Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the practice of medicine in this state. Respondent was licensed as a physician in Florida and holds license number ME 0017915. He practices medicine, specializing in psychiatry, in Clearwater, Florida. He is board certified in that specialty. On September 7, 1987, Patient #1, a 55 year old married female, whose husband had recently separated from many years in the armed service of the United States, came to see Respondent at his office, complaining of severe headaches, loneliness, depression, and a lowering of self esteem. She had been referred to him by physicians at the U.S. Coast Guard Station Dispensary. Respondent examined Patient #1 and found her to be of limited intelligence, considerably overweight, anxious, depressed and confused. She was ashamed of her new status in life as a result of her husband's inability to find work and was experiencing difficulties with him and her children. She was suffering from severe insomnia. Respondent's examination of Patient #1 was limited. He was satisfied with the medical work-up which had been conducted by his colleagues at the Dispensary. Because he was consulting psychiatrist for that facility, he knew all the physicians there and was familiar with the caliber of their work. Based on the medical information furnished him from the Dispensary and his own examination, he diagnosed Patient #1 as suffering a major depression and a psychogenic pain disorder manifested by headaches and insomnia. He developed a treatment plan for the patient which included a wide variety of psychotherapy interventions, the first of which was to effect relief of the symptoms. This included clarification of relationships, interpretation of dreams and fantasies, and allowed for catharsis. When Respondent found out that empathy and intervention alone would not work on this patient, and he had established a relationship with her, he started psychotropic medications including Elavil, the drug of choice for this type of condition in 1988. Elavil is a "superb" antidepressant. While the antidepressant factor is "cranking in", the medication also works as a sedative. For this reason, it is normally prescribed for administration at bedtime. Patient #1 responded to this course of treatment and she and the Respondent established a good and friendly working relationship, which he noted in his April 4, 1988 letter and treatment report to the Coast Guard and to CHAMPUS. In that treatment report, however, Respondent noted Patient #1 had a suicidal ideation. The term "suicidal ideation" does not import that the patient was, at that time, seriously considering suicide. Her mentioning suicide was but an overcompensation - more an alerting statement of depression and sadness with emptiness and angst. She never indicated to Respondent any thought of or plan to commit suicide. Patient #1 thrived for many months in Respondent's therapy. She complained often of her impoverished condition, however, and as a result, he wrote prescriptions for her in such a way that they could be filled at the Coast Guard dispensary without charge. This required writing prescriptions for more tablets of a drug at a lower strength which was stocked by the Dispensary. It was a surprise to him to learn, later on, that she was filling her prescriptions at Eckerds. Throughout the period he treated her, Dr. Fireman prescribed psychotropic drugs for Patient #1, which consisted primarily of amitriptyline, (Elavil), and butalbital, (Fiorinal), in varying strengths, and, at times, in compounds with other substances. As was noted previously, Elavil is an antidepressant with sedative effects. The recommended daily dose for a patient in an outpatient setting is indicated as 150 mg by the Physicians' Desk Reference, (PDR), which also recommends suicidal patients not be allowed unrestricted access to it because of the danger of intentional overdose. Other qualified psychiatrists who testified, including Dr. Spreyhe and Dr. El Yousef, indicate up to 300 or even 350 mg/day may be appropriate. As Dr. Spreyhe noted, it is not so much the daily dose on any given day which is pertinent but the aliquot over an extended period. In that regard, he notes, Dr. Fireman's prescriptions for both Elavil and Fiorinal were within recommended maximums and, therefore, within the appropriate standard of care. Fiorinal is a barbiturate anti-anxiety agent and muscle relaxant with habit forming potential. Fiorinal #3 contains codeine, a legend drug and narcotic. Generally, according to Dr. El Yousef, it should be dispensed for use at a rate of between 8 to 12 tablets per day over the short term, but over a 9 month period he would prescribe between 4 and 9 tablets per day. Pharmacy records indicate that over the period he treated patient #1, Respondent gave her numerous prescriptions for both Elavil and Fiorinal which, at first glance, appear to be excessive. For example, the records reflect that on December 29, 1987, Respondent wrote prescription number 390073 for 100 Elavil 25 mg tablets. Though the prescription clearly indicates no refills were authorized, and the back of the prescription form, where refills are noted by the pharmacist, fails to reflect any refills were authorized by the physician, the pharmacy records indicate two additional dispensings by the pharmacy for 100 tablets each on January 11 and April 20, 1988. There is no evidence to indicate how these additional fillings came about; who arranged for them, or who received them. On February 22, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription number 394289 to the patient for 12 Fiorinal #3 tablets. Again the prescription form authorizes no refills and the back of the prescription form indicates but one coordinated refill but the pharmacy records show the prescription was filled twice - once on April 6, 1988 and once on April 23, 1998. Only the latter is annotated. On March 3, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription number 397144 to the patient for 60 Fiorinal tablets. While the doctor's refill note reflects none were allowed, the computer printout sticker for the bottle reflects 2 refills were authorized. The back of the prescription form shows no refills annotated thereon as required, but the pharmacy's computer listing of all prescriptions indicates the prescription was refilled on May 28 and again on June 3, 1988. No further explanation is given. Prescription number 396378, written to the patient by Respondent on March 14, 1988 for 50 Fiorinal tablets, reflects no refills authorized by the physician nor does the reverse of the form bear any refill annotations. Nonetheless, the pharmacy records as shown on the computer printout indicates a refill on March 27 and April 6, 1988 with no explanation therefore. Before the last refill, however, Respondent wrote prescription number 397091 to the patient on March 29, 1988, for 21 Fiorinal #2, later approved for #3's. He also, on April 4, 1988, wrote prescription number 398853 for 35 Fiorinal tablets. Respondent claims he would not authorize a refill of a prior prescription for the same medication for which he is writing a new prescription, and, since neither of the refills of the earlier prescription properly reflect any physician authorization, it is so found. On May 2, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 399717 for 50 Fiorinal tablets, and prescription 399718 for 100 Elavil 25 mg tablets. Both reflect Respondent's instruction that no refill be given, and neither form bears an annotation for authorized phone refills. Yet, the pharmacy's computer printout indicates that the prescription for Elavil was written on May 31, 1988 even though the bottle sticker shows it was filled on May 3, 1988. On August 1, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 405572 for 100 Fiorinal and 475573 for 100 Elavil 100 mg tablets. Both were filled the next day but neither form bears any annotation of authorized refill, consistent with the physician's instructions. On August 16, 1988, Respondent prescribed another 100 Fiorinal by Prescription 406536. It was not refilled. On August 29, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 407201 for 150 Elavil 50 mg tablets to patient #1, and number 407202 for 100 Fiorinal tablets. Both prescription forms clearly reflected no refills, but the back of the forms reflect refills were authorized. The Elavil prescription was refilled on September 10, 1988 by pharmacist Ivan Funkhouser who contends he refilled on the basis either of a call to or from the doctor's office. He cannot recall which. He also, at the same time, refilled the Fiorinal prescription under the same conditions. The Elavil prescription was filled again, this time for 225 tablets, on September 30, 1988, by pharmacist Robert Wivagg who also indicated phone refills made only on the basis of a call to or from the physician's office. In this case, however, he believes that because of the amounts involved, he would have spoken to the physician himself before filling the prescription. He cannot be sure of this, however, and Respondent denies having ever prescribed 225 Elavil tablets, regardless of strength, at one time. Mr. Lewis, the pharmacy expert, indicates that proper pharmacy practice would have allowed the pharmacist to issue fewer tablets than on the prescription but not more without express approval of the physician. The Fiorinal prescription, refilled on September 30, 1988, this time for 150 tablets, is not reflected on the prescription form though it is on the computer printout. Respondent denies that he ever called in prescriptions for Patient #1 because he never had to. She came to his office frequently enough that he was able to provide her with a new prescription for whatever medication she needed. Indeed, his medical office billing records reflect that in June, 1988 he saw her on June 6, 13, 20, and 27; in July, 1988 on July 5, 12, 19, and 26; and in August, 1988, on August 2, 9, 16, and 30. It would appear, therefore, that the refills of prescriptions reflected on the pharmacy computer printout either are in error or were arranged for under some unexplained process not involving Respondent. There appears to be no reason for him having had to authorize refills since he saw the patient so frequently, notwithstanding his comments to Ms. Sutton, during the investigation, that 90 percent of the refill calls are authorized by him personally, and only 10 percent through his secretary. There was no showing that the authorization comment Ms. Sutton recalls was related to this particular patient. Further, according to Ms. Maguire, Respondent's secretary, Respondent frequently refuses to grant refills, and, to her knowledge, he never gives refills to psychiatric patients. Since most, if not all Respondent's patients are psychiatric patients, this does not make sense. Respondent does not deny writing the two prescriptions on August 29, 1988. At that particular time patient #1 was planning a trip to New York to make peace with her dying mother. As a result, and since her headaches had gotten worse, as had her depression, he decided to increase her dosage of Elavil. This was a medical decision which is not in issue here. He admits that Elavil is a drug which is often used to commit suicide and that prescribed at even its lowest strength, a full prescription can be lethal. This became, therefore, an assessment problem wherein Respondent, the physician, had to evaluate the risk of the patient's depression against the benefits to be gained by the use of the drug. Respondent gave patient #1 enough Elavil to hold her through her visit up north. He had previously given her sixty 50 mg tablets to be taken 6 per day for a 300 mg dose at bedtime. He now told her not to use the 50 mg tablets any more and to destroy them. He believed she did. He then gave her a new prescription for one hundred and twenty 25 mg tablets for her trip. He unequivocally states that he never prescribes more than 300 mg/day of Elavil. He admits, however, that while she was on that dosage, he neither hospitalized her nor had blood work done on her. Respondent feels his original treatment plan and diagnosis were sufficient and his records pertaining to those factors were adequate. He uses checkoff forms because he believes they are the most open way of showing how he sees his patient and what he is doing for her. This same conclusion was reached by Dr. Spreyhe, another Board certified psychiatrist who is Clinical Professor of psychiatry at the University of South Florida Medical School, who has served as an expert witness for the Department in the past, and who continues to serve as a contract consultant for it and as a member of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Department. Examination of Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #1 indicates that the medical history and treatment plan are in the form of check sheets on which the physician makes no more than minimally worded entries. The Department's witness, Dr. Greener, an expert in the completeness of medical records, is of the opinion that Respondent's records should have reflected an initial detailed assessment of the patient's condition, including the reasons for her referral to him, a complete medical history, and a subsequent detailed mental status examination. This should be followed by a formulation of her problems and a treatment program. After the initial evaluation, according to Dr. Greener, the physician should make regular progress notes as to treatments, communications with others, phone calls received, prescriptions issued, and matters of that nature. This is done to memorialize the particulars for the patient and to keep a tally of which and how much of any drug is given to the patient. This would show over or under use as a possible flag as to how well the patient follows instructions or if the patient develops a use addiction problem. Based on Dr. Greener's review of Respondent's records for patient #1 and the prescription records relevant to her, he concluded those records were "totally inadequate." This conclusion is based on his opinion that the initial evaluation is cursory and without detail and there are few progress notes in the records. Those which are there are inadequate in detail and full of conclusions without the required supporting information such as drug side-effects, the patient's ability to follow instructions, follow-up, changes in dosages, and the like. He complains that Respondent's records do not really outline a plan of treatment designed specifically for that patient. For example, the forms used by Respondent are merely check-off forms even though, during the period, the patient was receiving continuing analgesic medications. From Respondent's records, it was impossible to determine how the patient was doing on the medications prescribed or whether additional medical evaluation was required. It is important to put this information in patient records to memorialize what is done and not just to keep the information in the treating physician's memory. Respondent denies that his initial evaluation and treatment plan, prepared by the use of form check sheets, is below standard. Dr. Spreyhe concluded the use of such check sheets is not inappropriate for the initial work-up of a patient and he opined that Respondent's forms, and the information thereon provide sufficient information for an independent understanding of the patient's situation and are within an appropriate standard of care. It is so found. However, the medical progress notes which make up the bulk of the remaining medical records are not so complete and, in Dr. Spreyhe's opinion are insufficient. Respondent concurs and admits this. It is so found. As to Respondent's prescribing practices, Dr. Greener is far more conservative than Respondent in prescribing Elavil. He starts with a low dose and gradually works up to a therapeutic level dosage depending upon the patient. He would start an average patient out at 25 mg/day and work up to a maintenance dose of 150 mg/day. Elavil is a dangerous drug and the doctor must closely monitor the patient for possible side effects and the direct effect it is having on the patient. It should never be ordered "prn", (as needed) when that designation relates to the amount to be