The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be disciplined for allegedly practicing medicine below the generally accepted standard of care when he performed a laminectomy and discectomy at the incorrect level of a patient's lumbar spine.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, William O. DeWeese, is a Florida licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 0025687. Respondent is Board-certified in Neurological Surgery and is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons. He has practiced medicine since graduating from medical school in 1968. He received his Florida license in 1975 and established his practice in Tampa where he has continuously practiced medicine ever since. In twenty-four years of practice, the Florida Board of Medicine has never disciplined Respondent. Respondent's Standard Practice Respondent conducts his practice primarily through two local hospitals, St. Joseph’s Hospital and University Community Hospital. He has a typical practice common to neurological surgery. On average, Respondent performs three to four laminectomy-discectomy procedures each week. Before performing surgery on the spine, Respondent’s protocol is to review available medical records and films (CT, MRI, X-ray), obtain an EKG, obtain chest X-rays, and blood work. During surgery, he routinely obtains "real time" radiological confirmation of the level of the spine where he intends to operate based on his initial pre-surgical work-up. Respondent does this by marking the level where surgery is to take place with radio-opaque material (usually a cottonoid sponge), and has an X-ray film of the patient's spine and the marker exposed and developed in the operatory (OR). Respondent reviews the X-ray in the OR before having the X-ray technician take it to the radiology department for review by a radiologist. The radiologist on duty reviews the X-ray and usually writes on the X-ray to label the location of the marker and has the technician bring the labeled X-ray back to the OR; he then calls the OR, usually on a speaker telephone, to inform the surgeon as to the radiologist's interpretation of the film. Any question as to the level of surgery is resolved at that time. If Respondent is not at the intended level of the spine, he makes the appropriate adjustment in the surgical procedure and completes the surgery at the correct level. The First Surgery S.D. first presented to Respondent in November 1989 with complaints and symptoms of intractable back and left leg pain. She had been seen previously by other physicians but had not experienced any relief. At the time she presented to Respondent, S.D. was 5 feet 5 inches tall and obese (at 175 pounds). Unbeknownst to Respondent at the time, the patient also had an anatomical anomaly of six lumbar vertebrae instead of the more common five. As a result of the patient's anatomical anomaly, physicians could easily be misled, fooled, or misunderstood in reporting the level of spine being evaluated or treated. Depending upon awareness of the patient's specific anomaly and terminology used, the same location on the spine could be referred to as L4-L5, as L5-S1, or as L5-L6. Usually, neurosurgeons can predict the location of nerve root pathology fairly accurately based solely on a patient's complaints, objective examination, and symptoms. Specific nerves innervate specific areas of the body, and a deficit in one area of the body can reasonably lead a physician to suspect nerve root pathology at a particular level of the spine. Because Respondent was unable to determine from initial review of the patient's prior MRI that she had a sixth vertebra, he expected to find nerve root pathology at the L5-S1 level of the spine based on S.D.'s complaints, objective examination, and symptoms. But on X-ray and re-review of the MRI with benefit of the radiologist’s report, Respondent noted the sixth vertebra. Following a complete examination of S.D., including review of a recent CT scan, her prior MRI study, and X-ray films, Respondent believed that S.D. had a "large disc protrusion" at the L5-L6 level of the spine and a "small disc bulge" at the L4- L5 level. The patient's extra lumbar vertebra helped explain the location of the patient's nerve root pathology in relation to her complaints, objective examination, and symptoms. Respondent recommended that S.D. undergo lumbar surgery to explore the disc spaces, remove extruded disc material, and free any entrapped nerves. He expected to have to remove disc material only at the L5-L6 level. His pre-operative diagnosis was: degenerative lumbar disc with lateral angle stenosis (narrowing) at L5-L6; and possible disc protrusion at the L4-L5 level on the left. Respondent performed surgery on S.D. on December 4, 1989. The operation consisted of: a left laminectomy, exploration and inspection of the L4-L5 disc; and a laminotomy, foraminotomy, and partial discectomy at L5-L6. To accomplish the surgery, Respondent dissected away the soft tissues above L4, L5, L6, and S1. He then followed his protocol by placing radio-opaque cotton underneath the ligament at the level he believed was L4-L5 for radiological