The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for an alleged violation of Chapters 395 and 401, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. HCA Raulerson is the only hospital in Okeechobee County, Florida. As such, it serves all of Okeechobee County and parts of the surrounding counties. It is a small community hospital that is best characterized as a primary care receiving facility as opposed to a secondary hospital or a tertiary care or trauma center hospital. The Hospital does not provide heart-bypass surgery, cardiac catherization, neuro-surgery services or even obstetrical services (other than the emergency delivery of babies.) The Hospital provided approximately three million dollars in uncompensated care to indigent residents of Okeechobee County in the year preceding the incident involved in this case. Under existing Florida law, a hospital is not required to provide either orthopedic surgery services or peripheral vascular services and there is no requirement for a hospital to have on its medical staff any orthopedic surgeons or peripheral vascular surgeons. The Hospital does not have the angiography equipment necessary for peripheral vascular surgery. As a result, the Hospital does not provide peripheral vascular surgery and there are no vascular surgeons on staff. Such services were not offered at the Hospital for at least several months prior to the incident in question. The Hospital has a single orthopedic surgeon on staff, Dr. Zafar Kureshi. Dr. Kureshi is board certified in orthopedic surgery. He has been engaged in the private practice of medicine in Okeechobee, Florida since October of 1986. While many of Dr. Kureshi's patients are treated at the Hospital, Dr. Kureshi is not employed by or under contract with the Hospital. This arrangement is not unusual since surgeons, including orthopedic and vascular surgeons, do not typically become employees of hospitals or enter into contracts with hospitals. The Hospital has tried to recruit additional orthopedic surgeons and other specialists for its medical staff, but has been unsuccessful. There is a shortage of orthopedic surgeons in Florida, especially in rural areas, and recruiting orthopedic surgeons to such areas is extremely difficult. It is unrealistic to expect that the Hospital would be able to recruit or retain any orthopedic surgeons if it required them to be "on call" at all times. For a short time after he first obtained staff privileges, Dr. Kureshi provided "on call" services for the Hospital's emergency room several nights per month. On those occasions, he treated patients irrespective of their financial status. At the time of the incident in question, however, Dr. Kureshi had ceased providing "on call" services. His decision was consistent with the Hospital medical staff by-laws. The by-laws of the Hospital medical staff state that, if there is only one physician on staff in a specialty, then that specialty does not have to make emergency department call rosters available to the emergency room. Since he was the only specialist on staff in his area of practice, Dr. Kureshi was not required to provide "on call" coverage. Subsequent to the incident involved in this case, Dr. Kureshi, at the request of the Hospital, has voluntarily agreed to be "on-call" several nights per month. Even when Dr. Kureshi is not formally "on call," the emergency room staff often contacts him when a patient presents at the emergency room in need of orthopedic care. On some such occasions, Dr. Kureshi will treat the patient if he was capable of doing so. When an orthopedic patient or a peripheral vascular patient presents at the Hospital and Dr. Kureshi can not or will not treat the patient, the Hospital (1) provides such care as can be rendered by the emergency room physician or others on HCA Raulerson's medical staff, (2) stabilizes the patient for transfer, (3) calls hospitals and their on-call physicians to arrange transfer, and (4) arranges suitable transportation and transfers the patient. In the months preceding the incident in question, the Hospital arranged the transfer to other hospitals of approximately eleven patients who presented at the Hospital's emergency room in need of orthopedic care. Four of those patients were "paying" patients covered by third party insurers, four were covered by Medicare or Medicaid and the remaining three were self-pay patients. There is no indication that financial status and/or the ability to pay in any way influenced the Hospital's actions with respect to these patients. HRS contends that Sections 395.0142, 395.0143 and 401.45, Florida Statutes, require a hospital that provides any given specialty service (e.g., orthopedic surgery services) to arrange 24-hour a day, seven day a week coverage for that service, either by providing coverage through physicians on staff or entering into advance transfer agreements with other hospitals to cover any such patients who may present in need of such services. The Hospital has attempted, but has been unsuccessful in its attempts, to obtain advance transfer agreements from other hospitals regarding the transfer of patients presenting themselves at the Hospital's emergency room in need of orthopedic surgery services or in need of peripheral vascular surgery services. The Hospital has limited bargaining power in attempting to induce other hospitals to enter into an advance transfer agreement. Because the Hospital is a small rural hospital, virtually all the services it offers are already available at the neighboring hospitals which are potential transfer partners. The only advance transfer agreements that the Hospital has been offered would require the Hospital to assume full responsibility for payment for services rendered to transferred patients by the transferee hospital. Those proposals have been rejected because the financial burden of such an arrangement would probably cause the Hospital to close. As of August 24, 1989, the date of the incident which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint in this case, HRS had not notified the Hospital of any rule or policy interpreting Sections 395.0142, 395.0143, and 401.45, Florida Statutes. As of August 24, 1989, HRS had not adopted any rule which stated a specific requirement that hospitals which provide orthopedic surgery must staff