taken. Based on Respondent's records for this patient, it would appear to Dr. Greener that the medication was being used improperly. There appears to have been no monitoring of the amount of the drug the patient was getting and it would appear that the patient was given the prerogative as to dose, which is not a good thing to do. In his opinion, a dose at 300 mg/day of Elavil is very and unnaturally high and he would not use so high a dose. He would do other tests first to see why the medication was not working at the lower dosage. As was seen before, however, other physicians of equal expertise disagree. Fiorinal is habit forming and, according to Dr. Greener, should be used only over the short term. If needed for a longer period, the patient should be reviewed to see why. The doctor must keep in mind the addictive properties of the drug. Here, Dr. Greener is of the opinion that Respondent prescribed excessive amounts of Fiorinal for patient #1. From January 27, 1988 through March 2, 1988, a period of 34 or 35 days, Respondent prescribed 302 tablets and Dr. Greener would be concerned that the patient was addicted. On March 21, 1988 Respondent prescribed another 50 tablets, and on March 27,1988, he prescribed 50 more followed by another 60 somewhat later and more after that. All of these were being prescribed for a patient whose records reflect she was doing "OK", and was "nicely stabilized". To Dr. Greener, this is just too much, especially for a patient who is obviously addicted and who appears to be taking the medication only to prevent withdrawal symptoms. By his prescription regimen, a patient would get no more than 10 tablets a day for no more than 4 to 5 days, and he would prescribe this drug for 9 months, as here, only with support for it in the patient records, including the opinions of other specialists to whom the patient would have been referred. While it is obvious Dr. Greener is more conservative in his approach to medication than is Respondent, the evidence does not clearly show Respondent's approach fell below standards. Dr. Spreyhe is of the opinion that the levels of Elavil and Fiorinal prescribed by Respondent for this patient were appropriate in both dosage and amounts. He has patients of his own who take such doses and he is not swayed by the PDR recommendations for dosage which, he believes, is too conservative. As for the Fiorinal, he would prescribe no more than 8 per day because there is some information that a patient may develop a tolerance for the substance. In any case, the drug is appropriate for the treatment of psychogenic headaches as were suffered by Respondent's patient here. Both W.L.P. and M.J.S. have been patients of Respondent. Both found him to be concerned and available. When patient #1 died, Ms. Sherman was in a therapy group with her. She did not appear to be suicidal and was looking forward to her proposed trip to New York. Patient #1 died on October 8, 1988. The report of the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner reflected her death as suicide from the combined effects of amitriptyline, (Elavil), butalbital, (Fiorinal), and salicylate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued herein, finding Respondent not guilty of all allegations except those relating to his failure to keep adequate medical records regarding Patient #1 as alleged in Count One, of which he is shown to be guilty, and imposing an administrative reprimand and a requirement for continuing medical education in the area of proper record keeping. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5048 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony but not as a Finding of Fact. 8. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony but not as a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted that the medications were dispensed based on prescriptions written under the patient's name. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a necessary conclusion to be drawn. Accepted. - 23. Accepted as restatements of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein as pertaining to the dosage level of Elavil used and the balance accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 32. Rejected as Findings of Fact, and found to be Conclusions of Law. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted. 15. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. & 18. Accepted. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted. 22. This Proposed Finding of Fact is, in reality, a restatement of the evidence presented, in several subparagraphs, some of which are identified by letter and some of which are not. It is, however, accepted as an accurate restatement of the evidence admitted at hearing on this point, except where it becomes argument. 23. & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. First four sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance considered only as argument in support of the position taken. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. Accepted. 28. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact. 29. - 31. Accepted as basic findings. This does not go to their adequacy, however. 32. & 33. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. & 35. Accepted as the substance of the witness' testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Rothenberg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of charges set forth in a three-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violations of subsections (m), (q), and (t) of Section 458.331(1) Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D., has been licensed, and continues to be licensed, to practice medicine in the State of Florida. His license number is ME 0062034. Dr. Rogers is a pain management specialist. Dr. Rogers is certified by the American Board of Anesthesia and the American Academy of Pain Management. On October 20, 1998, Patient N. A. presented to the Respondent with complaints of chronic back pain following two motor vehicle accidents and three back surgeries. At that time Patient N. A. was an adult female approximately 32 years of age. Immediately prior to her presentation to the Respondent she had been treated for a period of approximately five months by Dr. Robert E. Lentz who, at that time, also specialized in pain management in the same geographic community as the Respondent.2 In May of 1998, Dr. Lentz's initial treatment plan for the Patient N. A. was as follows: There is no surgical procedure indicated nor is there any blocks indicated for this patient at this time. Medications will be the patient's mainstay of therapy. Therefore at this time we will renew her prescriptions with the following changes we will try to reduce the amount of Dilaudid for breakthrough pain by increasing her MS Contin from 60 mg. q.d. to 60 mg. b.i.d and the Dilaudid remaining for breakthrough pain. The patient will phone in a few days to update her progress on the new medication regimen. When the Patient N. A. first presented to the Respondent, she was taking the following medications in an effort to relieve her chronic back pain: MS Contin, Dilaudid, Effexor, and Klonopin. Prior to her treatment by Dr. Lentz and by the Respondent, the Patient N. A. had been treated for many years by physicians in the state where she previously resided. That treatment had included three back surgeries and numerous other invasive procedures for the purpose of trying to relieve her chronic back pain. Some of those prior invasive procedures had produced life threatening consequences. None of the prior invasive procedures had produced any beneficial effects. By the time the Patient N. A. presented to the Respondent, she was strongly opposed to any further surgical or other invasive procedures. Her opposition was based on her prior experiences which indicated that such procedures could be risky, could be painful, and in the past had not provided her with any benefit. The Respondent's records of Patient N. A.'s first visit to his office indicate that he performed a physical examination of the patient, but the records do not document a complete physical examination. The documentation issue aside, the Respondent's initial physical examination of Patient N. A. was sufficient and appropriate under the circumstances. The history memorialized in the Respondent's records of his initial consultation with Patient N. A. was sufficient and appropriate. In the care and treatment of a patient who presents with the history, signs, and symptoms, presented by the Patient N. A. on her initial presentation, the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances requires that the initial physical examination of the patient include a neurological or reflex assessment and a range of motion examination. The Respondent's medical records of the initial presentation of the Patient N. A. do not include a notation that the Respondent conducted a neurological or reflex assessment or a range of motion examination on that occasion, even though the Respondent performed such assessments and examinations during the patient's initial visit. The Respondent initially diagnosed Patient N. A.'s condition as "chronic lower back pain, failed back syndrome." This was a sufficient diagnosis, especially in view of the patient's long history of treatment for the same condition.3 The Respondent's initial plan of treatment for Patient N. A. was to obtain the patient's old medical records, discuss epidural adhesionolysis, and to follow up in one week. He prescribed Oxycontin, 80 mg. (three tablets, three times a day) and Dilaudid, 4 mg., for breakthrough pain. During the course of the next eighteen months,4 the Patient N. A. continued to see the Respondent for care and treatment of her "chronic low back pain, failed back syndrome." During that period of time, she saw the Respondent an average of about twice a month. During that period of time the Respondent continued to prescribe Oxycontin and Dilaudid for her. He also prescribed other medicines from time to time in his efforts to relieve her chronic pain. At all times material to this case, the Patient N. A. was enrolled in a Humana HMO. The Respondent was not a participating provider with that HMO. The Respondent was not the "primary physician" for the Patient N. A. in her HMO plan. At the time the Patient N. A. first went to see the Respondent, she was experiencing some difficulties in her relationship with her HMO and for a period of several months she did not have a "primary physician." Shortly after he began the care and treatment of the Patient N. A., the Respondent felt that it would be beneficial to the care and treatment of the patient for her to have an MRI examination. Because the Patient N. A. did not have a "primary physician" at that time, the Respondent contacted the HMO in an effort to persuade them to authorize an MRI examination for the Patient N. A. The Respondent's efforts in this regard were unsuccessful because the HMO did not want to discuss any substantive issues with him since he was not one of their participating physicians. Eventually, the Respondent was able to have the Patient N. A. admitted to a hospital via the emergency room and during the course of that admission was able to arrange for the patient to receive an MRI examination. On January 22, 1999, the Respondent increased Patient N.A.'s prescription of Oxycontin, 80 mg., to four tablets, three times a day. The Respondent also continued to prescribe Dilaudid for the patient to take for breakthrough pain. The Respondent did not document a physical examination on that date. On April 13, 1999, the Respondent increased Patient N. A.'s prescription of Oxycontin, 80 mg., to five tablets, three times a day. The Respondent's medical records for that date did not document a physical examination on that date. On June 11, 1999, the Respondent doubled Patient N. A.'s prescription of Oxycontin, 80 mg., from five tablets, three times a day, to ten tablets three times a day. The Respondent's medical records for that date did not document a physical examination on that date. On June 28, 1999, the Respondent increased Patient N. A.'s prescription of Oxycontin, 80 mg., to eleven tablets, three times a day. The Respondent's medical records for that date did not document a physical examination on that date. On August 2, 1999, the Respondent increased Patient N. A.'s prescription of Oxycontin, 80 mg., from eleven tablets, three times a day, to thirteen tablets, three times a day. The Respondent's medical records for that date did not document a physical examination on that date. On September 2, 1999, Patient N. A. presented to the Respondent with complaints of continued pain and headaches. The Respondent increased her prescription of Oxycontin, 80 mg., from thirteen tablets, three times a day, to twenty tablets, three times a day, and he also gave her prescriptions for Oxyfast liquid and Fioricet for her headaches. The Respondent's medical records for that date did not document a physical examination on that date. Other dates on which the Respondent increased Patient N. A.'s prescriptions without adequately documenting a physical examination were November 23, 1998, and April 26, 1999. Also, on December 30, 1999, at which time the Patient N. A. presented with a complaint of a new injury to her lower back and left leg, the Respondent's medical records do not adequately document a physical examination on that date. The level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances requires, at a minimum, that under the circumstances described in paragraphs 12 through 18, above, the physician must conduct at least a focussed physical examination of the patient and must include in the patient's medical records a description of the types of physical examinations conducted and the results of such examinations. In order to achieve the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, in the care and treatment of a patient such as the Patient N. A., the physician should conduct at least a focused physical examination of the patient before increasing the patient's pain medications. Such a physical examination should also be conducted where there is a significant change in the patient's condition. This type of focused physical examination could include such matters as observation of the patient, palpation, range of motion tests for the back and legs, reflex tests, strength tests, sensation tests, and observation of the patient's gait. The Respondent is still providing care and treatment for the Patient N. A. The patient seems to be satisfied with the care she is receiving from the Respondent and also seems to be very appreciative of the efforts the Respondent has made on her behalf. She is also appreciative of the fact that the Respondent has provided some of his services to her without seeking compensation for his services. In the course of his professional career, the Respondent has not had a patient who presented a case as complicated as that presented by the Patient N. A. Cases of this level of complexity are very rare; so rare that in an entire career of a physician specializing in pain management it is unlikely that the physician would see more than two or three such cases. During the course of his care and treatment of the Patient N. A., the Respondent discussed with her just about every procedure that was available to attempt to relieve her chronic back pain. The Patient N. A. was opposed to any form of invasive procedure and hoped to be able to achieve relief from her pain through the use of medicines. During the course of his care and treatment of the Patient A. N., the Respondent never felt there were any secondary gain issues or diversion issues. During the course of his care and treatment of the Patient N. A., the Respondent knew that she was also seeing a psychiatrist at the same time and that she was receiving prescriptions from the psychiatrist. On a number of occasions the Respondent and the Patient N. A. discussed her psychiatric care, and on one or two occasions the Respondent spoke directly to her treating psychiatrist. During the course of his care and treatment of the Patient N. A., the Respondent recommended that the patient be seen by an orthopedic surgeon. However, he could not refer her to an orthopedic surgeon because he was not a Humana HMO provider and the Humana HMO did not honor or recognize his referrals.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint for insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in some of the ways charged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint; Dismissing Count Three of the Administrative Complaint for insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes; and, Imposing a penalty on the Respondent consisting of the following: (1) a requirement that the Respondent pay, within 180 days of the issuance of the final order in this case, an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, and (2) a requirement that the Respondent complete, within 180 days of the issuance of the final order in this case, the FMA records- keeping course, or some similar course regarding the proper preparation of medical records. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2003.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensed medical doctor. By means of a two-count Administrative Complaint, the Respondent is charged with violations of Sections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by allegedly failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient, and by failing to practice medicine with the required level of care, skill, and treatment. The Respondent denies the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, and also asserts that the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed by reason of the Petitioner's failure to timely investigate and prosecute the subject charges.
