The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner on the basis of alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act, Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. In an eight-count Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been charged with four violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license number is ME0022079. Facts regarding Patient #1 The Respondent provided medical treatment to Patient #1 from April 20, 1987, through April 12, 1988. During the period of that treatment Patient #1 was approximately 92 years old and was diagnosed as having organic brain syndrome. Respondent obtained a brief past medical history of the patient and failed to document the patient's current complaints or review any prior medical records of the patient. On May 26, 1987, Respondent diagnosed the patient with pedal edema and ordered Hygroton 25 mg., but failed to document in the medical records the number of times per day the patient was to take the medication or the dosage for the medication. On June 6, 1987, the patient presented with shortness of breath and a blood pressure of 110/80. Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On July 14, 1987, and September 22, 1987, the patient again presented with shortness of breath and pedal edema and Respondent only recorded the lungs as clear and took her blood pressure. Respondent did not perform any other tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On October 26, 1987, when the patient presented with shortness of breath, Respondent noted an arrhythmia and blood pressure of 136/82. However, Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the course of the symptoms. When the patient presented with arrhythmia, the applicable standard of care 5/ required Respondent to perform an EKG, to check her digoxin levels, and monitor her electrolytes and renal functions. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not meet the applicable record-keeping standards 6/ because the records were incomplete, inadequate, and illegible. Specifically, the records did not have diagnoses, did not have a plan of treatment, and did not include thorough examinations or histories, making it impossible to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #2 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #2 from July 11, 1978, until September 13, 1988. Patient #2, a male, was seventy-one years old when such treatment began. The patient had a history of gastric ulcers. Nevertheless, Respondent prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications which exacerbate or increase difficulties with gastric ulcers and bleeding without obtaining a complete history or conducting a full examination. Respondent's medical records did not document whether Respondent assessed the risk to the patient, discussed the risk with the patient, or made any determinations that the risks outweighed the benefits for the patient. In 1978, the patient presented with a chronic cough and chronic bronchitis. However, Respondent did not perform any chest x-rays to determine the origin of the cough or to rule out lung carcinoma. Over the years, the cough persisted and in 1982-1983, the patient experienced shortness of breath and increased ankle edema. Respondent prescribed diuretics without determining the etiology of the edema and without conducting renal status or electrolyte monitoring. In 1985, the patient was hospitalized with severe ankle swelling. Respondent did not aggressively treat the possibility of deep vein thrombosis or cellulitis, nor did he treat the patient with anticoagulants to lessen the risk of a blood clot going to the lung. The applicable standard of care required anticoagulant treatment under these circumstances. In 1987, the patient suffered a severe weight loss with the chronic cough. The Respondent's records do not reveal any attempt to make a diagnosis. On December 15, 1987, the patient complained of abdominal problems, which could have related to the steroidal anti-inflammatory medications prescribed. The Respondent's records fail to document any laboratory tests or examinations by Respondent to determine the cause of the complaints. Respondent breached the applicable standard of care by failing to perform an EKG on the patient when he presented with dizziness, light-headedness or syncopal episodes from September 1987, until July 12, 1988. When the patient presented on August 30, 1988, and September 13, 1988, with very serious complaints of precordial chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations, a reasonably prudent physician would have suspected that the patient was having a heart attack. Despite the symptoms, Respondent made a psychiatric diagnosis, rather than fully evaluating the heart and cardiac status. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not comply with the applicable record-keeping standards in that they did not contain thorough examinations or histories, and did not have diagnoses or plans of treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #3 Respondent provided care to Patient #3 from November 17, 1987, until May 16, 1989. Patient #3, a female, was eighty-five years old when such treatment began. Respondent should have been aware from the patient's initial presentation, that the patient did not qualify to reside in an adult congregate living facility and should have taken steps to have her admitted to a skilled nursing facility. Respondent's failure to do so is a breach of the applicable standard of care. Respondent's initial examination of the patient was limited and Respondent failed to conduct an EKG to reveal the origin of the patient's pedal edema or irregular heartbeat. Respondent also failed to diagnose, treat, or refer the patient for a consult to evaluate her vision and hearing loss. Even though the diagnosis was not made in the Respondent's records, it is apparent from the medications prescribed by Respondent that the patient was being treated for congestive heart failure. She also had pedal edema, shortness of breath, and cardiac arrhythmia. Respondent failed to perform or conduct the appropriate tests and examinations to make a diagnosis of the patient's condition or to provide effective treatment. The patient had frequent episodes of high blood pressure for which Respondent prescribed diuretics. Respondent's prescribing of Tenormin violated the applicable standard of care and subjected the patient to serious cardiac risks. Respondent's medical records for the patient were illegible for the most part and in many instances omitted information about the diagnosis and course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding Patient #4 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #4 from April 1985 until January 5, 1988. Patient #4, a male, was seventy-four years old when such treatment began. When the patient originally presented to Respondent, he was on cardiac medications, had complaints of possible arrhythmias, and had a history of organic brain syndrome and tardive dyskinesia. Respondent was required by the applicable standard of care to evaluate the patient's cardiac condition, renal status, and potassium level. Respondent breached the standard of care by failing to conduct these evaluations and examinations. On October 1, 1985, the patient presented with back pain. Rather than conducting a physical exam to determine the source of the pain, Respondent violated the standard of care and treated the pain symptomatically. The patient was prescribed an anti-psychotic drug, Mellaril, and throughout Respondent's care exhibited side effects, including falls with resulting abrasions. Respondent failed to discontinue the drug or take appropriate measures to determine the extent of the patient's condition and implement a course of treatment. On July 23, 1987, Respondent prescribed an amount of Dalmane considered excessive for geriatric patients. These inappropriate prescriptions constitute a departure from the applicable standard of care. Respondent's medical records for the patient were replete with omissions of physical exams, diagnoses, and plans of care, and were inadequate as to patient history and justification for course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding prior discipline Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine. The prior disciplinary action was based on deficiencies in Respondent's record-keeping. The prior disciplinary action does not appear to have improved Respondent's record-keeping in any significant way.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of all of the following: (a) an administrative fine in the total amount of $4,000.00 (representing a $500.00 fine for each of the eight counts); (b) a one-year period of suspension of the Respondent's license; and (c) a one-year period of probation following the suspension, during which probation period the Respondent shall be required to have his records reviewed by a supervising physician approved by the Board, such supervising physician to provide quarterly reports to the Board regarding the sufficiency of the Respondent's record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 2nd day of February 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed medical doctor holding a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida issued by the Board of Medical Examiners, Department of Professional Regulation. The Petitioner is a governmental agency charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and related rules which regulate the licensure standards and status pertaining to medical doctors in the State of Florida, and enforcing the practice standards for licensed medical doctors embodied in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Steven Jones has been employed as a detective in the Narcotics Department of the City of Miami Beach Police Department for approximately three and one-half years. He is a ten-year veteran of the law enforcement profession. In December 1982, an investigation was initiated to determine whether allegations of misprescribing scheduled controlled substances made by a confidential informant against Dr. Ramos, the Respondent, were true. On December 16, 1982, Detective Jones entered the medical offices of the Respondent and asked to see Dr. Ramos. The Respondent's receptionist asked him to fill out a patient information sheet. On this sheet or form he indicated his name was "Steven James." He was then taken to the Respondent's office and met the Respondent. He told the Respondent that he was a construction worker, had recently experienced turmoil in his domestic life, and also suffered from a lumbo-sacral sprain. The Respondent then asked him if he had back pain and, after asking him general questions about his health and whether he suffered from any major illnesses, took out his prescription pad and wrote prescriptions for three medications. Other than the general questions the doctor asked him about his health, no detailed medical history was taken from Mr. Jones and there was no physical examination performed by Dr. Ramos or anyone else, except that his weight and height were recorded. No blood pressure reading was taken. After Dr. Ramos asked Mr. Jones if he had a backache, to which Mr. Jones responded in the affirmative, Dr. Ramos stated that he would prescribe something for the backache and something for stress that caused the backache, and something to sleep at night. Although no blood pressure was taken, Dr. Ramos did ask the patient how his blood pressure was, and the patient answered that it was "fine." The doctor then prescribed 60 tablets of valium, 60 placidyl tablets and 40 darvocet tablets. The only medical history provided in writing to the doctor concerned the name, address and employment, medical insurance information and answers to questions on the form concerning allergies. Additionally, the patient noted that he had been taking "valium" or "valium." Upon receiving the prescriptions, Steven Jones paid Dr. Ramos $40 and left his office. Detective Jones again visited Dr. Ramos' office on February 2, 1983. Upon arriving at the office he was escorted into an examining room by the Respondent's assistant, who was also his wife. While Mr. Jones was seated in the examining room, an assistant placed a blood pressure tourniquet or cuff on the patient's arm, leaving it there four to five minutes, when she ultimately returned to the room and informed Steven Jones that the doctor was ready to see him. The blood pressure tourniquet or arm band was never actually inflated by the Respondent or assistant, and no blood pressure reading was ever taken on this visit. Upon going into the Respondent's office, Mr. Jones was asked by Dr. Ramos about how he was feeling and the "patient" requested stronger pain medication. The doctor refused to do this, saying in effect that the patient, Mr. Jones, would have to be admitted to a hospital before the Respondent could prescribe stronger pain medication. Again, on this office visit no social or medical history was taken, and no physical examination was conducted at all. The Respondent asked the patient if he wanted the same prescriptions he had obtained at his December visit, and the patient answered in the affirmative. There was no discussion between the patient and the Respondent or anyone else concerning the patient's condition or progress between the December visit and this February visit. There was no discussion concerning the need for future treatment. The Respondent simply, at that point, wrote the same prescriptions given at the December visit. The next visit by Detective Steven Jones, a/k/a Steven James, occurred on May 25, 1983, at the Respondent's medical offices. The same medical assistant recognized Jones immediately when he came into the office and asked him if he was there for the same reason, to which