The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent's actions are exempt from the provisions of chapter 474, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 474.203(5), and if not, whether Respondent violated section 474.214(1)(ee), Florida Statutes (2008). If Respondent's actions are not exempt and violate section 474.214(1)(ee), then what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 474, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been, at all times material to this Administrative Complaint, licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number VM 8029. Respondent's company, Equitransfer, LLC, is a limited liability company in the state of Florida. Equitransfer is involved with performing embryo transfers in recipient mares. Dr. Davila owned horses #331, #645, and T14. These horses died. Horse #645 had a foal out on September 16, 2009, and horses #331 and T14 had embryo placements which had not been birthed at the time of the horses' deaths. There are records of some sort that were requested from and turned over to the Department by Dr. Davila. Included is a document entitled "Verification of Completeness of Records" (Verification of Completeness form), which is a form on Department letterhead with blanks to be completed with the relevant information. This document as completed and received with the documents states the following: I, Jose R. Davila, DVM am the official custodian of patient records from recipient mares under Frances Ramirez. My title is Owner/President Equitransfer LLC. My employer's address is: PO Box 770, Summerfield FL 34492 (352)307-0944. I hereby verify that the I have searched the patient records maintained at Equitransfer, LLC and have determined that the attached records consisting of 1203 pages are true and correct copies of the patient records as requested pursuant to subpoena No. (left blank). The Verification of Completeness does not indicate that the records are for horses #645, #331 or T14, and does not state that the records were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth, or from information kept in the course of regularly conducted activity. The Verification of Completeness form also does not state that the records were made as a regular practice in regularly conducted activity. The Verification of Completeness indicates that there are 1203 pages of records. The records submitted at hearing consist of approximately 955 pages. Moreover, the documents have Bates stamps on the bottom right hand corner, but no one could state who put the Bates-stamped numbers on the documents or why the documents were not in Bate-stamp order. Finally, while Erin Cameron testified that she was present when the records were received, she could not testify that the records presented at hearing consisted of all of the records provided by Dr. Davila. Dr. Davila stipulated that the documents in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 did not contain the items enumerated as required medical records in the Administrative Complaint. In other words, the documents did not constitute medical records under chapter 474.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Veterinary Medicine enter a final order dismissing the charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 16th day of June, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Dong Hack Koo, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0027494. Koo was so licensed at all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint. At all times material to this cause, Koo maintained an office at 121 East 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. On July 10, 1985, Diane Rabideau, an Investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected Koo's offices and found them to be unclean, with evidence of roach eggs present under a sink. Rabideau also found a rectal speculum and two vaginal speculums lying on a sink. Koo told Rabideau that the rectal speculum and the two vaginal speculums had been used. No evidence was presented to indicate how long the speculums had been on the sink. If such instruments are not cleaned quickly and properly following use, there is a high chance of spreading infection to the next patient to use the instrument. Such instruments should be placed in a cleansing solution and scrubbed, then wrapped and sterilized. It is the community practice to clean such instruments as soon as possible after use. According to Dr. Rosin, any physician who performs abortions in an unclean office with instruments lying around that have not been properly cleaned, has practiced below the community standard of care. However, no evidence was presented to show that Koo performed abortions under such circumstances. Koo does perform first trimester abortions in his office. It was not disputed that abortions are a medical and surgical procedure which can be dangerous. Emergency situations can arise during abortions and these emergencies require the presence of emergency equipment such as suction and the ability to start an intravenous medication. Koo does maintain suction equipment and intravenous solutions in his office. However, when possible he immediately transfers emergency patients to another facility. Koo does perform abortions in his office without the presence of an assistant to aid in emergency situations. According to Dr. Rosin, the standard of care in the community requires that an assistant be present during an abortion to assist the physician should an emergency situation arise. Additionally, according to Dr. Rosin, a physician who performs abortions without emergency equipment or without an assistant has failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. When Rabideau visited Koo's office on July 10, 1985, she obtained a sampling of drugs kept by Koo for dispensing to patients. The sampling revealed that a majority of the drugs had expired. However, no evidence was presented that this is a violation of Florida Statutes. Rabideau also found that Koo maintained a number of Schedule III, IV, and V, controlled substances in his office which he dispensed to patients. In dispensing these controlled substances, Koo used the instructions for use which are printed on the packaging. He also, at times, taped a small piece of paper to the packaging with his telephone number and the name of the patient. Koo did not completely label these controlled substances, which he dispensed, with his name and address, the date of delivery, directions for use, the name of the patient, and a warning concerning the transfer of the substance. Koo maintains no inventory of the scheduled controlled substances which are kept in his offices and dispensed to his patients. On August 6, 1985, Diane Rabideau again visited Koo's office. While Rabideau waited, a female patient by the name of Mary Green was seen by Koo and left with a prescription. Rabideau then asked Respondent to present the medical records on the patient, Mary Green. Koo was unable to present any medical records for the patient which he had just seen and to whom he had just dispensed medication. Koo's office procedure regarding patient medical records is to record histories and examination results on the patient medical records during the patient's visit. These medical records are kept in individual folders under the name of each patient. When a patient presents for treatment, the medical records for that patient are pulled and given to the doctor. After each visit, the patient's medical records are refiled. On or about March 16, 1986, pursuant to a subpoena from the Department of Professional Regulation, Koo provided the original medical records on ten (10) abortion patients. These original medical records were examined by John F. McCarthy, a questioned documents expert for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. McCarthy's examination by electrostatic detection apparatus revealed that numerous indentations on the records superimposed with information from other records. For example, Exhibit 6 contained indentations from the writing on the face of Exhibit 10. Further, McCarthy found indentations on Exhibit 6 resulting from the writing on Exhibit 8. Thus, Exhibit 8 was on top of Exhibit 6 when it was prepared. Exhibit 8, however, is dated July 24, 1985, and Exhibit 6 is dated May 29, 1985. McCarthy's expert opinion is that at the time the various documents were prepared, they were on top of each other. It is therefore found that Exhibits 1-10, the original medical records on the ten named abortion patients, were not prepared at the time Koo saw the patients, but were instead all prepared at the same time, in response to the subpoena. It therefore must be found that the records were fabricated by Koo in response to the Department's subpoena. Prior to performing an abortion, a physician needs to verify whether the patient has Rh positive or negative blood type. The physician cannot rely on patients' representations that the Rh factor is positive or negative, but most obtain independent verification. This is because patients know that if they have Rh negative blood, they must receive a shot which is expensive. Koo relied on the patients' statements in ascertaining the Rh factor and did not obtain independent verification. In Dr. Rosin's expert opinion, the failure of a physician to obtain independent verification of the Rh factor poses a potential for harm to the patient and such failure is a failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized in the medical community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding Dong Hack Koo, M.D., GUILTY of violating Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therein SUSPEND his license to practice medicine for a period of six (6) months during which he be required to successfully complete continuing education courses in maintaining, controlling, dispensing, labeling, and inventorying controlled substance, and in maintaining adequate patient records to justify the course of treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1066 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (1) ; 2 (2); 3 (3); 4 (4); 5 (4); 6 (4); 7 (4); 8 (5); 9 (6); 10 (6); 11 (9); 12 (7); 13 (8); 14 (9); 15 (10); 16 (11); 17 (11); 18 (12); 19 (13); 20 (13); 21 (15); 22 (14); 23 (14); 24 (16); 25 (16); 26 (16); 27 (16); 28 (17); 29 (18); and 30 (19) That portion of proposed finding of fact 12 which concludes that Respondent does not maintain emergency equipment in his office is rejected as unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dong Hack Koo, M.D. 121 East 8th Street, Suite 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive DIRECTOR Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Albert Sneij is a licensed medical physician, having been issued license number ME 0034499. The current office address of the Respondent is 125 Fifth Street, Miami Beach, Florida. Dr. John V. Handwerker, a licensed physician was the Petitioner's sole witness. Dr. Handwerker, who has served as an Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Miami, was requested by the Department to examine the patient records obtained from the Respondent during the course of a Department investigation, evaluate whether the prescriptions contained in the patient records were appropriate or excessive and whether such prescriptions were adequately documented in the patients' clinical records. Dr. Handwerker evaluated the Department's investigative file and the Respondent's clinical records, involving eight patients: Charles Thomas Whitecup, John Marsden, Carole Rosen, Thomas T. Bellamy, John Barbosa, Rex Bridwell, Thomas Sestito and Margaret Lee Baker. Dr. Handwerker's testimony was based solely on his review of the records since none of the patients involved in this case were seen or examined by him. Charles Whitecup's records revealed that he suffered an injury four years prior to his being prescribed Dilaudid by the Respondent. The injury was a gunshot wound to his left leg on which an exploratory laparotomy was subsequently performed. At that time it was discovered that the gunshot had torn the femoral artery and inflicted substantial nerve plexus damage. Upon examination of Whitecup, the Respondent noted weakness and atrophy in the left extremity and numbness in the anterior portion of his leg. Additionally, Whitecup suffered from bursitis in the knee with pain in the knee and patellar ligament. The Respondent diagnosed chronic left leg pain due to femoral nerve plexus damage and asked Whitecup to bring his medical records to his next appointment which as scheduled in ten days. Based on this diagnosis, the Respondent prescribed 30 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams. Thereafter, Whitecup lost his original prescription and a replacement prescription was issued on April 7, 1982. This was the only prescription which was filled and the only prescription recorded in the Respondent's clinical records for this patient. The records of this patient, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(a) and the Respondent's examination justify and document prescribing the Dilaudid for this patient. Additionally, Whitecup specifically requested that the Respondent prescribe Dilaudid since this was the only medication which relieved his chronic pain. John Marsden was issued a single prescription by the Respondent for Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, on March 8, 1982. Although no clinical records exist to justify this prescription, the Respondent remembered Marsden as suffering from a long-standing chronic pain problem. During the time that the Marsden prescription was written, the Respondent was in the process of moving his office and the clinical records for this patient were probably lost during the move. The Respondent wrote two prescriptions for 20 and 25 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, to Carol Rosen on February 9, 1982 and March 8, 1982, respectively. Both prescriptions were written when the Respondent was located in his old office and like Marsden, were probably among the records lost in the course of moving offices. The Respondent has no recollection of this particular patient. 2/ In response to the missing Marsden and Rosen records, the Respondent has instituted a new record keeping system and detailed records for all patients are now kept. The Respondent wrote six prescriptions for Thomas Bellamy between March and May of 1982, for 171 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams. Bellamy suffered from back and neck spasms for nine years prior to his initial examination by the Respondent. He was Bellamy had ever obtained for pain was when he was prescribed Dilaudid. During a follow-up examination, the Respondent noted that Bellamy's activities were limited and that his pain was primarily centered in the lower back in the area of L-5, S-1, with occasional radiation to the left leg. The Respondent wanted to take an x-ray but did not because Bellamy was unwilling to incur the cost. Although six prescriptions were written by the Respondent based on only two examinations of the patient, the clinical records for Bellamy, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(d), and the Respondent's examinations of the patient justify and document the prescribing of Dilaudid for this patient. The Respondent examined John Barbosa on May 5,1982, and diagnosed an injured disc between L4-5 during the week prior to the exam. This patient demonstrated spinal spasms during the exam with limited mobility. A single prescription of 36 tablets of Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, was written for the patient. This proscription was justified and documented by the clinical records, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(e) and the examination performed by the Respondent on the patient. In January, 1982, the Respondent first examined Rex Bridwell, a double knee amputee. Bridwell consulted the Respondent due to a vascular disease which caused grangrene and resulted in the amputations. Bridwell's legs had not healed and ulcerous lesions were visual at the amputation sites. Bridwell, who had been unsuccessfully treated for the previous six years, was understandably in a great deal of distress and pain as a result of his condition. The Respondent prescribed painkillers, antibiotics, vitamins and discussed with Bridwell alternative therapy including, prayer, hypnosis and meditation. Bridwell was subsequently examined by the Respondent on February 2, 1982 and March 4, 1982. The Respondent prescribed Tuinal on March 3, 1982, 30 tablets, 3 grams; and Dilaudid on March 23, 1982, 40 tablets, 4 milligrams and April 8, 1982, 24 tablets, 4 milligrams, for Bridwell. These drugs were prescribed for Bridwell's severe pain. Bridwell's clinical record, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(f), and the examinations performed by the Respondent demonstrate that these prescriptions were justified and documented. 3/ On January 26, 1982, the Respondent examined Thomas Sestito, a carpenter, who came to the Respondent complaining of severe back aches which resulted from his falling off a roof in 1979 and subsequently reinjuring his back. X-rays from Baptist Hospital confirmed that Sestito suffered a facture at L2. Sestito's pain was at L4 and LB and radiated into his right thigh. The Respondent diagnosed sciatica and prescribed a total of 70 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, on January 27, 1982, March 7, 1982 and March 11, 1982 and 30 Tuinal, 200 milligrams, on February 10, 1982. 4/ The prescribing of Dilaudid in this case was justified and is documented by the patient's clinical record, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(g) and the Respondent's examination on January 26, 1982. Finally, the Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with unlawfully prescribing Dilaudid on April 8, 9 and 14, 1982 to Lee Baker. The clinical record, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(h), indicates that two of these prescriptions were written to "Margaret Baker" and only the April 9, 1982, prescription was written to "Lee Baker." Although Margaret Baker's middle name is "Lee", insufficient testimony was introduced to establish that all three prescriptions were written for the same person. Additionally, the Petitioner did not attempt to amend the Administrative Complaint prior to hearing to conform the allegations contained in the Complaint to the evidence which was to be introduced at final hearing. Accordingly, only the prescription written on April 9, 1982, to Lee Baker is relevant to the allegations contained in Counts 29-32 of the Administrative Complaint. Due to the lack of certainty that "Margaret Lee Baker" and "Lee Baker" are the same person, it follows that the clinical record introduced at final hearing, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(h), might contain two sets of records or one set of incomplete records. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to prove through the introduction of the clinical record of Margaret Lee Baker, that the Respondent unjustifiably prescribed controlled drugs or kept inadequate records concerning Lee Baker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner Board of Medical Examiners enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Sneij guilty of violating Counts 8 and 12 of the Administrative Complaint, not guilty of violating the remaining counts, and placing him on probation for three months subject to the condition that the Respondent demonstrate to the Board of Medical Examiners the adequacy of his present medical record keeping system prior to the end of this period. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner is entitled to repayment for alleged Medicaid overpayments to Respondent; and, if so, the amount of the overpayment to be repaid; (2) the amount of any fine to be imposed against Respondent; and (3) the amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program in the state of Florida, including overseeing the integrity of that program. § 409.913, Fla. Stat.1/ Respondent is a board-certified family practice physician. During the Audit Period,2/ Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider authorized to receive reimbursement for covered medical services rendered to Medicaid recipients.3/ Respondent provides medical services in a rural area to an underserved population. A substantial proportion of his patients are poor and are Medicaid recipients. The Audit As part of Petitioner's duties in overseeing the integrity of the Medicaid program, it investigates and audits Medicaid providers for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. In what is commonly referred to as the "pay-and-chase system," Medicaid providers bill Petitioner for medical services rendered to Medicaid recipients and Petitioner pays these bills, which are referred to as "claims." Thereafter, Petitioner audits those claims. The audit is conducted to determine whether the medical services rendered were appropriate for the condition being treated, whether the amounts billed for services are correct based on documentation provided, and whether Medicaid covers the services provided. If Petitioner determines that the provider was paid for services that did not comply with the Medicaid program requirements, it seeks reimbursement from the provider of the payments made for noncompliant claims. Here, Petitioner audited Respondent's medical records to verify that claims paid by Medicaid during the period from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014 (the "Audit Period"), qualified for payment under the Medicaid program. During the Audit Period, Respondent submitted a total of 7,093 claims for billable services rendered to a total population of 854 Medicaid recipients, for which Medicaid paid a total of $448,314.06. Rather than examine the medical service provision records of all 854 recipients Respondent served during the Audit Period, using a computer program, Petitioner randomly selected a sample comprised of 35 recipients from the total population of recipients. Respondent submitted 245 claims for the 35 recipients in the sample population. Once these 35 recipients were identified, Petitioner requested that Respondent provide the Medicaid services records for the claims submitted for these recipients. Upon receiving the Medicaid services records from Respondent, Petitioner, through its nurse consultant, Karen Reynolds, and its peer reviewer, Dr. Lisa Jernigan,4/ reviewed the claims for these 35 recipients. Reynolds' review of Respondent's records consisted of identifying the claims for which Respondent provided insufficient or no documentation, as required by the 2008 and 2012 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbooks ("Handbooks"), to support the claims. When she determined that insufficient documentation had been submitted to support a claim, Reynolds made notations on a worksheet created for that particular recipient, regarding the insufficiency of the documentation. Reynolds made her notations on the worksheets in light red ink. After Reynolds completed her review, the records were transmitted to Dr. Jernigan for a substantive review of each claim to determine whether the documentation submitted in support of a claim complied with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks for payment of the claim. Based on her substantive review, Dr. Jernigan determined, for each claim, whether the claim should be approved, adjusted, or denied.5/ Dr. Jernigan's notations regarding approval, denial, or modification of payment for each claim, as well as the basis of her determination for each claim, were made on the worksheets in green ink and in darker red ink. After Dr. Jernigan completed her review of the claims, Reynolds went back through the worksheets and made additional notations, such as "NMN" for "not medically necessary," summarizing Dr. Jernigan's substantive review, in light green ink. For each claim that Dr. Jernigan determined should be adjusted or denied, Reynolds wrote the disallowed amount in the "dis-amt" space on the worksheet for that claim.6/ Based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, the undersigned determines that the audit was properly conducted. Dr. Jernigan engaged in the peer review of Respondent's records, and Reynolds merely served as an assistant whose role was confined to the ministerial tasks of determining whether Respondent had submitted the documentation requested by Petitioner for purposes of determining compliance with the Handbooks, and, after Dr. Jernigan completed her substantive peer review of each claim, summarizing Jernigan's determinations, as appropriate, and calculating the disallowed amounts for claims that Dr. Jernigan had determined should be adjusted or denied.7/ On the basis of this review process, Petitioner determined that Respondent had been overpaid in the amount of $4,867.97 ($19.86832653 per claim) for the 245 claims in the 35- recipient sample population. Using the statistical formula for cluster sampling,8/ which extrapolates the overpayment determined from the sample population across the total population of 7,093 claims, Petitioner determined that Respondent had been overpaid the total amount of $104,951.05. Petitioner informed Respondent of this preliminary overpayment determination through its Preliminary Audit Report ("PAR")9/ issued on November 10, 2015, and gave him the option of submitting further documentation in support of the claims that had been preliminarily identified as ineligible for payment by the Medicaid program.10/ In response to the PAR, Respondent provided additional documentation, which was reviewed by Dr. Jernigan. Based on the review of the additional records Respondent provided, Petitioner issued a FAR, dated August 8, 2016. The FAR determined that Respondent had been paid an overpayment of $4,637.45 ($18.92836735 per claim) for the 245 claims in the 35-recipient sample population. As with the PAR, Petitioner employed the statistical formula for cluster sampling to determine the alleged probable overpayment for the total population of 7,903 claims paid during the Audit Period. This analysis yielded a probable overpayment of $97,121.42, with a 95-percent probability that the actual overpayment is equal to or greater than that amount. Petitioner also sought to impose a fine of $19,424.28 as a sanction for violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G- 9.070(7)(e), and to require Respondent to pay $1,708.08 in investigative, legal, and expert witness costs, as authorized by section 409.913(23), Florida Statutes. Subsequent to issuance of the FAR, Petitioner and Respondent conducted a peer-provider meeting. As a result of that meeting, as well as subsequent discussions between the parties, Respondent was afforded several opportunities to submit additional documentation to support his claims. As a result of the documentation Respondent provided, Petitioner has further reduced the alleged overpayment amount to $72,084.43, which is now the amount at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner also seeks to impose a fine consisting of 20 percent of this overpayment amount, or $14,416.89. Additionally, if Petitioner prevails in this proceeding, it seeks to recover its investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. Grounds Stated in FAR for Denial or Reduction of Claims The FAR states four grounds, or "Findings," for Petitioner's determination that Respondent was overpaid by Medicaid for certain medical services he provided, based on cited provisions in the 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook ("2008 Handbook"), 2012 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook ("2012 Handbook"), 2010 Physician Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook ("2010 Handbook"), 2012 Practitioner Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, and 2014 Practitioner Services and Limitations Handbook ("2014 Handbook").11/ The FAR does not allege that Respondent committed any Medicaid fraud or abuse in this proceeding. Finding No. 1 Finding No. 1 in the FAR alleges that Respondent provided incomplete records, as defined in the 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, for some claims for which he billed and was paid, such that any payments for which incomplete records were submitted constitutes an overpayment that Petitioner is entitled to recover. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Provider Responsibility" section, states, in pertinent part: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: Have actually been furnished to the recipient by the provider prior to submitting the claim; * * * Are provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state and local law; and Are documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided, demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient’s medical record. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Requirements for Medical Records" section, states in pertinent part: Medical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided. The following requirements may vary according to the service rendered: Description of what was done during the visit; History; Physical assessment; Chief complaint on each visit; Diagnostic tests and results; Diagnosis; Treatment plan, including prescriptions; Medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; Progress reports, treatment rendered; The author of each (medical record) entry must be identified and must authenticate his entry by signature, written initials or computer entry; Dates of service; and Referrals to other services. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Record Keeping Requirement" section, states: Medicaid requires that the provider retain all business records as defined in 59G- 1.010(30) F.A.C., medical-related records as defined in 59G-1.010 (154) F.A.C., and medical records as defined in 59G-1.010 (160) F.A.C. on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Records can be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media including electronic storage, except as otherwise required by law or Medicaid requirements. In order to qualify as a basis for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamped signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensible. The 2008 Handbook, "Incomplete Records" section, states that "providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped." The 2012 Handbook, "Incomplete or Missing Records" section, similarly states: "Incomplete records are records that lack documentation that all requirements or conditions for service provision have been met. Medicaid shall recover payment for services or goods when the provider has incomplete records or does not provide the records." The following claims, which are in dispute in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 1: Recipient 2, claim nos. 2 and 21; Recipient 6, claim nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; Recipient 8, claim no. 6; Recipient 9, claim no. 4; Recipient 10, claim no. 10; Recipient 13, claim no. 3; Recipient 16, claim nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 54, and 57; Recipient 18, claim nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5; Recipient 24, claim no. 1; Recipient 33, claim no. 9; Recipient 34, claim nos. 4 and 7; Recipient 35, claim nos. 5 and 6.12/ A total of 47 claims are in dispute on the ground stated in Finding No. 1. Finding No. 2 Finding No. 2 in the FAR alleges that the medical necessity of some services for which Respondent billed and was paid were not supported by the documentation he provided. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, in the section titled "Provider Responsibility," state in pertinent part: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * Are Medicaid-covered goods or services that are medically necessary[.] Additionally, as noted above, the 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Provider Responsibility" section, state, in pertinent part: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * Are documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided, demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient’s medical record. The following claims, which are disputed in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 2: Recipient 2, claim nos. 11, 13, 19, and 21; Recipient 16, claim nos. 15, 17, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, and 47; Recipient 24, claim no. 1; Recipient 34, claim nos. 4 and 7; and Recipient 35, claim no. 4. A total of 20 claims are disputed on the ground stated in Finding No. 2.13/ Finding No. 3 Finding No. 3 in the FAR states that some services that Respondent provided to established patients were billed and paid as having been rendered to new patients. The 2010, 2012, and 2014 Handbooks, "Established Patient Visit" section, defines an "established patient" as "one who has received professional services from a physician or another practitioner of the same specialty who belongs to the same provider group, within the past three years." These Handbooks define a "new patient" as "one who has not received any professional services from a physician or another practitioner of the same specialty who belongs to the same provider group, within the past three years." The following claims, which are disputed in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 3: Recipient 21, claim no. 1; Recipient 23, claim no. 1. A total of two claims are disputed on the ground stated in Finding No. 3. Finding No. 4 Finding No. 4 in the FAR states that the level of service for some claims for which Respondent billed and was paid was not supported by the documentation submitted to support the claim. The 2010 Handbook, "Medically Necessary" section, states in pertinent part: Medicaid reimburses for services that are determined medically necessary and do not duplicate another provider’s service. In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: * * * Be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient’s needs; * * * Reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide[.] The 2012 and 2014 Handbooks, "Medical Necessity" section, state in pertinent part: Medicaid reimburses services that are determined medically necessary and do not duplicate another provider’s service. Rule 59G-1.010 (166), F.A.C. defines "medically necessary" or "medical necessity" as follows: The medical or allied care, goods, or services furnished or ordered must: (a) Meet the following conditions: * * * 2. Be individualized, specific, and consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the patient’s needs. * * * 4. Reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide. The following claims, which are disputed in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 4: Recipient 8, claim no. 4; Recipient 9, claim no. 2; Recipient 10, claim no. 3; Recipient 13, claim no. 1; Recipient 16, claim nos. 29, and 52; Recipient 17, claim no. 1; Recipient 21, claim no. 2; Recipient 22, claim no. 2; Recipient 30, claim no. 3; Recipient 32, claim no. 2; Recipient 35, claim no. 1. A total of 12 claims are disputed on the ground stated in Finding No. 4. In sum, a total of 69 claims are disputed on the grounds set forth in Finding Nos. 1 through 4. Medical Record-Keeping Purpose and Requirements Medical records should consist of a simple, complete, organized record that documents the patient's medical condition, needs, and the medical services rendered, so that the physician preparing the record, as well as any other physician——whether or not familiar with the patient or the record-keeping system, including an electronic health record ("EHR" system) used——is able to follow the patient's course of health and treatment. Additionally, medical records must be sufficiently complete and clear for purposes of billing, and in the case of Medicaid, for payment. For claims for services provided to Medicaid recipients to be payable under the Medicaid program, the medical records must meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent Medicaid Handbooks. As discussed above, among these requirements are that the records be true and accurate; demonstrate the medical necessity of, and level of service for, the services provided; contain certain specified components, such as a description of what was done during the visit, the patient's medical history, physical assessment of the patient, the patient's chief complaint on a particular visit, diagnosis, and treatment plan; and be comprehensible, individualized, specific, and consistent with the symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury treated. Dr. Jernigan opined, persuasively, that in the medical context, the term "comprehensible" means that the medical records are sufficiently intelligible and understandable such that another physician or other medically-trained individual could read the record and have a solid picture of the patient's medical history and general condition, as well as the treating physician's specific physical findings and reasons why a particular treatment or service was provided to the patient. Dr. Jernigan testified, credibly and persuasively, that when a medical record contains conflicting or inconsistent information, it is incomprehensible. If the medical record is incomprehensible, it cannot be determined to support the billed service, in which case, the claim for that service must be adjusted or denied. The Intergy EHR System During the Audit Period, Respondent used the "Intergy" EHR system to prepare and keep his medical records for his patients, including the Medicaid recipients he treated and whose claims he billed under the Medicaid program. Dr. Jernigan does not use the Intergy EHR system in her own practice. However, the components of the Intergy EHR system are the same or similar to the components of other commonly-used EHR systems with which she is familiar.14/ Dr. Jernigan explained the purpose of each component of the Intergy EHR template used to compile the medical records for a patient. The purpose of the first component of the Intergy template, "Reason for Visit," is to document the reason why the patient is seeking medical services. The second component, "History of Present Illness," serves to provide a chronological description of the issues surrounding the patient's chief complaint and the reason for the visit. In essence, this portion of the medical record documents the commencement of the patient's medical complaint; the length of time the patient has experienced that condition; its progression; effective and ineffective treatments; the specific location of the condition on or in the patient's body, including whether it is on the left or right side of the body, or both; and other information regarding the temporal and physical aspects of the patient's medical condition. The purpose of the "Past Medical/Surgical History" component is to document the patient's past medical or surgical history relative to the patient's current condition at the time of the particular visit. The purpose of the "Social History" component is to document the patient's social history or habits as related to the patient's medical condition presented at the visit.15/ The "Family History" component is to enable the provider to document any family history that may be relevant to diagnosing and treating the patient's condition.16/ The purpose of the "Review of Systems" component is to document the patient's medical condition at the time of the visit. This component includes a review of body systems involved in the patient's complaint, to determine and document whether there may be other health issues that could present with the same symptoms. This component enables the provider to document relevant information regarding the involvement of other body systems that may affect the diagnosis or treatment for the primary complaint or reason for a particular visit. The "Physical Findings" component is the portion of the medical record in which the provider documents the information regarding his or her findings resulting from a physical examination of the patient. The "Assessment" component is where the provider documents his or her conclusion, or diagnosis, as to the nature, identity, or cause of the patient's condition. The "Therapy" component enables the provider to describe and document the chosen course of treatment for the patient. The "Counseling/Education" component enables the provider to describe and document the matters discussed with the patient, such as the nature of the patient's medical condition and prognosis, the provider's chosen course of treatment or therapy, recommendations regarding the patient's actions to assist in treating the condition, and instructions provided to the patient. The "Plan" component describes the course of treatment for the medical condition and the reasons for choosing this course of treatment. The "Practice Management" component is included to implement certain meaningful use regulatory requirements. The Intergy EHR system has time-saving features, such as a "carry-forward" feature, which allows patient information from previous visits to be "carried forward," or copied and pasted, into the records for subsequent visits. Dr. Jernigan opined, credibly, that although the "carry-forward" feature is convenient, improper use or overuse of this feature can result in the records for a patient's subsequent visits containing all of the information from previous visits, rather than only the information pertinent to the particular subsequent visit. This may render the medical records outdated and inaccurate with respect to the patient's medical condition in subsequent visits. Additionally, carrying forward information from previous visits can render the records for subsequent visits incomprehensible, in that the patient's reason for that particular visit, the symptoms exhibited at that visit, and the specific treatment provided in that visit cannot be determined from the mass of comprehensive information that was carried forward from previous visits and included in the record for that particular visit. Here, the competent, credible evidence shows that Respondent was not trained in, and experienced difficulty in using, the Intergy EHR system. The competent, credible evidence shows that Respondent frequently used Intergy's "carry-forward" feature in preparing his medical records, and this was the likely cause for many of the records for his Medicaid patients including extensive carried-forward information from visit to visit——to the point that in numerous cases, it was difficult to identify which, if any, additional medical conditions, physical findings, treatments, or other services were provided to patients in their subsequent visits. The competent, credible evidence also shows that the Intergy EHR system has numerous flaws that render it difficult to use and not optimally functional in producing electronic medical records that are sufficiently accurate or comprehensible to be used for Medicaid billing purposes. As a result of the Intergy EHR system's flaws, as well as Respondent's apparent overuse of the system's "carry-forward" feature, his medical records were, in many cases, redundant, outdated, contradictory, and inaccurate with regard to documenting a patient's medical condition, physical findings, treatment, basis for services provided, and other key information for a particular visit. This rendered those records untrue, inaccurate, and incomprehensible, and, therefore, not in compliance with the Handbooks' requirements regarding documentation of services sufficient to support billed claims. Overpayment Determinations Rather than presenting evidence on each of the 69 total claims denied or adjusted on the grounds stated in Finding Nos. 1 through 4, the parties presented testimony and related evidence on selected representative claims for each Finding. The parties stipulated, with respect to Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 4, that Dr. Jernigan's analysis of Respondent's medical records, and her opinions regarding whether those records complied with the pertinent standards in the Medicaid Handbooks for payment purposes, applied to all claims for which the grounds in a particular Finding were cited as the basis for denial or modification of payment of that claim. It is important to note that Petitioner did not stipulate to the correctness of Dr. Jernigan's analyses and opinions——only that her analyses and opinions applied to all of the disputed claims denied on the grounds set forth in Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in the FAR. Due to the small number of claims (two) that were denied or adjusted on the grounds cited in Finding No. 3, the parties presented testimony on each of those claims. Finding No. 1 – Insufficient Documentation to Support Claim For Finding No. 1, Dr. Jernigan testified, and Petitioner presented related evidence on, the following representative claims: Recipient 6, claim nos. 1 through 4; Recipient 8, claim no. 6; Recipient 16, claim nos. 3, 6, 15, 18, and 21. Recipient 6 Claim No. 1 Based on Dr. Jernigan's review, Petitioner denied Recipient 6, claim no. 1, for services provided by Respondent on February 29, 2012, on the basis of insufficient documentation to support the claim. The Reason for Visit noted that the patient was visiting due to "increased pains," but the documentation did not describe the location or nature of the pain, so was incomplete. The History of Present Illness component for this claim consisted of a bullet-point list of complaints, rather than a discussion of the development of those complaints over time. Additionally, this component contained incomplete and contradictory information. Specifically, this component contained a notation stating that the patient was suffering from hand pain and a range of other joint pain, without specifying which hand and joints (i.e., on the right side, left side, or both sides of the body) were painful. Additionally, the notation stated "no musculoskeletal symptoms," which conflicts with the notations regarding the existence of hand and other joint pain. The Review of Systems component for this claim also contained conflicting or contradictory notations. For example, there were conflicting descriptions of the patient's state of malaise, and conflicting notations documenting both the presence and the absence of night sweats. The Physical Findings component for this claim also contained contradictions and insufficient information. For example, the notations state both "wheezing was heard" and "no wheezing was heard"; that vomiting was observed and that the patient is to call the provider if vomiting develops; and that muscle spasms and tenderness in the back, as well as numerous trigger points, were observed, but that there was an overall finding of "normal" for the musculoskeletal system. Further, the notes did not identify whether these findings applied to the left or right side of the body, or both. The Assessment component consisted of a wide-ranging list of conditions, likely due to the carry-forward of all or much of the information from previous visits. Many of the conditions listed in this component were not supported by the information recorded in the History of Present Illness, Review of Systems, or Physical Findings components. For example, the assessment states that the patient suffers from hyperlipidemia, testicular dysfunction, viral syndrome, and upper respiratory infection, none of which are sufficiently supported by the information documented in any other component in the patient's medical history. The Therapy component states that Respondent provided pain management counseling and pain management by medication; however, the medication prescribed for the patient was not identified or documented in the medical record. The Counseling/Education component lists numerous matters on which counseling ostensibly was provided, including use of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs, none of which were supported by any findings or notations in the patient's medical record. The Plan component for this claim diagnoses the patient as suffering from impotence of organic origin and suggests referring the patient to a urologist. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified that this diagnosis is not supported by the information documented in the other components of the patient's medical record, thus highlighting the point that if this diagnosis is accurate, the medical records for this claim are incomplete because they do not sufficiently document the basis for this diagnosis and course of treatment. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 1 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, thus, were incomplete and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that as a result of these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 1 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that claim no. 1 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Claim No. 2 Claim no. 2 is a follow-up visit for the same patient that took place on August 3, 2012. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified, and a review of the medical record for that visit confirms, that the documentation for this claim suffers from most of the same deficiencies as did the documentation for claim no. 1. Specifically, the Reason for Visit was incomplete because it failed to document and describe the location or nature of the "increased pains." The History of Present Illness component consisted of the carried-forward information recorded in that EHR component for the previous visit, and, as such, suffered from the same deficiencies. Specifically, it did not provide a chronological history of the presentation of the medical condition or its progression or treatment, but instead contained the same series of descriptive bullet points. Further, as previously discussed, several of the conditions described in these bullet points were contradictory. The Review of Systems component also appeared to carry-forward the same information contained in the same component from the previous visit, so suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, this component is inaccurate because it did not accurately reflect the patient's current medical condition at the time of the follow-up visit. The Physical Findings component also contained mostly carried-forward information from the same component in the record of this patient's previous visit, so contained the same inconsistencies and contradictions as the records submitted in support of claim no. 1. The Assessment component also appeared to be a carry- forward of all or much of the information from the previous visit, so it also suffered from the same deficiencies as the Assessment for claim no. 1. As discussed in detail above, many conditions listed in this component were not supported by the information documented in the other components of the medical record. In the Plan component for this claim, the urological diagnosis was deleted; however, the Plan did not specifically address or prescribe any treatments specific to the medical conditions identified in other components of the medical record for this visit. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 2 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, thus, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that as a result of these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 2 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that claim no. 2 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Claim No. 3 Claim no. 3 is a follow-up visit for Recipient 6 that took place on August 15, 2012. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified, and a review of the medical record for that visit confirms, that the documentation for this claim suffers from several of the same deficiencies as did the documentation for claim nos. 1 and 2. The Reason for Visit component for this claim was incomplete because although it referenced that one of the reasons for the visit was a "medication refill," the medical record for this visit did not contain any documentation regarding the medication prescription being refilled. Additionally, as before, this component did not document and describe the location or nature of the "increased pains" also listed as a reason for the visit. As before, the History of Present Illness component consisted of carried-forward information, so continued to suffer from some of the previously discussed deficiencies. This component did not provide a chronological history of the presentation of the medical condition or its progression or treatment, but instead consisted of a series of descriptive bullet points, some of which contained contradictory information. The Review of Symptoms component also appeared to consist mostly of carried-forward information that contained the same contradictory information as with the previous claims. In addition, new contradictory provisions documented the presence of "no sore throat" and "[s]ore throat," "no cough" and "cough causing vomiting," and "[a]nxiety" and "[n]o anxiety." The Physical Findings component also contained carried-forward information from the same component in the record of this patient's previous visit, so some of the previous contradictions in the notations, such as "wheezing was heard" and "no wheezing was heard," continued to be included. Additionally, the record still did not identify the specific location——i.e., left or right side of the body——of the musculoskeletal and neurological conditions noted, so was incomplete. The Assessment component also appeared to be a carry- forward of all or much of the information from the previous visit, so suffered from the same deficiencies as the Assessment for claim nos. 1 and 2. As discussed above, many conditions listed in this component were not supported by the information documented in the other components of the medical record. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 3 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, thus, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 3 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that claim no. 3 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Claim No. 4 Claim no. 4 is a follow-up visit for Recipient 6 that took place on November 21, 2012. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified, and a review of the medical record for that visit confirmed, that the documentation for this claim suffered from several of the same deficiencies as claim nos. 1, 2, and 3. The Reason for Visit component for this claim was incomplete because although it referenced that one of the reasons for the visit was a "medication refill," the medical record for this visit did not contain any documentation regarding the medication prescription being refilled. This component also failed to describe the location or nature of the "increased pains" that are listed as a reason for the visit. As before, the History of Present Illness component consisted of the carried-forward information, so continued to suffer from some of the previously discussed deficiencies. As before, this component did not provide a chronological history of the presentation of the medical condition or its progression or treatment, but instead consisted of a series of descriptive bullet points. New information regarding the patient's self- monitoring of blood glucose was added, but the blood glucose levels observed at various times of the day were not listed, rendering this notation incomplete. Additionally, this component continued to be incomplete due to lack of information regarding precise location of musculoskeletal and neurologic conditions. The Current Medication component, added into the medical records for this patient on this follow-up visit, was incomplete because it did not list the medications the patient is taking. The Review of Symptoms component also appeared to consist mostly of carried-forward information that contained the same contradictory information as with the previous claims. In addition, new contradictory provisions documented the presence of "no sore throat" and "[s]ore throat," "no cough" and "cough causing vomiting," and "[a]nxiety" and "[n]o anxiety." The Past Medical/Surgical History component stated "Pediatric: Failure to thrive." Because this patient is a 73-year-old adult rather than a pediatric patient, this information is inaccurate. As before, the Review of Symptoms component contained carried-forward information from this patient's previous visits, so perpetuated contradictions previously noted, such as "night sweats" and "no night sweats," and "no wheezing" and "wheezing worse during upper respiratory infection." The Physical Findings component still did not identify the specific location—i.e., left or right side of the body——of the musculoskeletal and neurological conditions noted. Additionally, necessary information, such as vital signs and lab testing results, was not documented. The Assessment component again appeared to be a carry- forward of all or much of the information from the previous visit, so suffered from the same deficiencies as the Assessment for claim nos. 1, 2, and 3. As previously discussed, many conditions listed in this component, such as "adult failure to thrive," "vascular dementia," and "chronic fatigue syndrome," were not supported by the information documented in the other components of the medical records. The Therapy Component noted that the patient's pain was being managed by medication, but there was no notation regarding the type of medication prescribed. Additionally, the patient was directed to perform a "self-examination" with no detail regarding what part of the body was to be examined, and the "addiction counseling" notation was unsupported by any other mention of addiction in the medical record. The Counseling/Education component continued to contain extensive carried-forward information, and also contained an extensive list of newly-added counseling notations that were not supported by other components of the medical record. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 4 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 4 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 4 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Recipient 8 Claim No. 6 Based on Dr. Jernigan's review, Petitioner denied Recipient 8, claim no. 6, for services provided by Respondent on February 29, 2012, on the basis of insufficient documentation. Dr. Jernigan noted that much of the medical record for this visit appeared to be an exact carry-forward from the previous visit, so did not specifically address or reflect the patient's current condition at the time of her follow-up visit. Additionally, several of the components for this visit contained contradictory or clearly inaccurate information. She noted that when inconsistencies are repeated in medical records, it is very difficult to determine the patient's condition or course of treatment for a particular visit. Here, the History of Illness was again a bullet-point list of symptoms or conditions, rather than a chronological narrative of the patient's medical condition presented for this visit. Additionally, although one of the stated reasons for this visit was "infected hands after burns," this component contained the contradictory statement "no skin symptoms." Further, in the Past Medical/Surgical component, it is noted "Pediatric: Failure to thrive." Because the patient is an adult, this was an inaccurate notation in the record. The Social History component stated in part: "Abuse and Neglect: Receiving insufficient liquids and abandonment which resulted in hunger or thirst." Dr. Jernigan opined that this statement was inconsistent with the fact that the patient is obese. The Functional component describes the patient as "unable to lift more than" and "unable to drive more than," but did not contain a complete description of these limitations from which the patient suffered. Additionally, the statements "able to walk" and "difficulty walking unassisted" appeared to be contradictory. The Review of Systems also contained several contradictory statements. Specifically, the Reason for Visit component stated that one of the reasons for this visit was "infected hands after burns," but the Review of Symptoms component stated that the patient exhibited "no skin lesions." Additionally, this component stated that the patient exhibited "no polydipsia" and "polydipsia," "vertigo" and "no vertigo," and "no sensory disturbance" and "tingling of the hands and feet, a burning sensation, and numbness of the hands and feet (distal)." The Physical Findings also contained contradictory and incomplete information. For example, the stance and gait were shown as being both "abnormal" and "normal." Further, the description of the burns on the patient's hands did not specify whether they were first-, second-, or third-degree burns, and although her hands were burned, the skin was described as "general appearance was normal" and having "no skin lesions." The Assessment consisted of an extensive list of conditions, many of which were unsupported by the Review of Systems and Physical Findings components. The Therapy component consisted of an extensive list of items, many of which were unsupported by information in the other components of the medical record. For example, addiction counseling for alcohol and opioids is noted, but there was no information documenting addiction to these substances in other parts of the medical record. Additionally, "psychoactive medication management" was listed as a therapeutic item, but the specific medication was not identified and the other components did not support this therapy. Similarly, "pain management by medication" was listed, but the specific medication was not identified. "Education and instructions" also was listed but there was no description of the specific subjects. The Counseling/Education component consisted of an extensive list of subjects about which the patient ostensibly was counseled or education on this visit, but most of them were unsupported by the information in the other components of the medical record for this visit. Dr. Jernigan noted that it appeared that the EHR system "dumped" a laundry list of unrelated items into the notes for this component, making it difficult to know precisely what type of counseling and education was actually provided for this visit. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 should be denied. Recipient 16 Recipient 16 was a young male patient. During the Audit Period, this patient had numerous visits to Respondent, resulting in a total of 59 claims. Of those, 33 are in dispute in this proceeding. Dr. Jernigan testified about claim nos. 3, 6, 15, 18, and 21 as representative of her analysis and opinions regarding claims denied or adjusted pursuant to the grounds stated in Finding No. 1. Claim No. 3 Dr. Jernigan again noted incomplete documentation and inconsistencies with respect to the notations in the various components of the medical record for this claim. Specifically, she noted that in the Social History, there is a notation of "Abuse and neglect: Receiving insufficient liquids and abandonment which resulted in hunger or thirst," but this notation was not consistent with or supported by the information in the other components of the medical record for this visit. In the Review of Symptoms component, there was an inconsistent notation of "earache" and "no earache." In the Physical Findings component, no vital signs were recorded, rendering the medical record incomplete. Additionally, there were several inconsistent observations documented, including a notation of "no distress," notwithstanding that "vomiting was observed." The Assessment component contained extensive carried- forward information from previous visits, rendering that information inaccurate with respect to this particular visit. Additionally, the medications of Phenergan and Bentyl IM apparently were administered, but no dosage was documented. The Counseling/Education component listed subjects about which the patient ostensibly was counseled, such as tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use, but these items were not supported by information in the Social History component or in other components in the medical record for this visit. Ultimately, Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim, which was for an injection to treat nausea with vomiting, should be denied because no dosage for the injected medication was provided, as required by the Handbooks for the claim to be payable. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 3 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 6 Although the Reason for Visit component referred to test results, the types of tests and results thereof were not addressed or otherwise documented in the medical record for this visit. The History of Present Illness again was presented in a bullet-point list, rather than a chronological narrative of the patient's medical condition and its progression and treatment. There was no information regarding when or for how long the list of conditions existed, or whether they existed at the time of this specific visit. The notation in the Physical Findings that there was "no nasal discharge seen" and "no sinus tenderness" was inconsistent with the Review of Symptoms notations documenting the presence of sinus pain and nasal discharge, and the notation that the oropharynx was "abnormal" and "inflamed" was inconsistent with the notation that it also was "normal." The Counseling/Education component notations stated that the patient again was counseled about tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use, but as before, there was no information in the other components to support this counseling for this visit. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 6 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 15 The Reason for Visit component for this claim did not address the reason for the patient's visit or identify the test results that would be reviewed during that visit. As with previous claims, the History of Illness component for this visit was a bullet-point list of symptoms rather than a chronological narrative of the patient's condition. Additionally, it contained contradictory information regarding the presence or absence of pulmonary symptoms. The Review of Systems component for this visit contained multiple contradictions similar to those noted in the previous claims for this patient. Specifically, there were contradictory notations regarding the presence of "neck pain" and "no neck pain," the presence of "neck stiffness" and "no neck stiffness," the presence of "sore throat" and "no sore throat," and the presence of "localized joint stiffness" and "no localized joint stiffness." The Physical Findings component lacked information regarding the patient's vital signs, and contained contradictory notations regarding normal and abnormal breath sounds and the presence and absence of wheezing. The Assessment component contained extensive information that was unsupported by information documented in the other components of the medical record for this visit. Moreover, this patient had been documented in a previous visit as weighing 168 pounds and suffering abuse and neglect resulting in hunger or thirst, so the notation that he was at risk for obesity hypoventilation syndrome appeared inaccurate and inconsistent with his previously documented condition. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 15 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 15 for Recipient 16 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 15 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 18 As with the medical records for previous claims, the Reason for Visit component for this claim lacked key information, such as information regarding the reason for the visit and the test results to be reviewed. The History of Illness component once again consisted of a bullet list of observed conditions, rather than a chronological narrative of the history of the patient's condition, its progression, and its response or lack of response to treatments. The Review of Systems contained many of the previously noted inconsistencies regarding the presence and absence of neck pain and stiffness and presence and absence of sore throat. Additionally, this component contained the contradictory notations of "heartburn" and "no heartburn." The Physical Findings component of this visit also contained many of the same contradictions as noted for previous claims for this patient. Specifically, there was a notation of normal and abnormal pharynx, normal and abnormal lungs, the presence of wheezing and absence of wheezing, and the presence of both an abnormal and normal gait. The Assessment component again consisted of an extensive list of conditions, many of which were not supported by information documented in the other components for this medical record. The Plan component was non-specific and did not address any of the diagnoses listed in the Assessment component. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 18 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 18 for Recipient 16 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 18 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 21 Claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 suffered from many of the same deficiencies as previously identified for other claims for this patient. The Reason for Visit component did not specifically identify the reason for this particular visit, and the laboratory test results to be reviewed were not identified. The History of Present Illness component consisted of a bullet-point list, rather than a chronological narrative, and it did not discuss the history and progression of the patient's condition and response or lack of response to treatment. Additionally, it contained the same or similar contradictory statements as were previously discussed with respect to this component for other claims for this patient. The Review of Symptoms component contained many of the same contradictions previously noted with respect to other claims for this recipient. Specifically, "no facial pain" and "facial pain and sinus pain," "neck pain" and "no neck pain," "no sore throat" and "sore throat," "heartburn" and "no heartburn," and "dizziness" and "no dizziness" were noted in this component. The Physical Findings component also contained contradictory information, such as abnormal and normal orolarynx, wheezing and no wheezing being heard, and abnormal and normal gait and stance. The Assessment component again appeared to be a carried-forward list of numerous conditions, such as acne, anemia, arthropathy, fatigue, thyroid issues, and obesity that were not supported by documentation in the other components of the medical record for this visit. The Plan was non-specific and did not address the diagnosed conditions listed in the Assessment component. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Summary of Grounds for Denial of Claims Under Finding No. 1 Dr. Jernigan's overall assessment of the claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 1 was that Respondent's documentation was not sufficiently clear and accurate to enable a reviewer to discern the reason for a particular patient visit; the symptoms presenting for a particular visit; the nature, history, and progression of the medical condition; the diagnosis or determination of the medical condition; the treatment; or the therapy and counseling provided to address the medical condition. In particular, the frequent lack of key details, such as the patient's vital signs, and the frequent and pervasive contradictions in many of the components of the records rendered them inaccurate, unreliable, and essentially useless in determining the nature of the patient's condition, treating the patient's condition, and documenting that treatment for payment purposes. Additionally, the diagnoses documented in the Assessments component were rarely well-supported by accurately documented information in the other components, and appeared to be more a "basketful of therapies" that were not specific to the patient and not supported by other information documented in the rest of the medical record. As Dr. Jernigan put it, "if I was looking at [the medical record for] that specific patient, I would have nothing that would be helpful to me." Dr. Jernigan testified, credibly and persuasively, that the frequent and pervasive inconsistencies in Respondent's records rendered them untrue, inaccurate, and incomprehensible. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinions regarding the claims denied on the basis of no documentation or incomplete documentation to be credible, accurate, and supported by the documentary and other evidence in the record. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation noted above, the undersigned has applied this analysis in reviewing each of the other claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 1. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 1. Finding No. 1: No Documentation or Incomplete Documentation Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 2 2 99212 Deny 48.56 2 21 99213 Deny 77.34 6 1 99214 Deny 39.46 6 2 99214 Deny 39.46 6 3 99214 Deny 39.46 6 4 99214 Deny 39.46 8 6 99213 Deny 79.34 9 4 99214 Deny 48.27 10 10 93000 Deny 9.67 13 3 99213 Deny 83.35 16 2 J2550 Deny 2.05 16 3 96372 Deny 12.42 16 4 93672 Deny 12.42 16 6 99214 Deny 48.27 16 15 99214 Deny 48.27 16 16 99372 Deny 12.42 16 17 99214 Deny 48.27 16 18 99214 Deny 48.27 16 19 96372 Deny 12.42 16 21 99214 Deny 48.27 16 22 96372 Deny 13.43 16 23 99214 Deny 48.27 16 24 96372 Deny 13.43 16 25 99214 Deny 48.27 16 27 99214 Deny 48.27 16 30 99213 Deny 83.35 16 31 99213 Deny 83.35 16 32 99211 Deny 23.06 16 33 96372 Deny 13.43 16 34 99212 Deny 50.56 16 35 96372 Deny 13.43 16 37 96372 Deny 13.43 16 38 99213 Deny 83.35 16 41 99212 Deny 50.56 16 43 99212 Deny 50.56 16 54 99212 Deny 50.56 16 57 96372 Deny 14.14 18 2 J0969 Deny 2.00 18 3 96372 Deny 12.42 18 4 J1100 Deny 0.15 18 5 96372 Deny 14.42 24 1 99213 Deny 79.34 33 9 99213 Deny 77.34 34 4 99214 Deny 39.46 34 7 88150 Deny 10.00 35 5 99214 Deny 39.46 35 6 99214 Deny 39.46 Total Recipients: 12 Total Claims: 47 Determined Total Overpayment Amount: $1,810.95 Finding No. 2 – Services Provided Not Medically Necessary For Finding No. 2, Dr. Jernigan testified, and Petitioner presented related evidence on, the following representative claims: Recipient 2, claim nos. 11, 13, and 19; Recipient 16, claim nos. 15, 17, and 30; and Recipient 34, claim no. 7. However, because claim nos. 15, 17, and 30 are being denied in this Recommended Order on the basis of Finding No. 1, they are not addressed in this discussion of claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 2, and they are not counted toward the amount of reimbursement determined in this Recommended Order to be owed. Additionally, because the following claims previously have been denied in this Recommended Order on the basis of Finding No. 1, they have not been counted toward determining the overpayment amount for claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 217/: Recipient 2, claim no. 21; Recipient 16, claim nos. 15, 17, 30, 31, 32, 34, 41, and 43; Recipient 24, claim no. 1; and Recipient 34, claim nos. 4 and 7. Accordingly, a total of eight claims in dispute on the basis of Finding No. 2 have been addressed in this Recommended Order. The CPT Codes The 2012, 2013, and 2014 versions of the Current Procedural Terminology manuals (collectively, "CPT Manuals") establish the CPT Codes that apply in billing services to Medicaid.18/ The following CPT Codes are pertinent to the claims denied on the basis set forth in Finding No. 2: 99211, 99212, 99213, and 99214. These CPT Codes indicate a progressive increase in the complexity of the medical visit, so require progressively greater levels of documentation to justify billing Medicaid for the service. Dr. Jernigan regularly bills Medicaid for services she provides using these CPT Codes. She is very familiar with their use and with the nature of the medical services that are appropriately billed under each code. CPT Code 99211 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99211 as: "Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, that may not require the presence of a physician. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are minimal. Typically, 5 minutes are spent performing or supervising these services." CPT Code 99212 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99212 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 components: A problem focused history; A problem focused examination; Straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self[-]limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. CPT Code 99213 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99213 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. CPT Code 99214 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99214 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Typically, 25 minutes are spent face-to-face with the patient and/or family. In determining whether a service provided is medically necessary for purposes of Medicaid billing, the focus is on whether there is sufficient documentation to support the necessity of the service provided to the patient. The documentation submitted to support a claim is reviewed to determine whether there is sufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided, and to justify the need for the service provided. A. Recipient 2 Claim No. 11 Dr. Jernigan denied this claim as not medically necessary because the medical record for this visit did not contain sufficient information linking the patient's condition with the diagnosis and treatment. Specifically, while the patient presented with conditions that may indicate a urinary tract infection or pelvic inflammatory disease, those diagnoses were only two in a list of 32 assessments, so the record did not clearly indicate the specific diagnosis for her condition at this specific visit. Further, the treatment consisted of a topical medication used to treat arthritis and a medication used to treat painful menstruation, rather than a medication used to treat a urinary tract infection or pelvic inflammatory disease. Thus, Dr. Jernigan determined that there was insufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided. Accordingly, she determined that the service provided was not medically necessary, so the claim should be denied. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that the service was medically necessary were credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 11 for Recipient 2 should be denied on the basis that it was not documented as being medically necessary. Claim No. 13 Dr. Jernigan denied this claim as not medically necessary because the medical record for this visit did not contain sufficient information linking the patient's condition with the diagnosis and treatment. Specifically, there were no physical examination findings that appeared to be specifically related either to the patient's condition at that visit, or to the treatment provided. For example, Dr. Jernigan specifically noted that while there was an assessment of vulvodynia and the patient was treated for a yeast infection, the medical record does not note an examination of the patient's genitalia having been performed to support that assessment and treatment. Thus, Dr. Jernigan determined that there was insufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided. Accordingly, she determined that the service provided was not medically necessary, so the claim should be denied. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that the service was medically necessary were credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 13 for Recipient 2 should be denied on the basis that it was not documented as being medically necessary. Claim No. 19 Dr. Jernigan denied this claim as not medically necessary because the medical record for this visit did not contain sufficient information linking the patient's condition with the diagnosis and treatment. Here, the stated reason for the visit included fatigue, somnolence and weakness with problems sleeping, arthralgias with muscle pain and tenderness, headache and dizziness, and snoring with acid reflux. However, the assessment contained a list of 33 diagnoses, many, if not most, of which did not appear to be related to the stated reason for the visit. Additionally, the treatment did not appear appropriate for the conditions stated as the reason for this specific visit. Thus, Dr. Jernigan determined that there was insufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided. Accordingly, she determined that the service provided was not medically necessary, so the claim should be denied. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that the service was medically necessary were credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 19 for Recipient 2 should be denied on the basis that it was not documented as being medically necessary. Summary of Grounds for Denial of Claims under Finding No. 2 In sum, Dr. Jernigan determined that the claims denied as not medically necessary did not contain sufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided, and to justify the need for the service provided. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinions regarding the claims denied on the basis of no documentation or incomplete documentation to be credible, accurate, and supported by the documentary and other evidence in the record. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation noted above, the undersigned has applied Dr. Jernigan's analysis in reviewing each of the other claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 2. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 2. Finding No. 2 – Not Medically Necessary Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 2 11 99213 Deny 81.35 2 13 99213 Deny 81.35 2 19 99213 Deny 77.34 16 36 99211 Deny 23.06 16 39 99212 Deny 50.56 16 45 99212 Deny 50.56 16 47 99211 Deny 23.06 35 4 99214 Deny 39.46 Total Total No. Determined Recipients: of Claims: Total 3 8 Overpayment Amount: $426.74 Finding No. 3 – Established Patients Billed as New Patients As discussed above, a new patient is one who has not received any professional services from a physician or another practitioner of the same specialty who belongs to the same provider group, within the past three years. The two claims in dispute that were denied on the basis set forth in Finding No. 3, that they were not new patients are Recipient 21, claim no. 1; and Recipient 23, claim no. 1. These claims were downcoded to reflect that the patient was an established patient, rather than a new patient. The CPT Codes pertinent to this Finding are 99203, 99204, 99213, and 99214. CPT Codes 99213 and 99214 previously have been defined in the findings pertaining to Finding No. 2, above. CPT Code 99203 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99203 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; Medicaid decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. CPT Code 99204 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99204 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; Medicaid decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. Recipient 21 Claim No. 1 Recipient 21, claim no. 1 was adjusted from CPT Code 99204 to CPT Code 99214. Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be denied because the notations for the Past Medical History, Social History, and Family History state that they are "unchanged." This notation would not be appropriate for a new patient, but would be appropriate for an established patient. Dr. Jernigan noted that had she determined this claim was for a new patient, it would have been denied, rather than adjusted downward, because the supporting documentation did not contain the patient's comprehensive history, which is one of the three components required in the documentation to support a claim billed under CPT Code 99204. Instead of denying this claim, Dr. Jernigan determined that under the documentation submitted, it should be billed under CPT Code 99214, as a claim for an established patient having a medical problem of moderate to high severity, and for which two of the three components are documented in the medical record. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to support billing the claim as one for a new patient, but would support billing the claim as one for an established patient, was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 1 for Recipient 21 should be billed under CPT Code 99214, rather than CPT Code 99204. Recipient 23 Claim No. 1 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be denied because the notations for the Past Medical History, Social History, and Family History state that they are "unchanged." This notation would not be appropriate for a new patient, but would be appropriate for an established patient. Accordingly, she reviewed the claim as one for an established patient, and, based on the documentation in the medical record, determined that the presented problem was one of low to moderate severity and at least two of the required components were present in the record. For these reasons, Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be billed under CPT Code 99213, rather than under CPT Code 99203. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to support billing the claim as one for a new patient, but would support billing the claim as one for an established patient was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 1 for Recipient 23 should be billed under CPT Code 99213, rather than CPT Code 99203. Summary of Grounds for Downcoding Claims Under Finding No. 3 In sum, Dr. Jernigan's determined that the notations in the Past Medical History, Family History, and Social History components of the documentation submitted for these claims, as well as the lack of other components in the record, did not support billing these claims as new patient claims, but would support billing them as established patient claims. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding the downcoding of these claims to bill them as established, rather than new, patient claims to be credible, accurate, and supported by evidence in the record. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 3. Finding No. 3 – Incorrectly Billed as New Patient Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 21 1 99204 Adjusted to 99214 25.38 23 1 99203 Adjusted to 99213 37.66 Total Recipients: 2 Total Claims: 2 Determined Total Overpayment Amount: $63.04 Finding No. 4 – Level of Service Not Supported Claims denied on the grounds set forth in Finding No. 4 of the FAR did not contain documentation sufficient to support the higher level of service billed, but did contain documentation sufficient to support a lower level of service than that billed. CPT Codes 99212, 99213, 99214, and 99204 are pertinent to this Finding, and have been previously defined in the findings pertaining to Findings No. 2 and 3, above. As previously noted, CPT Codes 99212, 99213, and 99214 indicate a progressive increase in the complexity of the medical visit, so require progressively greater levels of documentation to justify billing Medicaid for the service. For Finding No. 4, Dr. Jernigan testified, and Petitioner presented related evidence on, the following representative claims: Recipient 8, claim no. 4; Recipient 9, claim no. 2; Recipient 10, claim no. 3; Recipient 13, claim no. 1; and Recipient 16, claim nos. 29 and 52. Recipient 8 Claim No. 4 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Despite the extensive description in the Reason for Visit component and the extensive list of conditions noted in the Assessment component, the visit ultimately was to address a urinary tract infection, which is a problem of low to moderate complexity and involved the components which would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 4 for Recipient 8 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Recipient 9 Claim No. 2 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. This visit was a follow-up without any significant changes in the findings documented in the components of previous visits. There was no documentation in any of the components for this visit which would indicate that it involved problems that were of moderate to high complexity, and that it entailed components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99214. The documentation for this visit indicated a problem of low to moderate complexity and entailed the components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 2 for Recipient 9 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Recipient 10 Claim No. 3 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. This claim entailed extensive internal inconsistencies and contained numerous contradictory notations, which affect the reviewer's ability to determine the purpose of the visit and the appropriate type and level of treatment. Here, Dr. Jernigan opined that this visit ultimately was a follow-up for hypertension and diabetes, and that the patient's condition had not changed from the previous visit. The documentation did not indicate that this visit entailed problems that were of moderate to high complexity, nor did it document the components would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99214. Rather, the documentation for this visit indicated a problem of low to moderate complexity and involved the components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 3 for Recipient 10 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Recipient 13 Claim No. 1 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99204 to CPT Code 99214. The documentation for this claim did not support billing the visit under CPT Code 99204, for a new patient, because it did not contain sufficient information that a comprehensive examination was performed, which is required by this CPT Code. Additionally, the documentation lacked any substantial discussion of the patient's Social History, Family History, or Past Medical History——information that, according to Dr. Jernigan, would be particularly important for a new patient——especially one who, per the documentation in the record, was sexually abused. Further, the Past Medical/Surgical History, Social History, and Family History components all listed this patient's condition as "unchanged," indicating that the patient must have been an established, rather than a new, patient. These deficiencies in the record for this claim did not justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99204, for a new patient. However, due to the severity of the patient's condition, the treatment documented in the record for this visit entailed the components under CPT Code 99214 for an established patient. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 1 for Recipient 13 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99204 to CPT Code 99214. Recipient 16 Claim No. 29 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan found much of the information documented for this claim to be incredible. For example, the patient is a 19-year old male, but the notations in the record state such things as "parental concerns about baby's growth" and "assessment for menopause performed." Dr. Jernigan ultimately determined that this visit was a follow-up to address hypothyroidism and that thyroid medication was prescribed as a treatment for this condition. This visit concerned a problem of low to moderate complexity and involved the components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213, rather than a more complex problem that would justify the level of service under CPT Code 99214. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 29 for Recipient 16 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Claim No. 52 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99213 to CPT Code 99212. Here, the Reason for Visit stated that the visit was, among other things, to address a skin rash. Although the documentation for this claim contained numerous inconsistencies, Dr. Jernigan was able to discern that the patient had two dermatological conditions that would support the prescription of Doxycycline. According to Dr. Jernigan, skin issues are relatively easy to see and treat, which would justify billing this claim under CPT Code 99212, for a minor problem that would entail the components for that CPT Code, rather than a more complex problem that would justify the level of service under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 52 for Recipient 16 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99213 to CPT Code 99212. Summary of Grounds for Denial of Claims Under Finding No. 4 Dr. Jernigan's overall assessment of the claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 4 was that while a basis for billing Medicaid could be discerned from the medical records for the claim, the documentation in those records was not consistent with the symptoms or confirmed diagnosis, so did not reflect the level of service that could safely be furnished. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinions regarding the claims denied on the grounds stated in Finding No. 4 to be credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation noted above, the undersigned has applied this analysis in reviewing each of the other claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 4. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 4. Finding No. 4 – Incorrectly Billed at Higher Level of Service Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 8 4 99214 Adjusted to 99213 38.79 9 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 15.71 10 3 99214 Adjusted to 99213 36.79 13 1 99204 Adjusted to 99214 122.14 16 29 99214 Adjusted to 99213 38.79 16 52 99213 Adjusted to 99212 32.79 17 1 99214 Adjusted to 99213 23.32 21 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 14.85 22 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 73.87 30 3 99214 Adjusted to 99213 12.85 32 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 32.56 35 1 99204 Adjusted to 99202 36.77 Total Recipients: 11 Total Claims: 12 Determined Total Overpayment Amount: $479.23 Findings of Ultimate Fact Pursuant to the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent was overpaid by the Medicaid program for the disputed and undisputed claims in this proceeding. Respondent defends its position that many of the claims in dispute should be adjusted downward in this proceeding, rather than denied, by asserting that the inaccuracies and lack of comprehensibility in the documentation for the claims were due to the flaws and defects in the Intergy EHR system, rather than any deficiency on his part in diagnosing or treating his patients or in properly documenting their visits. In support of this position, Respondent notes that in many cases, the documentation provided to support a claim did contain——among the many listed conditions and assessment——a diagnosis that matched the reason for the visit. There is little question in the undersigned's mind that Respondent actually provided the services in the claims he billed to Medicaid. However, the issue in this proceeding is not whether the provider did, in fact, provide the services or accurately diagnose and treat the patient's condition. Rather, the issue is whether the documentation submitted to Petitioner to support the Medicaid-billed claims is true, accurate, comprehensible, and demonstrates the medical necessity of the billed claim, as required by section 409.913 and the Handbooks. Unfortunately, due to the substantial flaws in the Intergy system and Respondent's difficulty in using that system, his records did not comply with those standards, so do not support the billed claims. As the enrolled Medicaid provider, Respondent is ultimately responsible for the completeness, accuracy, and comprehensibility of the documentation submitted in support of his claims billed to Medicaid. § 409.913(7), Fla. Stat. The Handbooks, section 409.913, and applicable rules do not recognize, as a defense to actions seeking reimbursement for overpayments, that deficiencies in the provider's records may be excused due to poor or dysfunctional EHR systems. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned found Dr. Jernigan's analyses and opinions credible, supported by the competent substantial evidence in the record, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent was overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $72,084.43 for the disputed and undisputed claims in this proceeding. However, the undersigned determines that Petitioner did not prove the overpayments by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order directing Respondent to repay to the Agency the sum of $72,084.43 in overpayments. Pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a), Petitioner, as the prevailing party in this proceeding is, entitled to recover, as costs, all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs as the prevailing party is granted. If the amount of these costs cannot be stipulated by the parties, Petitioner may request a hearing solely to establish the amount of costs it is entitled to recover in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 12th day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK 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 23rd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of charges set forth in a three-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violations of paragraphs (m), (q), and (t) of Section 458.331(1) Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Donald A. Tobkin, M.D., has been licensed, and continues to be licensed, to practice medicine in the State of Florida. His license number is 30942.5 Sometime during the month of December 2004, the Police Department of Hollywood, Florida, (HPD) received information from a confidential informant that the Respondent was soliciting drug-prescribing business and was writing inappropriate and excessive prescriptions for controlled substances. On the basis of that information, the HPD initiated an undercover operation to investigate the information received from the confidential informant. As part of the undercover investigation, on the evening of January 20, 2005, at approximately 9:56pm, an HPD female detective named Nicole Coffin made a telephone call to the Respondent's telephone. The Respondent answered the telephone and identified himself by name. Detective Coffin pretended to be a person named Melissa Beech. She pretended to be a person who was seeking to obtain OxyContin, which is a Schedule II controlled substance. During the entire undercover investigation, Detective Coffin pretended to be a drug-seeker while interacting with the Respondent. On the telephone she told the Respondent that she wanted a prescription for OxyContin and also told the Respondent that a girl somewhere on Federal Highway had given her the Respondent's card and had told her she could call the Respondent if she needed a prescription. Detective Coffin, in her role as Melissa Beech, did not initially describe any medical complaint to the Respondent; she just said she wanted a prescription for OxyContin. In response to the request for a prescription for OxyContin, the Respondent told the make-believe drug-seeker that he could provide the requested prescription, but that they would have to have a "medical reason" for such a prescription. The Respondent then asked the make-believe drug-seeker if she had ever been in an automobile accident. The make-believe drug-seeker answered "yes," because that is the answer she thought would provide a basis for a "medical reason." The Respondent then proceeded to ask the make-believe drug-seeker a long series of leading questions which, if answered "yes," could provide the appearance of a "medical reason" for the requested prescription for OxyContin. This series of questions was for the purpose of establishing a contrived "medical reason" for the prescription sought by the make-believe drug-seeker. There never was, and there never appeared to be, any real "medical reason" for the prescription sought by the make-believe drug-seeker. The sole purpose for the many questions asked by the Respondent, and for the Respondent's written notations related to those questions, was to create the illusion, or the false impression, that there was a "medical reason' for the prescription when, in fact, there was no such reason. The detective who was pretending to be a drug-seeker answered "yes" to all of the leading questions asked by the Respondent. She answered "yes," even when that was not a truthful answer, because she was trying to give the answers she thought the Respondent wanted to hear.6 The Respondent's leading questions included questions asking about such things as whether the make-believe drug-seeker had ever had an automobile accident, whether she had suffered a herniated disk as a result of that accident, whether she had had an MRI, whether she had had any subsequent accidents, whether she had tried any other drugs to relieve pain, whether she had used Oxycontin in the past, and whether in the past the Oxycontin had relieved her pain. During the course of the first telephone conversation between Detective Coffin and the Respondent a number of significant matters were not discussed. The Respondent did not discuss the possibility of surgical treatments to treat the back pain described in response to the Respondent's questions. The Respondent did not discuss the necessity of reviewing the MRI or X-rays that supposedly would confirm the "herniated disc" he had inquired about. The Respondent did not discuss the necessity of obtaining future MRIs, X-rays, or other diagnostic tests to evaluate the "severe back pain" supposedly described by Detective Coffin in her role as Melissa Beech. The Respondent did not mention that she would need to have any follow-up visits with the Respondent. During the course of the first conversation between Detective Coffin and the Respondent, she told the Respondent that she had previously been obtaining Oxycontin "off the street" and that she was seeking a prescription from the Respondent because her street source had "dried up." She also told him that she had previously taken Valium and Percocet. During the course of the first telephone conversation Detective Coffin, pretending to be a drug-seeker, told the Respondent that she suffered from back pain as a result of the make-believe automobile accidents. She did not say that she was currently experiencing pain at the time of that telephone conversation. During the first telephone conversation the Respondent did not ask the make-believe drug-seeker any questions about her menstrual cycle, about whether she was pregnant, or about whether she had had any prior pregnancies or had ever had any children. However, in his written notes the Respondent included notations that purport to be answers to those unasked questions. Similarly, the Respondent did not ask the make-believe drug-seeker any questions about her consumption of alcohol, but included in his notes notations that purport to memorialize the answer to that unasked question. The Respondent's "history" notes also report that he warned the make-believe drug-seeker that OxyContin tablets should not be crushed or broken, even though he did not include any such warning in his telephone conversation with the make-believe drug-seeker. During the first telephone conversation, Detective Coffin was never asked about, and never provided any information about, whether other physicians had either prescribed OxyContin for her or had refused to prescribe OxyContin for her. The only prior sources of OxyContin she mentioned to the Respondent were non-prescription illegal sources on the street. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the possibility or necessity of a more structured medical treatment plan for addiction. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the possibility or necessity of a more structured medical treatment plan to treat a complaint of "severe pain." During the course of the first telephone conversation, the Respondent agreed to provide a prescription to the make- believe drug-seeker for a total of sixty-two 80-milligram OxyContin tablets. It was agreed that the make-believe drug- seeker would pay $100.00 for the first prescription and that the Respondent would provide similar prescriptions in the future for $50.00 per prescription. Towards the end of the first telephone conversation the Respondent told the make-believe drug-seeker that he had another matter to attend to and that she should call him later to arrange the time and place for the two of them to meet later that same evening. During the course of the first telephone conversation, which lasted for approximately 14 minutes, the Respondent made written notes of the answers given by the make-believe drug-seeker. Those notes were prepared in such a manner as to resemble the types of notes customarily made by physicians who are making a medical record of information elicited from a patient. A number of the details recorded in the Respondent's notes of the first telephone conversation were inconsistent with the information provided by the make-believe drug-seeker. Specifically, those notes contained a significant amount of information that was never uttered by the make-believe drug- seeker. The fictitious and false history details memorialized in the Respondent's notes are intentional falsehoods. Later that evening, at approximately 12:20am on January 21, 2005, Detective Coffin, still pretending to be the drug-seeking person named Melissa Beech, placed a second telephone call to the Respondent. She spoke with the Respondent for about three minutes on this occasion. Most of the second conversation consisted of providing the Respondent with information about the location where Detective Coffin would be waiting for him and information about where the Respondent should park when he arrived. Law enforcement officers of the HPD attempted to record both of the telephone conversations between the Respondent and Detective Coffin. Both of those attempts were unsuccessful. There is no recording of either of the telephone conversations. Sometime later that evening, during the early morning hours of January 21, 2005, the Respondent met the make-believe drug-seeker at the motel or efficiency apartment. He entered the room where the make-believe drug-seeker was pretending to be staying. Prior to his arrival, two cameras had been concealed in the room by the HPD police officers. During the entire time the Respondent was in the room the two cameras were attempting to record everything he said and everything he did, as well as everything said or done by the detective pretending to be the drug-seeking person named Melissa Beech. After entering the room, the Respondent spoke with the make-believe drug-seeker and asked her additional questions related to her request for a prescription for OxyContin. He made some written notes that purported to be summaries of her answers. During the course of the meeting with the make-believe drug-seeker the Respondent provided her with a document titled "Patient's Acknowledgement," which she signed, but did not read. That document contained information about the patient-physician relationship, about what was expected of the patient, and also memorialized the patient's informed consent to the treatment she was requesting from the Respondent. The Respondent also conducted a brief physical examination of the make-believe patient and made written notes that purported to be a memorialization of what he had observed during the course of his examination. The Respondent's examination of the make-believe drug-seeker included the following: check of pulse and blood pressure, check of reflex responses at several joints, and check of chest sounds with stethoscope. The Respondent performed a deep tendon reflex test on Detective Coffin by striking her wrists, elbows, and knees with a medical hammer. Detective Coffin's feet remained on the floor during this test. A deep tendon reflex test cannot be performed properly with the subject's feet touching the floor. Such a test performed in such a manner will not produce reliable results. The Respondent indicated in his written notes that he had examined Detective Coffin's head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat. However, the Respondent did not perform any examination at all of Detective Coffin's head, ears, nose, or throat. The Respondent perhaps performed a partial examination of Detective Coffin's eyes, but did not perform an adequate examination of her eyes. The Respondent indicated in his written notes that Detective Coffin's pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation. However, the Respondent did not conduct any examination of Detective Coffin's eyes that was sufficient to support a conclusion that they were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation. The Respondent included in his written notes that Detective Coffin's chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. The Respondent did not examine Detective Coffin in a manner that could determine whether her chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. Therefore, the Respondent did not have any basis for writing that the detective's chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. The Respondent included in his written notes an observation that Detective Coffin's abdomen was soft. The Respondent never touched or otherwise examined Detective Coffin's abdomen. The Respondent had no factual basis for writing that Detective Coffin's abdomen was soft. In his written notes the Respondent indicated that Detective Coffin experienced pain upon lifting her leg thirty degrees. Detective Coffin never raised either leg in the Respondent's presence and never complained of pain in his presence. There was no factual basis for the subject notation. The Respondent never conducted a Rhomberg examination on Detective Coffin, but he included in his written notes an observation that a Rhomberg test was negative. There was no factual basis for such a notation. The Respondent included in his written notes an observation that he had examined Detective Coffin's gait. However, the Respondent never performed an adequate and sufficient examination of Detective Coffin's gait. The Respondent did not conduct a range of motion test of Detective Coffin. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin to lift her leg towards her chest. Nor did he ask her to touch her toes. The Respondent never asked her to manipulate her body in any way. At no time during the encounter between Detective Coffin and the Respondent did Detective Coffin state that she was experiencing pain. At no time during that encounter did she behave or move in any manner that would suggest she was experiencing pain. To the contrary, Detective Coffin crossed and uncrossed her legs, alternatively slouched and sat up straight in her chair, and made other movements that would indicate to a reasonable prudent physician that she was not experiencing any pain at all. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the necessity of obtaining further MRIs, X-rays, or other forms of diagnostic testing. He never discussed any need to obtain and review any prior medical records. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin to sign a medical records release document that would have authorized the Respondent to obtain prior medical records. The Respondent's written notations regarding his examination of the make-believe drug-seeker contain false information because, among other things, the notations contain the results of tests and examinations the Respondent did not perform. Such false notations are intentional falsehoods. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the need for a follow-up appointment. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin for any form of identification. Under the circumstances presented in this case, a reasonable prudent physician would have performed a range of motion test and a leg-raising test, neither of which were performed by the Respondent. Under the circumstances presented in this case, a reasonably prudent physician would have established a treatment plan that would have included a schedule for follow-up visits, a review of prior medical records, and plans for future diagnostic tests. The Respondent did not establish any type of treatment plan. The prescription provided to Detective Coffin was inappropriate, unjustified, and excessive because the physical examination was inadequate, the medical record was falsified, and the patient never exhibited any sign of being in pain. Under the circumstances presented in this case, the Respondent's act of providing a prescription to a total stranger with no medical justification for doing so was an action taken other than in the course of the Respondent's professional practice. Ultimately, the Respondent wrote and delivered a prescription to the make-believe patient. The prescription was for sixty-two 80-milligram tablets of OxyContin. This was a 31- day supply if the OxyContin was taken as directed; one tablet every 12 hours. The Respondent wrote several warnings at the bottom of the prescription document. The warnings included such things as the fact that OxyContin impairs driving ability and may cause drowsiness, loss of balance, and/or loss of coordination. The Respondent also wrote on the prescription: "Must swallow whole and do not crush or break." Other law enforcement officers of the HPD were listening to and observing the events inside the room. Shortly after the Respondent handed the prescription to the make-believe patient and received the one hundred dollars from her, other law enforcement officers rushed into the room, arrested the Respondent, and seized various items of the Respondent's personal property, including the medical record he had been preparing regarding his care and treatment of the make-believe patient. With regard to obtaining information about the characteristics of, and the proper use of, specific drugs, medical doctors customarily rely on the information contained in the Physician Desk Reference (PDR) and on the information contained in the manufacturer's package insert that often accompanies a drug. The package insert for OxyContin includes the following information: (Following an initial caption reading WARNING) OxyContin Tablets are a controlled-release oral formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride indicated for the management of moderate to severe pain when a continuous, around-the- clock analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. * * * (Following caption reading CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY) Oxycodone is a pure agonist opioid whose principal therapeutic action is analgesia. *** With pure opioid agonist analgesics, there is no defined maximum dose; the ceiling to analgesic effectiveness is imposed only by side effects, the more serious of which may include somnolence and respiratory depression. * * * As with all opioids, the minimum effective plasma concentration for analgesia will vary widely among patients, especially among patients who have been previously treated with potent agonist opioids. As a result, patients must be treated with individualized titration of dosage to the desired effect. The minimum effective analgesic concentration of oxycodone for any individual patient may increase over time due to an increase in pain, the development of a new pain syndrome and/or the development of analgesic tolerance. * * * OxyContin Tablets are associated with typical opioid-related adverse experiences. There is a general relationship between increasing oxycodone plasma concentration and increasing frequency of dose-related opioid adverse experiences such as nausea, vomiting, CNS effects, and respiratory depression. In opioid-tolerant patients, the situation is altered by the development of tolerance to opioid-related side effects, and the relationship is not clinically relevant. As with all opioids, the dose must be individualized . . . because the effective analgesic dose for some patients will be too high to be tolerated by other patients. (Following caption reading WARNINGS) OxyContin 80 mg and 160 mg Tablets ARE FOR USE IN OPIOID-TOLERANT PATIENTS ONLY. These tablet strengths may cause fatal respiratory depression when administered to patients not previously exposed to opioids. * * * Concerns about abuse, addiction, and diversion should not prevent the proper management of pain. The development of addiction to opioid analgesics in properly managed patients with pain has been reported to be rare. However, data are not available to establish the true incidence of addiction in chronic pain patients.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and the revocation of the Respondent's license to practice medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 26th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: During times material hereto, and particularly from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985, Respondent, Eusebio Subias, M.D., was a licensed medical doctor in Florida, board certified in Psychiatry and an eligible Medicaid provider of psychiatric services pursuant to the Medicaid contract he is party to with DHRS dated October, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Medicaid regulations and guidelines require physicians to meet board certification in psychiatry before they may provide reimbursable psychiatric services to Medicaid eligible recipients. As part of his agreement to participate in the Medicaid Program, Respondent agreed to keep such records as are necessary to fully disclose the extent of services provided to individuals receiving assistance in the state plan. Respondent also agreed to abide by the provisions of pertinent Florida administrative rules, statutes, policies, procedures and directives in the manual of the Florida Medicaid Program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1986, the Surveillance & Utilization Review System unit of the Medicaid Office indicated that the amount of Respondent's medicaid billing greatly exceeded that of his peers. Based on that indication, the Office of Program Integrity asked Respondent to provide them with copies of certain medical records for the year 1982. Respondent provided the Department with those records as requested. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). Those records were forwarded to the peer review committee for evaluation. The records were reviewed by both the local and state peer review committees. The 1982 records contained inadequate information for the peer review committee to document or otherwise justify the number of office visits per patient. The records did not contain reasons for treatment, reasons for frequency of visits or what specific services were rendered to patients. (Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17, Pages 3 and 4 and Composite Exhibit 3). On April 21, 1986, Petitioner notified Respondent that it determined that he overbilled Medicaid in the amount of $17,820.09 for the calendar year 1982. Respondent was then notified that a similar review would be conducted for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. That review and the results thereof are the subject of this proceeding. The Department subsequently requested, and Respondent provided medical records for 85 specific recipients which were selected by means of the "Disproportionate Stratified Random Sampling" (DSRS). (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent's 1983-85 records contain substantially more details than the records he provided Petitioner during the 1982 review period. Petitioner had its medical consultant, Dr. Forsthoefel, review the 1983-85 records. He was a member of the peer committee which made the peer review determination in 1982 which was used as a guide for the degree of overutilization. Forsthoefel denied those office visits that he determined were not supported by documentation in the medical records and concluded that the visits were not medically necessary. As a result, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter advising that he had overbilled medicaid in the amount of $79,093.05 for the years 1983-1985. (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 13). By letter dated September 5, 1986, Respondent requested a meeting to discuss the Department's proposed action and such a meeting was granted on October 31, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Dr. Forsthoefel, Dr. Conn, Petitioner's Chief Medical Consultant in 1982, Millie Martin, and Respondent attended the October 31 meeting. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to individually review each of the approximately 3200 medical records for patients he treated during the years 1983-85 such that he could explain and document the medical necessity of each of the patient's office visits. He also requested that Petitioner have the records reviewed by a psychiatrist. Neither Dr. Conn nor Dr. Forsthoefel are psychiatrists. Dr. Conn left soon after the meeting began. Dr. Forsthoefel, unable and unwilling to comply with Respondent's request that each medical record be individually reviewed, concluded that continuing the meeting would not be productive and left after approximately 2 hours. The Department again denied those visits which it had early concluded were not medically necessary based on the review by its medical consultants. By letter dated November 10, 1986, Petitioner again advised Respondent that the Department would seek a $79,093.05 overpayment for the years 1983-85 and advised him of his rights to a formal hearing. Drs. Mutter and Tumarkin were commissioned by Petitioner to review the medical records under scrutiny with each doctor reviewing one half of the records. Based on their review, Respondent was denied reimbursement for even more office visits based on their opinion that the records did not contain sufficient documentation or notations that would indicate continued office visits were medically necessary. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17a and 18). Dr. Tumarkin made his comments on Respondent's medical records in green ink. Those records which did not contain green marking were records numbered 3 and 27 resulting in the Department's overstating the overpayment claim by $125.01. Respondent introduced information regarding Medicaid's denial of claims which should have been billed to Medicare. During the period from May 1985 through December 31, 1985, certain denials fall within the 1983-85 review period and since the Department never paid such claims, the Department agreed at hearing to reduce its overpayment amount by $6,421.44. Also at hearing, Petitioner determined that it made an error in its computation of the figures stated in the November 10, 1986 letter and was now seeking $78,661.93 minus $6,421.44 for the amount claimed to be overbilled by Respondent as $72,240.49. Respondent, who is of hispanic origin, treats a substantial number of Spanish speaking patients. Respondent graduated from medical school in Cuba at the age of 22 and participated in a rotating internship at Mercy Hospital in Hampton, Ohio. He came to Florida in 1963 and was licensed in 1964. In April, 1963, Respondent was employed at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the third Spanish speaking doctor to practice in South Florida and was the first to be promoted to a chairmanship at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the first clinical director at Coral Reef's Hospital. He is a member of several medical societies and was involved in the development of several psychotic drugs, including Elavil. Respondent is board certified in psychiatry. Respondent has staff privileges at Hollywood Memorial Hospital and three other area hospital. He has practiced psychiatry for more than 25 years in the United State and is accomplished in the treatment of severe psychotic patients. Respondent was tendered and received as an expert in psychiatry. Southeastern Florida was inundated during the early 1980's with mentally ill refugees during the Mariel Boat Lift. That area has a uniquely high need for psychiatric services due to its characteristic as a metropolitan area with a large homeless population. The Marlowe Study which was commissioned by Petitioner to review the need for psychiatric services in Dade County during the period which coincided with the Respondent's 1983-1985 office practice here under review, concluded that insufficient resources were earmarked for the treatment of mentally ill residents of Dade County, Florida. Respondent prefers to treat severely psychotic patients on an outpatient basis. He has been very successful in utilizing this method of treatment and it has resulted in substantial public benefit in the form of substantial financial savings that would have otherwise been required to hospitalize such patients for treatment. Respondent is paid $35.01 for a 45 minute session for each Medicaid patient whereas the average cost for inpatient treatment at an area hospital is approximately $400.00 per day. Respondent modified his record keeping practice in 1982 so that his medical records for 1983-85 contained the minimum requirements for medical records necessary to support Medicaid billings as specified in Rule 10C- 7.030(1)(m) and 10C-7.062(1(n) Florida Administrative Code. All of the medical experts testified that Respondent's records for the period at issue here met the minimum requirements specified in the required regulations and DHRS's procedure manuals. Those requirements are: dates of services; patients name and date of birth; name and title of person performing the service, when it is someone other than the billing practitioner; chief complaint on each visit; pertinent medical history; pertinent findings on examinations; medications administered or prescribed; description of treatment when applicable; recommendations for additional treatments or consultations; and tests and results. Petitioner presented testimony through Ms. Martin to the effect that Respondent had admitted during his October 1986 meeting with the medicaid consultants that he had, from memory, gone back and recreated his medical records for 1983-85. Respondent denied this at hearing and credibly testified that based on the deficiencies found in the latter part of 1982 concerning his medical records, he commenced to prepare a complete medical record for each patient visit. Respondent's testimony in this regard is credited and none of the medical professionals, save Ms. Martin, presented any evidence which would call into question the accuracy of Respondent's records during the period 1983- Ms. Martin's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Dr. Forsthoefel candidly admitted that he is not qualified to render an opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specialized psychiatric services. Respondent is the first psychiatrist reviewed by the Medicaid officials of Petitioner for over-utilization as Petitioner's officials were unaware of any other psychiatrist who had been reviewed prior to Respondent. The peer review process for determination of over-utilization and mis- utilization of Medicaid services is designed so that the physician being reviewed may discuss individual patient records and cases with the Committee, as well as the Medicaid consultants who later apply peer review findings, and such discussion will be considered in arriving at a final determination. (Peer Review SOP, April, 1987, Respondent's Exhibit 12). An integral part of peer review for the physician being reviewed is to be able to discuss individual cases with the reviewer prior to a final determination being made concerning medical necessity and appropriateness. Such interplay and explanations regarding certain aspects of a case can lead to a more detailed determination concerning an overpayment issue. Respondent's October 1986 review should have been a complete new review of individual records affording him an opportunity to discuss specific cases with the physician consultants, provide him an opportunity to substantiate certain treatments based upon his recollection and justify the treatment modality he utilized for the 85 patients which comprised the random sampling. 2/ Respondent was not permitted to meaningfully discuss those individual cases even though he requested an opportunity to do so. This is so despite Petitioner's consultant's admission that such a consultation would have aided them and perhaps changed their opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments rendered by Respondent. (Testimony of Conn, Forsthoefel, Tumarkin and Whiddon). While some experts would treat severely psychotic patients on a less frequent basis than Respondent and hospitalize them sooner, Respondent's method of treatment is well accepted among qualified board certified psychiatrists. Dr. Tumarkin's different treatment philosophy wherein he favored inpatient treatment for severely psychotic patients while Respondent showed a preference for outpatient treatment, is in no way indicative of inappropriateness by Respondent's method of treatment since his method was proven to be successful. Additionally, one expert, Dr. Tumarkin would have allowed more visits as being medically necessary and appropriate had he been advised by Petitioner's representatives that he should apply the community standard for medical necessity and appropriateness of psychiatric services. A Medicaid provider of psychiatric services is required to provide services equivalent to that of their peers. Had Dr. Tumarkin consulted with Respondent, his opinion concerning medical necessity and appropriateness would have been affected and he would have requested such had he known that he was allowed to. This is especially so based on the fact that his treatment preference is more hospital oriented. It is thus concluded that Respondent was not given a fair opportunity to present circumstances relevant to the overpayment amount in question here, despite his request to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14). A review of a Peer Comparison Analysis with Respondent's practice respecting the number of office procedures per patient performed by him in contrast to other medicaid psychiatrists, indicates that Respondent saw his patients, on average, less than the average for other psychiatrists in Dade, Monroe and Broward Counties between the years 1983-85. (Petitioner's Exhibit 22). Dr. Stillman is board certified in psychiatry and has been practicing for more than 30 years. He reviewed, as Respondent's expert witness, all of the 85 patient charts in question. Dr. Mutter rendered a specific report about the even numbered charts that he reviewed. His reports indicates, with respect to many charts, that he was unable to find specific documentation supporting the reasons and medical necessity for treatment. This testimony was sharply contradicted by that of both Dr. Stillman and Respondent who easily located specific record documentation which indicated the medical necessity and reasons for services provided to patients by Respondent. Examples of over-utilization from Dr. Mutter's report were inquired about and on each occasion, Respondent and Dr. Stillman were able to identify documents not referred to by Dr. Mutter that substantiated the medical need and reasons for treatment. Drs. Subias and Stillman's testimony was not contradicted by Petitioner. Without going through each patient's records, a review of the findings concerning several patients is illustrative and will be herein discussed. Patient number 85, S. T., Jr. 3/ was a schizophrenic, suffering from epilepsy with borderline intellectual functioning. He was a very psychotic patient who was, during his early years, treated in an institution. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5). He was obese, apprehensive, disoriented, suffered from impaired insight and judgment, a depressed mood, flat affect and a constant feeling of rejection. Respondent commenced treating patient number 85 twice weekly as an outpatient and as his condition improved, he was seen once a week and office visits were reduced further as his condition continued to improve. Without this intense continuity of treatment, patient number 85 would have decompensated and would have required an extensive institutionalization. Respondent provided substantial documentation as to the need for each of S. T.'s visits. Patient number 83, C. C., was a schizophrenic who suffered from depression, was delusional with a flat affect, poor reality contact and went through extended periods of depression on a monthly basis. Respondent prescribed benadryl to counteract patient C. C.'s delusional symptoms and otherwise justified his method of treatments, frequency and reason for each visit. Respondent substantiated that it was medically necessary to treat patient C. C. on each occasion where treatment was provided. Respondent's medical records provided the documentation for treatment in each instance. Patient number 81, F. D., was a schizophrenic who suffered severe mental depression. His condition had deteriorated to the point whereby family therapy sessions had to be scheduled by Respondent. Respondent was able to keep F. D. out of the hospital, he remained with his family and his condition improved to the point where the frequency of visits were reduced. Respondent's records justified the medical necessity and reasons for the treatment he provided patient F. D. Respondent testified as to his method of treatment as to patients 88, 78, 77, 52, 56, 48, 46, 38, 40, 60, 68 and as to each of those patients, Respondent's records document that the patients treatment and visits were medically necessary and appropriate. Dr. Stillman demonstrated that on each occasion, there was substantial record documentation which supported the necessity for the treatment as provided by Respondent. Based upon the inconsistent evidence presented by Petitioner respecting its claim that Respondent failed to document the medical necessity for the treatment he provided to the patients during the years 1983-85 and the direct evidence presented by Respondent which established that all of the services rendered by him to Medicaid recipients were medically necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the treatments here in dispute were unnecessary, inappropriate or were not otherwise documented by the medical records under review. Moreover, all of the experts agree that the treating psychiatrist is best able to determine the medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments to render to a patient as that psychiatrist has direct contact with, and is best able to fully apply his or her training and experience. Respondent amply demonstrated that the services here at issue were medically necessary, appropriate and was of clear benefit to the patient. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing any basis for an overpayment as claimed. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of- Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that there was no overpayment to Respondent during the years 1983- 85. Respondent is entitled to a refund of all monies held pursuant to the overpayment calculation by the Department in this cause together with 10% for annual interest pursuant to Rule 10C-7.060(12), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Thandaveshwar Mysore, D.V.M., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint, DPBR Case Number 2005-005136, filed by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on October 19, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 474, Florida Statutes. At the times material to this proceeding, Thandaveshwar Mysore, is and was a licensed Florida veterinarian, having been issued license number VM5191. Dr. Mysore has been licensed in Florida as a veterinarian for approximately 20 years. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Mysore’s address of record was 8904 North Military Trail, Palm Beach, Florida 33410. Dr. Mysore obtained his veterinary degree in 1957. He taught veterinary medicine as an associate and assistant professor for approximately 19 years prior to moving to the United States. He has published more than 50 articles in veterinary journals. At the times relevant to this matter, Dr. Mysore’s practice was exclusively small animals, primarily dogs and cats. He has successfully performed thousands of spays on dogs and cats without incident. Dr. Mysore’s Treatment of Ricochet. On October 13, 2004, Rita Gurskin took her nine-month old female dog “Ricochet” and three other animals to be spayed and/or neutered by Dr. Mysore. Having examined Ricochet, Dr. Mysore sedated her pursuant to his normal protocol and performed a routine surgical spay. Ricky Joe King, who has assisted Dr. Mysore on a number of occasions, witnessed the procedure. The surgical area was cleaned by Dr. Mysore with Betadine and alcohol. Mr. King has been present and assisted Dr. Mysore in between 70 to 100 spay procedures. He has some understanding of the need to ensure that a surgical area is free of debris, and, in particular, hair. Both Dr. Mysore and Mr. King believed that the surgical area on Ricochet had been properly cleaned and prepared. Neither noticed any hair inside the incision in Ricochet at any time prior to or during closure of the incision. Following the procedure, Ms. Gruskin came to Dr. Mysore’s office to pick up Ricochet. While the testimony concerning Ricochet’s condition at that time conflicted, the more convincing testimony was that of Ms. Gruskin. According to Ms. Gruskin, Ricochet was lethargic and had to be assisted out of the office. While taking Ricochet to her vehicle Ms. Gruskin noticed what she believed was blood oozing from the incision. She pointed this out to Dr. Mysore, who assured her it was normal and told her not to worry about it. Dr. Brinkman’s Treatment of Ricochet. Following the October 13th surgical procedure, Ricochet was lethargic and had little appetite. The incision was inflamed and oozed blood and puss. Concerned about Ricochet’s condition, Ms. Gruskin took the dog to her regular veterinarian, Ted Brinkman, D.V.M., on October 15, 2004. Dr. Brinkman examined Ricochet. Ricochet’s temperature was 103.6F, she had an elevated white blood count, and the area around the incision area was swollen. Dr. Brinkman concluded that the incision would need to be repaired but that, because Ricochet’s condition was not critical and she had only recently undergone the surgery, recommended that no surgery be performed on Ricochet at that time. Ms. Gruskin agreed and Dr. Brinkman began a treatment with antibiotics. Ms. Gruskin returned to Dr. Brinkman’s office with Ricochet on October 22, 2004. Ricochet’s condition had not improved. Her white cell count had risen and the incision area was swollen and puffy. Dr. Brinkman recommended surgery, which Ms. Gruskin agreed to. As Dr. Brinkman began to open the incision, he found that the skin on the sides of the incision was not healing edge to edge. The skin had rolled in on itself and Dr. Brinkman was able to pull the incision apart easily. This was a result of the incision not having been property closed. The area of the incision had swollen to the size of a grapefruit. After opening the incision site, Dr. Brinkman found a “huge seroma of pussy infected nasty tissue.” There was also a “huge strange looking nest of hair” which consisted of hundreds of loose hairs inside the incision. According to Dr. Brinkman, there was a dead space in Ricochet which was filled with serum, the area was infected and raw looking, and was “hamburger like.” Dr. Brinkman removed the mass of hair and the infected, necrotic tissue and closed the incision. On November 11, 2004, Dr. Brinkman’s sutures were removed and Ricochet was discharged from Dr. Brinkman’s care. Ricochet made an uneventful recovery from the surgery performed by Dr. Brinkman. Ultimate Findings. While no one witnessed precisely how the hairs found by Dr. Brinkman when he opened Ricochet’s incision ended up inside Ricochet, the only logical conclusion that can be reached under the facts of this case is that the hairs were left in the site when Dr. Mysore performed the spay on Ricochet on October 13, 2004, and, unnoticed by Dr. Mysore or Mr. King, left inside the surgery site when it was sutured. There simply is no other plausible explanation. Admittedly, Dr. Mysore performed surgery on Ricochet. At the conclusion of that surgery, Dr. Mysore closed upon the surgery site. While neither Dr. Mysore nor Mr. King saw any hair in the open wound, Ricochet was covered with a drape which could have easily have blocked their view or they simply did not look closely. Just because they did not see the hair, does not mean that it was not there. Once the incision had been sutured by Dr. Mysore, the evidence failed to prove that the amount of hair found by Dr. Brinkman could have gotten into the surgery site in any other manner than by having been left in the site before the incision was sutured. The foregoing findings are further supported by Dr. Greene’s opinion testimony as to the likely circumstances under which the hairs could have gotten between Ricochet’s abdominal muscles and skin. It is also found that the tissue discovered by Dr. Brinkman inside the incision cavity was necrotic tissue and that it occurred as a direct result of the surgery performed by Dr. Mysore. This finding is based upon the opinion testimony of Dr. Greene, which was premised upon Dr. Brinkman’s credible description of the tissue he found inside Ricochet when he performed his surgical procedure. The necrotic tissue found by Dr. Brinkman was caused by the presence of the hair left inside the incision by Dr. Mysore. Again, this is the only plausible explanation for the “hamburger like” tissue found by Dr. Brinkman. Dr. Mysore’s Medical Records. Dr. Mysore failed to record the breed and species of Ricochet in the “heading” of the “Examination Records” he maintained on Ricochet. It was noted, however, that Ricochet was a “dog” in the body of those records. Ricochet was also identified by species and breed (although not with consistency) in the Surgery Authorization form for Ricochet’s surgery and on receipts of payment for services. Dr. Mysore also failed to