or provide on-call orthopedic surgery services on a continuous basis, i.e. twenty-four (24) hours per day, 365 days per year or have in place an agreement with another hospital(s) to provide such coverage. HRS contends that this requirement is imposed by the clear language of the statutes. On the evening of August 24, 1989 at approximately 7:45 p.m., K.H., a 28 year old male, presented himself at the Hospital's emergency room for treatment of a shotgun wound to his lower left leg. Dr. Charles Vasser, the emergency room physician on duty when K.H. arrived, stabilized the Patient and provided all the treatment that could be provided by an emergency room physician not trained in orthopedic surgery or vascular surgery. The radiology report prepared at the Hospital diagnosed the Patient's condition as follows: "focal soft tissue injury, with multiple metallic fragments of variable size, super imposed over soft tissues of distal right leg are noted. Comminuted compound fracture of distal tibial shaft, as well as linear fracture through distal fibula at same site, are observed. Findings are due to gun shot injury with residual bullet fragments within soft tissues. Correlation with patient's clinical findings is recommended." Because of the nature of the injury and the extent of the damage to the soft tissue of the Patient's lower leg, Dr. Vasser and the attending staff were concerned about the possibility of vascular damage. They frequently checked and charted the Patient's distal pulses. While the distal pulses appeared normal, the presence of distal pulses does not rule out vascular injury. A vascular injury is possible with a comminuted fracture even when the distal pedal pulses appear normal. A vascular problem is especially likely when the wound was inflicted by a shotgun blast and numerous metallic fragments are involved. After providing initial emergency room services to the Patient, Dr. Vasser felt that the assistance of appropriate specialists, i.e., an orthopedic surgeon and at least a consult with a vascular surgeon, would be required for further treatment. Dr. Vasser called the only orthopedic surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff, Dr. Zafar Kureshi, at 8:50 p.m. Dr. Kureshi was not on call that evening. Based on Dr. Vasser's description of K.H.'s condition, Dr. Kureshi stated that he was not capable of treating K.H. without the backup availability of a vascular surgeon and advised that K.H. should be transferred. This recommendation was made not only because Dr. Kureshi was not on call, but also because Dr. Kureshi was not capable of treating the Patient at an acceptable level of medical care without the availability of a vascular surgeon. As indicated in Findings of Fact 3 above, there are no vascular surgeons on staff at the Hospital and the Hospital does not offer vascular surgery services. In determining whether a patient needs the services of a physician in a particular specialty, the Hospital relies upon the medical judgment of the attending physician and any consulting physician. The Hospital did not and should not have ignored the medical determination made by the emergency room physician, in consultation with Dr. Kureshi, that the Patient, K.H., needed vascular backup in order to be properly treated. With the assistance of emergency technician Wendy Johns, Dr. Vasser began placing calls to other hospitals and their on-call physicians at 9:15 p.m. in an effort to arrange a transfer of the Patient. The first physician contacted through another hospital, Dr. Floyd, indicated that he would be unable to treat the Patient because of the extent of the soft-tissue injuries and the corresponding likelihood of vascular involvement. A number of additional hospitals and physicians were contacted and they also refused to accept the transfer of the Patient. All told, nineteen different physicians and/or hospitals were contacted between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. A variety of reasons were cited by those who refused to accept the transfer. Many of the reasons given for refusing the transfer were arguably a pretext and/or contravened the language and intent of Sections 395.0142, 395.0143 and 395.0144, Florida Statutes. Several of the doctors who were contacted confirmed that the treatment of the Patient would require the availability of a vascular surgeon as well as an orthopedist. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to transfer the Patient, Dr. Vasser contacted a general surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff, Dr. Husain, at approximately 12:10 a.m. Dr. Vasser and Dr. Husain again contacted Dr. Kureshi. The three physicians concurred that they were unable to treat the Patient because of the need for a vascular backup and the Hospital's inability to provide the necessary vascular backup. After he talked to Dr. Kureshi the second time, Dr. Vasser resumed calling other hospitals and their on-call physicians. The next call was to a vascular surgeon, Dr. Viamentes. Dr. Viamentes was reached through his beeper, but was unable to accept the transfer because he was out of town. At approximately 12:30 a.m., a social worker for the Hospital, Terry Cooper, contacted St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach. After some discussion and deliberation, St. Mary's agreed to accept the transfer of K.H. The Patient was transferred in stable condition via ambulance to St. Mary's Hospital where he arrived at approximately 3:00 a.m. Surgery was initiated at approximately 4:30 a.m. After the Patient was admitted to St. Mary's Hospital, the administration of that hospital filed a complaint with HRS pursuant to Section 395.0142, Florida Statutes. That complaint recites the facts surrounding the transfer of the Patient and the refusal of several other hospitals to accept the transfer. It is not clear whether St. Mary's was questioning the medical necessity of the transfer or simply the refusal of the other hospitals to accept the transfer. HRS initiated an investigation of the transfer of the Patient and submitted the Patient's medical records from both HCA Raulerson and St. Mary's to its expert, Dr. Slevenski, for review. Dr. Slevenski is an emergency room physician who has no specialized training in orthopedic surgery or vascular surgery. Dr. Slevenski testified that