confirmation. After "real time" radiological confirmation that he was at L4-L5, Respondent removed enough lamina at L4-L5 to inspect the disc and nerve root. He did not observe any entrapment of the nerve and did nothing further at L4-L5. He next proceeded to L5- L6, where he repeated the same procedure but noted entrapment at the posterior aspect of the nerve root. The majority of the pressure on the nerve came from the neural foramen, and this was removed with osteotomy. Some disc material also was removed to free the nerve root. While inspecting the disc space at L5-L6, Respondent observed that the disc space was so narrow that a spinal needle was the thickest instrument that the disc space would receive; a straight pituitary curet could not be placed into the disc space. Respondent recorded these observations in his surgical notes. Similarly, the radiologist's report noted "considerable narrowing of the interspace at the L5-L6 level." Respondent completed the operation by performing a foraminotomy (removal of bone surrounding the point of exit of the nerve from the vertebras of the spinal column). The operation in December 1989 was uneventful; S.D. did well post-operatively and was discharged from the hospital after a normal stay. The Second Surgery S.D. returned to Respondent in March 1993 because of recurrent severe back pain and left leg pain. Following appropriate diagnostic tests and examination of S.D., which revealed what was thought to be a herniated disc on the left side at L5-L6, Respondent planned to "re-do" a laminectomy and discectomy at L5-L6. By the time of the patient's second surgery on May 10, 1993, she had gained about 40 pounds (up to 215 pounds.) The planned surgery was made more difficult by S.D.'s weight gain, as well as by her previous surgery. Additional fatty tissue decreased the operative field of view, as well as the quality of the intra- operative X-ray. S.D.'s anatomical landmarks had been altered as a result of the December 1989 surgery, and there was considerable scaring in the area to be explored during surgery, which obscured the remaining landmarks. Without the presence of normal landmarks and with heavy scaring and weight gain, Respondent had fewer tools to locate the correct level, making the second surgery more difficult. One landmark still available to Respondent to aid in the second surgery was the very narrow interspace at the L5-L6 level. However, Respondent did not the read surgical notes from the first surgery carefully enough to recall the landmark; or, if he read them and recalled the landmark, he attached little significance to the notes and landmark, as compared with other factors influencing his decisions during surgery. One of the reasons Respondent and his expert gave for not attaching more significance to the December 1989 findings as to the remarkably narrow L5-L6 interspace was that a patient's position on the Wilson laminectomy holder and the operation of the holder can alter the apparent width of lumbar interspaces. The holder is a special, adjustable operating table that can be made to "bridge up" in a continuous arc to force the patient (lying on the stomach) to stretch over the "bridge" and make the vertebral interspaces widen for easier access during surgery. While theoretically position on and operation of the holder can affect the width of the interspaces, in practice the surgeon always positions the patient and operates the holder so as to maximize the interspaces. One would not expect the positioning and operation of the holder in two operations at the same level of the lumbar spine to significantly widen an interspace as narrow as the one described in the December 1989 surgical notes. But it might reduce the relative importance of the landmark, compared to other information available to the surgeon, such as radiological confirmation and visual examination of the site. Through answers to his attorney's questions on direct, Respondent also initially attempted to take the position that the patient's weight gain between the two surgeries was enough to warrant ignoring the December 1989 surgical note as to the narrow L5-L6 interspace. But the Department's expert opined that the added weight would not make a significant difference, and on cross- examination Respondent admitted that he actually did not have the patient's weight gain in mind as a reason to gloss over the December 1989 surgical note as to the narrow L5-L6 interspace. Indeed, consistent with Respondent's admission on cross- examination, both Respondent and his expert, Dr. Maniscalco, opined that, if anything, the added weight probably would tend to reduce the maximum flexion obtainable through use of the Wilson laminectomy holder and make the interspaces at the surgical site appear narrower, not wider. Nonetheless, depending on its distribution on the patient, weight gain could possibly alter the apparent width of the interspace during surgery on a Wilson laminectomy holder, and this could also reduce the relative importance of the landmark, compared to other information available to the surgeon, such as radiological confirmation and visual examination of the site. While conceding that he really did not pay much attention to the December 1989 findings as to the remarkable narrowing of the L5-L6 interspace, Respondent also attempted to take the position in testimony that the L4-L5 interspace was fairly narrow itself, as compared for example to the L3-4 interspace. But the L5-L6 interspace clearly was much narrower than L4-L5 and could have been used as a landmark. See Findings 25 and 29, infra. