Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documented evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In General Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0016786. On February 27, 1984, Florida Medical license of the Respondent was suspended for a period of one year in Department of Professional Regulation vs. Teotimo D. Bonzon, M.D., Case Number 82-799. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was the primary care physician for Mary T. Upton, a patient with a history of bronchial asthma. Valium On January 11, 1985 the patient, Mary T. Upton, developed onset of acute respiratory distress and was seen by the Respondent, first in his office and then as an outpatient. On the second occasion, Respondent gave the patient valium, a Schedule IV Controlled Substance. On January 12, 1985, Upton was admitted to Methodist Hospital of Jacksonville, Florida, with a complaint of Acute Asthmatic Bronchitis. Bronchial Asthma is a condition that affects the respiratory drive. Valium relaxes the muscles and sedates the central nervous system and respiratory drive of a person and, as such, is not a drug to be administered in an outpatient setting under the circumstances that Respondent administered valium to Upton. Theo-Dur After admission and initial treatment, the patient continued to experience respiratory distress, and the Respondent was notified. Respondent ordered the drug Theo-Dur to be given orally. This was after Upton was given Theophylline, but before she was stabilized on Theophylline. Theo-Dur is a long sustained action form of Theophylline, which takes twelve hours to have an appreciable affect and, as such, is used primarily for maintenance and should not be used in acute situations such as Upton's until the patient is stabilized. Theophylline At the time Upton was admitted to the hospital on January 12, 1985 and Respondent started her on Aminophylline (also called Theophylline I.V.), Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline for her asthma condition and that she had a prescription to obtain such medication. Although Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline, Respondent did not inquire of Upton, or in any other manner determine, if she had ingested any form of Theophylline before administering the Aminophylline I.V. upon admission to the hospital on January 12, 1985. Upton had taken Theophylline before the Theophylline I.V. was administered. It is the recognized standard of care for a physician to obtain the level of Theophylline in the patient's body before administering Theophylline and, to periodically check the level of Theophylline to assure the best therapeutic level is achieved. Upton was on the hospital floor at approximately 11:20 a.m. on January 12, 1985 and the first time a physician ordered the Theophylline level checked was between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on January 12, 1985 after Respondent consulted with Dr. Libao. Before the Theophylline level was checked, Respondent had already administered Theo-Dur. Toxicity of Theophylline occurs when the content of the blood exceeds 20 milligrams per 100cc and any level over the 20 milligrams per 100cc may cause the patient to have gastrointestinal side affects such as nausea, vomiting and nervousness which may be life threatening. Respondent's failure to monitor the Theophylline level resulted in the patient receiving a toxic level of 24 milligrams per 100cc of Theophylline; however, there was no evidence that Upton suffered any side affects. D. Thoracostomy On January 17, 1985, routine chest x-rays confirmed a pneumothorax in Upton's left lung which was reported to the Respondent by the radiologist, Dr. Victor Saenz, by telephone between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on January 17, 1985. Without reviewing the x-rays, Respondent proceeded to treat the left pneumothorax with a chest tub (or Thoracostomy) in Upton's right lung. There was sufficient time to review the x-rays since the Thoracostomy was not performed until between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on January 17, 1985. Respondent did not order follow-up x-rays the day of the surgery to determine the effectiveness of the surgery. It is accepted medical practice for the physician, particularly a surgeon who performs an invasive procedure such as a thoracostomy, to order x- rays immediately following the surgery to make sure the procedure is working By placing the chest tub in the wrong side of the lung, Respondent created a situation wherein another pneumothorax might occur; however, by removing the chest tub from the right lung and placing it in the left lung alleviated this possibility. Respondent failed to realize that the chest tub had been placed in the wrong side of the lung (the right side) until the morning of January 18, 1985 when he was advised by the nurse that Upton had a pneumothorax on the left side rather than the right side where the chest tub had been placed by Respondent. Respondent's error was discovered as a result of routine x-rays performed by Dr. Walkett at 7:45 a.m. on January 18, 1985, the day following surgery. These follow-up x-rays also revealed Subcutaneous Emphysema throughout Upton's chest. Placing the chest tub in the right lung will not re-expand the left lung. Upon being informed of his error, Respondent proceeded to the hospital and removed the chest tub from Upton's right lung and placed it in her left lung. As a result of Respondent's error, Upton's heart beat increased around 3:00 a.m. on January 18, 1985 causing cardiac distress. Allergies At the time of the patient's admission it was noted that she was allergic to iodine. However, Respondent having treated Upton for some time prior to this admission, had knowledge that she was not allergic to iodine. Prior to the Thoracostomy and Tracheostomy, Respondent used Betadine scrub on Upton. Betadine contains iodine. Other solutions are readily available at Methodist Hospital that are not iodine-based. Tracheostomy On January 17, 1985 at or about the same time he performed the Thoracostomy, the Respondent performed a surgical procedure known as a Tracheostomy on Upton. Following the Tracheostomy, performed by the Respondent, the patient's condition did not improve and she continued to experience complications, including Subcutaneous Emphysema. Subcutaneous Emphysema occurs when air pockets form under the patient's fat tissue layer which cause swelling and can compromise the patient. On January 18, 1985, the Respondent's temporary admitting and consultation privileges at Methodist Hospital were suspended in a letter from Dr. Wallace Walkett, the president of the Medical and Dental Staff. The treatment of Upton was turned over to other physicians. Dr. Frederick Vontz, a Board Certified Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeon was called in by Dr. Walklett to repair the problems with Upton's trachea. When Dr. Vontz first saw Upton she was in moderate to severe distress and her body was swollen from the Subcutaneous Emphysema. On January 26, 1985, Dr. Vontz performed a Bronchoscopy on Upton that showed granulation tissue, which is scar tissue that may be an obstacle to breathing. The cause of this granulation tissue was the tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent. Due to Upton's difficulty in breathing and the continuing Subcutaneous Emphysema, she was taken to the operating room on January 31, 1985. In the operating room, Dr. Vontz discovered a tear in the trachea that extended to six and one-half centimeters above the carina. Dr. Vontz also discovered that the air causing the Subcutaneous Emphysema was escaping from a false channel in the trachea. The damage to the posterior wall of the patient's trachea was caused by the improper tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent on January 17, 1985. Upton died at 12:00 noon on March 6, 1985 and, although there is evidence that the tear in Upton's trachea may have contributed to Upton's death, there is insufficient evidence to show that it was clearly the sole cause of Upton's death. The record is clear that the level of care, skill and treatment provided Upton by the Respondent, fell below that which would be recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances by a prudent similar physician.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and Rule 21M- 20.