Findings Of Fact Findings stipulated by the parties4 The Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida. The patient R. C. presented with a history of diabetes and hypertension. The Respondent did not attempt or make any contact with the primary care physician of patient R. C. Brevital was administered intravenously to the patient R. C. without the use of an IV pump. Resuscitative drugs and equipment should always be immediately available. There is no documentation of respiratory monitoring during the administration of anesthetics and the surgical procedure performed on patient R. C. It is well below the standard of care to both administer a general anesthesia and perform the surgical procedure. Findings based on evidence At all times material, the Respondent has specialized in urology. The Respondent is not board certified in urology. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was associated with a clinic named Instituto Latino Americano de Impotencia y Diagnostico (ILAID). One or two days each week, the Respondent would see patients at ILAID that were potential candidates for penile implant surgery. At all times material to this case there were at least two other licensed physicians associated with ILAID who often were the first physicians to see patients who came to ILAID with complaints of impotency. The subject patient (Patient R. C.) went to ILAID for the first time on May 24, 1993. On that day the patient signed a form titled "Patient Information," which contains little more than patient identification information, and a form titled "Patient's Declaration and Agreement."5 The patient probably saw a physician at ILAID on May 24, 1993, because a blood sample was taken from the patient that day and the results of the blood tests were reported back to ILAID on May 25, 1993. However, there is no documentation that the patient was seen by a physician at ILAID on May 24, 1993. Specifically, there is no medical chart documenting that on that day a physician took a history from the patient, examined the patient, evaluated the patient, ordered any tests of the patient, or otherwise treated or cared for the patient. At all times material to this case, the routine practice and procedure of ILAID regarding patients who went to ILAID with complaints of impotency was to have the patients seen by a physician associated with ILAID. It was also the routine practice and procedure at ILAID for the physician who first saw the patient to prepare a-medical record documenting the patient's visit. Such a medical record would routinely document a patient history, an examination of the patient, the physician's evaluation of the patient, and any treatments given or tests ordered by the physician. The impotency patients at ILAID were also routinely put through an evaluation procedure to determine the extent of and the nature of their impotency before implant surgery was recommended or performed. The results of the evaluation procedure were also routinely documented in the patient's medical chart. The Respondent first saw the subject patient on July 13, 1993, at the ILAID facility. On that date there were no patient records regarding the subject patient prepared by any other physician associated with ILAID for the Respondent to review. In the absence of any medical documentation, the Respondent apparently assumed that the patient had been through the normal routine at ILAID and proceeded to go forward on that assumption. On July 13, 1993, the Respondent took a brief, limited history from the patient and conducted a limited physical examination of the patient. The physical examination was limited to the patient's abdomen and urogenital area. Based on that limited history and examination, the Respondent concluded that penile implant surgery was an appropriate course of treatment, subject to the patient receiving medical clearance for the surgery. The Respondent did not perform any objective tests for impotence on the patient. The Respondent did not obtain a detailed medical history from the patient. The Respondent did not obtain a detailed history regarding the nature, extent, or duration of the patient's impotence. The Respondent did not conduct a complete physical examination of the patient. Prior to performing penile implant surgery, a physician should perform objective tests to determine if the surgery is indicated. Two objective tests that should always be performed are blood tests to determine the patient's testosterone level and prolactin level.6 Depending on the details elicited during the patient history, other objective tests may also be indicated. The Respondent failed to have tests done to determine the testosterone level and the prolactin level of the patient. The failure to perform these two objective tests is a departure from acceptable standards of medical care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician. Prior to performing penile implant surgery, a patient's condition must be assessed by a physician to determine whether surgery is indicated. The surgeon does not have to personally perform all aspects of the assessment of the patient's condition, but the surgeon must at least verify that an adequate assessment has been performed by another physician, and that the assessment has been documented in the patient's medical records. Adequate assessment of a patient's condition requires, at a minimum, a detailed medical history, a complete physical examination, and the performance of any objective tests indicated by the history and physical examination. The performance of surgery without either performing an adequate assessment of the patient's condition or verifying that such an assessment has been documented by another physician is a departure from acceptable standards of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician. The Respondent did not obtain a detailed medical history from the patient, did not perform a complete physical examination of the patient, and failed to order at least two objective tests that were indicated by the patient's complaints. The Respondent also failed to verify that documentation existed which showed that any other physician had obtained a detailed medical history from the patient, had performed a complete physical examination of the patient, and had ordered the objective tests indicated by the patient's complaints. If the Respondent had attempted to verify the existence of such documentation, he would have discovered that the documentation did not exist. The Respondent's performance of surgery on the patient without performing an adequate assessment of the patient's condition, or without verifying that such an assessment had been documented by another physician, was a departure from acceptable standards of medical practice. The Respondent made arrangements for additional blood tests and for an EKG to be administered to the patient. The Respondent also believed that he had made arrangements for one of the other physicians at ILAID to medically clear the patient for surgery. Anticipating no problems regarding the medical clearance, the Respondent also contacted the director of ILAID, Rogelio Medel, and asked him to arrange a location for the implant surgery. In view of the patient's financial circumstances and his lack of medical insurance, it was decided that the surgery would be done in an operating room at a physician's clinic, which would be somewhat less expensive than performing the surgery in a hospital operating room. Rogelio Medel contacted Dr. Francisco A. Prado and arranged for the use of one of the operating rooms at Dr. Prado's clinic. Rogelio Medel had made similar arrangements with Dr. Prado twice before. The arrangement with Dr. Prado was that Dr. Prado would provide not only the use of the operating room, but would also provide all necessary supplies (including the anesthesia medications), as well as the services of a nurse anesthetist, Eduardo Perez, who worked for Dr. Prado on a regular basis. The surgery was scheduled for early in the afternoon on July 16, 1993. Unbeknownst to Rogelio Medel and to the Respondent, Eduardo Perez was not a licensed nurse anesthetist. The Respondent did not inquire of Eduardo Perez regarding the latter's qualifications or licensure status. Rather, relying on the representations of Dr. Prado, the Respondent assumed that Eduardo Perez possessed the necessary qualifications and licensure to function as a nurse anesthetist. While it is clear that Eduardo Perez was not licensed as a nurse anesthetist, there is no clear and convincing evidence in the record as to whether Eduardo Perez was or was not trained in the use of anesthetics, was or was not trained in the use of respiratory and cardiac monitoring equipment, or was or was not trained in the use of resuscitative drugs and equipment.7 The Respondent assumed that Eduardo Perez was trained in these matters, based on the assumption that Eduardo was a licensed nurse anesthetist. In view of the representations of Dr. Prado, it was reasonable for the Respondent to make that assumption.8 The Respondent was not trained in the techniques and procedures of advanced cardiac life support. The Respondent was not trained in the use of a defibrillator. The Respondent was not trained in the use of anesthetics. Prior to performing surgery on the subject patient, the Respondent had received a copy of the laboratory results dated July 16, 1993. He had also received a copy of the EKG report prepared by Dr. Freddie Rodriguez. Prior to performing the surgery, the Respondent had not received any written medical clearance for the patient to undergo the planned implant surgery. The Respondent never received any written medical clearance for the patient to undergo surgery, because the patient was never medically cleared. The Respondent did not receive any telephonic verification that the subject patient had been medically cleared for surgery, because no other physician had cleared the patient for surgery.9 Prior to performing surgery, it is the responsibility of the surgeon to verify that the patient has been medically cleared for the proposed surgery. Under similar conditions and circumstances, a reasonably prudent similar physician would not perform surgery without verification that the patient had been medically cleared for the proposed surgery. It is a departure from minimum standards of medical practice for a surgeon to perform surgery without such verification. Early in the afternoon on July 16, 1993, the Respondent performed penile implant surgery on the subject patient. The surgery was conducted in one of the operating rooms at Dr. Prado's clinic, as previously arranged with Dr. Prado. During the surgery the patient was anesthetized with the anesthetic agents Versed and Brevital. These anesthetic agents were administered by Eduardo Perez, who was functioning as a nurse anesthetist. Eduardo Perez was present during the entire surgical procedure, during which time he monitored the administration of the anesthetic agents, monitored the patient's vital signs, and otherwise performed the functions that would be performed by a nurse anesthetist. At all times material, the Respondent believed, based on the representations of Dr. Prado, that Eduardo Perez was a licensed and qualified nurse anesthetist who regularly worked in that capacity for Dr. Prado. When the surgical procedure had been completed, the Respondent left the patient in the care of Eduardo Perez while the Respondent left the operating room to change clothes. When the Respondent left the operating room the patient appeared to be normal. When the Respondent returned to the operating room a few minutes later, he noticed that the patient had become pale and sweaty. The Respondent also noticed that the patient had very little pulse or blood pressure. The Respondent and Eduardo Perez initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and also called fire rescue for assistance. The Respondent and Eduardo Perez continued their cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts until the fire rescue personnel arrived a few minutes later. The fire rescue personnel initiated advanced cardiac life support measures and subsequently transported the patient to a hospital emergency room, where further efforts were made to resuscitate the patient. Shortly thereafter the patient was pronounced dead in the emergency room. Following an autopsy and investigation into the cause of death, the Dade County Medical Examiner was of the opinion that it could not be stated with any degree of medical certainty that the death of the subject patient was caused by the surgery. In order to have medical records sufficient to justify penile implant surgery, a physician must have written medical records that document at least the following matters: (a) a detailed patient history; (b) a complete physical examination of the patient; (c) a consideration of alternative therapy options; and (d) a pre-operative medical clearance. With regard to the subject patient, the Respondent does not have, and never did have, written medical records documenting any of the four matters itemized immediately above. By failing to keep written medical records documenting such matters with regard to the subject patient, the Respondent failed to keep records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.10
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Sections 458.331(1)(t) and 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, imposing a penalty consisting of the imposition of administrative fines totaling $6,000. 00, and the suspension of the Respondent's license to practice medicine for a period of 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd Day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florid __________________________________ MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1998.