he replied in the affirmative. He was then escorted straight to Dr. Ramos' office, who asked him if he wanted the same medication again, to which he assented. There was no discussion at all about his condition and how it may have progressed since the February visit, nor was there any discussions about future prospects for treatment, what treatment if any, was being considered or what it was designed to accomplish. The Respondent simply wrote three prescriptions once again, for valium, placidyl and darvocet, Schedule IV controlled substances. Except for the first visit, there was never any discussion of back pain nor any discussion concerning symptoms of insomnia and nervousness in this patient. Onelia Padron testified for Respondent. She has known the Respondent for many years and has worked for him as a technician for approximately a year. She was working in his office in December 1982, as an x-ray technician and in the performance of blood tests, blood pressure readings and physical therapy. She remembered Detective Jones coming to the office in December 1982, and testified that she did not take a blood pressure reading at the December visit, but did so at the February visit. Her specific memory of taking the blood pressure reading in February was not clear, however. She remembers specifically that his blood pressure was normal at the February visit and testified that she was sure that Dr. Ramos wrote down the blood pressure of the patient in his medical chart for the February visit. The patient medical record of Detective Jones a/k/a James, however, does not reveal that a blood pressure reading was taken at the February visit. Although the witness claims to have taken a blood pressure reading on the patient on his February 1983 visit, the testimony of Detective Jones reveals that no blood pressure reading was taken; although the blood pressure cuff or tourniquet was applied to his arm, it was simply not used. This may account in part for Ms. Padron's mistaken memory of actually taking the blood pressure reading. Her memory may be less than accurate due to passage of time. The testimony of Detective Jones to the effect that no blood pressure reading was taken, when considered with the Respondent's own medical records which do not reveal a blood pressure reading being taken, renders the finding inescapable that no blood pressure reading was taken at the February, 1983 visit and that Ms. Padron, after the passage of over a year, has a less- than-specific, inaccurate memory about the occasion and thus her testimony with regard to this visit is not credible. Rita Ramos, the Respondent's wife, acts as the office receptionist who makes and maintains the medical records for the Respondent. She performs no medical duties, however, she is well acquainted with her husband's handwriting and, of course, her own handwriting, and established that the word "valium" on Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and the word "valium" on Petitioner's Exhibit 6 were not written by her or her husband. She maintains that she specifically remembers the patient (Detective Jones) coming to visit Dr. Ramos on December 16, 1982, and she specifically remembers the doctor conducting a full physical examination and writing at least four lines of notes in the patient's record. She did not take a blood pressure on this patient in either December or February, however, and could not give an adequate explanation of how she could perform all her administrative record-keeping and maintenance duties and still have time to continually watch through the open door of her husband's office to see the physicals performed on approximately 20 patients a day, including Jones, and especially then to be able to remember the details of that one specific patient's visit in December 1982, over a year prior to the hearing. Although this witness supposedly remembered the doctor "always" conducting physical examinations on the first visit by a patient, and specifically conducting a head, eyes and ears examination on the first visit of Detective Jones, given the inherent interest of the patient in this case, the fact that her memory must be suspect regarding a specific patient's visit on a specific date more than a year prior to the hearing, and her own testimony that no irregularity or memorable occurrence happened during the visit of that patient to stimulate her recall, her memory of that event must be deemed less than accurate and therefore her testimony concerning the physical examination cannot be found credible by this Hearing Officer. Dr. Ramos testified on his own behalf. He stated that his standard practice is to interview and examine each patient and that he was especially suspicious of the subject patient who came in wearing earrings and boots. He interpreted his abbreviated notes on the patient's chart to reveal that the patient was 5'8" tall and weighed 145 pounds, had a blood pressure of 120 over 80 and a pulse of 80, and a normal sinus rhythm with no heart murmur and no abnormal respiratory signs. The doctor additionally interpreted his handwritten notes containing his own abbreviations, to reveal that the patient's eyes were normal, neck supple, with normal ears, nose, throat and a fair complexion. Although the patient asked for a stronger medication on at least one of the visits, including quaaludes, the doctor refused, informing the patient that he could not legally prescribe such for him in Florida. The doctor also testified that he remembered that on the second visit in February 1983, Ms. Padron took the blood pressure of the patient. He contends that he did not record the blood pressure reading because it was the same as the first time, that is, the December 1982 visit. No blood pressure was taken or recorded at the December 1982 visit, however, and none is revealed in the doctor's record for that visit. Although the doctor testified that on the February visit he believed that the patient might be trying to trick him and might be an undercover law enforcement officer, he still prescribed the same controlled substance prescribed earlier, with no additional physical examination made nor physical findings recorded in the patient records. He repeated the same instructions as to use of those drugs and the reasons for taking those drugs, but did not record any physical findings related to that visit. By his own admission, he did not ask the patient what had occurred in his medical history between December and February and did not ask questions concerning the success of his previously prescribed course of treatment. If indeed, the Respondent believed that the patient could be an undercover law enforcement officer and thus attempting to trick the doctor into misprescribing drugs for him, one might think that the doctor would take pains to make a thorough physical examination and to thoroughly record his findings and conclusions in the medical records he maintained, instead of failing to document his physical findings and conclusions and continuing to prescribe those drugs over a period of months. Thus, the testimony of Dr. Ramos is not supportive of a finding that a thorough physical examination, including the taking of blood pressure readings at each patient visit and, (in view of the low back pain complaint) straight leg raise tests, tests for impairment of sensation in extremities and other parameter checks, was actually conducted on the patient. Dr. John Handwerker, M.D., testified as an expert witness for the Petitioner. He has served as first chairman of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Florida Family and Community Medicine programs. He is Chairman of the Family Practice Department of Mercy Hospital in Miami, and is assistant professor of pharmacology at the University of Miami. He is knowledgeable regarding generally prevailing and accepted standards of family practice in Dade County and was accepted, without challenge, as an expert in the field of family practice. The drug Darvocet and Darvocet N-100 is a Schedule IV controlled substance, according to the schedule established in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Darvocet is characterized by some habituating influence, together with some problems with withdrawal. Its use is contraindicated with tranquilizers, such as valium, which was also prescribed in conjunction with it by Respondent for the patient involved herein. Valium, which is known generically as diazepam, is also a Schedule IV controlled substance and is a sedative or anti-anxiety drug with a wide variety of potentially adverse drug interactions, including darvocet. It can be mildly addictive, has a depressant effect on the central nervous system and is also a muscle relaxant. Placidyl is a short-term drug used in sleep disorders. It is only indicated for use for a maximum of seven days. It is classed as an oral hypnotic, and is a Schedule IV controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Prior to prescribing any of these drugs, a physician should take a full history from a patient, and perform a thorough physical examination. The history should include the patient's chief complaint with questions from the physician to the patient involving areas of past problems with the nervous system, ears, eyes, lungs, chest, respiratory system, GI tract, and urinary tract. The physical examination should involve all body systems, including blood pressure, examination of the head, neck and chest and back regions. Further, if the patient requests these or other drugs specifically, a check should then be made for "track marks" and other evidence of prior drug abuse or usage. If the patient complains of low back pain, there should be a physical examination specifically involving the low back area before prescribing the scheduled controlled substances at issue. The past history is important to determine the duration of the problem, any previous medical treatment, examinations or tests by other physicians regarding the lumbosacral or low back area. A physical examination should be performed designed to elicit indications of neurological involvement, including straight leg raise tests, impairment of sensation tests in the extremities and other neurological inquiries. Such a full history and a physical examination is necessary prior to initiating a course of treatment involving treatment of chronic pain due to the existence of a wide assortment of other treatment modalities which might treat the root of the problem, rather than merely the pain symptoms. Dr. Handwerker, upon being questioned concerning the December 1982 visit of Detective Jones to the Respondent's office, posing as a 29-year-old construction worker complaining of lower back pain and insomnia, established that if a doctor performed no physical examination of such a patient, or only a cursory one, and took a history which in essence elicited only the complaint of injury (aside from the non-medical personal background information) that it would amount to inappropriate prescribing of the subject drugs if the patient was given these drugs in the manner prescribed to Detective Jones. The Respondent simply made insufficient findings upon which to base the decision to prescribe those drugs. Such prescribing without an adequate physical examination or the obtaining of detailed patient medical history would constitute a failure to conform to the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under these conditions and circumstances. The continued prescribing of these drugs at the February and May visits of this patient, without any discussion or consideration of the effect the previous course of treatment had had on the patient, other than a simple question by the Respondent concerning how the patient was feeling, also constitutes inappropriate prescribing of scheduled controlled substances and demonstrates a failure to conform to the generally accepted and prevailing standards of medical practice in the Dade County community. It was similarly established that the medical records failed to justify the course of treatment afforded this patient. Especially regarding the lack of a physical examination at each visit, and the failure to elicit any further medical history on the latter two visits. Even if a full physical examination and history was conducted on the first visit in December 1982, which was not the case, there would still be required an interim update and recording of physical findings related to the patient's experience since the December visit. Notes should have been made in the patient records regarding how the medications were affecting the patient and his pain problem, including notes reflecting that a physical examination had been performed, involving all vital signs, which was not the case with this patient. Not only does the generally accepted and prevailing standard of medical practice in Dade County require that an initial, thorough physical examination including the blood pressure and pulse and the eliciting of a detailed medical history be performed, as well as update physical examinations at later visits to check the progress of the patient under the treatment program; the failure to note the findings in the patient records constitutes a failure to conform to generally accepted and prevailing standards of medical practice for the Dade County community. Dr. Alfred March testified as an expert witness for Respondent, but agreed that the same detailed medical history and examination described by Dr. Handwerker is required before the practitioner should prescribe scheduled controlled substances in the same manner as done by the Respondent. Dr. March was unable to ascertain from simply reviewing the medical records of the Respondent, the reason or justification for the prescribing of any of the drugs on the three dates in question, and established that the medical records