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, the relatively narrow interspace at L-5-L6 was just one factor to be considered, along with radiological confirmation and visual examination. As Respondent wrote in his notes on May 10, 1993, he thought: "The previous laminectomy site was easily identified and confirmed with a lateral X-ray." The Department's expert took the use of the singular "previous laminectomy site" as evidence that Respondent was unaware of the previous laminectomy at L4-L5. But Respondent testified convincingly that he had reviewed the patient's medical records and was fully aware of both previous laminectomies--at both L5-L6 and L4-L5. (Respondent also testified that his use of the singular, "previous laminectomy site" was intended to mean the general site of both previous laminectomies. But it was the L5-L6 laminectomy site that he thought was "confirmed with a lateral X-ray," so it seems that the language used probably actually referred to the site of the intended surgery. In that respect, the wording of Respondent's surgical notes was ambiguous, if not erroneous.) As usual, an X-ray technician took the lateral X-ray, developed the film, and showed it to Respondent in the OR. Respondent testified that he then had the X-ray technician take the film to the radiology department, along with the pre-operative MRI, and that a radiologist on duty confirmed for him that he was at the "correct level" before he proceeded with the surgery. When Respondent proceeded with the surgery, he widened the laminectomy site and found a disc fragment (which he presumed to be recurrent) underneath and entrapping the nerve root. The nerve root was retracted medially, and the disc space was entered. A large fragment of disc was found in the subligamentous position. Respondent removed the large fragment; then more disc material was removed from the interspace, freeing the nerve. Respondent then performed a foraminotomy and completed the surgery. The pathology found during the second surgery was not inconsistent with the general kind of pathology Respondent expected to find at the L5-L6 level. Relying on visual examination and radiological confirmation, Respondent believed that he was operating at L5-L6. He did not notice, or attached no significance to, the ease of access to the disc space in May 1993, as compared to the narrow interspace encountered at L5-L6 in the first surgery. The Third Surgery After normal recuperation in the hospital, the patient noticed apparent improvement and began regular walking. However, approximately six to eight weeks after surgery, back and leg pain recurred, and the patient returned to Respondent for consultation. Respondent ordered another MRI and scheduled the patient for an appointment in August 1993. When Respondent reviewed the post- operative MRI with the patient, he realized that he had operated at L4-L5 instead of L5-L6. He asked the patient to go to the hospital and get the intra-operative X-ray to help him understand what had happened. It was his belief that the X-ray would show that he had radiological confirmation. With the patient's help, Respondent obtained the X-ray the same day. See Finding 35, infra. Instead of showing radiological confirmation, the X-ray's labeling showed someone's interpretation that the radio-opaque marker on the X-ray was at L4- L5. (There was no evidence as to who labeled the interpretation. Id.) When Respondent saw the writing on the X-ray, he immediately conceded that he had operated at the wrong level and began the process of scheduling a third surgery (the second at L5-L6). Respondent performed the patient's third surgery free-of- charge on September 17, 1993. He had three X-rays taken during the third surgery. The first one apparently was taken before any incision was made. The second was made to confirm that the Respondent was at L5-L6 this time. Instead, the X-ray showed that he was at L6-S1. Respondent tried again, and a third X-ray confirmed L5-L6. Respondent continued with the operation as planned. Findings during the third surgery supported the reasonableness of using the narrow L5-L6 interspace as a landmark during the second surgery. Once again, Respondent found cause to note significant narrowing at L5-L6, stating: "A needle was placed exactly in the interspace, which was small and tight." (The patient weighed 217 pounds at the time of the third surgery--two pounds more than for the second surgery.) The third surgery was otherwise uneventful and apparently successful. The patient discharged after a short stay. The Questionable X-ray Confirmation Although it appears in hindsight that Respondent should have attached more significance to the notes from the first surgery as to