he saw no evidence in the Hospital's medical records that a vascular evaluation or consultation was necessary to treat this Patient and that the Hospital inappropriately transferred the Patient to another hospital. Dr. Slevenski's opinions are rejected. Dr. Slevenski erroneously assumed that the Hospital had not attempted to contact an orthopedic surgeon regarding the Patient. In fact, the Hospital contacted Dr. Kureshi, the only orthopedic surgeon on its staff, who indicated he was not qualified to treat the Patient's injury. The evidence established that both the emergency room physician and the orthopedic surgeon who was contacted at home felt that a vascular consult was necessary. These opinions were reasonable under the circumstances. The testimony of Dr. Henderson, the Respondent's expert, is accepted and confirms that the opinions of the emergency room physician and the orthopedic surgeon were reasonable under the circumstances and given the nature of the Patient's injury. There is no evidence that the Patient's care was deficient in any respect at either St. Mary's or the Hospital. The Patient progressed normally and a good result was achieved. In sum, the evidence established that the Hospital secured appropriate treatment for K.H. by providing an on-site emergency room physician and supporting staff who (1) provided immediate emergency care and stabilized the patient for transfer, (2) confirmed with the orthopedic surgeon on the Hospital's medical staff that a transfer was medically necessary, (3) called hospitals and their on-call physicians to arrange the transfer, and (4) arranged suitable transportation and transfer of the patient. The Hospital provided all the care that it could within its service capability. In view of his injury, the Patient's best interests were served by transferring him rather than treating him at the Hospital. The evidence did not establish whether K.H. was a paying or nonpaying patient. The evidence did establish that the decision to transfer K.H. was not based on his financial status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint filed against HCA Raulerson Hospital. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of January, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Medicine should discipline the Respondent's license on charges that he committed medical malpractice in violation of section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2012), in his treatment of patient H.S. on December 1, 2012. (All statutory and rule references are to those in effect on December 1, 2012.)
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John G. Bennett, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license ME 48950. His only prior discipline was in 1988 for violations not charged in this case; it resulted in two years of probation. In December 2012, the Respondent was a general practitioner working part-time for an entity called Doctors Housecalls Limited (Doctors Housecalls), which provided concierge medical care to visitors to the Miami area residing short-term in area hotels and other rental properties. When requested by a resident, the concierge would contact Doctors Housecalls by telephone and relay pertinent contact information. Doctors Housecalls would telephone a physician on its staff and relay the contact information. The physician would telephone the patient or visit the patient to initiate a doctor-patient relationship. Usually, telephone contact would result in a subsequent in-person visit with the patient. The patient would pay by cash, credit card, or insurance. Medicare and Medicaid were not accepted. The Respondent testified that on December 1, 2012, while he was either driving to dinner or already at a local restaurant, he received a call from Doctors Housecalls on his cell phone. He was given contact information for H.S. The Respondent used his cell phone to call H.S. and establish a doctor-patient relationship. The patient testified that his eyes had become irritated during a business trip to Miami Beach in December 2012. He thought he might have gotten suntan lotion in his eyes while at poolside. He called his optometrist in Pennsylvania and was given a prescription over the phone, which he filled and started taking. Although the patient could not recall the name of the medication, the evidence was clear that it was Tobramycin, an antibiotic eye drop. His Pennsylvania optometrist told the patient to go to an emergency room or get care from a local doctor if his eyes got worse. When the patient's eye irritation got worse, H.S. called the concierge where he was staying and eventually talked to the Respondent on the telephone. The patient testified that he reported the essentials of his eye problem to the Respondent--namely, that his were irritated from the suntan lotion and from the Tobramycin prescription. He testified that, in response, the Respondent prescribed a different eye drop and told him to follow up with his primary care doctor when he returned to Pennsylvania. The eye drop the Respondent prescribed was Predforte (prednisolone acetate), which is a steroid and a legend drug. The brief interaction between the Respondent and the patient was entirely by telephone. The Respondent did not see the patient in person and did not see any patient medical records or any photograph or other image of the patient's eye. The Respondent testified that initially he asked to see the patient to examine him to get a clearer picture of the patient's medical problem. He testified that the patient did not want to be seen. He testified that he then told the patient he would have to go to an emergency room and that the patient refused. He testified that he then asked some more questions and decided he could prescribe Predforte without seeing the patient. The patient denied that the Respondent asked for an in-person examination, told him to go to an emergency room, or asked him additional questions to ascertain if he could prescribe Predforte without seeing the patient. Specifically, the patient denied that the Respondent asked him if he wore contact lenses. (He normally wore them but took them out when his eyes became irritated.) He denied that the Respondent asked him if he had a history of cataracts, any recent eye surgeries, or ocular herpes. The Respondent testified that