of the doctor should always justify the course of treatment for a patient. Indeed, Dr. March established that if a patient came in complaining of a backache, then such would be inappropriate prescribing without the performance of x-rays of the affected area and a full neurological examination, neither of which was performed by the Respondent in this case. Dr. Ramos has never been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the past, and his past professional record reveals that his medical practice has been characterized by sincere concern for his patients and the highest respect of his colleagues. The subject drugs involved are Schedule IV controlled substances, which are of the class of drugs characterized by the least serious ramifications for patients, if misused. It is to the doctor's credit that when the undercover detective, Mr. Jones, attempted to persuade him to prescribe more powerful medication such as quaaludes, the doctor vigorously protested such a course of treatment and refused to do so, citing his belief that indeed it was illegal to do so in Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: GENERAL At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Brian A. Lasseter was a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0033303 by the state of Florida. This matter arose as a result of the Petitioner reviewing the hospital records of 14 patients hospitalized and treated by Respondent at Waterman Memorial Hospital (Waterman), Eustis, Florida, between June, 1980 and June, 1983. The Petitioner's experts, Dr. Yelverton and Dr. Marley, did not review Respondent's office records of the patients material to this proceeding prior to testifying. However, both Dr. Yelverton and Dr. Marley reviewed the hospital records prior to testifying. There was no evidence that any of Respondent's patients material to this proceeding complained of Respondent's treatment or lack of treatment, or Respondent's failure to correct the medical problem presented by the patient through the surgery performed by Respondent. The Respondent used what he described as the "open-technique" in all transabdominal hysterectomies (TAH) performed on the patients material to this proceeding. There was sufficient evidence to show that by using the "open- technique" the Respondent was able to make certain anterior and posterior vaginal repair, such as correcting a mild to moderate cystocele (a hernia of the urinary bladder into the vagina), to help a rectocele (a hernia protrusion of the rectum into the vagina), to a mild degree, to correct stress urinary incontinence (SUI)(inability to control urine when coughing, sneezing, etc.), and to help suspend other prolapsed tissue. The Respondent learned the "open-technique" procedure from doctors who were practicing at the Orlando Regional Medical Center while Respondent was in training there. Neither Dr. Marley nor Dr. Yelverton were familiar with the "open- technique" and had not had that procedure described to them by the Respondent. There was insufficient evidence to show that the use of the "open- technique" as a procedure to be used concurrently with a TAH to correct certain anterior or posterior vaginal repair, to correct SUI and to help suspend other prolapsed tissue was practicing medicine below acceptable medical standards as is contemplated by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1979). Patient, K. G. W. Medical Record No. 03-53-61 K. G. W. was one of Respondent's female patients, born September 14, 1946, upon whom Respondent performed a bilateral tubal ligation (BTL) on January 8, 1981. On April 9, 1982, K. G. W. visited Respondent's office for a routine examination. The examination revealed a cervical polyp. Dilatation and curettage (D&C) and polypectomy procedures were performed on K. G. W. by the Respondent on April 23, 1982 in Waterman. A sample of tissue from the uterus was sent to the pathology laboratory for testing. The results of the tests revealed the presence of trophoblastic activity (tissue). Trophoblastic tissue is the pathological term for products of conception or placental tissue. The significance of the trophoblastic tissue being present in this patient is that most likely she had conceived, notwithstanding the previous BTL, and had suffered a miscarriage. Neither the BTL procedure performed on January 8, 1981, nor the D & C/polypectomy procedure performed on April 23, 1982, are in contention in this proceeding. On April 27, 1982, K. G. W. had a follow-up office visit with the Respondent concerning the operation performed on April 23, 1982. Respondent explained to K.G.W. and her husband during this visit that she had conceived, notwithstanding the BTL, and had miscarried. He further explained the presence of trophoblastic tissue and the diagnosis of possible trophoblastic disease. The Respondent's office notes concerning this visit indicate the presence of trophoblastic activity with this patient for the previous 2 1/2 years. Apparently this was the basis for Respondent's diagnosis of possible trophoblastic disease since no further testing was performed until the patient's admission to Waterman on April 12, 1982. Based on her discussion with the Respondent, the patient (with husband's approval) consented to a TAH to prevent conception in the event of a failed BTL and to control possible trophoblastic disease. K. G. W. was admitted to Waterman on May 11, 1982 by Respondent and scheduled for a TAH and posterior vaginal repair on May 12, 1982. Respondent performed the TAH using the "open-technique" on May 12, 1982 and made the necessary posterior vaginal repair. The admitting, preoperative, postoperative and final diagnosis was trophoblastic disease. Trophoblastic disease is a condition where placental tissue becomes abnormal and can develop either a malignant process called a hydatidiform mole or a choriocarcinoma. A choriocarcinoma is a malignant process that can be fatal. Where trophoblastic disease is suspected in a patient, as Respondent suspected in this patient, a test known as H.G.C. Titer should be performed serially, usually weekly, to determine whether the hormone qonadotropin chorionic is rising or falling. The hormone qonadotropin chorionic is secreted by the placenta at the time of pregnancy, and the H.G.C. Titer measures the level of this hormone in the bloodstream. In a trophoblastic disease situation where there is a hydatidiform mole or choriocarcinoma developing, the titer will rise in a precipitous fashion to a very high level. An H.C.G Titer was ordered by the Respondent for the patient at the time of her admission on May 12, 1982. The result of this test showing the lowest level of qonadotropin chorionic, meaning a non-pregnant state, was reported to Respondent by Dr. William W. Conner, M.D. on May 14, 1982. Respondent ordered no further testing for the hormone qonadotropin chorionic after May 12, 1982, including the time after the patient's discharge from Waterman. Also the Respondent did not order any testing for the hormone between April 23, 1982, the date of the pathology report showing trophoblastic tissue in the patient, and the time of the test on May 12, 1982, to support his diagnosis of trophoblastic disease. The more prudent approach in this case may have been further testing and evaluation to confirm or rule out trophoblastic disease if Respondent suspected this possibility, even though the patient's records do not support this diagnosis. There is sufficient evidence in this case to show that the Respondent was practicing medicine within acceptable medical standards considering that the patient wanted a hysterectomy to prevent further pregnancies and the potential for troproblastic disease. However, there is insufficient documentation in the patient's records to justify the course of treatment for this patient. Patient E. A. K., Medical Record No. 03-13-09 E. A. K. was one of Respondent's female patients born July 22, 1948, with a history of chronic pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). PID is the inflammation of the uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries. This patient also had a history of tubo-ovarian abscesses. Respondent had been treating this patient since April, 1979. Respondent saw this patient in his office on July 9, 1981, and again on July 13, 1981 when he discussed with the patient a TAH to correct her problem. The patient refused to have her tubes and ovaries removed because she did not want to be on hormones. Respondent advised E. A. K. that he would not remove her tubes and ovaries unless they were infected. This satisfied the patient's concern about having to take hormones. The physical examination revealed the abdomen to be tender in lower quadrants, otherwise negative, and an enlarged uterus that was antiflexed, tender to touch with some fullness noted in the adnexa. Respondent's impression was chronic PID with a plan for TAH, possible unilateral salpingectomy and oophorectomy (US-O). On July 21, 1981, the patient was admitted to Waterman. The preoperative diagnosis by Respondent was chronic PID and Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding (DUB), whereas the Operating Room Case record shows only DUB as the preoperative and postoperative diagnosis. The Clinical Summary shows the final diagnosis as chronic PID but not DUB. The discharge summary shows neither chronic PID nor DUB as a diagnosis. The Respondent performed a TAH and lysis of adhesions on July 22, 1981, but did not perform a US-0. Although the Respondent did not remove the patient's tubes and ovaries because they were not infected, there is nothing in the patient's records to confirm the condition of the tubes and ovaries at the time the Respondent performed the surgery. The hospital notes indicate that adhesions were on the uterus, that these adhesions were removed without difficulty, and the uterus removed from the abdominal cavity using the "open technique". There is insufficient documentation in the patient's records to justify the course of treatment that Respondent chose for this patient. Patient L. L. M., Medical Records No. 03-87-53 L. L. M. was one of Respondent's female patients born August 3, 1930, with no previous significant gynecological problems who was admitted to Waterman by Respondent on January 5, 1982 with an adnexal mass. A pelvic sonogram was performed which suggested that the mass was an ovarian cyst. Respondent's pelvic examination of the patient did not reveal a frozen pelvic and this being a so called "virgin belly" (no previous operations) there was no reason to consider there would be difficulty with adhesions in removing the uterus. Respondent elected to go directly to surgery with a plan of performing a TAH and a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BS-O). Upon entering the abdomen, Respondent found the uterus encased in adhesions with the other body organs around it virtually "glued" together making it difficult to work with the adhesions. Respondent performed a frozen section and removed both adnexa. The pathological report indicated "possible endometriosis" but noted "no evidence of endometriosis seen". Endometriosis is where the lining of the uterus, which is endometrium, implants itself outside the uterine cavity but generally is localized and extends in the pelvic cavity. Respondent concluded that the ovarian cysts were endometriosis, which are large, usually painful ovarian cysts that are associated with the disease endometriosis. At this point Respondent decided to remove the ovaries and tubes but not the uterus. This decision was based on the expected complications of removing a uterus that was encased in adhesions and the fact that by removing the tubes and ovaries hormone production was stopped and the endometriosis could be cured if patient was not placed on hormonal therapy for a period of time. Additionally, Respondent felt that there were other medications that could be used to alleviate menopausal symptom. Respondent's postoperative treatment of this patient supports this decision. Respondent did not perform a D&C procedure on this patient. There is sufficient evidence to show that the documentation in the patient's records justify the course of treatment of this patient and that Respondent's treatment of this patient was within acceptable medical standards. Patient, G. M. S., Medical Records No. 01-82-88 G. M. S. was one of Respondent's female patients, born June 30, 1896, who suffered from a condition known as procidentia, which is complete prolapse of the uterus. G. M. S. had suffered from this condition for a number of years and had developed complications associated with the condition. G. M. S. had previously suffered a stroke and this, along with her age, would indicate the necessity to employ conservative procedures to correct her problem. Although there is sufficient evidence in the record that conservative procedures, such as a pessary (a device worn in the vagina to support the uterus), had been employed by G. M. S.'s previous physician, the patient's records did not reflect what conservative procedures were offered to the patient by her previous physician. The patient and her family were advised of the risks involved in the surgical procedure proposed by the Respondent, but because of the problems the patient was having, the family and the patient elected to go with the surgical procedures proposed by the Respondent. Respondent admitted G. M. S. to Waterman on June 15, 1980 with a diagnosis of prolapsed uterus where he performed a TAH and a BS-O. There is sufficient evidence in the record to show that conservative procedures had been employed on this patient without success, and even considering the patient's age and previous stroke, performing a hysterectomy on this patient would be within acceptable medical standards. While a vaginal hysterectomy (VH) may