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent, Teotimo D. Bonzon's license to practice medicine in the state of Florida for a period of two (2) years with condition for reinstatement determined by the Board as it deems appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-3022 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 in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner In General 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Valium 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 8, 7 and 6, respectively. Theo-Dur 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Theophylline 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 13, respectively. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 16. 7.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 17, respectively. Thoracostomy 1.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. 15.-l6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Allergies 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. 3. Rejected as not being material or relevant. Tracheostomy 1.-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31-39 Unnecessary in reaching a conclusion in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 12.-13. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent A. General 1.-3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 1 and 4, respectively. B. The Use of Betadine 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but clarified. Theophylline Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13 that Respondent had ordered Theophylline intravenously before checking the Theophylline level in the patient. Theo-Dur Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Valium Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Thoracostomy Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18-27, otherwise rejected. Tracheostomy Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 32 and 33, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. The first sentence and the first phrase of the second sentence are adopted in Findings of Fact 38 and 39. The balance is rejected as being a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact. However, even if the last sentence was stated as a finding of fact, it would be rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: MARK A. SIERON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 855 ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32067 JOHN R. WEED, ESQUIRE 605 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET PERRY, FLORIDA 32347 STEPHANIE A. DANIEL, ESQUIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 KENNETH D. EASLEY, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 DOROTHY FAIRCLOTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF MEDICINE 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in May 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Jerrylene Barr, who is an African-American, contends that in May 1994, Respondent, Columbia Ocala Regional Medical Center (Respondent), unlawfully terminated her from employment as a registered nurse on account of her race. Respondent has denied the charges and contends instead that Petitioner was terminated after she negligently overmedicated a patient, in addition to her prior performance of medication errors over a two-year period. After a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Commission on Human Relations (Commission), which took some three years to complete, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on April 27, 1998. Although not specifically established at hearing, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Respondent employed at least fifteen employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year and thus is an employer within the meaning of the law. Petitioner began working for Respondent as a nurse in January 1992. Between September 1992 and May 1994, a period of seventeen months, Petitioner had twelve documented errors in giving medications to patients under her supervision. This was more than any other employee at Respondent's facility. During Petitioner's tenure at Respondent's facility, Respondent had a Medication Error Policy in effect. This policy outlined the procedures and penalties for medication errors. For each error, points were assigned according to the severity and frequency of errors. The policy provided, however, that management had the right to terminate an employee at any time for a serious medication error regardless of whether the employee had accumulated any points under the policy. Petitioner was aware of, and understood, this policy. On May 2, 1994, Petitioner was working the night shift at Respondent's facility and was in charge of six patients on the third floor. One of her patients was a 78-year-old male who was scheduled to have surgery for a life-threatening abdominal aortic aneurysm. The attending physician had written on his orders that day that the patient was to be given "Halcion 0.125 milligrams PO noon." This meant that he was to receive one-half of a .25 milligrams tablet of Halcion, a narcotic-type drug, by mouth at noon on May 3, the following day. The order was attached to the patient's chart. Around 6:30 p.m. on May 2, 1994, Petitioner mistakenly gave the patient five Halcion 0.25 milligrams tablets by mouth, or ten times the prescribed dosage. Although Petitioner did not initially disclose this fact to other personnel, she eventually conceded that she had made an error. When the patient was found in a comatose state a few hours later, three physicians were called to check on his condition, including his primary physician, a critical care physician, and a neurologist. Not knowing that Petitioner had overmedicated the patient, the primary physician initially believed the patient had suffered a stroke. The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), a catheter was inserted, and he was placed on a respirator. After reading the medication record, the ICU nurses discovered that the patient had been overmedicated. The patient eventually recovered, but his surgery had to be postponed, which might have resulted in a burst aorta. His family later sued the hospital for Petitioner's negligence. Because of the serious nature of the error, and given Petitioner's past history of medication errors, Respondent terminated Petitioner on May 3, 1994. The employment decision was not based on Petitioner's race, but rather was based on "her poor work performance overall." There is no evidence as to whom, if anyone, was hired to replace Petitioner. The termination was wholly consistent with Respondent's Medication Error Policy. At hearing, Petitioner contended that the hospital did not terminate other nurses for similar offenses. However, during the same period of time that Petitioner was employed by Respondent, another nurse, M. C., a Caucasian female, was also terminated for making a serious medication error with a narcotic- type drug. Although M. C. had an otherwise "very good" record at the hospital, and did not have a history of medication errors, Respondent nonetheless terminated her since her conduct, like that of Petitioner, constituted a "life-threatening nurse practice error." Petitioner also contended that another nurse on duty that evening assisted her in calculating the Halcion dosage and this should relieve her of any responsibility. Although there was no independent testimony to corroborate this claim, even if true, the patient was under the direct supervision of Petitioner, and it would not diminish Petitioner's responsibility for placing the patient in a life-threatening situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 14th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerrylene Barr Post Office Box 289 Reddick, Florida 32686 Kip P. Roth, Esquire 2501 Park Plaza Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent Bernard Zaragoza, M.D., violated Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health before the Board of Medicine on June 30, 2008; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Bernard J. Zaragoza, M.D., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 67920. Dr. Zaragoza’s address of record is 3100 Coral Hills Drive, Suite 207, Coral Springs, Florida 33065. Dr. Zaragoza is certified in general surgery by the American Board of Surgery. Dr. Zaragoza has not been the subject of any investigation, claim, or complaint relating to