The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent: (a) was convicted of a crime which directly relates to the practice of physical therapy; (b) failed to timely report a criminal conviction to the Board of Physical Therapy Practice; and (c) was terminated from the Medicaid program, as Petitioner has alleged; and, if one or more of these allegations are established, whether the Board should impose discipline on Respondent's physical therapy license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Marly Delis Cueto ("Cueto"), P.T., was licensed as a physical therapist in the state of Florida. Petitioner Department of Health ("Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physical therapists such as Cueto. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physical therapist, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Physical Therapy Practice ("Board") has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the therapist has committed a disciplinable offense. Exercising its prosecutorial authority, the Department has charged Cueto with three such offenses, namely, being convicted of a crime which directly relates to the practice of physical therapy; failing to report this conviction to the Board; and being terminated from the state Medicaid program. It is undisputed that, on November 5, 2008, in a case styled State of Florida v. Cueto, No. 08-16209CF10A, the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, accepted Cueto's plea of nolo contendere to the single count of grand theft (a third-degree felony) with which she had been charged; withheld adjudication of guilt; and sentenced her to a term of two years' probation with special conditions. The conditions were that Cueto pay the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") $28,000 as restitution to the Medicaid program, from which she had stolen funds; and that she relinquish her Medicare and Medicaid provider numbers while on probation. Cueto did not explain the reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, her plea of nolo contendere. There is, at bottom, no persuasive evidence in the record upon which to base any findings of an exculpatory nature concerning the underlying criminal charge for which Cueto was sentenced. Where, as here, there is insufficient proof of objectively reasonable grounds for entering a plea of no contest, which are consistent with innocence, the undersigned presumes that the licensee entered the plea because of a guilty conscience or in surrender to overwhelming odds of conviction. Thus, it is determined that Cueto's plea of nolo contendere constituted a conviction. The conduct which gave rise to Cueto's conviction is relevant only for the limited purpose of determining whether the crime directly relates to the practice of physical therapy. In this regard, the undersigned finds that during the period from January 1, 2007 to April 22, 2008, Cueto——who, as a licensed physical therapist, was an enrolled Medicaid provider——knowingly and intentionally submitted multiple claims to the Florida Medicaid program for physical therapy services that she had not actually rendered, on which false claims she was paid at least $28,000 to which she was not entitled. It is determined that Cueto was convicted of a crime which directly relates to the practice of physical therapy. Cueto did not report to the Board that fact that she had pleaded nolo contendere to a crime, as she was legally required to do within 30 days after entering the plea. On September 30, 2009, AHCA entered a Final Order terminating Cueto from participation as a provider in the Florida Medicaid program. AHCA imposed this sanction against Cueto pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(8) (2008)——as it was authorized to do under section 409.913(13), Florida Statutes (2009)——because she had been convicted of grand theft on November 5, 2008. As of the final hearing in this case, Cueto had not been reenrolled as a Medicaid provider.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Physical Therapy Practice enter a final order finding Marly Delis Cueto guilty of the offense described in section 486.125(1)(c), Florida Statutes, i.e., being convicted of a crime that directly relates to the practice of physical therapy; guilty of the offense defined in section 456.072(1)(x), namely failing to timely report a criminal conviction to the Board; and guilty of the offense defined in section 486.125(1)(k), in consequence of having been terminated from the Medicaid program, which latter constitutes a disciplinable offense under section 456.072(1)(kk). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board impose an administrative fine of $14,000 and suspend Cueto's physical therapy license for two years, to be followed by two years of probation on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Board establishes, which may include the requirement that Cueto pay in full the $28,000 she has been ordered to remit to AHCA as restitution of the stolen funds. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether the last sentence of Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[a]n applicant who has failed to pass the [physical therapist licensure] examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure [by endorsement]," is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations entered into by the parties:3 The "applications for licensure in Florida as physical therapists" that Petitioners filed were applications for licensure by endorsement.4 Their applications were denied because they each had failed the National Physical Therapy Examination (also known as the "NPTE") more than five times before finally passing the examination. Prior to November 11, 2002, the Board's "Licensure by Endorsement" rule, Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in another state, the District of Columbia, a territory or a foreign country if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another state, the District of Columbia, a territory, or a foreign country are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider. Effective November 11, 2002, the Board amended Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, to read as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has active licensure in another jurisdiction and has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in such other jurisdiction if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another jurisdiction are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider certified by the Department [of Health].