have been the ideal procedure for this patient (due to age and previous stroke), performing a TAH on this patient would be within acceptable medical standards considering the possibility of adhesions from previous gall bladder operation. Patient, J. M. J., Medical Records No. 03-35-38 J. M. J. was born on November 9, 1907 and suffered from a procidentia (complete prolapse of uterus). J. M. J. was admitted to Waterman on January 19, 1982 by a physician other than Respondent but was seen in consultation by Respondent for a prolapsed uterus. On January 20, Respondent performed a TAH on J. M. J. using the "open technique". Although the history and physical examination records of this patient are brief and the records as a whole could have been better, they are sufficient to justify Respondent's course of treatment for this patient, as indicated by Dr. Yelverton's testimony. Respondent chose to perform a TAH rather than a VH because of prior ovarian surgery and the potential for danger due to the likelihood of adhesions being present. There was no evidence to show that performing a TAH on this patient would be practicing medicine below acceptable medical standards unless there was a failure to concurrently make the appropriate vaginal repair of other prolapsed tissue. There was sufficient evidence in the record to show that Respondent concurrently with the TAH made the appropriate vaginal repair. There was insufficient evidence to show that the documentation of the patient's records failed to justify the course of treatment for this patient. Patient D. M. S., Medical Records No. 02-47-14 D. M. S. was one of Respondent's female patients born July 7, 1950, who Respondent described as having a medical history of uterine prolapse, DUB, pelvic pain, dyspareunia (pain during sexual intercourse) and SUI. Since SUI can be mistaken for other bladder problems there are certain tests that should be undertaken to confirm SUI and to the degree. Respondent performed the necessary test in this office (although not sufficiently documented in the patient's records) to determine that the patient had a mild degree of SUI. The patient's records do not describe any tests that were taken to appropriately evaluate the SUI. There was no documentation that Respondent's findings were inconsistent with SUI. The patient's medical history and physical examination records are extremely brief. On January 18, 1983, Respondent admitted this patient to Waterman with an admitting diagnosis of uterine prolapse and DUB. On January 19, 1983 Respondent performed a TAH using what he characterizes as his "open technique". There was no evidence to show that performing a TAH on this patient would be practicing medicine below acceptable medical standards unless there was a failure to concurrently make the appropriate vaginal repair of other prolapsed tissue, including the failure to correct SUI, if SUI was a problem. There was sufficient evidence in the record to show that Respondent concurrently with the TAH made the appropriate vaginal repair and corrected the mild degree of SUI. The patient's records failed to document whether the Respondent performed any test on the patient to determine the presence of SUI, or whether he appropriately evaluated the condition to determine if surgery was required for the SUI and, if so, whether it was corrected by surgery. However, there was sufficient documentation in the patient's records to justify the course of treatment for this patient. Patient G. M. M., Medical Records No. 03-43-34 G. M. M. was one of Respondent's female patients born May 15, 1925 who Respondent described as complaining of spotting between her menses, dyspareunia, loss of urine when she laughed or coughed and feels that her "bottom" is falling out. Patient was also being treated by another physician for heart disease. The patient's records fail to document whether Respondent performed an appropriate preoperative work-up on the patient. The physical examination does not confirm the presence or absence of a significant prolapse of the uterus other than a second degree and does not describe the presence or absence of the usually associated cystoceles and rectoceles. The operative procedure is very brief. Although there was sufficient evidence to show that Respondent performed a test in his office to confirm SUI, there is no documentation in the records of any tests being performed to confirm SUI or to appropriately evaluate the condition to determine if surgery was required and, if so, how the SUI was to be corrected. On September 11, 1980 the patient was admitted to Waterman by Respondent with an admitting diagnosis of DUB and a second degree uterine prolapse, with a plan to perform a TAH using the "open technique" and a US-0. On September 12, 1980, the day of the operation, upon entry into the abdominal cavity the Respondent discovered extensive adhesions. A US-0 (right ovary being removed) was performed, the uterus freed of the adhesions up to the level of the cervix but because of the adhesions the Respondent decided to perform a supracervical hysterectomy only, meaning that the lower portion of the uterus (cervix) was not removed, with the cervix to be removed later vaginally, if necessary. Normally, extensive adhesions will hold the uterus up and keep it from prolapsing down into the vagina. However, in those instances where the adhesions push the uterus down into the vagina, and the cervix is not removed during surgery, then unless the cervix is suspended by a surgical procedure the patient continues to suffer from uterine prolapse. There is no documentation in the records to show that Respondent performed any surgical procedure on this patient to suspend the cervix and correct the uterine prolapse. However, there was sufficient evidence in the record that Respondent's procedure did correct the uterine prolapse and the SUI complained by the patient. Normally with a patient of this age who is spotting between menses, a physician would suspect endometrical carcinoma which would suggest evaluation of the patient by biopsy of the uterus or a D & C. Due to the patient's heart condition it was determined that she should not be "under" any longer than necessary. Taking this into consideration along with the time required to do the evaluation, the Respondent made a decision not to perform the evaluation. However, Respondent did explore the abdominal cavity for the presence of cancer during the operation, and this exploration did not give Respondent any reason to suspect cancer. There is sufficient evidence to show that Respondent was practicing medicine within acceptable medical standards notwithstanding the failure to remove the cervix. There is insufficient documentation in the patient's records to justify the course of treatment for this patient. Patient G. R., Medical Records No. 04-36-70 G. R. was one of Respondent's female patients born on May 30, 1939, who Respondent described as having a medical history of urinary prolapse, pain, tenderness, dyspareunia, and SUI. The patient was referred to Respondent by another physician. Respondent in describing the present illness refers to a prior tubal ligation but the past medical history reflects no prior operation. G. R. was admitted to Waterman on April 19, 1983, with a preoperative, postoperative and final diagnosis of uterine prolapse. On April 20, 1983, Respondent performed a TAH and BS-O on the patient using what has previously been described as his "open technique". Respondent chose a TAH as opposed to a VH because of a previous tubal ligation and the possibility of pelvic infection and adhesions as evidenced by the degree of pain experienced by the patient and an enlarged uterus, all of which were confirmed by the pathology report. There was insufficient evidence to show that in using the "open technique" procedure concurrently with performing the TAH that Respondent had failed to correct the uterine prolapse as well as the SUI, the complaint presented by the patient. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent in this case was practicing medicine below acceptable standards. The patient's records fail to document whether Respondent performed an appropriate preoperative work-up on the patient. The physical examination does not confirm the presence or absence of a significant prolapse of the uterus other than a second degree, prolapsed down to level of the introitus and does not describe the presence or absence of the usually associated rectocele and cystocele. The operative procedure is very brief. While the evidence in this case supports the Respondent's treatment of this patient, he has failed to document in the records justification for his course of treatment. PATIENT J. L. S., Medical Records No. 03-92-49 J. L. S. was one of Respondent's female patients born October 23, 1945, who Respondent described as complaining of dyspareunia and SUI and desiring some form of definitive birth control. Upon examination it was found that the patient had a second degree uterine prolapse, uterus retroflexion but no adnexal masses palpable. Respondent's diagnosis was dyspareunia, SUI and uterine prolapse. Although the presence of a cystocele is noted in present illness, no mention is made of the cystocele in the physical examination. No mention of the presence or absence of a rectocele is made in the physical examination. J. L. S. was admitted to Waterman on February 16, 1982 by Respondent with an admitting diagnosis of prolapse, dyspareunia and a preoperative and postoperative diagnosis of uterine prolapse and pelvic pain. On February 17, 1982 the Respondent performed a TAH with left salpingectomy (US-0) on the patient using the "open-technique". The final diagnosis was uterine prolapse and SUI. The patient's records fail to document whether or not a preoperative evaluation for SUI was done. Other than documenting that he used the "open- technique" there is no description of the correction of the cystocele or the SUI. There was insufficient evidence to show that using the "open- technique" procedure concurrently with performing the TAH that Respondent had failed to correct the uterine prolapse as well as the cytocele and SUI. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent in this case was practicing medicine below acceptable standards. While the evidence in this case supports Respondent's treatment of the patient, he has failed to document in the records justification for his treatment of the patient. Patient J. J. A., Medical Records No. 01-37-65 The Petitioner did not allege that Respondent's treatment of this patient was below acceptable medical standards. J. J. A. was admitted to Waterman on June 18, 1980 by Respondent with an admitting diagnosis of endometrial polyps and dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Both the preoperative and postoperative diagnosis was endometrial polys, dysfunctional uterine bleeding and menorrhagia. The Respondent's final diagnosis was adenonyosis and while the pathology report indicates an enlarged uterus and polypoid endometrium there is no specific diagnosis of adenomgosis in the pathology report. Although the Respondent's records in this case are not the best, there was sufficient evidence to show that they justified the Respondent's treatment of this patient notwithstanding the fact that he listed adenonyosis on the final diagnosis. Patient D. L. C., Medical Records No. 01-98-39 D. L. C. was one of Respondent's female patients born January 4, 1957, who Respondent describes as presenting complaints of heaviness, dyspareunia (to such a degree that she can longer have sex), always tired, and continually getting discharges without relief. Patient has history of SUI. On examination it was discovered that her uterus was prolapsed, second degree, and twice its normal size. Respondent's impression after examination was SUI, uterine prolapse, and enlarged uterus with a plan for TAH, possible US-0 and anterior and posterior repair. Respondent admitted patient to Waterman on May 24, 1983 with an admitting diagnosis of enlarged uterus and uterine prolapse. Both the preoperative and postoperative diagnosis was uterine prolapse, cytocele and rectocele. On May 24, 1983, the Respondent performed a TAH, US-0 and anterior suspension. Although Respondent's discharge summary indicates that he performed a BS-0 and posterior repair, this was not done, and it was Respondent's error showing that it was done. While a rectocele can only be properly repaired vaginally, a mild to moderate cystocele may be properly repaired abdominally. There was sufficient evidence to show that the anterior suspension performed by Respondent repaired the cystocele and that the diagnosis of a rectocele by Respondent was incorrect, and no repair was needed. While further testing may have been the prudent approach for this patient, there is sufficient evidence to show that Respondent's decision to perform a TAH on this patient was practicing within acceptable medical standards, considering that the patient was desirous of solving her problem with a hysterectomy after having alternative solutions explained to her. Because the patient's medical history, physical examination, the operative notes and discharge summary are very brief and do not adequately describe the patient's condition and present several inconsistencies as to what the actual diagnosis and physical findings were, the records do not justify the course of treatment that this patient received. Patient E. E. W., Medical Records No. 02-37-74 E. E. W. is one of Respondent's female patients born October 20, 1949, who Respondent describes as presenting a complaint of dysfunctional uterine bleeding that has not been relieved by two previous D&C, the last performed by Respondent and the first performed by her previous physician. Upon examination the Respondent found an enlarged uterus