his professional career other than this matter. Dr. Zaragoza graduated, Summa Cum Laude, from the University of Miami with a bachelors degree. He earned his medical degree from Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zaragoza performed a five-year surgical residency program at New York Medical College’s Westchester County Medical Center. During his residency, Dr. Zaragoza performed hundreds of laparoscopic procedures, including laparoscopic cholechstectomies (removal of the gallbladder). A laparoscopic surgery is a technique in which the abdomen is entered through small incisions rather than “opening up” the abdomen. Normally, for abdominal laparoscopic surgery, incisions are made at the belly button. This is the point which is usually closest to the peritoneal cavity, thus reducing the distance from the skin the surgeon must work through and the surgeon has a broader view of the abdomen. By October 2007, Dr. Zaragoza had performed in excess of 2,000 laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures. Patient J.C. On October 1, 2007, Patient J.C., a male, 83 years of age, presented at Northwest Medical Center, located in Margate, Florida, for treatment of abdominal pain and vomiting. Patient J.C. had reported with the same symptoms a month earlier and had been diagnosed with chronic cholecystitis, a chronic inflammation of the gallbladder due to the blockage of the bile ducts by gall stones. It is a life-threatening condition. Patient J.C. was admitted by Rafael Rodriguez, M.D., who requested a consultation by Mark Shachner, M.D., Dr. Zaragoza’s partner. Dr. Shachner confirmed a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and, in light of the failed conservative therapy which Patient J.C. had undergone since his first visit and the potential threat to his life, Dr. Shachner recommended surgery. It was concluded that Patient J.C. would undergo an attempted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dr. Zaragoza was to perform the procedure. It was concluded that a laparoscopic procedure was the appropriate procedure for Patient J.C. due to his medical history: atrial fibrillation, Alzheimer’s disease, hypertension, and diabetes. He had also undergone prior abdominal procedures. The parties did not dispute that a laparoscopic procedure, because it was likely to reduce post- operative complications, was the best type of surgical procedure for Patient J.C. Patient J.C., as a result of a prior gastrectomy, had a long midline incision extending from the Xiphoid upper abdomen to below the belly button. As a result of this surgery, Patient J.C. had extensive adhesions of tissue up to the midline. Patient J.C. had also undergone an appendectomy. It was concluded that, due to Patient J.C.’s condition and abdominal surgical history, rather than entering at the belly button and risking injury to any structures that were adhesed to the midline, a “right-sided” incision point would be used. The Department does not dispute the appropriateness of this decision. Unfortunately, by using a right-sided incision point, Dr. Zaragoza’s visualization of Patient J.C.’s abdominal cavity was reduced. Patient J.C. and his family were fully informed of the nature of the proposed surgical procedure and the risks, after which Patient J.C. signed a written consent for surgery. The written consent included an authorization to “take whatever action(s) and to perform whatever procedures(s) they deem necessary and advisable, which may be in addition to or different from those now planned” and an acknowledgement that the surgery to be performed “may result in perforation or injury to adjacent organs or structures.” None of the witnesses convincingly testified that the authorization included the authority to remove healthy organs or that the acknowledgement included any suggestion that a healthy organ might be completely removed. Surgery was scheduled for October 2, 2007. Dr. Zaragoza began the surgery with a right-sided approach, freeing up the area and attempting to identify important structures in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. In particular, the important structures Dr. Zaragoza attempted to locate were the liver, colon, and the gallbladder. Dr. Zaragoza encountered extremely heavy adhesions (8 on a scale of 1 to 10) in Patient J.C.’s abdomen. Dr. Zaragoza considered the risks of continuing or switching to an open abdomen procedure and correctly concluded it was best to proceed. Dr. Zaragoza freed up extensive adhesions and was able to correctly identify the liver. Unable to identify the gallbladder and due to the extensive adhesions in the area of the intestine, Dr. Zaragoza stopped the procedure in order to retrieve a CT scan of the area and personally evaluate the images. In order to expedite receipt of the CT study, Dr. Zaragoza scrubbed out and personally walked to the radiology suite. After returning, Dr. Zaragoza read the CT scan and the radiologist’s interpretation, which indicated that the gallbladder was posterior to the transverse colon. Dr. Zaragoza returned to Patient J.C., mobilized the colon to free it from the liver and attempted to locate the gallbladder behind the colon where he expected it to be. What Dr. Zaragoza found behind the transverse colon was a dark, thickened, and solid structure in the anatomical position which the CT scan and radiologist report suggested the gallbladder would be located. While the gallbladder, which consists of a water sac, is normally soft, pink, and pliable, this is not the case with an inflamed and infected one. Given Patient J.C.’s history of chronic cholecystitis with an acute cholecystitis secondary to the blockage of bile ducts by gallstones, Dr. Zaragoza was expecting to find a dark, thickened, and solid gallbladder in Patient J.C. Concluding that the structure he had located was the gallbladder, Dr. Zaragoza freed the organ of surrounding tissue, freeing away without incision adhesions to the organ, bringing the organ into position for removal. As Dr. Zaragoza began to free up the fat tissue around what he believed were the bile duct and blood vessels of the gallbladder, the organ ruptured, revealing a solid mass. Dr. Zaragoza believed that the mass was a tumor, which Dr. Zaragoza had encountered in other gallbladder surgeries. Dr. Zaragoza continued the procedure, separating the gallbladder for removal. While dividing what he believed was a cystic duct, Dr. Zaragoza encountered a bifurcation that did not correspond to the anatomy of the gallbladder. At this point, Dr. Zaragoza decided that surgery needed to be converted from laparoscopic to an open procedure. After doing so, a frozen section of the organ was sent to pathology for evaluation, in order to obtain a rapid evaluation of the tissue. The pathology report revealed that the organ that Dr. Zaragoza had removed from Patient J.C. was a healthy kidney. Dr. Zaragoza thereupon located the gallbladder by examining the dense adhesions around the colon, a risky procedure. Ultimately Dr. Zaragoza was required to cut into the transverse colon where he located the gallbladder, which had eroded into the transverse colon. Dr. Zaragoza then completed the surgical procedure, removing the gallbladder. Patient J.C.’s family was immediately advised of what had taken place; that Dr. Zaragoza had removed a kidney, in addition to successfully removing the gallbladder. The removal of a healthy kidney involves a medical procedure totally unrelated to removal of an unhealthy gallbladder. Removal of a healthy kidney is not a known or expected complication of gallbladder removal. Dr. Zaragoza’s removal of Patient J.C.’s kidney during gallbladder surgery constituted a “a wrong-site procedure, wrong procedure, or an unauthorized procedure, or a procedure that is medically unnecessary or otherwise unrelated to the patient’s diagnosis or medical condition.” The Department’s proposed findings of fact 12 through 20 contained in the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order, are accurate, support the ultimate findings of fact made in this paragraph and are subordinate thereto. Proposed findings of fact 36 through 38 of Respondent’s Proposed Order in large part accurately reflect the difficulty of the surgery performed on Patient J.C. Even the Department’s own expert noted that he thanked God Patient J.C. had not been his patient. The suggestion in paragraph 26 that the removal of the kidney was “simply an unwanted complication associated with this cholecystectomy procedure” is, however, not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Bernard J. Zaragoza, M.D., has violated Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $5,000.00; issuing a letter of concern; requiring the completion of five hours of risk management education; and requiring that he perform 50 hours of community service. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 6th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Rolando A. Diaz, Esquire Kubicki & Draper 25 West Flagler Street, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33130 Robert A. Milne, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an applicant for licensure to practice acupuncture in the State of Florida and took the acupuncture licensing examination in August, 1982. Information was provided to the candidate prior to the administration of the examination which identified refer- ence books to study for the written part of the examination. This included an outline of Chinese acupuncture which explained the technique of opening and closing the hole. There were no texts specified for the practical examination. The acupuncture technique of opening or closing the hole for sedation or tonification was graded as part of the removal portion of the examination. However, Petitioner did not utilize the acupuncture technique of opening or closing the hole as part of his removal technique and was penalized for this omission. The acupuncture examiners were professional examiners from California who are familiar with the different schools of acupuncture thought. Grading procedures were standardized in advance of examination administration and examiners were requested to utilize their professional judgment in assigning grades on each criteria in the performance of three needle insertions. Petitioner contends that he should not have been penalized for failing to close or leave open the acupuncture hole upon needle removal. In the view of Respondent's experts and as stated in the reference material (outline of Chinese acupuncture) this is an essential procedure relative to sedation and tonification. Therefore, Petitioner was correctly graded as to needle removal. Petitioner contends that he would have passed the examination had the practical portion scores been averaged. Under the grading procedures followed by Respondent, Part III (diagnostic written portion) and Section A, Part IV (technique) of the practical examination are graded separately, and the candidate must obtain a satisfactory score on each section. Respondent's separate grading procedures are consistent with Section 468.323, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982). This provision requires the candidate to cass an examination which tests his knowledge and competency in specified areas including needle removal. This could not be accomplished if an unacceptable score in needle removal were permitted merely because Petitioner did well on other portions of the practical examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William S. Huang 697 E. Altamonte Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ann Mayne, Executive Director Board of Acupunture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Flori4a 32301
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, Jules Jonas Dossick, D.O. violated statutes governing the practice of osteopathic medicine on the grounds alleged in the administrative complaint and if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate. Background and Procedural Matters This proceeding commenced when Petitioner filed its administrative complaint and Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. At the hearing Petitioner verbally amended its complaint by deleting all factual and legal allegations relating to sexual misconduct and violations of Section 459.015(1)(k) Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented evidence through three witnesses and four exhibits. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted without objection. Petitioner has submitted a proposed recommended order, which proposal has been considered and, in part, included in this order. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact is found in the appendix attached hereto. By pleadings dated May 23, 1986, Respondent has moved for a re- hearing and has objected to the Petitioner's proposed recommended order, both on the grounds that he has now retained counsel and should have the opportunity to have the case re-heard with the benefit of an attorney. Respondent had an attorney in an earlier part of this proceeding and discharged him by letter dated February 22, 1986. (see letter attached to motion to withdraw filed March 3, 1986). Approximately two months later the final hearing was held. Respondent had ample time to retain new counsel or ask for a continuance. He proceeded to hearing, aware of his rights and without protest. The record is void of any basis to consider such extraordinary relief.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dr. Dossick, is now and at all times relevant has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida under license number OS 0000874. He practices at his clinic, North Miami Medical Center, located at 4805 East 4th Avenue in Hialeah, Florida. (T-10,11). The clinic is comprised of a reception room, a kitchen that is also used as an office, a bathroom near the reception area, a supply room, two examining rooms, and two additional rooms with a bathroom and shower at the rear of the clinic. Dr. Dossick lives at the clinic and keeps the additional rooms for his bedroom, for storage and for personal use. One of the additional rooms was used several years ago as a third examining room. (T-43, 44, 114-116). In January 1985, two investigators from the Department of Professional Regulation went to Respondent's Clinic for an inspection. They took pictures and spoke to Dr. Dossick. Three other individuals were at the clinic the day of the inspection: a man and woman in one examining room, and a woman in what the inspectors thought was an examining room, but was identified by Dr. Dossick as his personal use and storage room. (T-41, 49, 57, 64, 116). The investigators found the clinic in varying stages of filth and disarray. The reception room was old and worn, unclean, but with little sign of current use. The kitchen had dirty dishes and exposed garbage. The examining rooms were fairly neat but the medications on the countertops were old, dirty and, in some cases, expired. There was no garbage in the two examining rooms, but they did not appear clean. The third room, the former examining room (now used for storage and Dr. Dossick's personal living quarters) was a mess: clothing, mail and fast food containers were strewn about, cotton swabs were exposed and piled on a counter; syringes and medications were also exposed on the countertops. In this room the narcotics supply was stored in a locked cabinet. Two dogs were present in the clinic, one of which had patches of hair missing as if diseased. (T-46, 49, Petitioner's Exhibits #3 and #4) There was no evidence that patients had access to the kitchen, supply room or Dr. Dossick's bedroom. Patients occasionally go to the former examining room and wait there prior to seeing the doctor. Dr. Dossick keeps his own dog at the clinic and, even though he does not encourage them, his patients sometimes bring their animals to the clinic with them. Dr. Dossick admitted that he had trouble for a while keeping the place clean. The woman who worked for him injured her knee in a karate tournament and had surgery. While the admission of problems was candid, the excuse regarding the former cleaning worker was confused: the handwritten statement Dr. Dossick presented from Barbara O'Rourke suggested that her accident and subsequent surgery occurred in April and July 1 85, respectively; that is, several months after the DPR inspectors' visit. (T-64, 87-89, 105-106, 112-113). Linda Joyce Godfrey is a patient of Dr. Dossick. She is thirty-nine years old, was born with cerebral palsy, and around 1981 was diagnosed with multiple-sclerosis. She is crippled and walks unaided with considerable difficulty. She has undergone several operations and lengthy periods of hospitalization. She has been under the care of various physicians, including an orthopedist, several neurosurgeons, and another osteopathic physician. (T-66, 69) Ms. Godfrey began seeing Dr. Dossick after an extended hospitalization period. She picked him at random and asked for percodan, a controlled narcotic substance, generally prescribed for pain relief. He refused to give her the percodan and prescribed a non-narcotic medication instead. She continued seeing him and later he prescribed placidyl, percocet and percodan at various times to help her sleep and for the severe pain in her muscles and bones. He did not give her these medications until he obtained her hospital reports and talked with her regular physicians. (T-66,69,81) Ms. Godfrey admits that she was an addict. She claims that Dr. Dossick was initially unaware of this but later helped her get off the habit. On one occasion she went to his office in the state of apparent overdose. He called Hialeah Fire and Rescue and got her out of there. He told her not to come around anymore because he didn't go for drugs. She later went back and asked for help. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether Ms. Godfrey's episode was an overdose or a grand mal seizure. (T-69, 73-76, 80, 90-91). According to Ms. Godfrey, Dr. Dossick injected her with Demerol on only one occasion, around six weeks prior to the hearing, after her apartment was broken into and she was raped. (T-71, 72). The practice of osteopathic medicine encompasses all aspects of medicine commonly referred to as allopathic medicine, but also includes physiotherapy, manipulative therapy, nutrition: a holistic approach. (T-13,14). This characterization of the distinction between the professions is borne out in the statutory definitions of "practice of medicine" and "practice of osteopathic medicine": "Practice of osteopathic medicine" means the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition, which practice is based in part upon educational standards and requirements which emphasize the importance of the musculoskeletal structure and manipulative therapy in the maintenance and restoration of health. 1l. Except for the underlined verbiage the two definitions are the same. See Section 458.305(3) Florida Statutes, and Section 459.003(3) Florida Statutes. One of the rudiments of osteopathic medicine values the "laying of hands" as part of caring for a patient in a very kind and personal manner. Cleanliness of the person and the physical area surrounding the practitioner is essential to avoid transferring disease from one patient to another. (T-18,19) Animals should not be present in the clinic because of the potential for communicating disease to humans through fleas, flies or the animals. (T-18) Old, dirty drugs and syringes should be disposed of in such a manner as to avoid access and use. (T-19,20) The above standards were described in the competent, uncontroverted testimony of Petitioner's expert, Ralph Birzon, D.O. Those standards were violated by Dr. Dossick when he allowed dogs in the clinic, when he failed to properly dispose of old drugs and syringes, and when he failed to keep his clinic clean. Dr. Dossick does, however, treat his patients in a very kind and personal manner. Ms. Godfrey was called as Petitioner's witness. Her testimony was credible and touchingly candid, as also was Dr. Dossick's. Ms. Godfrey said Dr. Dossick helped her; he took pity on her; he is good to his patients and is a good man. She does not have the money to pay for his treatment or the prescriptions, so she sometimes files and answers the phone at the clinic. Dr. Dossick is the oldest physician in the area; he spends a lot of time with his patients and they depend on him. He regularly treats his patients without charge, or for a token fee. He also loans them money for prescriptions. He has treated some patients for 25-30 years. (T-81, 83, 93, 95-96, 103) Dr. Dossick has previously been suspended by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners for six months because of allegations that he prescribed medication without performing an examination. He volunteered this fact. (T-97, 107-109) The violations occurred approximately ten years ago. See Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners v Dossick DOAH #76-1814; Dossick v Florida State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, 359 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). The clinic has been cleaned up since the investigators' visit and the dirty and outdated drugs have been discarded. (T- 88,104)
Findings Of Fact Prior to and during part of 1983 Dr. Sturdivant practiced as an osteopathic physician. Dr. Sturdivant operated an office in Bradenton, Florida. Sometime during 1983 Dr. Sturdivant met and discussed employment with Dr. Daniel Clark. Dr. Clark operated the Total Health Care Clinic Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"), in Ormond Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Dr. Clark had been licensed as a physician in Florida. Dr. Clark's license to practice medicine in Florida was revoked, however, on April 21, 1983. As a result of his discussions with Dr. Clark, Dr. Sturdivant practiced medicine at the Center four days a week during most of 1983. One day a week Dr. Sturdivant continued to work out of his office in Bradenton. Sometime during 1984 Dr. Sturdivant left the Center. He did not return to the Center until 1985. During the early part of 1985 Dr. Sturdivant returned to the Center where he worked full time as the Center's Medical Director. Dr. Sturdivant worked at the Center from at least March 27, 1985 to at least June 22, 1985. During the period of time during 1985 that Dr. Sturdivant acted as the Medical Director of the Center, Dr. Clark's title was Administrator of the Center. During the period of time after April 21, 1983, that Dr. Sturdivant was employed at the Center Dr. Sturdivant knew or had reason to know that Dr. Clark's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida had been revoked. During the portion of 1985 that Dr. Sturdivant was employed as the Medical Director of the Center Dr. Sturdivant was aware that he was responsible for the medical care of patients seen at the Center. Ms. Judy Baxley was seen as a patient at the Center several times beginning in March, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director. Ms. Baxley was treated for asthma and a "yeast" infection. Ms. Baxley was seen by Dr. Clark on some of her visits. She received medical tests and treatments at the direction of Dr. Clark, as evidenced, at least in part, by progress notes signed by Dr. Clark. Ms. Shirley Van Gampler was seen as a patient at the Center on May 8, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center. Ms. Van Gampler was seen by Dr. Clark as a patient. Dr. Clark's treatment of Ms. Van Gampler included examination, testing and diagnosis, as evidenced, at least in part, by progress notes signed by Dr. Clark. Mr. Douglas Cutsail was seen as a patient at the Center in April, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director. Mr. Cutsail had a history of heart attacks and hypertension. He went to the Clinic in an effort to control his high blood pressure. Dr. Clark treated Mr. Cutsail as a patient, performing tests on Mr. Cutsail and directing chelation therapy treatments of Mr. Cutsail's medical problems. Dr. Clark signed the progress notes on Mr. Cutsail. Dr. Sturdivant also signed the progress notes but his signature was added at a later date after Dr. Clark had already treated Mr. Cutsail. Ms. Eileen Deasy was seen as a patient at the Center in April, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center. Dr. Clark treated Ms. Deasy as a patient, as evidenced by progress notes signed by Dr. Clark. Ms. Lonna Sloan was seen as a patient at the Center in April, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center. Ms. Sloan, who is now deceased, had breast cancer at the time she was seen by Dr. Clark. Ms. Sloan was treated as a patient by Dr. Clark. The treatment received by Ms. Sloan was substandard treatment. Dr. Sturdivant allowed Dr. Clark to exercise professional medical responsibilities during 1985 while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center and with knowledge that Dr. Clark was not licensed to carry out those responsibilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Sturdivant's license to practice in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of one (1) year. It is further, RECOMMENDED that the recommended suspension of Dr. Sturdivant's license for one (1) year be stayed and set aside and that he be placed on probation for a period of three (3) years in lieu thereof. During the period that Dr. Sturdivant is on probation, he should be required to work under the supervision of an osteopathic physician. He should not work in any supervisory capacity. During the period of his probation, Dr. Sturdivant and his supervisor should submit quarterly written reports of Dr. Sturdivant's employment activities. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Stipulated to by the parties. 2 3. 2 and 4. 5 and 6. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9. 9 10. 10 11. 11 12. 12-13 13. This is a conclusion of law. Lonna Sloan's deposition is hearsay. It has been accepted only to the extent that it corroborates the testimony of Dr. Smith and Petitioner's exhibit 3, the progress notes on Ms. Sloan. Summary of testimony. Cumulative and hearsay. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. The evidence established that Dr. Sturdivant was aware that Dr. Clark's license to practice in Florida had been revoked. Whether Dr. Clark had a license to practice in Georgia is irrelevant. The evidence failed to prove this contention. The evidence did prove that some of the products sold by the Center were nutritional products available in health food stores. The evidence also proved that persons who received nutritional products were treated medically by Dr. Clark. The evidence failed to prove that these nutritional products were prescribed as only for nutritional purposes. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Branson, Esquire William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 David L. Sturdivant, D.O. 800 South Nova Road Suite H Ormond Beach, Florida 32074 Mr. Rod Presnell Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's license based on the alleged violations of Section 459.015(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21R-20, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint: By fraudulently misrepresenting that he met the criteria for exemption from demonstrating financial responsibility. By failing to demonstrate his financial responsibility to pay claims for medical care. By falsely swearing on his Physician's License Renewal form. By violating a term of the Final Order of the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners dated August 22, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of osteopathic medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 459, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS 0001663. Respondent's practice is in Tampa, Florida. Respondent was employed, in his capacity as an osteopathic physician, as an independent contractor at a walk-in clinic owned and operated by Dr. J. Eloian followed by Mitchell D. Checkver, D.O., which office is currently located at 7211 N. Dale Mabry, #100, Tampa, Florida, from 1984 through 1990. Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine was in a probationary status from August of 1988, until June 15, 1990, pursuant to a Final Order filed by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (Board) on August 2, 1988, regarding case numbers 0055173, 0038979 and 00372994. As a condition of probation Respondent was to comply with all state and federal statutes, rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of osteopathic, including Chapters 455 and 459, Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. As a condition of probation, Respondent was to pay the Board a total administrative fine of $3,000, which was said. About a year before Dr. John Eloian retired in August 1988, he discussed the possibility of utilizing the exemption for part time physicians (in Section 459.0085, Florida Statute) with other doctors in his office, including Respondent. A condition of renewing an active license to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida, is compliance with Section 459.0085, Florida Statutes. The licensee must demonstrate financial responsibility or meet the criteria for exemption. Two years later, on November 6, 1989, Respondent submitted a Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners' Physician's License Renewal Form, and signed a sworn affidavit as to the veracity of the information provided therein. A sign was posted announcing to the patients that no malpractice insurance was carried by Respondent and Dr. Eloian. Within the License Renewal Form, Respondent represented that he was exempt from demonstrating financial responsibility based on his meeting all of the criteria listed. The exemption which the Respondent attempted to utilize had criteria which included the condition that the Respondent has not been subject, within the past ten (10) years of practice, to a fine of $500.00 or more for a violation of Section 459, Florida Statutes. The form specifies that a regulatory agency's acceptance of a stipulation, in response to filing of administrative charges against a licensee, shall be construed as action against a licensee. The exemption also had criteria which specified that the Respondent had maintained a part time practice of no more than 1,000 patient contact hours per year. Based on Respondent's submission to the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners of this Physician's Licensure Renewal Form in November 1989, and the information given therein, his license to practice osteopathic medicine was renewed through 1991. Subsequently, Respondent acknowledged he was ineligible for the exemption and obtained medical malpractice insurance, effective July 1, 1990. Respondent read, or should have read, the Physician's License Renewal form sufficiently to be aware of the language therein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 459.015(1)(a), Florida Statutes. As punishment therefore Respondent should pay a fine of $1,000, and he should be placed on probation by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners with such reasonable terms and conditions as the Board may require. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 13th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0395 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, 14,18 Rejected as irrelevant or as argument: paragraphs 2,15,16,17 Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 (in part), 4 (in part), 7 (in part), 9 Rejected: paragraphs 2 (in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and as a conclusion of law), 3 (conclusion of law), 5 (irrelevant), 6 (irrelevant), 7 (in part), 8 (irrelevant) 10 (irrelevant) COPIES FURNISHED: Mary B. Radkins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 John R. Feegel, Esquire Thomas Sabella, Jr., Esquire 401 South Albany Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Bill Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation, Suite 60 Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 478.52(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ by accepting and performing professional responsibilities that she knew or had reason to know she was not competent to perform; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violations proven.