The Issue The issues in these three consolidated cases are whether Respondent, Jerome F. Waters, M.D., committed the violations alleged in three Administrative Complaints filed by Petitioner, the Department of Health, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner” or “Department”), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Respondent, Jerome F. Waters, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”) is, and has been at all times material to these consolidated cases, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 7236. Respondent graduated from New York University Medical school 48 years ago and did four years of a general surgical residency. He is not board-certified although he is board eligible in general surgery. Respondent had only one medical malpractice lawsuit against him and that was in 1964. The Administrative Complaints in these consolidated cases are the first license discipline cases against Respondent. Respondent has had a long and distinguished medical career. He has been in private practice in Miami, Florida, since 1961 and he has been at the same location for the last 23 years. He currently has a general medical practice, although he also still practices surgery. Twenty-five percent of his practice comprises Medicaid patients and 30 percent comprises Medicare patients. Respondent had about 125 AIDS patients at the time of the emergency restriction of his practice. Respondent became interested in treating patients with pain as a result of his surgical practice. Approximately twenty-five percent of his practice is devoted to pain management. Respondent's pain practice grew as a result of a few patients from Broward County in 1996 who recommended other "pain patients" to Respondent. Respondent admits that because of his “compassion for his patients” he was probably more indulgent than he should have been with his pain patients. Respondent acknowledges that his medical record documentation was poor. He concedes that he relied too much on his memory and had a tendency to write down only special negatives or positives in his findings. Respondent also often omitted information in his medical records that he thought might be stigmatizing or embarrassing to the patient. He tried to rely on his memory regarding such matters. Respondent often has been reluctant to refer his patients to consultants because of their economic constraints. Applicable rules The Board of Medicine has adopted rules that contain standards for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of pain. Those standards include Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3), which read as follows at all times material to these consolidated cases: Guidelines. The Board has adopted the following guidelines when evaluating the use of controlled substances for pain control: Evaluation of the Patient. A complete medical history and physical examination must be conducted and documented in the medical record. The medical record should document the nature and intensity of the pain, current and past treatments for pain, underlying or coexisting diseases or conditions, the effect of the pain on physical and psychological function, and history of substance abuse. The medical record also should document the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of a controlled substance. Treatment Plan. The written treatment plan should state objectives that will be used to determine treatment success, such as pain relief and improved physical and psychosocial function, and should indicate if any further diagnostic evaluations or other treatments are planned. After treatment begins, the physician should adjust drug therapy to the individual medical needs of each patient. Other treatment modalities or a rehabilitation program may be necessary depending on the etiology of the pain and the extent to which the pain is associated with physical and psychosocial impairment. Informed Consent and Agreement for Treatment. The physician should discuss the risks and benefits of the use of controlled substances with the patient, persons designated by the patient, or with the patient’s surrogate or guardian if the patient is incompetent. The patient should receive prescriptions from one physician and one pharmacy where possible. If the patient is determined to be at high risk for medication abuse or have a history of substance abuse, the physician may employ the use of a written agreement between physician and patient outlining patient responsibilities, including, but not limited to: Urine/serum medication levels screening when requested; Number and frequency of all prescription refills; and Reasons for which drug therapy may be discontinued (i.e., violation of agreement). Periodic Review. At reasonable intervals based on the individual circumstances of the patient, the physician should review the course of treatment and any new information about the etiology of the pain. Continuation or modification of therapy should depend on the physician’s evaluation of progress toward stated treatment objectives such as improvement in patient’s pain intensity and improved physical and/or psychosocial function, i.e., ability to work, need of health care resources, activities of daily living, and quality of social life. If treatment goals are not being achieved, despite medication adjustments, the physician should reevaluate the appropriateness of continued treatment. The physician should monitor patient compliance in medication usage and related treatment plans. Consultation. The physician should be willing to refer the patient as necessary for additional evaluation and treatment in order to achieve treatment objectives. Special attention should be given to those pain patients who are at risk for misusing their medications and those whose living arrangements pose a risk for medication misuse or diversion. The management of pain in patients with a history of substance abuse or with a comorbid psychiatric disorder may require extra care, monitoring, documentation, and consultation with or referral to an expert in the management of such patients. Medical Records. The physician is required to keep accurate and complete records to include, but not be limited to: The medical history and physical examination; Diagnostic, therapeutic, and laboratory results; Evaluations and consultations; Treatment objectives; Discussion of risks and benefits; Treatments; Medications (including date, type, dosage, and quantity prescribed); Instructions and agreements; and Periodic reviews. Records must remain current and be maintained in an accessible manner and readily available for review. Compliance with Controlled Substances Laws and Regulations. To prescribe, dispense, or administer controlled substances, the physician must be licensed in the state and comply with applicable federal and state regulations. Physicians are referred to the Physicians Manual: An Informational Outline of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, published by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, for specific rules governing controlled substances as well as applicable state regulations. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.003, on the subject of the adequacy of medical records, read, in pertinent part, as follows at all times material to these consolidated cases: Medical records are maintained for the following purposes: To serve as a basis for planning patient care and for continuity in the evaluation of the patient’s condition and treatment. To furnish documentary evidence of the course of the patient’s medical evaluation, treatment, and change in condition. To document communication between the practitioner responsible for the patient and any other health care professional who contributes to the patient’s care. To assist in protecting the legal interest of the patient, the hospital, and the practitioner responsible for the patient. A licensed physician shall maintain patient medical records in a legible manner and with sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate why the course of treatment was undertaken or why an apparently indicated course of treatment was not undertaken. The medical record shall contain sufficient information to identify the patient, support the diagnosis, justify the treatment and document the course and results of treatment accurately, by including, at a minimum, patient histories; examination results; test results; records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered; reports of consultations and hospitalizations; and copies of records or reports or other documentation obtained from other health care practitioners at the request of the physician and relied upon by the physician in determining the appropriate treatment of the patient. All entries made into the medical records shall be accurately dated and timed. Late entries are permitted, but must be clearly and accurately noted as late entries and dated and timed accurately when they are entered into the record. However, office records do not need to be timed, just dated. Relevant Drugs Methadone is a legend drug and is a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.1 Methadone is indicated for the relief of severe pain, for detoxification treatment in cases of narcotic addiction, and for the temporary maintenance treatment of narcotic addiction. Methadone can produce drug dependence of the morphine type. Psychological dependence, physical dependence, and tolerance may develop upon repeated administration of methadone. Xanax is a legend drug and it contains Alprazolam, a Schedule IV controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Alprazolam is a Benzodiazepine Anxiolytic, and the abuse of Alprazolam can lead to physical and psychological dependence. Xanax is indicated for the short-term relief of symptoms of anxiety. It produces additive CNS (Central Nervous System) depressant effects when co-administered with other CNS depressants. Oxycontin is a legend drug and it contains Oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Oxycodone is a narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to moderately severe pain, and carries a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe physical and psychological dependence. Dilaudid is a legend drug and it contains Hydromorphone, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Hydromorphone is a powerful narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain, and carries a high potential for abuse and dependence. Abuse of hydromorphone may lead to severe physical and psychological dependence. Soma (Carisoprodol) is a legend drug and it is a muscle relaxant used as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. The effects of Carisoprodol and other drugs that depress the CNS may be additive, and Soma should be prescribed with caution to patients taking other CNS depressant medications, such as narcotics, benzodiazepine anxiolytics and tranquilizers, and barbiturates. Fiorinal with Codeine is a legend drug and it contains Codeine and Butalbital, both Schedule III controlled substances listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Codeine is a narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain, and carries a significant potential for abuse and dependence. Butalbital is a barbiturate sedative which also carries a significant potential for abuse and dependence. Fiorinal with Codeine is indicated for the treatment of tension headaches. Keflex (Cephalexin) is a semi-synthetic cephalosporin antibiotic intended for oral administration. MS Contin is a legend drug and it contains Morphine Sulfate USP, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, which is indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain. Morphine has a high potential for abuse and has a currently accepted but severely restricted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of Morphine may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Restoril contains Temazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance indicated for the relief of insomnia. The abuse of Temazepam can lead to physical or psychological dependence. Vicodin is a legend drug and it contains Hydrocodone Bitartrate, a Schedule III controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Hydrocodone is a narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain, and is also used as an antitussive (cough suppressant). Hydrocodone carries a high potential for abuse and dependence. General facts about Respondent's medical records Respondent's medical records for each of the patients whose treatment forms the basis for the administrative complaints in these consolidated cases included an office cover sheet with a patient name. However, the individual records following the cover sheet contained no patient names. The patient's name should be on each page of medical records for that patient. Physicians are taught in medical school to use a variation of the S.O.A.P. method for creating medical records. S.O.A.P. is an acronym standing for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan. The basic elements of the S.O.A.P. method should be present in the records of each patient visit. In the medical records prepared by Respondent during the course of his treatment of the six patients at issue in these consolidated cases, more often than not some elements of the S.O.A.P. method were omitted. Many of Respondent's entries in these records are insufficient because they omit information required by the S.O.A.P. method. Admitted Facts regarding Patient S.T. (Case No. 2002-26343) On or about December 5, 2000, Patient S.T., a 46-year- old female, first presented to Respondent with complaints of back and neck pain, bronchitis, chronic hepatitis B, bipolar illness, lupus discoid and seizure disorder. According to Patient S.T.’s medical records, Patient S.T. had a history of being treated with controlled substances, including Dilaudid. Based on his impression that Patient S.T. was suffering from severe asthmatic bronchitis, seizures, and lupus and needed immediate care, Respondent directed Patient S.T. to the local emergency room, where she remained in the hospital until December 9, 2000. Various tests were performed on Patient S.T. including a complete blood count (CBC) and an electrocardiogram (EKG). On or about December 11, 2000, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent and Respondent prescribed Albuterol and a Nebulizer for her bronchitis. On or about January 15, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent’s’ office. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg 180 Fiorinal #3 On or about February 13, 2001, Respondent saw Patient S.T. Patient S.T.’s records, for the February 13, 2001 visit, do not indicate the reason for the Keflex. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed Soma and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. without documenting the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of controlled substances, and without documenting a treatment plan for Patient S.T. On or about February 26, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent. On or about March 13, 2001, Patient S.T. visited Respondent and complained of urinary incontinence and heartburn. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 90 Soma, 350 mg Dilantin Fiorinal #3 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg On or about April 12, 2001, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 90 Soma, 350 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg 120 Fiorinal #3 120 Methadone, 10 mg On or about April 12, 2001, Respondent initially prescribed 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, but then crossed this prescription out and substituted Methadone instead. On or about May 10, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent’ office. During the course of that visit Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Soma, 350 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Firoinal #3 120 Methadone, 10 mg On or about May 10, 2001, Respondent also prescribed Cipro and Prednisone, 10 mg, for an apparent skin condition affecting Patient S.T.’s legs. On or about June 7, 2001, Respondent saw Patient S.T. again. During this visit, Respondent noted that Patient S.T. suffered from edema (excess fluid in cells and tissues). Respondent failed to document any other physical examination of Patient S.T. during the course of the June 7, 2001, visit. On or about June 7, 2001, Respondent treated Patient S.T.’s edema. On or about June 7, 2001, Respondent failed to document any explanation or adequate medical justification for prescribing 60 Xanax, 2 mg, 100 Fiorinal #3 and 120 Methadone, 10 mg to Patient S.T. On or about July 6, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent at which time he prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Firoinal #3 150 Dilantin, 100 mg 120 Methadone, 10 mg On or about August 3, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent's medical records regarding S.T.'s August 3, 2001, visit do not reflect that there was a discussion of risks and benefits of using controlled substances. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Fiorinal #3 180 Dilantin, 100 mg 120 Methadone 10 mg On or about September 12, 2001, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Fiorinal #3 120 Methadone 10 mg On or about September 17, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent for a final time. During the September 17, 2001, visit, Patient S.T. complained of cellulitis (inflammation of tissue) to her abdomen. During the September 17, 2001 visit, Respondent treated Patient S.T.’s cellulitis with ointment and Tequin (an antibacterial agent). Additional Facts regarding Patient S.T. (Case No. 2002-26343) During her hospitalization, Patient S.T.'s treatment included Atrovent with Ventolin. Patient S.T. remained in the hospital until December 9, 2000, when she was discharged with directions to follow up with Respondent. Contained within the medical file for Respondent are copies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) for the lumbar spine (dated January 17, 2000), the brain (dated January 12, 2000) and the neck (dated January 17, 2000). The MRI of the brain was normal but the MRIs of the neck and low back showed disc herniations, among other changes. An echocardiogram was also performed on January 12, 2000 that stated “if a significant valvular lesion is still being considered, correlation with a cardiac Doppler examination is recommended.” There is no medical record concerning Patient S.T.'s visit to Respondent's office on December 11, 2000. There is only a copy of the prescription written that day with some notes written on the bottom of the prescription. Respondent's record for the January 15, 2001, visit with Patient S.T. consists basically of a list of prescription drugs. There is no documented subjective complaint, objective result, assessment, or treatment plan. There are also no notes concerning the treatment in the hospital or concerning the test results from January 2000. On January 15, 2001, Respondent prescribed 90 Dilaudid 4 mg, 60 Xanax 2 mg, 180 Fiorinal #3, Dilantin, Soma and Phenergen to Patient S.T. Respondent failed to document why any of these medications were prescribed. On February 13, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent. Respondent noted that the patient was getting Keflex (an antibiotic) on her own. Respondent’s records do not indicate any inquiry concerning how she was obtaining Keflex on her own or the reason for the Keflex. On the February 13, 2001 visit, Respondent noted pharynx infected and no evidence of thrush. Respondent then prescribed Soma 350 (now three times per day), Cipro 500, an inhaler and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. Presumably, the Cipro (an antibiotic) was prescribed for some infection, but there are no notes indicating this. On February 13, 2001, Respondent prescribed Soma, Cipro, and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. without documenting an assessment or treatment plan for Patient S.T. Respondent prescribed Soma and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. without documenting the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of controlled substances. Respondent does not indicate why he increased the Soma. On February 13, 2001, Respondent noted that he wrote a prescription for Neurontin 400 but then put a note over that that says “hold.” There is no explanation in the record for this change in treatment nor is there a reason why the Neurontin was prescribed initially. On February 26, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent. Respondent noted that Patient S.T.’s Dilantin level was low, noted a recent seizure, and noted that there were extreme sores with two arrows pointing downward. Respondent then switched the patient to Tequinn (another antibiotic) without any explanation for the switch. There were no other subjective or objective complaints listed. Respondent failed to record an assessment or treatment plan other than to “do Dilantin level.” Respondent failed to document any medical reasons for doing a Dilantin level check if Respondent already knew the Dilantin level was low. On March 13, 2001, Respondent prescribed #90 Soma 350 mg, Dilantin, Paxil, Xanax 2.0 mg, 90 Dilaudid 4 mg, Fiorinal #3, Phenergen, a Nebulizer and Neurontin to Patient S.T. There are no explanations for the prescribing of these drugs. There is no assessment, other than of the skin condition, and no written plan concerning the prescriptions given. On March 13, 2001, Respondent also prescribed a trial of Lithium 450. There were no subjective or objective complaints concerning the reason Respondent prescribed this drug. There is no assessment or plan concerning the prescription of this drug. Lithium can be prescribed for psychiatric diagnoses but there are no notes indicating why Respondent is prescribing this drug. On April 12, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent noted in Patient S.T.’s records that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) “confiscated some of her meds” which were in a friend’s house. Respondent did not note any follow-up, plan, or inquiry concerning the note that the DEA confiscated Patient S.T.’s medications. Respondent noted that Patient S.T. should try to take the Lithium and that she needed a right ankle brace. There are no subjective or objective complaints in this note. There is also no assessment or plan, other than to try to take Lithium. The medical records for the visit on April 12, 2001, do not contain any explanation as to why Respondent prescribed any of the controlled substances he prescribed during that visit. It is clearly a “red flag” when a patient informs a doctor that the DEA has confiscated her medications. When this type of event occurs, it is inappropriate and egregious for the physician to prescribe controlled substances like the ones Respondent prescribed on April 12, 2001, without inquiry and investigation into the circumstances. On May 10, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent’s office. Respondent noted that Patient S.T. was non-diabetic. Respondent then prescribed Cipro and Prednisone 10 mg for the sores on the lower limbs. There is no explanation why Respondent switched the patient back to Cipro. There are no documented subjective or objective complaints concerning the legs other than that there were sores. There was no adequate assessment of the legs. The rest of Respondent’s medical record for May 10, 2001, is basically a list of prescriptions. There is no written explanation for the prescriptions, no assessment, and no plan concerning their use. On July 6, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent listed Patient S.T.’s conditions on the side of his record. These conditions were: lupus, hepatitis, bronchitis, herpes simplex, proven non-diabetic, edema and seizure disorder. Respondent notes a plan to do a complete blood count (CBC) and Dilantin level. The rest of the record is a list of prescriptions. During the visit on July 6, 2001, Respondent prescribed controlled substances without documenting any medical complaints by the patient. There are no subjective or objective complaints. There is no assessment or plan concerning the drugs prescribed. Respondent prescribed controlled substances to Patient S.T. without documenting that he discussed the patient’s chronic pain with her (if she had any). Respondent's medical records for Patient S.T.'s visit on August 3, 2001, do not contain any subjective or objective complaints. Also there is no assessment or plan concerning the drugs prescribed that day. On September 12, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent wrote in Patient S.T.’s record abbreviations for Glucosamine and Chondroitin. There is no other note other than a weight recorded for this visit. However, contained within Respondent’s medical file are copies of some of his prescriptions. These copies indicate that Respondent prescribed 60 Xanax 2 mg, 100 Fiorinal #3, Methadone 10 mg on this visit. On the prescription form itself, Respondent indicated that the Fiorinal was for headaches and the Methadone for pain. There are no notes at all in the medical record about these prescriptions or why they were prescribed. Further, Respondent’s medical records for September 12, 2001, fail to indicate why the Xanax was prescribed. The medical records do not contain any subjective or objective complaints. There is no assessment or plan. It is not sufficient to write instructions and the rationale for prescribing a drug on the prescription form only. A physician should document in the medical record the prescription, the dosing, and the reason why the drug is being prescribed. Respondent failed to do this on September 12, 2001. On September 20, 2001, Patient S.T. died. An autopsy was performed and the cause of death was determined to be acute polydrug toxicity (Fentanyl, Codeine, Methadone, Oxycodone, Butalbital, and Alprazolam or Xanax). Butalbital is a component of Fiorinal. The Miami-Dade County medical examiner’s report indicated that Patient S.T. had a history of drug abuse since aged 20. The toxicology report indicated that Patient S.T. had fatal doses of Fentanyl, Oxycodone and Codeine in her system. Respondent violated the statutory standard of care2 by failing to adequately address the etiology of Patient S.T.’s pain, by prescribing controlled substances without adequate medical justification, and by failing to set up a treatment plan concerning the prescribing of controlled substances. Respondent’s actions were particularly egregious following the DEA seizure of the patient’s medication. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control.3 Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course of treatment by failing to document an appropriate plan concerning the controlled substances and by failing to document the justification for the controlled substances he prescribed. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records documenting the source of any alleged pain and failed to document adequate progress notes. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient S.T. Respondent inappropriately increased the Soma without noting any reason or discussion concerning this increase. Respondent also inappropriately prescribed medications by discontinuing the Dilaudid and prescribing the Methadone without justification or explanation. Finally, Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient S.T. after learning that the DEA had seized her medications.4 Admitted Facts regarding Patient C.C. (Case No. 2002-26342) On or about August 2, 2001, Patient C.C., a 45-year- old male, first presented to Respondent with a history of several injuries including a left and right hip replacement, a left ankle fusion, and a right ankle compound break. According to Patient C.C.’s medical records for this visit, Respondent verified the injuries reported by Patient C.C. by only examining the surgical scars on Patient C.C.’s body. At the conclusion of this visit, Respondent instructed Patient C.C. to return with copies of his X-rays and to undergo “blood work”. During the course of this visit, Respondent prescribed 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, and 60 Oxycontin, 80 mg, to Patient C.C. On or about August 6, 2001, Respondent prescribed 15 Xanax, 2 mg, to Patient C.C. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the August 6, 2001, visit do not contain examination results or subjective or objective complaints. On or about August 23, 2001, Patient C.C. returned to Respondent’s office, whereupon, Respondent prescribed 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, and 30 MS Contin, 100 mg, to Patient C.C. Patient C.C.’s records for the August 23, 2001, visit reflect that the only physical examination results recorded are weight and blood pressure. Patient C.C.’s records for the August 23, 2001, visit reflect that Patient C.C. did not provide Respondent with copies of his X-rays. Patient C.C.’s records for the August 23, 2001, visit also reflect that Patient C.C. did not provide Respondent with verification of completion of the “blood work” that Respondent requested during Patient C.C.’s visit of August 2, 2001. On or about September 19, 2001, Patient C.C. returned to Respondent’s office complaining of an upper respiratory infection. Respondent renewed Patient C.C.’s prescriptions for 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, and 30 MS Contin, 100 mg. On or about September 20, 2001, Respondent prescribed 30 Xanax, 2 mg, to Patient C.C. by telephonic order. On September 26, 2001, Patient C.C. presented to Respondent. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the September 26, 2001, visit indicate that Patient C.C. complained of a gastrointestinal disorder. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the September 26, 2001 visit indicate that Respondent again noted: “must do lab work.” Patient C.C.’s medical records contain what appears to be an entry for September 29, 2001, which simply states “Restoril 30 — trial.” On or about October 11, 2001, Respondent prescribed 30 Vicodin ES by telephonic order for Patient C.C. Patient C.C.’s final visit to Respondent occurred on or about October 19, 2001. During the course of that visit, Patient C.C. complained of a contusion that resulted from a fall. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the October 19, 2001, visit fail to document which part of Patient C.C.’s body was contused. Patient C.C.’s records for the October 19, 2001, visit do not contain any documentation that Respondent performed a physical examination of Patient C.C. During the course of the October 19, 2001, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient C.C.: 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg 90 Soma, 350 mg 60 MS Contin, 100 mg Additional Facts regarding Patient C.C. (Case No. 2002-26342) In the medical record of the August 2, 2001, visit there are no notations as to when the injuries occurred or which injury was causing a complaint that day, if any. Respondent noted that the patient was disabled and on Medicare. On August 2, 2001, in addition to the Dilaudid and Oxycontin, Respondent also prescribed Fiorinal with Codeine and Tuinal (a short-acting barbiturate). Respondent’s medical records for Patient C.C.’s August 2, 2001, visit do not contain examination results or subjective or objective complaints. The record has no assessment of Patient C.C.’s hips or ankles. Respondent requested copies of the X-rays from the patient, presumably to confirm the prior injuries to the hips and ankles. There is no indication in the record that Respondent ever tried to obtain the X-rays himself. In the medical record for the August 23, 2001, visit, Respondent did not document any indication why he switched Patient C.C. from Oxycontin to MS Contin. The Dilaudid was prescribed apparently for “breakthrough pain.” However, there are no notes concerning the severity of any pain or the source of any pain. Respondent also noted on this visit that the patient had GERD (gastroesophogeal reflux disease) or irritable bowel syndrome. No subjective complaints or symptoms are recorded. He questioned whether it was due to diet and thought he might be a candidate for Librax (a medication used for irritable bowel disease). Respondent then gave Patient C.C. a sample of Prevacid (a medication that can treat GERD). In the medical record for the September 19, 2001, visit there are no notations concerning the patient's respiration or whether he was wheezing. No other symptoms are recorded. Respondent did not record any objective results, failed to record any assessment and did not record an adequate plan. Respondent gave the patient a Zithromax sample for the respiratory infection. Respondent then renewed Patient C.C.’s prescriptions for #90 Dilaudid 4 mg and #30 MS Contin 100 mg. There are no records indicating why these medications were prescribed. The medical record for Patient C.C. does not document why Respondent prescribed Xanax to the patient by telephone on September 20, 2001. The medical records for the October 11, 2001, visit contains no notations as to why Respondent prescribed Vicodin ES, nor are there any subjective or objective complaints noted. In the medical record for the October 19, 2001, visit, there is no chief complaint recorded, other than the contusion. There is no assessment and no plan other than prescribing narcotics. There are no indications in the record as to why prescriptions for Dilaudid, Soma, and MS Contin were written, or what chief complaint required these medications. On October 29, 2001, Patient C.C. died. The medical examiner’s report stated that the cause of death was acute morphine toxicity. The toxicology report indicated the following drugs were detected in Patient C.C.’s body: Alprazolam or Xanax, Benzodiazepines, Meprobamate, Corisoprodol or Soma and Morphine. The medical examiner's report also detailed a history of a motor vehicle accident at aged 17 (approximately 28 years before Respondent first saw the patient). The medical history indicated that Patient C.C. broke his legs during this accident and that the legs never healed properly. The medical examiner’s report also indicated a social history of drug abuse, both illegal and prescription, as well as prior suicidal attempts years ago by cutting his wrists. There were also the typical track or needle marks on the arms that would have been visible a month or longer before death. Respondent did not record the detailed medical history from the motor vehicle accident nor the past suicide attempts. Even if the patient was not candid with Respondent, an examination of Patient C.C.’s arms would have revealed the prior track or needle marks as well as the prior marks from the suicide attempts. However, Respondent’s records do not contain any such details. Respondent failed to practice medicine within the statutory standard of care by failing to adequately assess Patient C.C.’s pain, failing to create an adequate treatment plan and by failing to obtain prior medical records to review past drug use. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by inappropriately prescribing controlled substances without adequate medical justification and by refilling controlled substances without identifying a chief complaint, without performing a review of systems, without performing adequate physical exams and assessments, and without preparing adequate plans. Respondent also failed to meet the statutory standard of care by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records that justify the course of treatment by failing to document a complete medical history as well as a history of Patient C.C.’s present complaint, and by failing to document adequate physical exams, adequate treatment plans and assessments of the etiology of Patient C.C.’s pain. Respondent also failed to keep medical records that justify the course of treatment by failing to document a discussion of risks and benefits of using controlled substances, and the medical justification for the continued treatment with controlled substances. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient C.C. Respondent continued to inappropriately prescribe controlled substances to this patient without a definitive diagnosis and without verifying the patient’s medical history and past drug use. Admitted Facts regarding Patient B.F. (Case No. 2002-26340) On or about October 15, 2001, Patient B.F., a 55-year- old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of lower back pain, polyneuropathy, bronchitis, a history of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), heroin addiction, and hepatitis C. No other physical exam results are documented. During the course of this visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient B.F.: 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg On or about November 15, 2001, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent’s office. Patient B.F.’s medical records for the November 15, 2001, visit do not document that Respondent performed a review of systems. Patient B.F.’s medical records for the November 15, 2001, visit do not document that Respondent performed an adequate physical examination of Patient B.F. during this visit. Respondent then noted that “Pt to bring in all her HIV meds for renewal.” During the course of the November 15, 2001, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient B.F.: 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg There is no documentation in Patient B.F.’s medical record for the December 17, 2001, visit that Respondent received the prior HIV medical records. There is no documentation in Patient B.F.’s medical record for the December 17, 2001, visit that Respondent addressed the nature or intensity of Patient B.F.’s pain. On or about January 14, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent with complaints of severe asthmatic bronchitis. Patient B.F.’s records for the January 14, 2002, visit reflect that Respondent treated Patient B.F.’s bronchitis with medication. Patient B.F.’s records for the January 14, 2002, visit reflect that Respondent renewed Patient B.F.’s prescription for 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg, and for 60 Xanax, 2 mg. Patient B.F.’s medical records of February 12, 2002, indicate that Respondent needs lab work at the next visit. On or about March 15, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent’s office. Patient B.F.’s medical records for the March 15, 2002, visit reflect that Patient B.F.’s pain was fluctuating and that her anxiety was high. On the March 15, 2002, visit Respondent briefly listened to Patient B.F.’s lungs and noted her blood pressure and pulse. On the March 15, 2002, visit, Respondent renewed Patient B.F.’s prescriptions for 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg, and for 60 Xanax, 2 mg. Additional Facts regarding Patient B.F. (Case No. 2002-26340) During the visit on October 15, 2001, Respondent documented a painful lumbar region. However, Respondent did not document results of other physical exams, including the level of pain for the lower back, the location of the polyneuropathy in the body, and the rate of respiration. Lab tests were ordered. There is no clear indication from the medical records of the first visit what Respondent’s treatment plan was for this patient. At Patient B.F.'s visit on November 15, 2001, Respondent wanted to see if the patient qualified for Neupogen. He also recommended Glucosomine and Chondroitin with water exercises. He also noted that the liver studies reflected hepatitis C. Respondent’s recommendation to try Neupogen is unexplained. Because Neupogen stimulates white blood cells and Patient B.F.’s white blood count was normal, there was no justification for Respondent’s consideration of Neupogen. Respondent’s medical record for his December 17, 2001, visit with Patient B.F. is very brief. He wrote a blood pressure reading and the word “pulse” but with no reading next to it. He also drew an arrow pointing up next to the words “bronchitis; smoking !!”. There are no subjective complaints documented, no assessment, and no treatment plan documented. During the December 17, 2001, visit, Respondent prescribed #60 Xanax 2.0 mg and #90 Oxycontin 80 mg for Patient B.F. Respondent failed to document a reason for prescribing these two controlled substances. There is also no documented plan concerning treatment for the notation about the increased bronchitis or smoking. Regarding the January 14, 2002, visit, there are no subjective complaints listed other than the one about severe asthmatic bronchitis. There is no documented physical exam or review of systems for this visit. The record does not contain any details of the patient’s respirations or diagnosis as to whether this was an acute bronchial attack or chronic bronchitis. In the medical records for the January 14, 2002, visit, Respondent noted that he had a discussion about Oxycontin with Patient B.F. However the record does not reflect why the drug was prescribed. On February 5, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent. Respondent’s note on this date is also brief. It contains a blood pressure, a pulse and a weight. Respondent also notes “GERD - ? to meds or anx.?” and gives the patient a sample of Prevacid for this problem. GERD means gastro- esophageal reflux disease. Respondent once again prescribed #90 Oxycontin 80 mg and #60 Xanax 2.0 mg. Respondent also prescribed some drugs for Patient B.F.’s HIV condition. However, there are no notes explaining why the Oxycontin and Xanax were prescribed. There is no assessment of the prior bronchial problems, the prior back problems, or any new complaints. On February 12, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent’s office. Respondent’s medical record indicated that Patient B.F. needs lab work at the next visit and contained a list of prescriptions. Respondent provides no indication why the various drugs were prescribed, no assessment of the patient, no subjective complaints detailed and no plan for treating the patient. Respondent saw Patient B.F. again on March 15, 2002. At that time he noted decreased breath signs, and at some later time he recorded the lab results. On the March 15, 2002 visit, Respondent also questioned the patient’s “compliance.” There was no explanation given as to what type of compliance issues were of concern to Respondent. Respondent then renewed Patient B.F.’s prescription for #90 Oxycontin 80 mg and #60 Xanax 20 mg. On March 25, 2002, Patient B.F. died. According to the initial Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s report, the cause of Patient B.F.’s death was accidental heroin and Xanax intoxication. The contributing causes were AIDS and Hepatitis C. A toxicology report was issued on October 1, 2004, by the Miami Dade County Medical Examiner’s office. This report was positive for Oxycodone, Methadone, Morphine, Codeine, and Alprazolam or Xanax. The Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s office issued an amended report on November 2, 2004, indicating that Patient B.F.’s cause of death was polydrug intoxication (Heroin, Oxycodone, Methadone, and Alprazolam or Xanax). The contributing causes were AIDS and Hepatitis C. The report added Oxycodone and Methadone as contributing to the death. Both the original and the amended Medical Examiner reports contain a social history indicating that Patient B.F. was a known IV drug abuser and had received treatment at a local Methadone clinic. None of Respondent’s medical records for Patient B.F. contain a past or current history of treatment at a Methadone clinic. The records also fail to identify whether Respondent inquired about any current drug abuse. Respondent should have inquired about, and should have documented, any Methadone treatment Patient B.F. was involved in before Respondent instituted his own treatment in order to prescribe narcotics properly. This patient was a complicated case and would have benefited from a multi-disciplinary team approach.5 In his treatment of Patient B.F., Respondent failed to practice medicine within the statutory standard of care by inappropriately prescribing controlled substances without adequate medical justification and by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by failing to sufficiently assess the bronchial asthmatic condition by noting the patient’s respiratory rate and degree of wheezing. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records that justify the course of treatment by failing to document adequate physical exams, by failing to document an adequate review of systems, by failing to document a treatment plan, and by failing to document the respiratory rate and degree of wheezing related to B.F.’s bronchial asthmatic condition. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records to justify the course of treatment by failing to document adequate justification for prescribing Oxycontin on the first visit and for continuing to prescribe Oxycontin and Xanax in a patient with a history of heroin abuse. Respondent inappropriately prescribed Oxycontin to Patient B.F. on the first visit and inappropriately prescribed Oxycontin and Xanax to her on subsequent visits without adequate medical justification. Many of Respondent’s medical records are merely a list of the drugs prescribed without any rationale or reason stated for the prescriptions. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances without documenting a physical exam, a review of systems, assessments, or any plans for the patient and without inquiring about the patient's Methadone clinic treatment. Admitted Facts regarding Patient D.P. (Case No. 2002-12858) On or about February 2, 2002, Patient D.P., a 25-year old male, presented to Respondent’s office with complaints of severe lower lumbar pain with radiation into both thighs, left greater than right. The medical record for this visit contains a brief family history, social history, and notation of no allergies in the medical records. The medical record for this visit has no adequate review of symptoms. Respondent documented that the patient is to furnish the X-rays of his lumbar spine, and pending this review, Respondent elected to hold off on ordering an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). Blood work was deferred to the next visit. Further instructions included glucosamine and chondroitin and water exercises. During the course of the February 2, 2002, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient D.P.: 240 Methadone, 10 mg 120 Dilaudid, 4 mg 90 Xanax, 2 mg On or about March 1, 2002, Patient D.P. returned to Respondent with a complaint of an area of baldness in the upper right occipital area, secondary to striking his head. Patient D.P. also had complaints concerning his left great toe. Respondent again requested that Patient D.P. supply him with his lumbar X-rays. During the course of this visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient D.P.: 60 Soma, 350 mg 90 Xanax, 2 mg 120 Dilaudid, 4 mg Respondent’s medical records indicate that on or about March 30, 2002, a Saturday, Patient D.P. appeared for an office visit. The medical records indicate that some type of final warning was given. The record indicates that on or about March 30, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient D.P.: 60 Soma, 350 mg 90 Xanax, 2 mg 105 Dilaudid, 4 mg On the record of the March 30, 2002, visit, after the Dilaudid, Respondent wrote, “start to lower.” There is also an entry that Patient D.P. paid $75.00 for this visit. Respondent did not see Patient D.P. on the March 30, 2002, visit because the patient was late. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter on or about August 29, 2002, indicating that Respondent did not see Patient D.P. on the March 30, 2002, visit because the patient was late. Respondent’s secretary waited for the patient in order to give him the prescriptions written by Respondent. Additional Facts regarding Patient D.P. (Case No. 2002-12858) Patient D.P. presented to Respondent with a history of prescriptions for Methadone, Dilaudid, Xanax, and Oxycontin. Although Respondent wrote refill prescriptions for Methadone, Dilaudid, and Xanax, he did not write a refill prescription for Oxycontin. There is no explanation in the medical record for the Respondent's decision not to refill the Oxycontin. Respondent failed to document an explanation for continuing some of the pain medications and discontinuing the Oxycontin. It is not safe to discontinue Oxycontin abruptly. Respondent also failed to document the name of the physician who previously prescribed the above-described pain medications and failed to document any need to obtain the medical records from the prior physician. Patient D.P. presented to Respondent with several “red flags.” Among the “red flags” were: a young man with a list of previously used pain medications, no X-rays, and a request to refill the pain medications based on unverified back pain. The medical record for Patient D.P.'s visit on March 1, 2002, does not indicate what medical conditions the pain medications that were prescribed on that date were supposed to treat. Two body parts (the head and large toe) were identified with subjective complaints. An appropriate objective note was not made. The medications prescribed on March 1, 2002, were essentially the same as those prescribed during the February 2, 2002, visit but with no mention of back problems in the record of the March 1, 2002 visit. In a patient such as D.P., pain is a vital sign and should be documented. Pain is usually documented on a scale of one to ten. There is no record of pain for any of the three body parts (head, back or great toe). Soma was also prescribed on this visit. There is no documented justification for the prescription of Soma. On April 1, 2002, Patient D.P. died of a combined drug overdose (Methadone, Xanax, Alprazolam, Soma, Carisoprodol, and Meprobamate). A toxicology exam was done, with a follow-up confirming report. The report was positive for Xanax, Soma, Methadone, and the metabolites for Cocaine. The report showed fatal or lethal levels of Methadone and Xanax in Patient D.P.’s body. Respondent violated the statutory standard of care by prescribing controlled substances to Patient D.P. without even seeing or examining him. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by prescribing the controlled substances inappropriately without adequate justification. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by his inadequate physical exams, especially on the visits after February 2, 2002. Respondent’s medical records for this patient fail to justify the course of treatment for all of the visits. There is an inadequate history of any prior back problem or drug abuse problem. The records concerning any physical exam are inadequate. Respondent’s records for this patient fail to contain an adequate history documenting any prior diagnostic testing or diagnosis that would have been the basis for his previously prescribed drugs. The medical record of March 30, 2002, fails to accurately describe what actually happened that day. Further, the medical record for that date is written in such a way as to suggest that Respondent had seen and treated the patient on that date, when, in fact, Respondent did not see Patient D.P. on March 30, 2002. Respondent inappropriately prescribed Soma, Methadone, Xanax, and Dilaudid to Patient D.P. In addition, he inappropriately prescribed the Soma, Xanax, Methadone and Dilaudid when he left them with his secretary for Patient D.P. to pick up without examining Patient D.P. or discerning a need for these drugs. Respondent left the prescriptions "out of compassion" for D.P. In hindsight, Respondent admits that it was a mistake to do so. He had never done such before and has not done it since. During the course of his treatment of Patient D.P., Respondent failed to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Admitted Facts regarding Patient F.K. (Case No. 2002-26339) On or about January 31, 2002, Patient F.K., a 46- year-old male, first presented to Respondent with complaints of back pain, with pain radiating to both sides, insomnia, and depression. According to Patient F.K.’s medical records, Patient F.K., had a history of heroin addiction in the past. According to Patient F.K.’s medical records, Patient F.K. has a documented history of hepatitis 30 years ago, most likely from a needle. According to Patient F.K.’s medical records, Patient F.K.’s current medications included Methadone, 80 mg/day, Oxycontin, 80 mg qid (4 times daily), and Xanax, 2.0 mg, “3, 4, or 5”. On or about January 31, 2002, Respondent ordered lab work for Patient F.K. On or about January 31, 2002, Respondent noted in Patient F.K.’s medical records that the X-ray reports were “on the way.” On or about January 31, 2002, Respondent also recommended Glucosamine and Chondroitin for Patient F.K., both to be taken twice daily. During the course of the visit on January 31, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 120 Xanax, qid 240 Methadone (8 pills/day) 180 Dilaudid (6 per day) On or about March 4, 2002, Patient F.K. returned to Respondent’s office. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent noted that Patient F.K. was stabilizing. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent noted that Patient F.K.’s X-ray reports were pending at the prison. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent did not record an adequate examination or a range of system review for Patient F.K. On or about March 4, 2002, the lab data was reviewed and a notation that Patient F.K. was a non-diabetic was made. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent recommended water exercises and Glucosamine/Chondroitin for Patient F.K. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent failed to document in Patient F.K.’s medical record that he had performed a physical examination. On or about March 4, 2002, there is an entry in Patient F.K.’s medical record that states the pain is a combination of pathology and depression. On or about March 4, 2002, the Respondent failed to document in Patient F.K.’s medical records that he discussed the risks and benefits of the use of controlled substances with Patient F.K. During the course of the visit on March 4, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 180 Dilaudid, 4 mg 240 Methadone 120 Xanax, 2 mg On or about April 1, 2002, it was noted that Patient F.K. was doing water exercises. On or about April 1, 2002, Respondent failed to document in his medical records a physical examination or review of Patient F.K.’s systems. During the course of the April 1, 2002 visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 90 Xanax, 2 mg 240 Methadone, 10 mg, 2 q6h (every six hours) 180 Dilaudid, $ mg, 2 q8h (every eight hours) On or about April 1, 2002, there is also an entry in Patient F.K.’s medical records that a pharmacist called to discuss and confirm the medications prescribed. On or about April 29, 2002, Patient F.K. presented to Respondent’s office. On or about April 29, 2002, an entry in Patient F.K.’s medical record indicates that the patient will try to get his X-ray report that was done while in prison, apparently in early 2000. On or about April 29, 2002, Respondent did not document in Patient F.K.’s medical record that he performed a physical examination of Patient F.K. during this visit or that he identified the nature and intensity of Patient F.K.’s pain. During the course of the April 29, 2002, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 90 Xanax, 2 mg 240 Methadone, 10 mg 180 Dilaudid, 4 mg On or about May 25, 2002 (a Saturday), Patient F.K. returned to Respondent’s office. On or about May 25, 2002, Respondent noted that the patient was recently incarcerated and could not persist in his efforts to get the X-rays from prison. On or about May 25, 2002, there is no documented physical examination or review of systems in Patient F.K.’s medical records. On or about May 25, 2002, Respondent recommended that Patient F.K. continue water exercises with Glucosomine and Chrondroiton. During the course of the visit on May 25, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 90 Xanax, 2 mg 240 Methadone, 10 mg 180 Dilaudid, 4 mg On or about May 25, 2002, Respondent ordered X-rays for Patient F.K.’s right knee and back ASAP. On or about May 26, 2002, Patient F.K. died. According to the Broward County Medical Examiner’s report, the cause of Patient F.K.’s death was acute bronchopneumonia due to combined drug toxicity (cocaine and methadone). Additional Facts regarding Patient F.K. (Case No. 2002-26339) In his medical records for the visit on January 31, 2002, Respondent indicates “severe low back syndrome,” but does not indicate how he reached this diagnosis. On April 1, 2002, Patient F.K. presented to Respondent’s office for polyarthritis. There is no other note concerning the polyarthritis such as its location, duration or severity. On April 1, 2002, Respondent also failed to document an assessment of any problems or a treatment plan, other than prescribing Xanax, Methadone, and Dilaudid. A telephone call from a pharmacist about prescriptions for narcotic drugs is often perceived as a “red flag.” This phone call, combined with the patient’s heroin history, should have alerted Respondent that Patient F.K. was a drug seeker or drug user with a history of abuse. Respondent's records for the April 29, 2002, visit do not indicate why Respondent prescribed Xanax, Methadone, and Dilaudid to Patient F.K. Patient F.K.’s history of incarceration is another “red flag” which should have been taken into account before prescribing controlled substances to this patient. Respondent's records for the May 25, 2002, visit do not indicate why Respondent prescribed Xanax, Methadone, and Dilaudid to Patient F.K. Prior to May 25, 2002, Respondent should have himself either obtained Patient F.K.'s X-rays from the prison or he should have ordered X-rays for the back and right knee sooner and before prescribing controlled substances over an extended period of time. At the time of his death, Patient F.K.’s level of Methadone recorded from the toxicology screen was in the toxic or lethal range. The level of Cocaine was at a low level. Patient F.K. would have benefited from a multi- disciplinary team approach. The multi-disciplinary approach could have dealt with his addiction problems, as well as his physical ailments.6 Respondent violated the statutory standard of care by failing to perform adequate physical exams, failing to identify or recommend a treatment plan, and by failing to adequately assess any pain the patient had. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by prescribing controlled substances to this patient without adequate medical justification, and prescribing controlled substances for pain before ordering or obtaining X-rays. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course and scope of treatment for Patient F.K. Respondent failed to adequately document justification for the controlled medications, failed to document adequate physical examinations, and failed to document an appropriate treatment plan for this patient. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances without adequate medical justification to Patient F.K. Admitted Facts regarding Patient A.C. (Case No. 2002-26341) On or about March 13, 2001, Patient A.C., a 43-year- old male, first presented to Respondent. The medical record for that visit notes that Respondent questioned a loss of Patient A.C.’s medications and that the patient is to return with X- rays. On or about March 19, 2001, Patient A.C. returned to Respondent’s office with his X-rays. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent noted that the X-rays were indicative of significant advanced lumbar disc disease. On or about March 19, 2001, the recorded history also noted that Patient A.C. was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 3, 2000. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent noted a complaint of pain in the lumbar region radiating to both of Patient A.C.’s thighs, left greater than right. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent ordered laboratory studies for Patient A.C. Respondent’s medical record of March 19, 2001, also contains a note that a pharmacy advised Respondent that Patient A.C. was “on Oxycontin 40 mg before.” Respondent notes in Patient A.C.’s record of March 19, 2001, the names of two doctors. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent gave Patient A.C. samples of HCTZ (hydrochlorothiazide), an anti- hypertensive. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent started Patient A.C. on Tevetan, an anti-hypertensive, 600 mg daily. During the course of the visit on March 19, 2001, Respondent also prescribed the following drugs to Patient A.C.: 60 Oxycontin, 80 mg Xanax, 2 mg, bid (twice daily) On or about March 21, 2001, Patient A.C. returned to Respondent’s office. On or about March 21, 2001, there are no notes in Patient A.C.’s medical records concerning a physical examination or review of systems. On or about March 21, 2001, there is also a note in Patient A.C.'s medical records about a pending evaluation with no details concerning the proposed evaluation. On or about March 21, 2001, Patient A.C.’s record also contains a note that his next appointment was April 4, 2001. On or about March 21, 2001, Respondent’s medical records also contain a dated entry of March 19, 2001, that lists Patient A.C.’s medications on this date as HCTZ 25 mg daily; Tevetan 600 mg daily; Norvasc 5 mg, 2 daily; Xanax 2 mg bid; and Oxycontin 80 mg bid. On or about March 21, 2001, Patient A.C.’s record does not reflect that the Respondent attempted to obtain Patient A.C.’s past medical records in order to verify Patient A.C.’s reported injuries and medical history. On or about March 21, 2001, Respondent did not document a treatment plan for Patient A.C. other than to order or request lab work. On or about April 1, 2001, Patient A.C. was transported to Broward General Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 9:06 a.m. The medical examiner ruled that the cause of Patient A.C.’s death was accidental Cocaine excited delirium and Oxycodone toxicity. The toxicology report indicated that the following drugs were detected in Patient A.C.'s body: Benzoylecgonine, Cocaine, Ecgonine, Methylester, and Oxycodone. Additional Facts regarding Patient A.C. (Case No. 2002-26341) Respondent also noted in the medical record for March 19, 2001, two doctors’ names (“Roonig” and”Washman”). Next to these names Respondent noted “ pt. given Oxycontin 160 #116 on 3/14” and under that “Oxycontin 40 + 20 Sig T.I.D. on 2/17.” There is no indication in the medical record that Respondent attempted to contact either of the doctors mentioned in his note or to obtain any of the medical records from either doctor. There are no notes about counseling the patient about the consequences of taking controlled substances. There is no indication in the medical records as to why Respondent prescribed Xanax and Oxycontin to this patient on March 19, 2001. Although the medical records for March 19, 2001, contain some subjective and objective results, there is no assessment or treatment plan for this patient. Respondent failed to document how he was managing the pain medication prescribed for this patient, particularly since the patient was obtaining Oxycontin from two other doctors. Respondent knew or should have known that Patient A.C. was a doctor shopper (an individual going to numerous doctors in order to obtain a number of controlled medications). Patient A.C. would have benefited from a multi-disciplinary team approach.7 Patient A.C. obviously had an addiction problem and that should have been apparent to Respondent. Respondent violated the statutory standard of care by failing to perform adequate physical exams, by failing to identify or recommend a treatment plan, and by failing to obtain past medical records. Respondent also violated the standard of care by prescribing controlled substances to this patient without adequate medical justification and by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control.8 Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course and scope of treatment for Patient A.C. Respondent failed to adequately document justification for the controlled medications, failed to document adequate physical examinations, failed to document a complete history and failed to document an appropriate treatment plan for this patient. Respondent also failed to keep adequate progress notes. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient A.C. without adequate medical justification.