he asked these questions but did not notate the questions or the patient's negative answers in his only medical records from the encounter (which included a brief description of the presenting problems and the treatment plan in his telephone consultation form and descriptions of the diagnosis or nature of illness or injury and of the procedures, services, or supplies provided on his insurance claim form). The Respondent's testimony on these points does not ring true. While the emergency room would have taken time, the Respondent testified that he was very close to where the patient was staying when he placed the telephone call and could have gotten there to see the patient very quickly. Also, the Respondent's testimony on this point was inconsistent with the position he was taking at the hearing that the standard of care did not require him to see the patient before prescribing the Predforte. Taken as a whole, the evidence was clear and convincing that the Respondent did not insist on seeing patient H.S. and did not ask those specific questions before prescribing Predforte. At most, the Respondent may have asked a general question whether the patient had any other eye problems and gotten a negative answer. The patient's eyes got better, and he did not seek any further medical attention in Florida. About a week after his return to Pennsylvania, he followed up with his primary care doctor. By then, his eyes were better. It is not clear from the evidence why the patient's eyes got better. DOH's expert, Dr. Eugene Crouch, testified that the Respondent's treatment of H.S. was below the standard of care. He testified that it was necessary to physically examine the patient's eye, front and back using an ophthalmoscope. He testified that it also was necessary for the Respondent to get a complete medical history, including when the problem started, the circumstances that might have caused it, if the patient was taking medication that could have caused it, if there were vision changes, if the patient smoked cigarettes, if the patient was seen for the problem by another treating physician, if there was drainage coming from the eye, if the patient wore contact lenses, or if the patient had cataracts, glaucoma, recent eye surgeries, or ocular herpes. Although it is rare, ruling out ocular herpes is especially important because the steroid prescribed by the Respondent "blunts the immune system, so the virus would take over, which is potentially devastating [and] an absolute crisis at that point." Dr. Crouch testified convincingly that the eye is "tricky" for a general practitioner to diagnose and treat, and the consequences of falling below the standard of care can be serious. Contrary to the Respondent's suggestion, he did not meet the standard of care by prescribing Predforte and telling the patient to seek further treatment if the problem got worse. Dr. Crouch did not review the Board's rule 64B8-9.014 on the standards for telemedicine prescribing practice, or determine whether the Respondent complied with it, before reaching his opinion on the standard of care. Neither the rule nor the Respondent's compliance with it affected Dr. Crouch's opinion. Regardless of that and other efforts to impeach Dr. Crouch's credibility, Dr. Crouch's opinion is accepted and is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent did not meet the standard of care in his treatment of patient H.S. The Respondent takes the position that DOH is estopped from charging him with medical malpractice under section 458.331(1)(t) because it waived that charge by agreeing to dismiss, with prejudice, the count charging a violation of rule 64B8-9.014. To the contrary, it is clear that DOH had no intention of waiving the medical malpractice charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of one count of medical malpractice in violation of section 458.331(1)(t), fining him $5,000, placing him on one year of indirect supervision probation with appropriate terms and conditions, and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 29th day of July, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Andre Ourso, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-03 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3253 (eServed) Daniel Hernandez, Interim General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Ronald Chapman, Esquire Chapman Law Group 1834 Main Street Sarasota, Florida 34236-5912 Steven D. Brownlee, Esquire Chapman Law Group 1834 Main Street Sarasota, Florida 34236-5912 (eServed) Jack F. Wise, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Yolonda Y. Green, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, committed medical malpractice in delivering a baby and/or failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of the mother's treatment; if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's medical license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Mark N. Scheinberg, M.D., was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida. He is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Dr. Scheinberg. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Scheinberg committed two such offenses——namely, medical malpractice and failure to keep records justifying the course of treatment——in connection with the vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery of an infant born to Patient L.G. on February 2, 2005, at West Boca Medical Center. The crux of this case (though not the sole issue) is whether, as the Department contends, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg to perform a Caesarean section ("C- section") on L.G. due to the passage of time, instead of allowing her to continue to labor for approximately 13 hours and, ultimately, deliver vaginally. The events giving rise to this dispute began on February 1, 2005, at around 11:00 a.m., when L.G., whose pregnancy was at term, checked into the hospital after having experienced ruptured membranes. At 12:30 p.m. that day, L.G. signed a form bearing the title "Authorization for Medical and/or Surgical Treatment," which manifested her consent to a vaginal delivery or C-section together with, among other things, "such additional operations or procedures as [her physicians might] deem necessary." Immediately above L.G.'s signature on the form is an