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of electrolysis pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been licensed as an electrologist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number EO2650. Respondent is also licensed by the State of Florida as an acupuncturist, license number AP 1378. Respondent is a certified surgical assistant, having obtained certification through the American Board of Surgical Assistants. Documents in the record indicate that in 1998, Respondent completed medical school at Universidad Libre in Barranquilla, Columbia. However, Respondent is not a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 8210 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent owned and operated Orozco Medical Center (“OMC”), located at 8210 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615. Patient N.M. Patient N.M. is a female born in 1964. She testified that she was familiar with OMC because she had therapy there following a car accident in 2000. N.M. presented to OMC in early 2015 for consultation regarding a liposuction with fat transfer procedure, commonly called a “Brazilian Butt Lift” (“BBL”). Fat is taken from one part of the body and reinjected into the buttocks. N.M. testified that Blanca Cabrera, who performs massages at OMC, recommended a “doctor” at OMC named Marlon Barcelo to perform her BBL. Marlon Barcelo worked at OMC as a surgical assistant but was not a medical doctor. N.M. testified that she believed Mr. Barcelo would perform her BBL procedure and that she never knew that he was not a physician. Ms. Cabrera told her that Mr. Barcelo had been a very good doctor in Columbia. N.M. testified that at her initial consultation at OMC regarding the BBL, she met exclusively with Respondent, who showed her where the fat would be removed and where it would be injected. N.M. testified that she met with Respondent three times before her surgery. N.M. testified that, at the conclusion of the initial consultation, she was given an appointment card directing her to return to OMC on January 13, 2015, for an electrocardiogram, lab work, and the medication she would be expected to take before the procedure. The medical records indicate that N.M. was confused as to the dates. It appears from the records that her initial consultation was on January 13, 2015, that her EKG and lab work were performed on March 2, 2015, and the date of her surgery was March 13, 2015. N.M. testified that each time she visited OMC prior to the surgery, she met only with Respondent, who examined her and explained the procedure to her with no other persons present. N.M. testified that on the date of the surgery, her daughter drove her to OMC. After she checked in at the front desk, N.M. was taken to an exam room and told to change into a hospital gown. Respondent then marked her body to identify the locations where fat was to be removed. Respondent gave N.M. a medication to calm her prior to the procedure. The medical record indicates that N.M.’s pre- operative medications included Keflex (cephalexin, an antibiotic), lorazepam (a sedative and anti-anxiety medication), and Benadryl (diphenhydramine, an antihistamine with sedative properties). N.M. described the medication’s effect as “like a Xanax.” N.M. testified that the medication relaxed her but did not affect her recollection of the procedure. She testified that she was awake throughout the surgery and was allowed to use her cell phone during the procedure. N.M. did not recall meeting Dr. Mark Kantzler and denied ever meeting Dr. Amina Edathodu. She believed that Mr. Barcelo was going to perform the surgery, though up until the morning of the procedure she had not met him. N.M. was taken to the surgical room and placed on a table. She stated that there was a drape that blocked her view of the surgical area, but that it was low enough to allow her to see everyone in the room. She could see two men, Mr. Barcelo and someone identified as “Abel,” and Ms. Cabrera, the massage therapist, who appeared to be assisting. N.M. testified that Mr. Barcelo performed the liposuction. She testified that everyone in the room was wearing surgical gowns and gloves but no surgical masks. N.M. testified that during the liposuction procedure, Respondent told her that she would be performing the fat injections because she was very good at that procedure. N.M. testified that after the liposuction was completed, Mr. Barcelo called on Respondent to perform the fat injections into her buttocks. N.M. stated that she saw Respondent walk into the room carrying a syringe. During this portion of the procedure N.M was positioned on her stomach but stated that she knew from the conversation in the room that it was Respondent who was placing the injections into her buttocks. Upon conclusion of the procedure, Respondent gave N.M. pain medication for post-surgical pain. N.M. returned to OMC for a follow-up visit regarding the lack of drainage from her incision. During this visit, Respondent examined N.M. and gave her medication to reduce the swelling she was experiencing. Dr. Edathodu testified that she has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida for over 25 years. From 2015 through 2017, she worked as a contract physician at OMC and acted as medical director for the facility. Dr. Edathodu developed the protocols for OMC’s tumescent liposuction procedures and ensured they were followed. Dr. Edathodu remembered N.M. as a patient who had undergone previous surgeries and presented for further liposuction and fat transfer. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the liposuction procedure on N.M. Dr. Edathodu’s signature is on the cosmetic surgery consent form that was also signed by N.M. on March 3, 2015. The “Liposuction and Autologous Fat Transfer” consent form signed by N.M. on March 3, 2015, specifically names Dr. Edathodu as the surgeon who will perform the procedure and was signed by Dr. Edathodu. Dr. Edathodu testified that she reviewed the procedure with N.M., discussing the risks and benefits. Dr. Edathodu does not speak Spanish and uses Respondent to translate with Spanish speakers such as N.M. She identified herself to N.M. as a surgeon through Respondent’s translation. Dr. Edathodu spoke to N.M. about having realistic expectations and cautioned her that she may not obtain an optimal result because of her previous procedures. Dr. Edathodu testified that, aside from her, the persons in the surgical theater were three surgical assistants: Respondent, Mr. Barcelo, and Pavel Cabanes. It is found that Mr. Cabanes must have been the “Abel” referred to by N.M. Dr. Edathodu testified that during the surgery, there is a drape between the surgical field and the patient’s face and head, to prevent the patient from being disturbed by the sight of the procedure. The drape is made of disposable paper and is about five feet high. When performing the surgery, Dr. Edathodu is unable to see the patient’s face and the patient is unable to see past the drape. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the entire surgical procedure on N.M. Dr. Edathodu made the site markings on N.M. while Respondent took photographs. Respondent did not perform any part of the surgical procedure. Respondent performed none of the fat transfer on N.M. Respondent did nothing other than what Dr. Edathodu specifically directed her to do. Dr. Edathodu testified that she met with N.M. on four or five occasions after the surgery. Dr. Edathodu’s testimony, as supported by the medical records, is credited. Perhaps because of her inability to speak English, N.M. appeared confused and inconsistent in her testimony, at least as it appeared in the Transcript. N.M.’s credibility was strained by her uncertainty as to dates and medications. She offered improbable details, such as the lack of coverage by the surgical drape and the failure of the surgical team to wear masks. N.M. was certain that Respondent was performing the fat injection, even though N.M. could not see what was happening. Though N.M. testified that she was awake and alert during the procedure, the undersigned cannot disregard that she had been given a medication that she likened to Xanax, most likely the lorazepam. The undersigned hesitates to rely upon N.M.’s disjointed testimony where it conflicts with the straightforward and credible testimony of Dr. Edathodu.3/ Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is found that the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient N.M. Patient R.C. Patient R.C. is a female born in 1988. At the time of the hearing, she worked as a claims specialist. She testified that a friend from her previous job at HealthPlan Services referred her to OMC for a consultation. She first went to OMC on or about June 6, 2016. R.C. testified that this initial consultation was with Respondent. She told Respondent that she wanted liposuction on her back and waist and wanted the fat transferred to her buttocks. They discussed the procedure and pricing. From that point until the day of the surgery, R.C. went to OMC only to drop off periodic payments for the surgery. Her only contact was with the person at the front desk. She testified that she did not see Respondent again until the day of her surgery. R.C.’s surgery was scheduled for August 5, 2016. R.C. testified that she was dropped off at OMC by her children’s father. She went in and met Respondent and a few workers in the front of the facility. When she went to the back to prepare for the procedure, she met a man wearing scrubs whom she had never seen before. Two other staff persons were present, but