that was antiflexed. Respondent's impression was dysfunctional bleeding with a plan for a TAH. Patient was admitted to Waterman on May 4, 1982 with the admitting diagnosis of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Both the preoperative and postoperative diagnosis was dysfunctional uterine bleeding. The circulator nurse describes the procedures as a supracervical abdominal hysterectomy. The pathology report indicates a uterus without a cervix. However, further in the pathology report it refers to the cervix which indicated the presence of the cervix. The Anesthesiologist refers to the procedure as an abdominal hysterectomy in the anesthesia record. The Respondent described the procedure as a TAH. There is sufficient evidence to show that the Respondent performed a TAH on this patient notwithstanding the confusion created by the circulator nurse's description of the procedure or the confusion created by the pathology report. While there may be some inconsistencies between Respondent's records and the operating room case record, filed by the circulator nurse, and the pathology report, there is sufficient evidence to show that the records justify the course of treatment given this patient by Respondent. Patient S. J. M., Medical Records No. 04-33-93 S. J. M. was one of Respondent's female patients born October 7, 1955 (approximately 27 years old at time of treatment) who Respondent describes as presenting a complaint of severe lower quadrant pain. This pain has persisted for many years and is getting worse. Patient feels as if she is carrying weight and like her bottom is "falling out". Patient has been treated with antibiotics and pain medication. Patient has been treated for PID. Upon examination Respondent's impression was a second degree uterine prolapse and that tubes and ovaries were normal size. Notwithstanding Respondent's impression that the tubes and ovaries were of normal size and that the procedure would be sterilizing, the patient elected surgery because of the severe pain she was experiencing. Patient was admitted to Waterman and scheduled for a TAH and possible US-0, depending upon findings at time of surgery. On March 30, 1983 Respondent performed a TAH using the "open technique". The admitting diagnosis was uterine prolapse and chronic PID. Both the preoperative and postoperative diagnosis was DUB and uterine prolapse as was the final diagnosis. There is no explanation as to why chronic PID appeared as a diagnosis. There is no explanation in the patient's records as to why Respondent did no further diagnostic testing of this patient such as a diagnostic laparoscopy, commonly referred to as "belly button surgery, where you take a "look-see" inside or a D&C since DUB was indicated, before performing a TAH on a 27 year old female. There was sufficient evidence in the record to show that the pain was caused by the prolapsed uterus and that although further diagnostic testing may have been prudent, failure to do so did not result in practicing medicine below acceptable standards when considering the patient's desire to have a hysterectomy and be rid of pain and her refusal to have a D&C. There is no evidence in the record to show that the patient's problem was not corrected by the TAH. There was sufficient evidence in the record to show the Respondent was practicing within acceptable medical standards. However, the inconsistencies and the lack of information in the records, result in the records failing to justify the course of treatment for this patient, even considering the addendum prepared several months after the operation as a replacement for the physical and history dictated earlier by the Respondent which was apparently lost by the hospital. Patient A. R. S., Medical Records No. 03-69-54 A. R. S. was one of Respondent's female patients born September 15, 1915 who Respondent, upon examination, describes as presenting a third degree uterine prolapse with cervix visible at the introitus. Respondent noted some cervicitis and atrophy of the vaginal mucosa. The plan for patient was a TAH and BS-O. Patient was admitted to Waterman on June 23, 1981 and Respondent performed a TAH and BS-O on June 24, 1981 using the "open technique". Postoperatively the patient developed persistent bleeding from the vaginal cuff and was taken back to operating room where Respondent did a suture ligation of the vaginal cuff bleeder. In performing the suture ligation of the vaginal cuff bleeder, the suture caught the bowel in two points in mid ileum causing a small obstruction of the bowel. There was no looping of the bowel by the suture. Nor was there any evidence of mucosal tears. A surgeon was called in and the obstruction of the bowel removed by cutting the suture and the serosa repaired. The patient continued to experience some problem but within a few days was released. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent was practicing medicine below acceptable medical standards when he performed the TAH and BS-O or when he inadvertently "nicked" the bowel loop in two places causing an obstruction when suturing off the vaginal cuff bleeder. The admitting, preoperative and postoperative diagnosis was third degree uterine prolapse. The final diagnosis was third degree uterine prolapse. The final diagnosis was third degree uterine prolapse, small bowel obstruction, leiomyoma of the uterus and urinary tract infection. There is sufficient evidence to show that Respondent corrected patient's initial problem when he performed the TAH using the "open technique" and the BS-O. While the documentation in the patient's records is brief, there is sufficient evidence to show justification for the course of treatment of this patient. Respondent left his practice in Eustis, Florida in 1984 and no longer practices obstetrics on gynecology. Since 1984 Respondent has completed residency training in preventive medicine and public health and is in the process of writing his thesis for a masters degree in Public Health at the University of Miami. Respondent is presently working in ambulatory care centers doing some primary care but mostly cuts, bruise, sore throats, etc. (walk-ins). There was no evidence of any previous complaints against Respondent or any malpractice judgments entered against him. There was no evidence that any patient material to this proceeding was exposed to any injury or potential injury or that any patient was ever harmed by Respondent's treatment. There was no evidence to show that Respondent's treatment of any patient material to this proceeding was for the sole purpose of financial benefit. There was no evidence to show any prior offense by Respondent or any prior disciplinary history. 126 There is sufficient evidence to show that Respondent kept the necessary patient records in each case, but the records were insufficient to justify the course of treatment in some instances.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and Rule 21M- 20.001, Florida Administrative Code, Disciplinary Guidelines, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, David A. Lasseter, M.D., guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1979), now Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend his license to practice medicine for a period of one year, stay the suspension, and place the Respondent on probation for a period of two years with conditions the Board deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, continuing education in record keeping and restrictions on the practice of gynecology. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count I and Count III of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-0893 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2, respectively. 3.-11. These paragraphs contain a discussion of what documentation should be contained in a patient's records and where facts are stated they have been covered in the Findings of Fact under individual patients in the Recommended Order, otherwise they have been rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 12.-17. (Patient No. 03-53-61). Adopted in Findings of Fact 10 through 18, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 18.-28. (Patient No. 03-13-09). Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 through 24, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 29.-33. (Patient No. 03-87-63). Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 through 35, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 34.-38. (Patient No. 01-82-88). Adopted in Findings of Fact 36 through 41, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 39.-44. (Patient No. 03-35-38). Adopted in Findings of Fact 42 through 48, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 45.-50. (Patient No. 02-47-14). Adopted in Findings of Fact 49 through 53, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 51.-61. (Patient No. 03-43-34). Adopted in Findings of Fact 54 through 62, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 62.-65. (Patient No. 04-36-70). Adopted in Findings of Fact 63 through 69, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 66.-70. (Patient No. 03-92-49). Adopted in Findings of Fact 70 through 79, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. *71. (Patient No. 01-37-65). Adopted in Findings of Fact 80 through 83, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. *71-80. (Patient No. 01-98-39). Adopted in Findings of Fact 84 through 90, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 81.-85. (Patient No. 02-37-74). Adopted in Findings of Fact 91 through 99, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 86.-95. (Patient No. 04-33-93). Adopted in Findings of Fact 100 through 108, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 96.-105. (Patient No. 03-69-54). Adopted by Findings of Fact 109 through 118, as modified, otherwise rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. *There were two (2) paragraphs numbered 71. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Covered in the Preliminary Statement since Petitioner had dismissed Count III at the hearing. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 122 and 125, as modified. 4.-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, as modified, otherwise rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. The balance of Respondent's "Findings of Fact" are listed alphabetically "A" through "N" which cover each patient material to this proceeding. Generally, the Respondent "findings" are restatements of testimony or restatements of allegations made my Petitioner or discusses what the experts may have agreed upon without stating the facts. However, where possible I have treated them as statement of facts and have responded to them in numbered paragraphs under each patient in the same order as Respondent. Where these facts have not been adopted they were rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate or as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Stephanie A. Daniel Chief Medical Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license to practice medicine of Respondent, Carl Fromhagen, M.D., based on allegations that he violated Subsections 458.331(l)(k),(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been licensed in 1956 and issued License No. ME 0007027. Respondent is board-certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology (1967). He is 74 years old and now has an office- based practice treating only gynecological patients. Patient K. B., a 46-year-old female, first presented to Respondent on September 6, 1990, with menopausal complaints. Her patient's history reflects that she reported a family history of breast cancer. On February 12, 1992, Patient K. B. presented to Respondent with complaints of a mass in her left breast. Respondent palpated a mass in K. B.'s left breast and, although he did not note the size of the mass in his office records, the records contain a diagram showing the location of the mass. Petitioner testified that it was his practice that when he discovered a mass of less than 2.5 centimeters, he did not describe the size because its too hard to identify the exact dimensions smaller than an inch. Respondent ordered a mammogram for Patient K. B. which was performed on February 19, 1992, and was interpreted as revealing no evident neoplasm (cancer). Respondent saw Patient K. B. in his office on the following dates (after the mammogram): March 30, 1992; May 21, 1992; August 31, 1992; April 19, 1993; April 27, 1993; May 4, 1993; May 11, 1993; May 18, 1993; September 21, 1993; and November 16, 1993. In addition, Patient K. B. had telephone contact with Respondent's office staff to have prescriptions refilled and was mailed examination reminder notes. Patient K. B. testified that she and Dr. Fromhagen discussed the breast mass "every checkup, every time I was there." She inquired about a follow-up mammogram and Dr. Fromhagen indicated that she could wait two years. He did not mention a biopsy, excision, or referral to another physician at anytime. Patient K. B. and Respondent agree that Respondent examined and palpated the breast mass during her physical examinations which took place approximately every six months. During civil litigation that preceded the instant administrative hearing, it became apparent that there were two different sets of office records for Patient K. B. Patient K. B. testified that during the civil action she brought against Respondent in 1996, Respondent had produced medical records, purported to be hers that did not accurately reflect her treatment. She recalled that upon comparing the medical records Respondent had produced in the civil action with the records she had obtained from Respondent's office in December 1994, she discovered that Respondent had "augmented" her records, which she reported to her attorney. In May 1994, the offices of Dr. Paul Straub, who became Patient K. B.'s new treating physician as a result of a change in her group health insurance, requested her medical records from Dr. Fromhagen's office. Dr. Fromhagen testified in the instant hearing that "at the time . . . I compared the chart [Patient K. B.'s records] with . . . 