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order in these cases to the following effect: Adopting all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; Dismissing the six counts in the Administrative Complaints alleging violations of Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes; Finding Respondent guilty of the six counts of violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaints; Finding Respondent guilty of the six counts of violations of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaints; and Imposing a penalty consisting of the revocation of Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues involved in this hearing, the Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, having been licensed on September 1, 1967, by examination, with license number 41856-2. At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Gulf Coast Community Hospital (GCCH), Panama City, Florida. On August 4, 1983, Dr. David W. Scott, an orthopedic surgeon with practice privileges at GCCH, treated Arthur Collins in the emergency room of that hospital. After taking a history from the patient and examining him, he concluded that Mr. Collins was a drug addict who had the ability to manipulate physicians for the purpose of obtaining narcotics. As a part of his treatment of this individual, Dr. Scott prescribed 100 mg of Demerol four times a day which was obviously insufficient for Mr. Collins who had developed a drug tolerance. As a result, Dr. Scott added an additional drug, Vistoril, to augment the Demerol. Before leaving the hospital that night, and because Mr. Collins was obviously addicted to narcotics, Dr. Scott left an oral order with the nurse on duty at the nurses' station, subsequently identified as Ms. Habersham, not to increase the dosage prescribed for the patient, not to give additional narcotics, and not to call the on-call physician in the event Mr. Collins complained of pain. The reason for this last instruction concerning the physician was to prevent the on call physician, who might not know the patient's history and of his drug addiction, from prescribing additional narcotics. Ms. Habersham worked as a charge nurse on the day shift during this period and recalls patient Collins. When she was relieved by the Respondent at the end of her shift, she passed Dr. Scott's orders on to her. Consequently, it is clear that Respondent was aware of Dr. Scott's order not to increase Collins' dose and not to contact the on-duty physician in the event Collins asked for more medicine. Nonetheless, Respondent admits giving Mr. Collins an injection of 125 mg of Demerol even though the doctor's order called for a 100 mg dose. She justifies this on the basis that the patient had said he was in great pain and constantly kept coming to the nurses station begging for more medication. She observed him to be sweating and grabbing at his stomach. Based on her experience in the Army Nurse Corps and the Army Surgeon General's recommendation for a 125 mg dose of Demerol in situations such as this, and because she did not want to wake up Dr. Rohan, the on-call physician, she gave the additional dose on her own authority feeling she could get Dr. Rohan's approval later on. Dr. Rohan recalls only an incident in August of 1983 where he got a call from a nurse whose name he cannot remember for a "cover order" for a medication. As he recalls it, the nurse in question called to notify him that she had administered more of a drug than was called for in the doctor's order. It was his understanding, however, that the nurse had given too much by accident and was telling him about it after-the-fact, not in advance, to authorize a higher dose. It is clear from the above, therefore, that Respondent called Dr. Rohan after she had administered the higher dosage to Mr. Collins on her own authority. Respondent indicates, however, that Ms. Habersham had told her that if this particular patient needed more medication he was to get it and that the nurse should secure the authorization by phone. Respondent presented no evidence to support this, however, and though she contended she had a witness to this conversation, the witness was not presented. Respondent contends that she could change the amount of medication prescribed by the physician if it was necessary. She claims that nurse-practitioners can do this within the protocols set down by a physician. Respondent was not then nor is she now a nurse practitioner. During the month of February, 1984, Linda Marie Jones was unit coordinator for three units at GCCH, including Respondent's. Part of her job involved the monitoring of and investigation of drug discrepancies. During this time, Mr. Jones was conducting an audit of drug accountability in Respondent's unit. This audit, while not based on any suspicion of misconduct by any employee, resulted in a determination that one Nembutal tablet was missing from the unit. A check of the records reflected that this medicine had not been ordered for any patient on the unit that day. She then checked the patients' charts to see if a Demerol 100, a similar drug, had been used, and as a part of this procedure, she found that in the case of some patients, two different records dealing with a specific administration of medication did not agree. Her check of all records on the unit revealed that only the Respondent had any discrepancies. All other nurses' records were satisfactory. Her investigation included a comparison of the medication administration record (MAR) with the nurses notes on which the same administration was to be noted. In the course of her investigation, she checked six patient records, including those of patient Haire, patient Oakley, and patient Crosby. At the conclusion of her investigation, she prepared a summary of her findings which she presented to Ms. Flemister, the Director of Nursing. Ms. Flemister met with Respondent and showed her a copy of the report. At that point, Respondent denied having taken any of the medications and said that she could not figure out why the discrepancies existed. As to the Nembutal, which prompted the investigation initially, Respondent remembered cleaning out the narcotic box the first time, but did not identify a shortage at the time. As a result, the missing Nembutal was attributed to "wastage" and when that happens, the wastage must be recorded on the narcotics sheet. This Nembutal wastage was not recorded by Respondent or any other nurse. Ms. Jones admits, however, that there is no evidence to connect Respondent with the wastage of the Nembutal any more than any other nurse assigned to that floor. With regard to an administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire at 9:00 P.M., on February 6, 1984, the narcotics control sheet fails to show that morphine sulfate was administered to this patient on that occasion. With regard to the 8:30 P.M. administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire on February 5, 1984, the narcotics control sheet reflects that Respondent recorded the administration of this medicine but does not reflect the date in question. The entry made reflects the patient's room rather than the date. As a result, it is impossible to tell if the administration was done on February 4 or February 5. However, the Respondent did reflect this administration on the nurses' notes although in the wrong place. As to the issue of Respondent's signing out Morphine Sulfate for patient Haire at 7:00 A.M. on February 5, the evidence establishes that she did sign out both Morphine Sulfate 100 and Demerol 100 as alleged. The MAR reflects some entry but it is impossible to determine what the entry is or to what drug it refers and Respondent's nurse's notes for that date are silent. The medical records pertaining to patient Oakley for February 5, 1984, reflect that, as to the nurses' notes, the patient was given medication for pain but the notes fail to show what type of medication was administered. It could have been aspirin or tylenol and the note should have said what medicine was administered. This administration was not listed on either the narcotics control sheet or the MAR. If the substance given was not Demerol or Morphine Sulfate, it need not appear on the narcotics control sheet, but whatever it was, it should have been listed on the MAR and it was not. The records regarding patient Crosby reflect that on February 5, 1984, Respondent signed out 75 mg Demerol for the patient as alleged. The notes do not, however, reflect that she administered Demerol specifically. They reflect only that she administered some medication. As to the 9:30 P.M. dose of Demerol on February 5, 1984, Respondent did sign out Demerol at that time but the nurses' notes do not reflect what the substance administered was. Patient Haire's records reflect that on February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Morphine Sulfate for the patient. The nurses' notes reflect that at 8:00 P.M. on that date, she administered a "pain medication" to the patient without defining what that medication was. The record does not indicate that Morphine Sulfate was administered. The narcotics control sheet for this period is not dated so it is impossible to determine whether Morphine Sulfate was listed on its document or not. However, the MAR reflects that Respondent administered Morphine Sulfate to this patient at 6:00 A.M. On February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Demerol for patient Oakley and properly noted this on the narcotics control sheet but the nurses' notes fail to show that the substance was administered as required. Later on, at 8:30 P.M. the same day, Respondent again signed out Demerol for Patient Crosby listing on the narcotics control sheet the patient's room number but not the date. Other dates on the sheet lead to the conclusion that it was February 4, however Respondent thereafter failed to record the drug's administration on the nurses' notes. She also signed Demerol out for Patient Crosby at 7:30 P.M. on February 4 though the narcotics control sheet fails to reflect the date - only the room number. This administration is in the MAR at 8:30 P.M. rather than at 7:30 P.M. but is not in the nurses' notes at all. On February 3, 1984, Respondent recorded in her nurse's notes that she administered Demerol to patient Crosby at 8:00 P.M. The narcotics disposition record (narcotics control sheet) shows that she signed the medication out between 8:00 and 9:00 P.M., but it is impossible to tell with certainty the exact time. It is obvious that Respondent's handwriting is poor. This fact adds to the difficulties encountered from the way in which Respondent kept her records. In the opinion of Ms. Jones, who has been doing quality assurance checks for a number of years, Respondent's records are inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete and totally insufficient for a nurse on the next shift to know what medications have been given and what must be done. In this area alone, Ms. Jones was of the opinion that Respondent's charts are below the minimum standards for nursing practice in the area and even though her own report was erroneous in some respects, there are still enough verified errors by the Respondent to support her opinion that Respondent's performance is less than acceptable. Respondent admits that some but not all of the charges against her are true. Though she may have mischarted her administration of drugs she never took the drugs herself. The patient always got the drug that he or she was supposed to get and her errors were errors only as to the recordation of time. They were administrative errors, not substantive errors. She contends that in February, 1984, because the floor on which she had been charge nurse since December, 1981 had been closed, she was forced into a staff nurse position. This was not a good situation and as a result of the closing of that floor, several nurses quit. This loss of nurses resulted in more patients per nurse to the point where Respondent felt that patient safety was in danger. She contends she tried to tell Ms. Jones about this but Ms. Jones would not see her. All of a sudden, she found herself called in front of Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones and terminated based on the alleged inaccuracies in her records. Respondent contends she received no information about this other than that contained in Ms. Jones' summary and in that regard she says, Ms. Jones assured her that her summary was correct and in no way tried to explain the inaccuracy of the records. Respondent contends that she had frequently asked her supervisors for extra help but never got any. She contends she had as many as 18 patients to handle by herself and at the time involved in the records discrepancies here, she had 8 patients on the floor. She contends that the errors to which she admits were due to her hectic schedule. As a single parent, she was working, she says, between 60 to 80 hours per week on two jobs and had a sick child at home. Ms. Flemister, on the other hand, says that Respondent had plenty of help. At the time, Respondent was working the night shift from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The shift was staffed by 4 registered nurses, 2 licensed practical nurses, and a secretary, and in her opinion, this staff was well within the normal range of staff-patient ratio. Ms. Flemister contends that while Respondent was on duty, she had between 5 and 6 patients to take care of. She was the charge nurse for the shift and therefore had less patients than a regular floor nurse. She admits that Respondent did complain about being shorthanded, but these complaints were neither constant nor repeated and were never submitted through proper channels. Ms. Flemister contends that prior to this time Respondent had been counseled about her writing and documentation, but there has been no evidence of any discrepancies other than those involved in this case. There are certain procedures followed at GCCH and a part of Ms. Flemister's job is to oversee the standards of the hospital, the Board of Nursing, and the Joint Committee on Hospital Accreditation as they are applicable at this hospital. On the first day of duty, all new nurses are given an orientation which includes records management and how to use a medication cart. A medications test is given and a model cart is used in this training. On the cart, each patient has his or her own area. Narcotics and barbiturates are kept together. Medication administration records, including a page for every patient, are kept with the cart. Each administration of medication is supposed to be recorded and each use of narcotics is supposed to be listed on the narcotics sheet with the name of the patient, the date, the drug, and the nurse administering it. Medications are first called for in the doctor's orders and are checked by the secretary and the nurse who checks and signs it initially. The doctor's orders are then used to give medications. When a nurse gives a medication she checks the doctor's order against the medical records and then prepares the medicine, administers it, charts it and signs it off. The entry is recorded on the medical administration record and it and the charting register are both on the cart. The nurse goes back to the nurses' station to record the administration of the medicine in the nurses' notes which are kept in the patient record. This method of documentation is set out in the hospital policy and procedures which are given to all nurses. Accurate medication records are important so that nurses on subsequent shifts do not administer a drug too soon after the last dose was given and thereby create an overdose. Therefore, medications are logged in several different locations because state law requires it to promote agency oversight by the pharmacy and the Department of Nursing, and because the record is used at shift change to insure an accurate count of narcotics on hand on the medicine cart. Failure of employees to follow the hospital procedures results in the following sequence of events: reprimand; counseling; a written reprimand; and discharge; all depending, of course, on the seriousness of the offense. However, after the discussion with Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones Respondent was terminated because of the discrepancies between the narcotic record and the poor and illegible documentation in the nurses' records and elsewhere. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that though she has been licensed in the State of Florida since 1967 and has worked at GCCH since 1981, there has never been any prior disciplinary action taken against her nor has she received any prior complaints about her method of charting or administration of drugs and she was doing it as she usually does in February, 1984. Notwithstanding her protestations of no prior disciplinary action, however, the records reveal that Respondent was given a two-day suspension for the incident involving the over administration of Demerol to Mr. Collins and advised that a repeat discrepancy would result in her discharge. It is important to note that as a part of the investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct, she was requested to provide a urine sample for urinalysis. This routine drug screen revealed no use of controlled substances within the seven days prior to the test which was accomplished on February 20, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