R.C. stated she only talked with the one staff person who spoke English. R.C. testified that Respondent and the man in scrubs marked her body for the surgery. She believed that Respondent was going to perform the surgery. R.C. stated that she was not familiar with Dr. Edathodu. R.C. stated that she filled out the consent forms on August 5, 2016. An assistant gave her medication, saying it would calm her down. R.C. was not told the name of the medication, but testified that she took a blue pill and half of a white pill. The medical records indicate she was given Ativan (a brand name for lorazepam) and Benadryl. R.C. testified that the medications made her drowsy. R.C. was assisted to the room where the surgery would be performed. R.C. testified that she was placed on her stomach, face down. Everyone in the room was wearing a surgical mask. In the room were Respondent, the man in the scrubs, and two assistants. R.C. stated that she was awake during the procedure, but was drowsy and did not recall much about it. She could hear Respondent’s voice and the noise of the liposuction machine. She could not see who actually performed the procedure. After it was over, one of the assistants phoned R.C.’s driver and helped R.C. get up and walk. Respondent handed her a bag containing pills that R.C. believed were antibiotics. She received post-operative instructions. R.C. testified that she returned to OMC for a follow- up visit about a month after the surgery and met with Respondent. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the surgical procedure, called “tumescent liposuction,” on R.C. on August 5, 2016. On August 2, 2016, R.C. signed a “liposuction & autologous fat transfer consent” form that specifically named Dr. Edathodu as the surgeon who would perform the surgery. Dr. Edathodu ordered, reviewed, and signed R.C.’s lab results. Dr. Edathodu met with R.C. prior to the procedure and completed a “pre-operative clearance” form to document R.C.’s fitness and willingness to go through the surgery. Both R.C. and Dr. Edathodu signed the pre-operative clearance form. Dr. Edathodu testified that she met with R.C. three or four times post-surgery. As in the case of N.M., all of the medical records support the version of events described by Dr. Edathodu.4/ Dr. Edathodu’s testimony, as supported by the medical records, is credited. R.C. frankly conceded that she did not remember much about the surgery and could not see who performed it. Dr. Edathodu clearly and credibly recalled performing the procedure. The greater weight of evidence supports the finding that Dr. Edathodu performed the surgery, assisted by Respondent and Mr. Barcelo. The evidence could not sustain a finding that Respondent performed a surgical procedure on R.C. R.C. was a more credible witness than N.M., and her testimony on some of the details regarding her consultations and pre-operative events was persuasive. However, it must be kept in mind that the only relevant factual question is whether Respondent performed an “invasive/surgical medical procedure” on R.C. The evidence on this question is not persuasive. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is found that the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient R.C. Patient K.H. Patient K.H. is a female born in 1989. She learned of OMC from a friend at work. She first came into OMC for a consultation regarding a liposuction and fat transfer on November 29, 2016. K.H. testified that she met only with Respondent at this initial consultation. On November 29, 2016, K.H. signed an “information certification” form accepting Dr. Mark Kantzler as the physician who would be in charge of her liposuction procedure. K.H. came back to OMC on January 9, 2017, to make a $500 deposit and to schedule the surgery. The procedure was scheduled for February 11, 2017. Again, K.H. testified that she met alone with Respondent, who told her that she would need to come in a couple of days before the surgery to get medication and a list of things she would need for post-operative care. K.H. testified that she believed that Respondent was a physician and that she would be performing the liposuction procedure. The “liposuction and autologous fat transfer consent” form that K.H. signed on February 9, 2017, authorized Dr. Kantzler to perform the liposuction and fat transfer procedure. The “surgery certification” form that K.H. signed on February 9, 2017, indicated that Dr. Kantzler reviewed the entire medical file with her before performing the procedure. On February 11, 2017, K.H. was driven to OMC by her mother. Shortly after arriving, K.H. noted the presence of a tall man with white hair and blue eyes. An OMC assistant escorted K.H. to a room with a bed and a chair. Respondent came in to the room and marked K.H. for surgery. Respondent then called in the tall man with white hair and blue eyes, who looked at the surgical markings and then asked K.H. some questions about her stretch marks. During her direct examination, K.H. testified that she was not given the man’s name. During cross-examination, K.H. was forced to concede that during an August 2017 interview, she told Department investigators that she had been introduced to the tall man with white hair and blue eyes and that his name was Dr. Mark Kantzler. K.H. testified that Respondent gave her a pill to take before surgery. She was taken to the surgical suite and was placed on the table. K.H. testified that the surgical drape prevented her from seeing the surgical area. The only people she had noted in the room were Respondent and “Claudia,” a woman K.H. recognized as a massage therapist at OMC. She could not be certain whether or not Dr. Kantzler was in the room. K.H. testified that she was awake during the surgery. She stated that she was in pain during the surgery and complained, in Spanish, to Respondent. K.H. stated that Respondent told her she had “a little stubborn fat” and continued the procedure without doing anything to alleviate her pain. K.H. testified that all conversation during the procedure was in Spanish. She heard no English being spoken. K.H. confirmed that Dr. Kantzler was the physician who signed the letter requesting that she be excused from work immediately after her surgery. Dr. Kantzler testified that he had no specific recollection of K.H. or of her procedure. He stated that he worked on a contract basis with OMC for about three years. He came in about once a week to perform liposuction procedures, conforming to the protocols established by Dr. Edathodu. He saw the patients only briefly before their procedures, relying on Respondent to perform the patient consultations and Dr. Edathodu to prescribe the pre-operative tests in her role as medical director. He was paid by the procedure. Dr. Kantzler testified that he does not speak Spanish, but that his surgical assistants, Respondent and Mr. Barcelo, would often converse in Spanish during surgery. Dr. Kantzler reviewed the medical records and confirmed that he signed the documents and performed the surgery on K.H.: Q. Is there any doubt in your mind about whether or not you performed these procedures? A. Not when I’m looking at the files, no. Q. And if you had not done the procedures, would you have signed off on the documentation? A. I wouldn’t have had them to sign. No. Dr. Kantzler’s lack of a clear recollection distinguishes this procedure from those involving Dr. Edathodu. However, an offsetting distinguishing factor is that K.H. had a clear recollection of seeing and speaking with Dr. Kantzler at OMC on the morning of her surgery. She did not see him enter the surgical suite or hear him speak during the procedure, but she was unable to say that he was not in the room. The medical record is replete with indications that Dr. Kantzler performed the liposuction and fat transfer procedure on K.H. Dr. Kantzler testified that he voluntarily relinquished his Florida medical license in 2017 “for my own reasons not relevant to this [case].” The Department’s Proposed Recommended Order suggests that this relinquishment was “in response to or in anticipation of disciplinary proceedings.” There is no record evidence to support the Department’s suggestion, and it is disregarded here. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient K.H.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Claudia Patricia Orozco-Fandino, E.O. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2019.