'day sheets' and because I felt the records did not reveal everything that Dr. Straub should be aware of, I rewrote certain portions of them to reflect things that were on the day sheets that I hadn't already written down and then [in May 1994] sent the records to Dr. Straub." Patient K. B. testified that, "the night before my surgery" [December 1994] she received a call from Dr. Fromhagen's office asking if they could send her records to Dr. Straub. In the course of that discussion, Patient K. B. advised that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was scheduled for surgery. That same evening, shortly after the phone discussion with Dr. Fromhagen's office, Patient K. B. went to Dr. Fromhagen's office and obtained a copy of her medical records. These records did not contain the "rewritten portions" Dr. Fromhagen reported as having been done in May 1994. Dr. Fromhagen testified that he started keeping "day sheets" when he first started practicing in 1960. The "day sheets" (Respondent's Exhibit 2) are essentially a daily calendar organized by time which lists the name of patients to be seen that day and then notes such as "ovarin cyst," "vaginitis," "preg?" These "day sheets" were not mentioned in either of Dr. Fromhagen's depositions taken in 1996 in the civil action. In Petitioner's Exhibit 10, a July 3, 1997, letter to M. S. Sutton, an Agency for Health Care Administration investigator, Dr. Fromhagen attempts to explain his record- keeping practice for patients, Dr. Fromhagen acknowledges rewriting his charts and states, "I would carefully review the chart and address any portions that I felt were not completely explanatory, or that I thought need information to assist the subsequent physician. I now understand that I should have noted the changes as late entries and dated them the date written." No mention was made of "day sheets" in this letter. Dr. Fromhagen testified during a deposition taken in the civil action that his standard practice was "to make entries in the chart right away," that he never put it off, and that he had not done anything different in Patient K. B.'s case. Dr. Fromhagen acknowledged that during a deposition taken in the civil action he had incorrectly testified that he had not made changes in Patient K. B.'s medical record. The following is a comparison of the significant difference between Petitioner's Exhibit 9, Patient K. B.'s original medical record, and Respondent's Exhibit 3, Patient K. B.'s "augmented" medical record. Please note: Patient K. B. became Dr. Fromhagen's patient on September 6, 1990. No changes were made in the "Gynecologic History and Physical Examination" (Patient K. B.'s medical record) on any entry until March 30, 1992. Changes are highlighted. Date: March 30, 1992 Original record: "Mammogram was neg. palpation indicates mass much smaller. Will follow" Augmented record: "Mammogram reported as no evidence of neoplasm. Palpation indicates to me that mass is smaller. Discussed removing it" Date: May 21, 1992 Original record: "Dysuria General Malaise. Pelvic unremarkable. Urine - pus. Rx Macrodantin" Augmented record: "Dysuria. Mailaise. Pelvic unremarkable. Urine - pus. Rx Macrodantin" Date: August 31, 1992 Original record: "Introital lesions. Pelvic area feels congestion and cramping sensation. Pelvic- ulcers-blisters at introitus but very small. Herpes? Rx Zoirax" Augmented record: "Introital lesions. Lower abd cramping. Pelvic - herpetic ulcers at introitus. Rx Ziorax" Date: April 19, 1993 Original record: "Last mammogram revealed no concern. Dysuria. Frequent UTI. Had a cysto before. Rhinorrhea. Vulvar irritation. GenPE. Breasts unchanged. Pelvic - fungus. Rx She has Monistat. Urine - pus Macrodantin. RV Cysto" Augmented record: "Last mammogram revealed no neoplasm but mass still present and I suggested another x-ray now or removal of mass if she wishes. Dysuria. Has frequent UTIs. Had a Cysto before. Rhinorrhea. Vulvar irritation. Gen PE - nasal turbinates swollen. Breasts unchanged. Pelvic-fungus. Rx she has Monistat for fungus. Macrodantin RV Cysto" Date: April 27, 1993 Original record: "Cysto: stricutre. Proximal urethra & trizone inflamed and granules. Bladder capacity - first desire to void at 200 c.c. RV dilations" Augmented record: "Cysto-urethral stricture. Proximal urethra & trizone inflamed & granular. Urethra L46. Bladder capacity - first desire to void at 200 cc. Rx RV dilations" Date: May 18, 1993 Original record: "No urinary complaints now. Sounded #32 irrigated AgNO3. This concludes dilations" Augmented record: "No urinary complaints now. Sounded #32, irrigated AgNO3. This concludes diations. She has not gotten this years mammogram yet" Date: October 11, 1993 Original record: "Rem sent" [entry made by office staff]" Augmented record: "Reminder note sent - Exam due." [entry made by office staff]" Date: November 16, 1993 Original record: "On Premarin.625. Starting to awaken in the middle of the night again Nervous. No flashes. Bladder OK. New glasses. Trouble adjusting to fidders bifocals. GenPE, breasts & pelvic unchanged. Pap change to Premarin 1.25" Augmented record: "On Premarian.625. Starting to awaken in the middle of the night again. Very nervous. No flashes. Bladder OK. Finds it hard to adjust to her new bifocals. Gen PE unchanged. Breasts - mass still present. Again suggested she get a yearly mammogram or have mass excised. She has not arranged for a mammogram as she said she would. Pelvic unchanged. Rx Increased dose of Premarian to 1.25" The entries made in patient K. B.'s "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) were not noted to be "late entries" nor were they dated. Both expert witness opined that this fell below the standard of care. Most of the "late entries" made by Respondent in the "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) are a self-serving attempt by Respondent to create the impression that he had encouraged Patient K. B. to have follow-up mammograms or to have the breast mass excised. If the "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) was a true reflection of the treatment rendered Patient K. B. by Respondent, his treatment could possibly have met the "standard of care." I find that the "augmented" record does not reflect the treatment Patient K. B. received, but that the original record (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) is the more credible document and accurately reflects Respondent's treatment of Patient K. B. Dr. Nelson, who testified as an expert witness, testified that Dr. Fromhagen fell below the standard of care in that (relying on both the original record and "augmented" record) between March 30, 1992, and April 13, 1993, he did not "deal with the breast mass, did not report discussion of treatment options with the patient, did not order a follow-up mammogram within 12 months." Again relying on both records, Dr. Nelson testified that Dr. Fromhagen fell below the standard of care for maintaining medical records when he failed to record his examination of Patient K. B.'s breasts and palpation of the mass which he reported as having been done "every visit she made." Both Dr. Von Thron, who also testified as an expert witness, and Dr. Nelson agreed that the standard of care requires that for any revision of medical records, if a change is made, a line is made through the original so it can be read and then the correction is made and the change is dated and initialed. If an additional statement is entered into the medical record, it should be dated and initialed. Dr. Fromhagen did not date or initial the changes or additions to Patient K. B.'s medical record when he created the "augmented" record. Both expert witnesses testified that this fell below the standard of care for medical record-keeping. Dr. Von Thron, referring to the original record, opined that Dr. Fromhagen did not comply with the standard of care for essentially the same reasons as expressed by Dr. Nelson. He opined that the "augmented" record indicates that Dr. Fromhagen complied with the standard of care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 458.331(1)(k), (m), and (t), Florida Statutes (1993), and imposing the following: A $1,000.00 fine for each violation, for a total of $3,000.00; and A one-year suspension followed by two years' probation; Ten hours of continuing medical education in ethics; An appropriate medical education course in medical record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: George Thomas Bowen, II, Esquire Law Offices of Donald Weidner, P.A. 11265 Alumni Way, Suite 201 Jacksonville, Florida 32246 John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Robb E. Ross was a licensed physician engaged in the practice of family medicine as a sole practitioner. He was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in 1966 and holds license number 12433. He was board certified in family practice in 1970. Respondent also holds a license as a pharmacist. Respondent treated patient N.B. from September of 1970 through October of 1986. She initially presented as a new patient moving into the area, aged 61, for maintenance of her general physical medical care, primarily relating to her mild depression that she had for years following a mastectomy. While believing that patient N.B. had previously been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist, respondent never requested her prior medical records. Patient N.B. informed the respondent that she had been taking Biphetamine, a steroid amphetamine that is no longer produced, for the past ten years. Respondent continued patient N.B. in that treatment modality for over ten years, as well as treating her for other complaints. At some point, he did attempt to titrate her from Biphetamine, but she did not function as well with a substitute drug. When the drug Biphetamine was phased out of the market in either 1980 or 1982, respondent prescribed Dexedrine to patient N.B. and continued to do so approximately every six months. Respondent maintained her on Dexedrine due to her mild depression and the fact that she had been on amphetamines for many, many years. He was reluctant to take her off Dexedrine for fear that she could become overtly depressed. Since she did well with Dexedrine, respondent maintained her on that regiment due to the adverse side effects of other compounds utilized to control depression. The respondent's medical records for patient N.B. contain virtually no patient history or background information. For each patient visit, there is a brief notation which includes N.B.'s temperature, blood pressure and weight and also a reason for the visit. The reason noted on the records are either "check- up" or a brief statement of the patient's complaint on that particular day. The medication prescribed is noted, though very difficult to read. While the symptom or patient complaint is often noted, the patient records contain no statements of medical diagnosis, assessment or treatment plan. It is not possible to determine from N.B.'s medical records the reason that Dexedrine was prescribed for this patient. While N.B. complained of tiredness, she did not suffer from narcolepsy. Patient G.B. was under respondent's care from August of 1979 through May of 1985. He initially presented, at age 56, with problems relating to emphysema, lung collapse, exhaustion, impotency and aches and pains. Respondent prescribed various medications for him, including Nitroglycerin for chest pains. Respondent felt that due to his age and his complaints, patient G.B. had some type of arteriosclerosis. Patient G.B. frequently complained of being weak, exhausted and having no endurance or energy. For this reason, respondent prescribed Dexedrine for him on March 30, 1984. Other medications to increase his energy were tried before this and after this time. Nothing appeared to give him any relief. After determining that patient G.B. "liked his medicine too much," respondent terminated his treatment of him. The respondent's medical records for patient G.B. are brief and difficult to decipher. Again, the patient's temperature, blood pressure and weight are recorded for each visit, and there is a brief statement of the patient's complaint. There is no statement indicating a medical diagnosis or a treatment plan. The medications prescribed at each visit are written on the records, but are difficult to read. D.M. was a patient under respondent's care from December of 1976 until his death, at age 84, in March of 1986. He initially presented with stomach problems and subsequently had a host of other medical problems, surgeries and hospitalizations throughout the years. This patient was given so many different medications for his various physical problems that respondent did not always write each of them down on his records after each office visit. It appears from respondent's medical records that he first started patient D.M. on Dexedrine in January of 1984. At that time, D.M.'s chief complaint was "dizziness, falling, no pep." Respondent maintained D.M. on Dexedrine or an amphetamine type of compound from that period until his death, primarily because of his weakness, dizziness, falling down and low blood pressure. Other specialists were consulted regarding D.M.'s fainting and falling episodes, caused by postural hypotension, and were unable to remedy the problem. Respondent was of the opinion that the administration of Dexedrine enabled patient D.M. to function more properly and that it worked better than anything else. Patient D.M. expired in March of 1986. Respondent