[5] An applicant who has failed to pass the examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure. No subsequent amendments have been made to Rule 64B17-3.003. The version of the rule that became effective November 11, 2002, is still in effect. Section 486.081, Florida Statutes, is cited as the "law implemented" in the current of version Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, as it was in the pre-November 11, 2002, version of the rule. Florida, along with the other 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, use the NPTE (the only national examination of its kind available in this country) to test the competency of candidates for licensure by examination to practice as physical therapists. Florida has used the NPTE since June of 1994, when the examination was certified.6 There is no "Florida-developed examination." The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy is the "provider" of the NPTE. The NPTE is a "criterion-based," minimum competency examination consisting of multiple-choice questions that is given only in English.7 It is designed to test whether candidates possess core skills basic to the practice of physical therapy, not their knowledge of the English language (although candidates "need a certain proficiency in English to fully understand the questions"). The examination is highly reliable in its measurement of entry-level knowledge in the discipline. "From a psychometric and statistical [perspective], [a] candidate would need to take the examination one time for [there to be] a very accurate estimate of [the candidate's competency]." It is reasonable, however, to permit a limited number of "retakes," in light of the possibility that "luck" or some other factor unrelated to the candidate's competency may have negatively impacted the candidate's test results. Allowing an "[u]nlimited number of retakes [of the NPTE]," though, diminishes the examination's reliability as a consequence of the "practice effect" and "repeat exposure" phenomena. It is contrary to "nationally and generally accepted testing standards" and increases the risk that a candidate lacking the required skills will be able to pass the examination. "[T]he number of times that Florida has set [for a candidate to take the NPTE] . . . is very ample and lenient."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a physician authorized to practice medicine in the State of Florida under license number ME 0031424. Respondent has an office located at S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 34th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Delores Prado has worked in Respondent's office for the past ten years. Her duties are primarily administrative in nature. On occasion, however, Prado assists Respondent by administering physical therapy to Respondent's patients. She does so, though, only at the specific directive of Respondent, who provides her with detailed instructions regarding the precise treatment each patient is to receive. Prado never treats a patient when Respondent is not on the premises and immediately available if needed. During her first year of employment with Respondent, Prado received training in the practice of physical therapy. Prado is not now, nor was she at any time material hereto, licensed or certified to render any health care services in the State of Florida, including, but not limited to, those that licensed or certified physicians, registered nurses, practical nurses, physical therapists, and physical therapist assistants are authorized to perform. At all times material hereto, Respondent knew or should have of known of Prado's unlicensed status. On September 2, 1988, Thomas Daniels, an Investigative Specialist II with the Department, visited Respondent's office to investigate a complaint that Respondent was permitting unlicensed individuals to administer physical therapy to his patients. Upon his arrival at the office, Daniels was greeted by a young woman seated behind the reception desk. During the course of his conversation with the woman, Daniels inquired as to whether she had ever administered physical therapy to any of Respondent's patients. She replied in the negative. Daniels then showed her a copy of a letter, addressed to the U.S. Security Insurance Company and bearing her signature, which reflected the contrary. Confronted with this letter, the woman conceded that she and her fellow employees performed physical therapy on Respondent's patients. Respondent, who was nearby in a position where he could overhear the conversation, did not interject and deny the statement that his employee had made to Daniels. Later during his September 2, 1988, visit, Daniels met with Respondent and was shown the office's physical therapy area. He then left. Daniels returned to Respondent's office on September 6, 1988. On this visit, he was greeted by Prado. He asked her if he could speak with Respondent. Prado replied that Respondent was out of the office and she did not expect him back until later that afternoon. Daniels then asked Prado if he could take photographs of the physical therapy area. Prado indicated that she had no objection to him doing so. Daniel thereupon went into the physical therapy area where he observed one of Respondent's patients seated in a chair with "hot packs" on her neck and shoulders. The patient was in the midst of receiving physical therapy administered by Prado pursuant to the specific directive of Respondent. Notwithstanding what Prado had told Daniels, Respondent was in fact on the premises, albeit outside of the physical therapy area and beyond Daniels' view, and was immediately available if needed. Daniels took photographs of the physical therapy area and then concluded his visit. During the ten minutes that Daniels was in Respondent's office on September 6, 1988, he spoke to Prado and no one else. Their conversation was in English and Prado appeared to have little difficulty understanding what Daniels was saying to her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding that Respondent did not commit the offenses charged and dismissing the instant administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of August, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of August, 1990.