record Ricochet’s temperature in his medical records. Although, if Ricochet’s temperature had been within the normal range, his failure to record her temperature would not have caused any “damage per se,” taking the temperature of an animal and recording it are a normal part of the required physical examination of the animal, which in turn is required to be included in an animal’s medical records. During Ricochet’s surgery, she was administered the drugs Atropine and Acepromozine. Dr. Mysore noted in Ricochet’s medical records that the drugs were given and recorded the amount given for both drugs combined (3cc’s). Dr. Mysore did not describe in the medical records the amount of the individual dosages of the two drugs given to Ricochet. Dr. Mysore has suggested that by using the Compendium of Veterinarian Products, which essentially lists drugs used by veterinarians and describes what is in the “package insert” for the drug, it can be determined how much Atropine was administered to Ricochet and that amount can then be subtracted from the total drugs given to determine the amount of Acepromozine. Although there are different strengths of Atropine, the dosage for any strength suggested for use on dogs is the same: 1 mL for each 20 lbs. of body weight. Therefore, knowing Ricochets’ body weight (49 lbs.), it can be determined how much of the 3 cc injection of drugs was Atrophine. This amount can then be subtracted from the total to determine the amount of Acepromozine administered. The difficulty with Dr. Mysore’s argument is two-fold. First, it cannot be determine from the medical records that Dr. Mysore even relied upon the Compendium. Without this information, there is no way to know to apply the calculation suggested by Dr. Mysore. Although many veterinarians rely upon the information contained in the Compendium, not all do, and, therefore, there would be no reason to assume that Dr. Mysore did in this matter. Secondly, although veterinarians may rely generally upon information contained in the Compendium, there is no requirement that a veterinarian strictly adhere to the suggested dosages information contained therein. Therefore, even it were assumed in this matter that Dr. Mysore referred to the suggested dosage for Atropine contained in the Compendium, it cannot be assumed that he followed the suggestion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding that Thandaveshwar Mysore, D.V.M., committed the violations described in this Recommended Order, placing his license to practice veterinary medicine on probation for a period of one year, and requiring that he pay a fine of $2,500.00, and the costs of the investigation of this matter, within 30 days of the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2009, 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 12th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin P. McDonnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juanita Chastain, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Ted Oroski, D.V.M., violated section 474.214(1)(r) and (ee), Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G19- 18.002(3), as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint with respect to his care and treatment of two horses named “Mattie” and “Coosa.” If Respondent is found guilty of the violations charged, it must be determined what penalty should be recommended to the Board of Veterinary Medicine.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Board of Veterinary Medicine are the state agencies charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 474, Florida Statutes. Respondent?s address of record is Post Office Box 454, Ocala, Florida 34478. Respondent, Ted Oroski, D.V.M., is and has been at all times relevant to these proceedings, a licensed veterinarian in Florida, having been issued license number VM 4239. Respondent has a disciplinary history with the Board of Veterinary Medicine. On April 2, 2010, the Board entered a Final Order against Respondent after Respondent failed to file a response to the Administrative Complaint in DBPR Case No. 2009- 11330, filed August 24, 2009. As a result, the Board?s Final Order adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law alleged in the Administrative Complaint and found Respondent to be guilty of violating section 474.214(1)(cc), by failing to keep contemporaneously written medical records; section 474.214(1)(o), by committing fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in or related to the practice of veterinary medicine, and section 474.214(1)(f), by failing to furnish copies of all reports and records relating to the treatment or examination of a patient. The Board imposed a fine of $5,500 and costs of $248.36, to be paid within one year of the Final Order, and non- reporting probation for a period of two years and six months. The Board has granted four extensions of time, up to and including December 12, 2012, for the payment of the fine. Respondent worked as the veterinarian caring for Jody McDermott?s horses for several years. Ms. McDermott owned several horses, including approximately six mares, and used the horses for breeding purposes. The allegations in this case address the care and treatment given, and the adequacy of medical records kept, for a mare name Coosa and a foal named Mattie. The foal is also identified in the records as “Ritzy „09,” because she was foaled by the mare Ritzy in 2009. Because most of the records refer to the foal as Ritzy „09, she will be so identified for the purposes of this Recommended Order. Ritzy „09 The record does not indicate when Ritzy „09 was born, although it appears that she was born in January 2009. The records provided for Ritzy „09 which purport to be medical records do not appear to be medical records at all. Instead, the records are more along the lines of invoices which sometimes describe the nature of treatment given, and sometimes do not. For example, on January 30, 2009, it appears from the records provided as Petitioner?s Exhibit 4 that Respondent performed an eyelid exam, and diagnosed an entropian left eyelid. The note for January 30, 2009, states in its entirety: Ritzy 09 Eye lid exam 10-- Entropian L eyelid 40-- TAB med. No ulceration This notation does not contain a medical history or presenting complaint from the owner, but does show results of the exam along with a treatment plan. An entropian is a condition where the eyelid is turned in and can rub or abrade the cornea, and has to be corrected surgically. On February 2, 2009, Respondent performed the surgery to correct the foal?s eyelid problem. The notation for this day states: Ritzy „09 Anesthesia Entropian [?]x1 40-- TAB oint. 60-- BAR Ropen/Ketamine 4 sutures lower lid l medicate eye no ulceration noted According to Dr. Schachter, an expert for the Department, BAR is a term meaning the foal is otherwise normal. In his opinion, this particular record was adequate for a medical record. On April 21, 2009, Respondent examined Ritzy „09. The notes for this visit state the following: BAR TPR - WNL Mild throat latch Swelling No nasal discharge Advised possible Allergic rxn/ tympany / possible strangles Observe for several days Ms. McDermott testified that Respondent gave her some antihistamine powder to give the foal; however, no notation regarding dispensing of antihistamine is included in the records for this horse. The record also did not include any indication of the foal?s age or history, or the nature of the presenting complaint. Respondent saw the foal again on April 29, 2009, and noted that Ritzy „09 had increased throat latch swelling, no discharge and was nursing normally. The note for April 29, 2009, states in part, “Referred to EMC for scope and workup.” EMCO is the Equine Medical Center of Ocala. Ms. McDermott denied that Respondent referred Ritzy „09 to EMCO on April 29, and testified that she took Ritzy „09 and her mother, Ritzy, to EMCO after she went out to feed the foal and blood was running out her nose. The medical records for EMCO with respect to Ritzy „09 include an entry for April 29, 2009, indicating that the foal was referred to EMCO for evaluation of a progressive swelling in the throat latch region with intermittent increased airway sounds. Samples for lab work were collected that same day. The more persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent referred Ritzy „09 on April 29, 2009, and it is so found. Ritzy „09 was treated successfully at EMCO. Respondent did not provide further care to the foal after the April 29, 2009, referral. As a whole, the documents produced with respect to Respondent?s care and treatment of Ritzy „09 do not comply with the requirements for medical records contained in rule 61G18- 18.002. The records do not contain the name of the owner or agent; do not provide adequate patient identification; provide no record of vaccinations administered; and often do not provide an initial complaint or reason for provision of services. However, no credible evidence was provided to indicate that Respondent?s care and treatment was incompetent or below that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent veterinarian as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Coosa One of the mares that Ms. McDermott owned, and for which she sought care from Respondent, was a mare named Coosa. Ms. McDermott obtained Coosa in or about 2007. The care and treatment at issue in this case was rendered from May 2009 through April 2010. The records related to Coosa?s care and treatment are sparse. As was the case with Ritzy „09, the records are more like invoices which sometimes describe the nature of treatment given, and sometimes do not. Moreover, the records include charges for services provided for more than one animal, and sometimes exclude the identity of the animal receiving services. The records for May 7, 2009, indicate that Coosa received an Oxytocin injection and an unidentified dosage of Domperidone. Oxytocin is a hormone given to a mare post-foaling to get the uterus to contract and help the mare to lose her after-birth. Domperidone is a drug that is, according Dr. Schachter, not approved for horses. The records do not provide a reason for administration of the drug. The records for this date lack a history and reason for the visit. No results of the exam are listed and there is no treatment plan, no signalment for the animal, no dosage for the drugs given, and no diagnosis. On May 30, 2009, Respondent performed an ovarian examination on Coosa. While the medical records include reference to an ovarian examination and examination by vaginal speculum, no presenting complaint, no history, no diagnosis, and no treatment plan are included. On June 2, 2009, Respondent artificially inseminated Coosa and gave her an HCG injection. The medical record entry, in its entirety, lists a farm call, AI, and HCG inj., with charges associated for each. The purpose of the HCG injection is to induce ovulation. The record, however, does not show a presenting complaint, the identity of the owner, a diagnosis, a treatment plan, or the health status of the animal. On June 18, 2009, Respondent performed a pregnancy palpation, and the notes indicate that the palpation was positive for pregnancy. No other information other than a “farm call” charge was listed for this visit. There is no signalment for the animal, no history, no clinical assessment other than the positive pregnancy test, and no plan for follow-up. The gestational period for a mare is approximately 354 days. A veterinarian can usually diagnose a pregnancy two and a half weeks after artificial insemination. The June 18 examination was 16 days after insemination. At this point in a pregnancy, it is customary to check for a twin pregnancy because a horse cannot efficiently support more than one foal per pregnancy. Because it is difficult to palpate for twin pregnancy at this point, rectal ultrasound normally would be used. No ultrasound was performed at this point in the pregnancy. However, while the evidence demonstrated that ultrasound would be normal practice, the Department did not establish that failure to perform an ultrasound would be below the appropriate standard of care. On September 9, 2009, Respondent?s records show that an ultrasound was performed on Coosa, as well as four other horses. However, Ms. McDermott did not receive any copies of the ultrasound films, and none are in the medical records. Respondent testified that there were no ultrasound films because his ultrasound machine had an element that was burned out for two to three months. He gave no explanation as to why the machine was not repaired in a timely manner. The September 9, 2009, note also stated that Coosa was given Dectomax, but no dosage was indicated. Dectomax is an injectable de-wormer approved and licensed for use with cattle. Its use by injection has been discontinued by the Food and Drug Administration and Dr. Schachter testified that it has been withdrawn from the market for use with horses for several years. He knew of no studies that show its safety for use with pregnant horses. However, as with the failure to perform an ultrasound early in the pregnancy, Dr. Schachter and Dr. Sinclair were not asked and did not give an opinion indicating that the provision of Dectomax constituted a violation of the appropriate standard of care. The note for September 9, 2009, also indicates that 100 gr. of Bute powder was provided. Bute refers to Butazolidin, an anti-inflammatory drug. However, the note does not indicate which horse or horses were to receive the drug, or the symptoms the drug was intended to address. The note for September 9, 2009, also provides no information with respect to the progress of Coosa?s pregnancy; no reason stated for the provision of services; no history; no physical examination other than the ultrasound; no present illness or injury; and no provisional diagnosis or health status determination other than the positive ultrasound note with no copy of the films. On October 9, 2009, Respondent performed a soundness examination to check for lameness and administered 100 cc?s of Banamine. There are two separate invoices/records for October 9, 2009. Both reference a farm call, a soundness exam, 100cc of Banamine, TAB ointment, and the charges associated with these services. However, one copy of the record includes a notation at the bottom for SAV-A Hoof solution, which is circled. On the second record, the notation for SAV-A Hoof solution is written over the TAB ointment. Below those notations, the record reads, White line dx With soft soles 11/U lame BF Bute ± Banamine Next several days Ms. McDermott received only the first version of the notes for October 9, 2009. The first version does not include a history or presenting complaint, physical examination, diagnosis, or treatment plan. The second version includes information related to the examination and a treatment plan, but no history or presenting complaint. Neither note contains information regarding the status of Coosa?s pregnancy, or her condition with respect to the pregnancy. At no point in the records for Coosa does it indicate when she was expected to foal. There are no records for this pregnant mare from October 9, 2009, to March 11, 2010, a period of five months. The only note related to Coosa on March 11, 2010, simply indicates that she palpated as pregnant on that date. The note gives no further information. On March 31, 2010, Coosa received another injection of Dectomax. The note for that day contains no other information, such as any complaint or reason for provision of services, history, physical examination, present injury or illness, or provisional diagnosis, health status determination or treatment plan. Nothing related to her pregnancy is included. On April 26, 2010, Respondent made a farm call and gave Coosa a Bute injection and a Ketofen injection. Both drugs presumably would have been provided to make the horse more comfortable. There are two copies of the note for April 26, 2010. No other information was provided in the first copy of the note for that day other than the provision of Bute and Ketofen. A second copy of the note adds a notation at the end that reads, “ll/v lame BF; trimmed 2-3 days ago; all horses sore footed.” However, neither record contains a history, complaint, physical exam, the status of her pregnancy, a diagnosis, or a treatment plan. On April 27, 2010, Respondent fit Coosa for E/Z boots and gave her injections for Bute and Ketofen. No other information is provided in the records. Once again, there is no identification of the owner, no history, no presenting complaint, no physical examination findings, no notes regarding the pregnancy or the status of the horse, no diagnosis, and no treatment plan. There are two different notes for April 28, 2010. The first indicates that Respondent performed a soundness examination on Coosa, adjusted the EZ boots, and gave her Bute and Ketofen. The note also states that the “mare very sore; recurrence of founder.” It does not indicate when founder was initially diagnosed, and does not refer to her pregnancy. A second note for April 28, 2010, indicates that Respondent gave injections of Bute and an antihistamine, and also ordered an estrone sulfate test and blood chemistry. A final note for April 29, 2010, indicates that injections of Bute and an antihistamine were given to Coosa. At this point, Ms. McDermott was dissatisfied with the services she was receiving from Respondent with respect to both Coosa and Ritzy „09, and terminated his services. An estrone sulfate is a lab test to check for fetal membrane to see if the mare is still pregnant. While the note reflects that the lab tests were ordered, no lab results are contained in Respondent?s records for Coosa. Respondent admitted he typically did not pick up lab results, and would simply get them over the telephone, and most likely did not receive the results until after he treated Coosa that day. Respondent testified that he relayed to Ms. McDermott the results of the tests, which indicated that Coosa was no longer pregnant, sometime that evening. Ms. McDermott sought the services of another veterinarian for Coosa, but ultimately she died prior to the time her foal would have been due. There are no records with respect to her death because at that time, she was no longer under Respondent?s care. The veterinarian who assumed Coosa?s care did not testify. As a whole, the documents produced with respect to Respondent?s care and treatment of Coosa do not comply with the requirements for medical records contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G18-18.002. The records do not contain the name of the owner or agent; do not provide adequate patient identification; provide no record of vaccinations administered; do not provide adequate documentation of the course of her pregnancy, and often do not provide an initial complaint or reason for provision of services. Respondent was convinced that the recurrence of founder for this mare was due to her obesity, and felt she was metabolically challenged. He was trying to get her to the point of foaling because, according to Respondent, usually sore-footed horses tend to improve after giving birth. He also stated that he provided no further records related to the pregnancy because there were no problems: she was gaining weight, not showing any signs of losing the foal, had no evidence of a bag and no vaginal discharge, and appeared to be heavy in foal. None of these observations, including his conclusions that she was obese and metabolically challenged, appear anywhere in her records. However, no credible evidence was provided to indicate that Respondent?s care and treatment with respect to Coosa was incompetent or below that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent veterinarian as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. While one might infer that Respondent?s care was sloppy and perhaps inattentive, no testimony was presented to establish the standard of care for the treatment of a pregnant horse or for the treatment of founder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Veterinary Medicine enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 474.214(1)(ee), Florida Statutes (2009); imposing a reprimand; imposing an administrative fine of $3,000; and imposing a period of two years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 16th day of May, 2013.