listed the cause of death as "cardiac arrest." The respondent's medical records on patient D.M. are typical of those previously described for patients N.B. and G.B. The office visit notes list patient complaints or symptoms and no medical diagnosis or comprehensive assessments. There are indications in the record that D.M. complained of chest pains in 1983, 1984 and 1985. The medications prescribed indicate the presence of cardiac disease. Respondent's record-keeping with regard to patients N.B., G.B. and D.M. are below an acceptable standard of care. They fail to include an adequate patient history and initial assessment of the patients. It is impossible to determine from these records what medicines the patients had taken in the past, what reactions they had to such medications, what medical procedures they had in the past or other important information regarding the patient's background. The respondent's only notation of treatment is a listing, and a partial listing in the case of D.M., of medications prescribed. His remaining notations are not acceptable to explain or justify the treatment program undertaken. Dextroamphedimine sulfate, also known as Dexedrine, is a sympathomimetic amine drug and is designated as a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Commonly, it is referred to as "speed" or an "upper." It is addictive and highly abusive. While individual patients react differently to Dexedrine, its consumption can cause psychosis, marked elevations of blood pressure and marked rhythmic disturbances. As such, its use is contraindicated in patients with coronary disease. In addition, because Dexedrine is an "upper" and makes a patient "feel good," it can mask a true physical condition and prevent the patient from being treated for the physical ailment he is experiencing. A patient should not be relieved of pain without first knowing what is causing the pain. In Florida, Dexedrine may only be prescribed, administered or dispensed to treat specifically enumerated diseases, conditions or symptoms. Section 458.331(1)(cc), Florida Statutes. Neither respondent's medical records nor his testimony indicate that patients N.B., G.B. and/or D.M. suffered from the conditions, symptoms or diseases which warranted the statutorily approved and limited use of Dexedrine. Respondent was not aware that there were statutory limitations for the use of Dexedrine. He is aware of the possible dangers of amphetamines and he prescribes Dexedrine as a treatment of last resort when he believes it will help the patient. Respondent further testified that his medical record-keeping is adequate to enable him, as a sole practitioner, to treat his patients, though he admits that his medical records could be improved.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 458.331(I), subparagraphs (cc),(q),(t) and (n), Florida Statutes, and that the following penalties be imposed: an administrative fine in the total amount of $2,000.00, and probation for a period of twelve (12) months, with the following conditions: (a) that respondent complete continuing medical education courses or seminars in the areas of medical record-keeping and the dangers and authorized use of compounds designated as Schedule II controlled substances, and (b) that respondent submit to the Board on a monthly basis the medical records of those patients for whom a Schedule II controlled substance is prescribed or administered during the probationary period. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3483 The proposed findings of fact submitted by counsel for the parties have been carefully considered. To the extent that the proposed factual findings are not included in this Recommended Order, they are rejected for the following reasons: Petitioner: The 48 proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner consist of summaries or recitations of the testimony of the witnesses presented by the petitioner in this proceeding. While the summaries and/or recitations constitute an accurate representation of the testimony received by those witnesses at the hearing, and are thus accepted, they do not constitute proper factual findings by themselves. Instead, they (along with the testimony presented by the respondent) form the basis for the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. Respondent: Page 4, Paragraph 1 The reference to 30 years is rejected as contrary to the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: David E Bryant, Esquire Alpert, Josey, Grilli, Paris and Bryant 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 David J. Wollinka, Esquire P. O. Box 3649 Holiday, Florida 33590 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 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (2007-2011), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DOH is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of licensed physicians pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. DOH is pursuing sanctions against Respondent based on her provision of medical care to patients A.M., C.B., and P.A. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 59800. Respondent is board certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine with a specialty in Infectious Disease. Respondent received her medical degree from Christian Medical College in India in 1984. Her medical career, according to her curriculum vitae, includes the following places of employment: 1996 Bay Area Primary Care 1997 American Family and Geriatrics 1998 Faculty appointment at University of South Florida – voluntary 2/99-11/99 Veteran’s Administration (Medical Officer on Duty) 1993-present Private Practice Respondent’s June 30, 2014, deposition testimony was that she is currently working as a medical provider at Fort Tryon Rehab and Nursing Home in New York, and prior to that she was working at a walk-in clinic in Queens, New York. Respondent testified that she currently resides in Pinellas Park, Florida. In 2008, Respondent’s Florida practice, Bay Area Infectious Disease (BAID), was located at 5840 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, and most recently at 1527 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Each practice location is now closed. Respondent later testified that she had a practice located at 6251 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, which is also closed. Jamie Carrizosa, M.D. (Dr. Carrizosa) is a board- certified internal medicine and infectious disease physician who testified as an expert for DOH. Prior to his retirement in July 2011, Dr. Carrizosa had an active medical practice including hospital privileges. He is currently an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Central Florida, teaching first and second year students in the areas of microbiology and immunology. While in private practice, he treated patients with suspected skin infections, MRSA skin infections, candidiasis and other types of skin diseases. Issa Ephtimios, M.D. (Dr. Ephtimios) is a board- certified physician in internal medicine, infectious diseases and infection control who testified as an expert for Respondent. He is an attending physician at Sacred Heart Hospital, West Florida Hospital, Baptist Hospital, and Select Specialty Hospital in Pensacola, Florida. DOH Case No. 2009-13497 (DOAH Case No. 13-0595PL) On October 8, 2008, A.M. presented to Respondent with complaints of fatigue, headaches, and moodiness, according to a History and Physical Medi-Forms document. A BAID contract for services and an authorization for BAID to disclose protected health information (PHI) were executed on October 8. Within the records there was a diagram that contained pictures of a front and back body diagram and the handwritten words: “fatigue cold sweats fevers headaches.” Neither A.M.’s name nor the date appeared on the diagram, yet Respondent identified the diagram as belonging to A.M. and showing A.M.’s small lesions. On October 9, A.M. executed a Bay Area Infectious Disease and Infusion, PLC, “CONSENT FOR TREATMENT” form. Respondent’s progress notes are generally listed in the S.O.A.P. format.16/ The following appeared on one of A.M.’s October 9th Progress Notes: S: Complaint: MRSA,17/ headecha [sic], she like [sic] to talk W Dr. Pimple on but [sic] 3 rounds Zyvox, [illegible] c/o lethargic, gain wt, fatigue, headaches Pale, feets [sic] not Percocet –[illegible].” O: Exam: Ht 5.6” Wt 172 Age 16 M/F BMI T BP 118/64 P 65 R PO2 99_ Gluc A: General Appearance: WNL/18 HEENT: WNL Neck: WNL Chest: WNL Breast: WNL Heart: WNL Lungs: WNL Abdomen: WNL Genitalia: WNL Skin: WNL + multiple abcees [sic] Spine: WNL Extremities: WNL [All the “WNL” were typed capital letters.] DIAGNOSIS: Skin Abcess- Buttock, leg MRSA – Community Acquired P: PLAN: Vancomycin 1 gr daily [illegible] A second Progress Note for A.M., also dated October 9, contains the same information in the “S” and “O” portions, but at the “A” portion, it has no notations other than the pre-printed “WNL” at the “Skin” section, and it does not contain a “Diagnosis.” Respondent admitted that there were times when she would “complete records later on.” Respondent’s progress notes for A.M. from October 10 through October 16 were in a slightly different SOAP format. A.M.’s October 10 Progress Note reflects the following: S: Complaint: Vanco reaction O: Examination: BP P T R HT WT PO2 Glucose General Appearance; Awake alert,orientedx3 Head: Normocephalic atraurmatic EENT: PERLA, EOMI,Sclera-non-icteric, conjunctiva-pink Neck: Supple, no JVD. No Lymph nodes Heart: S1 S2 normal, murmurs Lungs: clear Abdomen: Soft, no masses, no tenderness, BS+, no hepatomegaly, no splenomegaly Left Lymph-inguinal: WNL Right Lymph-inguinal: WNL Extremities: No clubbing, cyanosis, edema Neurological: Motor-5/5, sensory-5/5, Deep tendon reflexes 2+ Cranial nerves Intact Skin: no rashes + circled Abscess Muskuloskeletal: WNL CLINICAL ASSESSMENT: MRSA, Skin Abcess CVIO PLAN: Zyvox A.M.’s progress notes between October 11 and 31, 2008, reflect various subjective complaints regarding her skin conditions. The physical examinations for each day do not contain consistent information regarding A.M.’s blood pressure, her height, weight, respirations, PO2, and glucose. On two days the “skin” section reflected “no rashes,” yet the clinical assessment reported “Skin Abces – improvely” [sic] or just “skin abcess.” On three progress notes (October 17, 18 and 20, 2008), there is a hand-written notation at the “Heart” section which indicates that A.M. might have a heart murmur, yet in the diagnosis section there is no mention of a heart issue or endocarditis.19/ All other progress notes regarding the “heart” contain the pre-printed “WNL.” A.M.’s IV/IM procedure notes beginning on October 10 and continuing through October 31, each reflect “heart murmur” in the diagnosis section along with “MRSA Skin abcess.” Respondent testified that she felt justified in using IV Vancomycin because A.M. was “doing the heart murmur.” However, Respondent’s initial plan included Vancomycin before any heart murmur was detected or assessed. Vancomycin is a prescription medication used to treat staphylococcal infections, and is usually utilized for more serious infections such as endocarditis. Zyvox is a prescription medication that comes in either an IV or oral form used to treat infections. Respondent claimed that there were missing medical records for A.M. However, with respect to patient A.M., Respondent claimed a progress note (part of the history and physical exam) from October 8 was the only medical record that was missing. Respondent then asserted that A.M. brought in her primary doctor’s referral which reflected A.M.’s treatment, including the medication prescribed; yet those medical records are not present. Respondent further testified that she “usually” puts prior treatment provider records in her patient’s file. Respondent maintained that she kept a lot of A.M.’s medical records on a computer that was bought in January 2001. However, that computer crashed in October 2011. A computer crash is plausible; however, the DOH subpoena was properly issued and served on Respondent on January 28, 2010, more than nine months before the alleged computer crash. Respondent then claimed that she “did not have access to that computer, which later crashed,” followed by her claim that “that practice was closed and when they came here, we only had the old, whatever, paper records.” Respondent’s position on these records was disingenuous at best. Respondent claimed that A.M. was seen and her medical records were at a different location (6251 Park Boulevard) than where the subpoena was served (5840 Park Boulevard).20/ Respondent then claimed the records that were moved from one facility to another facility could not be located. Respondent alluded to a potential police report regarding an alleged theft of medical records and other office items; however, nothing substantiated that, and Respondent’s testimony about possible criminal activity is not credible. Respondent admitted that some of A.M.’s medical records, specifically progress notes, were pre-printed, and that she wrote on some of the progress notes. In the progress notes dated October 10, 11, 13 through 18, 20 through 25, and 27 through 30, the handwriting appears to be the same, except for the change in each date. Further, Respondent confirmed A.M.’s 18 pages of progress notes of Vancomycin administration, yet distanced herself from them by saying “sometimes the charts were completed later on, so it’s possibility that it -- that it -- you know, it’s progress notes for the IV administration, but – um . . . the dates are written by nurses, so I don’t -- I don’t know.” Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to identify who may have written on A.M.’s progress notes and her avoidance in answering direct questions or claiming she did not recall the patient (and then discussing the patient) greatly diminished her credibility. Respondent claimed that there were “some verbal changes” she gave that were in a “set of nursing records,” which were not present. Any “changes” or directions given by Respondent should have been contained within her medical records for the care of A.M. Respondent maintained that her diagnosis of A.M. was based on Respondent’s total clinical picture of A.M., including A.M.’s “symptoms, her presentation, her lesions, her course -- she’d had repeated courses of oral antibiotics, and was getting recurrence.” Yet, Respondent also claimed A.M. “came in with these culture results from the primary, and that’s how the staff . . . it states MRSA, because it was already documented MRSA.” Standard of Care Respondent was required to practice medicine in her care of A.M. with “that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized in general law related to health care licensure.” Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of A.M. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. A reasonably prudent health care provider suspecting a patient has MRSA would observe the abrasion(s), culture the abrasion (MRSA), send the culture out for laboratory confirmation, prescribe oral antibiotics, and if the MRSA does not respond to the oral antibiotics, prescribe and administer IV antibiotics. Dr. Carrizosa noted that Respondent did not provide a description of A.M.’s abscesses, did not indicate that A.M.’s abscesses were drained, incised, cleaned or bandaged, or that Respondent provided any patient education to A.M. Although labs were ordered, there was no request for a bacterial culture or for an antimicrobial susceptibility test to be completed. Dr. Carrizosa expressed concern that young people can eliminate antibiotics within six to eight hours and there is a need for monitoring their medications to ensure they maintain a therapeutic level. Dr. Carrizosa opined that Respondent did not meet the standard of care in her treatment of A.M. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent violated the standard of care applicable to an infectious disease practitioner. Respondent presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Ephtimios. Dr. Ephtimios reviewed the same records as Dr. Carrizosa. Dr. Ephtimios admitted he had several lengthy conversations with Respondent during which time she provided additional information to Dr. Ephtimios that was not in A.M.’s written records regarding “the rationale for using the Vancomycin.” Respondent shared additional information with Dr. Ephtimios yet failed to recall or remember the patient during her own deposition testimony. Dr. Ephtimios’ opinion is not credible. Respondent’s deposition behavior lessens her credibility. Medical Records Medical records are maintained for a number of reasons. Primarily, medical records are necessary for the planning of patient care; for continuity of treatment; and to document the course of the patient’s medical evaluation, treatment, and progression through treatment. Further, medical records should document any communications between health care providers, and they serve as a basis for health care providers to be paid by either the patient or another party. See, rule 64B8-9.003. The medical records of A.M.’s contact with Respondent’s office between October 8, 2008, and October 31, 2008, do not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. A.M.’s records do not describe the abscesses, do not indicate if any of the abscesses were drained, incised, or cultured. Respondent failed to provide any assessment of a staph infection or provide any laboratory support for the use of the medication administered. Respondent did not document A.M.’s possible heart murmur, and failed to provide a diagnostic basis for endocarditis. Further portions of the medical record are illegible. There is no clear indication that Respondent provided A.M. with any education on her condition. Inappropriate Drug Therapy Respondent authorized the administration of Vancomycin and/or Zyvox to a 16-year-old female without adequately monitoring A.M.’s condition, or documenting the need for such use. Respondent’s failure to document the need for Vancomycin through appropriate or adequate testing was not in the best interest of A.M. DOH Case No. 2011-06111 (DOAH Case No. 14-0514PL) On February 28, 2011, patient C.B., a 42-year-old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of food allergy issues, and gastrointestinal problems, gas, bloating, and other stomach issues.21/ When she presented to Respondent in February 2011, C.B. did not have any concerns about candida or thrush.22/ Respondent prescribed a Medrol Pak (a steroid) and directed C.B. to have lab tests for the candida antibody and an immune system panel. One week later, C.B. again presented to Respondent. C.B. did not have any of the symptoms for a chronic yeast infection such as vaginal itching or thrush. Respondent advised C.B. that she had a chronic yeast infection and her immune system required treatment. However, Respondent did not prescribe any medication to C.B. at that time. On March 14, 2011, C.B. returned to Respondent’s office and received Immunoglobulin23/ via an intravenous (IV) line. On March 22, 24 and 25, 2011, C.B. received IV Ambisome.24/ Thereafter, C.B. developed a rash on her arm where the IV had been placed and a papule on her stomach. C.B. declined further IV treatments because she did not think the medication was working. On March 29, Respondent prescribed VFEND25/ to C.B. On March 30 and 31 and April 1, 2011, C.B. was a “no show” at Respondent’s office. Yet each of C.B.’s progress notes contained information regarding C.B.’s general appearance. Respondent testified that those progress notes are preprinted forms and would be adjusted upon a patient’s examination. On April 4, 2011, Respondent’s progress note for C.B. reflects “Discuss with patient in detail, patient complains of one papule, advised patient about candidiasis, GI tract not responding to azoles. Complains of diarrhea, abdominal symptoms, wants IV meds.” C.B.’s progress note dated April 5, 2011, reflects under the “S: COMPLAINT: No show - Refused to get PICC line out. Patient walked out yesterday. Patient was told to wait for dressing change. Patient states to receptionist she will come today.” Respondent elected to document on April 5, something that happened on April 4, despite the fact that the progress note for April 4 reflected a discussion with C.B. On April 11, 2011, C.B. presented a request for her medical records to Respondent’s staff. C.B. received copies of her medical records and provided them to DOH. Respondent testified as to C.B.’s 2011 presentation and Respondent’s course of treatment, including what medications were prescribed. Respondent confirmed that an undated “History and Physical” (H&P) for C.B. was C.B.’s “initial history and physical” created from a template. This H&P purports to reflect that C.B. was “discharged [from Respondent’s practice] for misbehavior . . . was in jail. . . [and] begging [for Respondent] to help her.” This H&P also contained Respondent’s physical examination of C.B., which was recorded on a “Progress Note” of the same date. Differences in the two records of the same date exist. C.B. testified that she has never been in jail and that she had not been discharged from Respondent’s practice. C.B. is found to be a credible witness. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. Respondent averred that she discussed C.B.’s vaginal itching with C.B. during the March 7, 2011, office visit, yet Respondent did not prescribe any medications for C.B. C.B.’s first IV immunoglobulin was administered on March 14, a week later. Respondent claims she discussed her care and treatment with C.B. on Wednesday, March 23, 2011. C.B. did not see Respondent on March 23, as C.B. went to Respondent’s office located on Park Boulevard in Pinellas Park and that location was closed. C.B. found out that Respondent was working at an address in Clearwater. C.B. did not have adequate time to get to that Clearwater location before it closed for the day. Thus, C.B. missed the appointment on that day. C.B.’s candid and succinct testimony is credible. Respondent testfied that certain medical records for C.B. were missing: anything that was documented electronic or anything -- any reports or any old records, old reports, it doesn’t contain anything. And she came in for the treatment of a disease that’s been existing since 2006, so a lot of workup that’s done in the prior years for -- which is the relevant basis of the treatment at this point is not there. Respondent was not clear which medical records were missing. C.B. had not been a patient of Respondent for approximately two years. Respondent’s reliance or purported reliance on C.B.’s “old records, old reports” without adequate confirmation of C.B.’s current health issues via appropriate work-ups, laboratory studies and tests falls below the reasonably prudent similar health care provider standard. Standard of Care Respondent was required to meet the same standard of care as outlined in paragraph 25 above. Dr. Carrizosa’s testimony was clear, concise, and credible. He did not appear to have any prejudice against Respondent as a person, but was concerned about how she was practicing medicine. Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of C.B. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. Respondent failed to practice in such a manner as to determine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that C.B. had systemic candida as was diagnosed by Respondent. Further, the laboratory results were not positive for an antimicrobial sensitivity culture taken from C.B. Additionally, C.B.’s complete blood count (CBC) and the differential count, which included neutrophils and lymphocytes, were normal. The administration of Ambisome, the most expensive of all the drugs available, was not warranted as C.B. did not have systemic candidiasis. Further, the immunoglobulin treatment was inappropriate as there was no evidence that C.B. had an immune dysfunction. Medical Records Dr. Ephtimios also provided an opinion on behalf of Respondent. Dr. Ephtimios had a discussion with Respondent regarding the care and treatment provided to C.B. outside the medical records provided. Dr. Ephtimios admitted that he does not use a Medrol Pak in his practice; he does not feel comfortable practicing immunology (and would have referred C.B. out to an immunologist.) Dr. Ephtimios would not have ordered the laboratory tests that Respondent ordered; his understanding of what candidiasis means may differ from Respondent’s, and he speculated on what he thought Respondent “meant” in several instances. Dr. Ephtimios provided a somewhat exhaustive approach to the various forms of candidiasis; however, he qualified each approach. Each physician practices medicine using their own skill set and different methods of providing clinical assessments and treatment. However, Dr. Ephtimios provided various qualifiers to his opinion which rendered it less credible. The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. The medical record of C.B.’s contact with Respondent’s office during this time does not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. C.B.’s records do not reflect an appropriate evaluation, as they fail to analyze C.B.’s main complaints, they fail to analyze the previous evaluations of C.B., and her physical exams were incomplete. DOH Case No. 2011-17799 (DOAH Case No. 14-0515PL) According to Respondent, patient P.A., a 38-year-old female, was “an ongoing patient [of hers] for over ten years.” Respondent saw P.A. between February 2008 and December 2011. Respondent provided medical records to DOH regarding P.A. However, Respondent admitted she did not provide all P.A.’s medical records because “a lot of records were missing,” and Respondent knew “at one point when they were very old records in the 6251 office some of them were also shredded.” Respondent further claimed in response to additional questioning about her shredding statement, [B]ecause the statute says, you know, after three years, so I’m not sure if the -- because I know some of the records were shredded by one of the secretaries. * * * The one [statute] which says once a practice is closed retain records for three years. Respondent identified one of P.A.’s progress notes (dated January 26, 2011) as “our procedure note,” but when asked “What was going on here according to these notes,” Respondent answered: “It’s hard to say. It’s not my handwriting.” Respondent could read the handwriting, but had “no clue” who wrote the progress note. Further, Respondent was unable to state if P.A. was administered either the gentamicin 40 milligrams or the clindamycin 600 milligrams as listed on the progress note. Medical Records The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. In this instance, the testimony of Respondent clearly and convincingly proves Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(m) and rule 64B8-9.003. No evidence was presented that Respondent has been previously disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent, Neelam Uppal, M.D., violated section 458.331(1)(m), (q) and (t), Florida Statutes; suspending her license for six months followed by two years probation with terms and conditions to be set by the Board of Medicine; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00; requiring the successful completion of a course or courses to make, keep and maintain medical records; requiring a course in professional responsibility and ethics, and such other educational courses as the Board of Medicine may require; and assessing costs as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 17th day of September,2014.