affirmation: "The above procedures, with their attendant risks, benefits and possible complications and alternatives, have been explained to me " The evidence is not clear as to when, exactly, Dr. Scheinberg first saw L.G., but that fact is unimportant. The medical records reflect that at 8:30 p.m. on February 1, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg gave a telephone order to initiate an IV push of the antibiotic Ampicillin; therefore, he had taken charge of L.G.'s care by that time. The nurses' notes indicate that at 10:00 p.m., L.G.'s cervix had dilated to "rim" or approximately nine centimeters—— meaning that the dilation was complete, or nearly so. At this time, and throughout the duration of L.G.'s labor, an external fetal heart monitor was in place to detect and record the baby's heartbeats and the mother's uterine contractions. An intrauterine pressure catheter ("IUPC")——a device that precisely measures the force of uterine contractions——was not inserted into L.G.'s uterus at any time during this event. The Department argues (although it did not allege in the Complaint) that, at some point during L.G.'s labor, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg either to place an IUPC or perform a C-section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 10, ¶36. The Department's expert witness, Dr. John Busowski, testified unequivocally and unconditionally, however, that the standard of care does not require the use of an IUPC. T. 36. The undersigned credits this evidence and finds that Dr. Scheinberg's nonuse of an IUPC did not breach the standard of care. Dr. Scheinberg conducted a physical at around 2:00 a.m. on February 2, 2005, which included taking L.G.'s complete history and performing a vaginal examination. L.G.'s cervix remained dilated to approximately nine centimeters, and her labor had not substantially progressed for about four hours. Dr. Scheinberg noted in L.G.'s chart that the baby was in the posterior position at 2:00 a.m. The Department argues, based on Dr. Busowski's testimony, that as of 2:00 a.m., the standard of care required [Dr. Scheinberg to] choose one of the following options: (1) watch the patient for a few more hours to allow for progress; (2) place an IUPC to determine the adequacy of Patient L.G.'s contractions; (3) start Pitocin without the placement of an IUPC; or (4) perform a C- section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 9-10, ¶ 32. The Department contends that Dr. Scheinberg breached the standard of care by choosing "simply to watch the patient for approximately 10 more hours"—— which was tantamount to "choosing to do nothing." Id. at 10, ¶¶ 33-34. In fact, Dr. Scheinberg chose to watch the patient, which was, according to Dr. Busowski, within the standard of care. Obviously, at 2:00 in the morning on February 2, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg did not choose to wait for 10 more hours, because at that point he (unlike the parties to this litigation) did not know what was about to happen. The nurses' notes reflect that L.G. was under close observation throughout the early morning hours, and that Dr. Scheinberg was following the situation. At 4:30 a.m., L.G. was set up to push and at 4:45 a.m. was pushing well. At 6:15 a.m., the notes indicate that Dr. Scheinberg was aware of the mother's attempts to push. At 6:45 a.m., he reviewed the strips from the fetal heart monitor. At 7:45 a.m., he was present and aware of L.G.'s status. From 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., no contractions were identifiable on the external monitor. At 8:00 a.m., however, L.G. was comfortable and pushing well. She stopped pushing at 8:30 a.m., but remained comfortable. Dr. Scheinberg then ordered the administration of Pitocin, a medicine which is used to strengthen contractions and hasten delivery. Although the Department faults Dr. Scheinberg for giving L.G. Pitocin at this relatively late stage of her labor, Dr. Busowski (the Department's expert witness) admitted being unable to say "that Dr. Scheinberg should have started Pitocin earlier " T. 72. The Department therefore has no clear evidential basis for second-guessing Dr. Scheinberg's professional judgment in this particular, and neither does the undersigned. At 9:10 a.m., L.G. resumed pushing. The baby's fetal heart tones (heartbeats) were stable. L.G. continued pushing, with her family present, until around 11:00 a.m., at which time Dr. Scheinberg discussed the situation with the patient and her family. Dr. Scheinberg explained to L.G. or her husband the risks of, and alternatives to, performing a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. Either L.G. or her husband gave verbal consent to the use of a vacuum device to assist in the delivery. Between 11:00 a.m. and 11:10 a.m., the fetal heart monitor detected some variable decelerations, meaning a decrease in heart rate that could be a sign of fetal distress. Dr. Scheinberg delivered the baby at 11:23 a.m., using a vacuum device to help pull the infant out of the birth canal. In his post-operative notes, Dr. Scheinberg wrote that his "pre-operative diagnosis" was "+3 station — prolonged second stage 2½ hrs." As a "post-operative diagnosis," Dr. Scheinberg recorded, "same + tight cord." He reported the following "findings": "tight cord cut on perineum[;] mec[onium] aspirated on perineum."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Dr. Scheinberg not guilty of the charges set forth in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., committed violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2001), alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner on February 25, 2004, in DOH Case Number 2002- 16502, as amended; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice as a physician assistant in 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 and physician’s assistants licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician's assistant licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number PA 9100713. Mr. Carmouze's address of record at all times relevant to this matter is 6545 Southwest 95th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33173. No evidence that Mr. Carmouze has previously been the subject of a license disciplinary proceeding was offered. Mr. Carmouze's Supervising Physician. At the times relevant Mr. Carmouze worked under the supervision of Dr. Manuel Fernandez-Gonzalez, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who has practiced emergency medicine, holds Florida medical license number ME 17907. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez currently practices family medicine at 9600 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to April 2002, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze worked together in Miami, providing emergency room care and seeing patients at a nursing home. The emergency room services were provided pursuant to employment contracts that both had entered into with a company providing emergency room services at the hospital in south Florida where Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze provided services. Mr. Carmouze's Assignment to Weems Memorial Hospital. The company for which Mr. Carmouze was employed also provided emergency room services for Weems Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Weems"). Weems is located in Apalachicola, Florida, located in the Florida Panhandle, approximately 520 miles from Miami. Weems is a rural hospital, licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. It does not have 24-hour, on-site ancillary services such as X-ray, laboratory, and respiratory therapy. These services are available to the emergency room on an on-call basis after business hours. At the times relevant, Malvinder Ajit, M.D., a Florida licensed physician, was the Director of the Emergency Department at Weems. Dr. Ajit has not provided any documentation to the Department indicating that he has ever acted as supervising physician of record for Mr. Carmouze. Mr. Carmouze was assigned by the company by which he was employed to work in the emergency room at Weems in April 2002 and again in June 2002. He worked in the emergency room at Weems as a physician's assistant for part of April 2002, and part of June 2002. While at Weems, Mr. Carmouze provided emergency room medical services to more than 100 patients. While working at Weems, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who remained in Miami, continued to act as Mr. Carmouze's supervising physician. Mr. Carmouze did not notify the Department that he was practicing as a physician's assistant at Weems in April or June 2002. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was working for, and thus "employed," by anyone different from the employer that he worked for in Miami. The only evidence on this issue proved that Mr. Carmouze continued throughout the relevant period to work for Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and the company that provided emergency room services at Weems. Dr. Carmouze's Treatment of Patient A.M. On June 7, 2002, Patient A.M., an 84-year-old female, was brought to the emergency room (hereinafter referred to as the "ER"), at Weems by ambulance. She arrived at approximately 23:24 hours (11:24 p.m.). A.M.'s medical history included congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. She presented to Mr. Carmouze in apparent respiratory distress (respiratory rate of 36 to 40), had no measurable blood pressure, and a pulse rate of 100 to 108. While being transported to the ER from her home, A.M. was given oxygen by rebreather mask. During her transport, her oxygen saturation level improved from 68% to 91%. Mr. Carmouze assessed A.M.'s condition, obtained her medical history, ordered lab work and other tests, and ordered and initiated nebulizer treatments for her. She was alert, oriented and had a Glasgow score of 15/15, indicating she was responding to verbal and pain stimuli. Mr. Carmouze ordered nebulizer treatments with albuterol and atrovent to assist her breathing. Additionally, A.M. received 100% oxygen through a nonrebreather mask. Mr. Carmouze also determined that A.M. was "dry," meaning that her fluid volume was depleted and, therefore, she was dehydrated. As a result, her blood pressure was low. In an effort to treat this condition, Mr. Carmouze ordered an I.V. with 0.9 normal saline. He also ordered a Dopamine drip to increase A.M.'s heart rate in an effort to increase her blood pressure. Mr. Carmouze appropriately denied a request from a nurse to administer Lasix to A.M., because A.M. was "dry." Lasix is a diuretic used to decrease fluid volume. It opens the arteries and reduces fluids, thereby lowering blood pressure. Lasix was contraindicated for A.M. and contrary to the appropriate efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze to treat A.M.'s low blood pressure. Despite Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M., her condition continued to deteriorate. At or near 23:50 hours (11:50 p.m.), approximately 25 minutes after A.M. had arrived at the ER, an ER nurse contacted A.M.'s primary physician by telephone and obtained an order to administer Lasix to A.M. The Lasix was administered immediately. A.M.'s oxygen saturation level was 81%, down 10 points since her arrival, when the Lasix was administered. Within half an hour, at 0:18 hours (18 minutes after midnight) on June 8, 2002, A.M.'s oxygen saturation level had dropped another 10 points, to 71%. A.M. then "crashed and coded." Mr. Carmouze initiated appropriate emergency measures when A.M. coded, including initiating Cardio Pulmonary Recitation and endotracheal intubation. A.M. was given epinephrine, atropine, and a CVP line was placed. These actions by Mr. Carmouze were appropriate. Mr. Carmouze did not attempt or order that A.M. be intubated prior to 0:18 hours when she coded. A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, arrived at the ER. Shortly after she coded, Dr. Sanaullah continued the same efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze. A.M., however, did not recover, expiring at 01:00. The "Standard of Care" for Treating A.M. Four expert witnesses testified in this matter, rendering opinions as to whether Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M. was consistent with "that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar [physician assistant] as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. . . " (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard of Care"). The expert witnesses who testified were Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, Dr. Julio Lora, Dr. Harry W. Lee, and James L. Cary, P.A. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony as to whether Mr. Carmouze treated A.M. within the Standard of Care is rejected for lack of credibility. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony has been found to lack credibility for the reasons explained by Petitioner in paragraph 25 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order. That paragraph, except for the last two sentences, is hereby adopted. Additionally, Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez's testimony is rejected because, in the undersigned's judgment, he made too much of an effort to give the answers that he appeared to conclude that Mr. Carmouze wanted him to give. The testimony of Dr. Lora on the other hand is found to be credible. Dr. Lora, testifying as an expert in cardiology and internal medicine, offered convincing explanations as to why Mr. Carmouze did not violate the Standard of Care in his overall treatment of A.M. and, in particular, in not attempting to intubate A.M. earlier than he did. Dr. Lee's testimony, while corroborating Dr. Lora's testimony, was cumulative and of little weight. A.M. was reported to be awake, alert, and oriented. She was breathing, albeit with difficulty, on her own. Therefore, it was appropriate for Mr. Carmouze to attempt the other measures to assist her breathing he instituted. Mr. Cary's testimony, while credible, was not convincing, especially given Dr. Lora's expert opinions. Mr. Cary's testimony was taken during a discovery deposition by Respondent and, as a result, the benefit of his testimony to Petitioner's case was limited. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze violated the standard of care: In his treatment of A.M.; By failing "to contact his supervising physician, the ED director, and/or Patient A.M.'s primary physician for assistance in treating Patient A.M."; By failing "to identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M."; and By failing "to consult his supervising physician prior to ordering Demerol, a controlled substance, for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M." Mr. Carmouze's Treatment Plan and Medical Records for Patient A.M. Mr. Carmouze, as the Department has conceded in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 13, page 20, did identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M. Having found that Mr. Carmouze did not err when he did not initiate intubation of A.M. earlier than he did, the evidence failed to prove that "he failed to maintain medical records that justified the course of treatment in that he failed to record a reason for not intubating sooner in an attempt to address Patient A.M.'s respiratory distress." There is no indication in Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. that Mr. Carmouze attempted to contact Dr. Ajit or Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez. The medical records do indicate, however, that A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, was "notified and arrived for code." While the evidence did not prove who notified Dr. Sanaullah, Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was not responsible for Dr. Sanaullah's notification. Mr. Carmouze failed to identify himself by name or professional title in A.M.'s medical records. He also failed to include Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's name and title in A.M.'s medical records. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on A.M.'s medical records. While the quality of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. was correctly characterized as "minimally acceptable" by Mr. Cary, the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that those medical records were not adequate. This finding is based upon the lack of an unequivocal opinion from Mr. Cary concerning the adequacy of the medical records and a comparison of Mr. Cary's opinions with those of Dr. Lee in support of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for Patient A.M. Mr. Cary, on the one hand, made the following negative comments about Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M: "[T]he record isn't really clear on what did happen because he did not write down any times on intervention of what he did." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 14; "[W]hen you look at this face sheet here you don't get a picture of what happened and at what time, there's no real times there, no progression of the treatment." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 67. Mr. Cary stated that there was no time noted in Patient A.M.'s history/physical section, and that a portion of that section was illegible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 21 and 25. On the other hand, Mr. Cary stated that "[the medical record for A.M.] is minimally acceptable, it just doesn't give a good clear picture of the sequence of events." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 68. Mr. Cary also stated the following when asked if he thought Mr. Carmouze maintained medical records that justified the course of his treatment regarding Patient A.M.: "There were medical records that were there, I think they could have been more complete and more detailed . . . ." These statements, taking into account the fact that Mr. Cary was able to read almost all of Mr. Carmouze's medical record pertaining to A.M. on direct examination by counsel for Mr. Carmouze, reduces the effectiveness of his other opinions. Finally, it is noted that all of Mr. Carmouze's experts, along with Mr. Cary, were able to read Mr. Carmouze's notes, other than a word or two. Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Patient C.M. On April 23, 2002, Patient C.M., a 20-year-old male presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.M. complained of a server headache. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient J.S. On April 24, 2002, Patient J.S., a 37-year-old female presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. J.S. complained of a burn. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient B.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient B.M., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. B.M. complained of a headache of two-days' duration. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 25 milligrams of Demerol administered to B.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for B.M. a diagnosis of scabies/headache cluster, severe. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for B.M. Patient R.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient R.M., a 73-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.M. complained of abdominal pain and constipation of several days’ duration. In patient part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to R.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.M. a diagnosis of abdominal pain, impaction. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.M. Patient M.F. On April 25, 2002, Patient M.F., a 34-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.F. complained of left-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to M.F. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.F. a diagnosis of left-flank pain, left nephrolithiasis. Patient G.C. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.C., a 20-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.C. complained of right-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Patient G.B. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.B., an 83-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.B. complained of wrist, knee, and leg pain, secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for G.B. a diagnosis of chest contusion, leg edema, and right Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for G.B. Patient K.S. On June 8, 2002, Patient K.S., an 18-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. K.S. complained of lower back pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.S. a diagnosis of intractable back pain, trauma to spine. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Patient C.W. On June 8, 2002, Patient C.W., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.W. complained of headache and dizziness. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for C.W. a diagnosis of headache and anemia. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for C.W. Patient M.A.C. On June 9, 2002, Patient M.A.C., a 49-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.A.C. complained of pain in the lower right abdomen and back. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.A.C. a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and abdominal pain. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for M.A.C. Patient R.S. On June 9, 2002, Patient R.S., a 34-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of shoulder pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.S. a diagnosis of right shoulder tendon tear. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.S. Patient K.M. On June 11, 2002, Patient K.M., a 52-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of wrist pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.M. a diagnosis of a Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Facts Common to Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Mr. Carmouze did not note in his medical records for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Pain Patients "), that he had consulted with Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit prior to ordering Demerol for the Pain Patients. Demerol is a controlled substance. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez' testimony regarding alleged consultations he had with Mr. Carmouze concerning the Pain Patients and other patients seen by Mr. Carmouze while at Weems is rejected as lacking credibility for the reasons explained, supra. Mr. Carmouze also failed to note in the medical records for the Pain Patients his name and professional title. His name was stamped on the Emergency Room Record he completed for Patients M.A.C., G.M., and R.S. His name was also written into the space under "Time/Initials" on the Emergency Room Record for Patients M.A.C., C.W., R.M., and J.S. None of these records, however, included his title of "physician assistant." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the Pain Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to ensure that the signature of Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit was included in the medical records of the Pain Patients. The Other "106 Patients". While at Weems ER, Mr. Carmouze provided medical services, in addition to A.M. and Pain Patients, to 106 other patients at issue in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "106 Patients"). Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 is a composite exhibit of medical records for the 106 Patients. There are approximately two patients for whom more than one medical record has been included in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. The foregoing findings relate to the 108 medical records for the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to note in most of the medical records for the 106 Patients his name and professional title. Of the approximately 108 records, Mr. Carmouze's name does not appear in any fashion on 48 of them. The rest either include his name (but not title) either stamped on the record or written into the box titled "Time/Initials." On two of the medical records both Mr. Carmouze's name and "P.A." have been written into the box titled "Time/Initials." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on the medical records of the 106 Patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., has violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and (v), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; issuing a reprimand; placing Mr. Carmouze's license on probation for one year; requiring that he pay an administrative fine of $5,000.00; requiring that he perform five hours of CME in a subject(s) determined appropriate by the Board; and suspending his license for six months (with the suspension stayed provided he complies with probation). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 13th day of December, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Levine Matthew Casey Assistants General Counsel Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Julie Gallagher, Esquire Greenberg Taurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. M. Rony François, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
