12, 1997, the failure of Dr. Liebert to utilize the ultrasound or CT scan to further examine E. T. in regard to arterial bleeding does not constitute the 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, notwithstanding the testimony of Michael J. Cohen, M.D. to the contrary. Subsequently, Dr. Mulert sewed up the incision which had come apart. Dr. Liebert did not personally examine E. T. at any time while he was in the ER to evaluate the cause of E. T.'s problem in relation to arterial bleeding, but relied on Dr. Mulert to provide him with facts surrounding E. T.'s condition based on Dr. Mulert's examination of E. T. and his assessment of E.T.'s problem. Based on the facts in respect to E. T.'s condition in relation to arterial bleeding as presented by Dr. Mulert on February 12, 1997, the failure of Dr. Liebert to personally examine E. T. prior to his discharge or to delay E. T.'s discharge so as to allow time for Dr. Liebert personally examine E. T. to determine for himself E. T.'s problem in relation to arterial bleeding does not constitute the 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, notwithstanding the testimony of Michael J. Cohen, M.D. to the contrary. 38. E. T. was discharged from the Hospital at approximately 12:00 noon on February 12, 1997. After his discharge on February 12, 1997, E. T. had an uneventful afternoon and evening. After getting out of his bed on the morning of February 13, 1997, E. T. walked from his bedroom into the kitchen and as he stood in the kitchen the left groin incision erupted again, hemorrhaging blood onto the kitchen floor. The EMS personnel were called responded to the call around 5:30 a.m. Prior to the arrival of the EMS personnel the bleeding had stopped. The EMS personnel noticed a moderate blood loss. The EMS personnel dressed the left groin wound, administered fluids and transported E. T. to the Hospital where he was admitted to the ER at approximately 6:00 a.m. Although E. T. received blood and fluids, his condition deteriorated rapidly and E. T. expired at approximately 7:24 a.m. on February 13, 1997. No autopsy was performed. However, the cause of death was most likely myocardial infarction that resulted from a loss of blood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 2, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Ralph L. Marchbank, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3979 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