the remarkably narrow disc space at L5-L6, even the Department's expert conceded that Respondent should not be found to have practiced below the generally accepted standard of care if he received "real time" radiological confirmation before proceeding with the second surgery. (The Department's expert assumed from the medical records that there was no radiological confirmation. See Finding 33, infra.) Excepting the possibility of an obvious and clear error by the radiologist, the generally accepted standard of care entitles a surgeon to rely on a radiologist's "real time" reading of an intra-operative X-ray. The radiologist's specialty is interpreting X-rays, and the viewing equipment and lighting in the radiology department is far superior to what is available to the surgeon in OR. The question becomes the truth of Respondent's claim of having had "real time" radiological confirmation in the context of the other evidence presented in the case. The radiologist normally would have conveyed the "real time" confirmation of the correct level to the surgeon over a speaker telephone in the OR. But no one else present at the time of the surgery testified. (The patient testified by deposition, but she was under general anesthesia during surgery and could not testify as to radiological confirmation.) Respondent could not remember the name of the radiologist he says confirmed the correct level, and he was unable to show through any other means who confirmed the correct level for Respondent. Meanwhile, the Department did not present any direct evidence to dispute Respondent's claim of "real time" radiological confirmation in the OR. But there was circumstantial evidence that raised questions as to the veracity of the claim. In a hospital radiology report on the intra-operative X- ray, a radiologist named Robert G. Isbell, M.D., stated: "Film was not available for interpretation in the radiology department. The film will be read upon its return." This report was dated May 17, 1993; it was not clear from the evidence whether the report was dictated on that date, released on that date, or both. This could indicate that the X-ray was not taken to the radiology department during the surgery on May 10, 1993, since standard procedure would be for the radiologist to dictate the report immediately after calling down to the OR to confirm the correct level for the surgeon. (The Department's expert assumed from this report that there was no radiological confirmation.) However, it also is possible that an unknown radiologist confirmed the correct level for Respondent and then failed to follow the normal procedure, and either he forgot to dictate the report, or the dictation got lost or for some other reason did not result in a transcribed report to go in the patient's file "jacket" in the radiology department. If there was radiological confirmation in the OR, the radiologist apparently did not label the film and have it sent back to the OR, as usual, because the X-ray apparently was not labeled until later. See Findings 35-36, infra. When the patient went to St. Joseph’s Hospital in August 1993 at the Respondent's request to ask for her X-ray, she was told that a doctor had just asked for it to be sent over to the hospital (apparently from where it ordinarily would have been kept.) S.D. was surprised and somewhat suspicious that the hospital was familiar with her X-ray by name and that it coincidentally had just been requested by a doctor. There was no evidence as to the identity of the doctor who requested the X-ray. S.D. insisted on receiving her X-ray immediately and waited until it was returned to her. When she got it, there appeared to be fresh "grease pen" writing on it. As previously mentioned, the grease pen writing labeled the X-ray and clearly indicated someone's interpretation that the radio-opaque marker on the X-ray was at L4-L5. Respondent has maintained that he had never seen the grease pen writing before the X-ray was brought to him by the patient in August 1993. This is consistent with the patient's testimony that the grease pen writing appeared to her to be fresh, and it seems clear from the evidence that the writing was placed on the X-ray shortly before S.D. retrieved it, contrary to normal procedures. This evidence also makes it possible that the X-ray never was sent to the radiology department during surgery, again contrary to normal procedures. It is not clear from the evidence where the X-ray had been between the time of the May 1993 surgery and the time S.D. picked it up with the fresh grease pen writing. There was no evidence as to who put the markings on the X-ray, or at whose request. There was no evidence of any hospital radiology report recording the mysterious August 1993 "reading" of the X-ray as reflected by the new grease pen writing. It also is not clear from the evidence exactly what was written on the X-ray in August 1993 when S.D. retrieved the film from the hospital, or what that particular X-ray looked like. While S.D. retained the X-ray until some time during her subsequent civil action against Respondent and the hospital, she then gave it to the hospital's risk manager, who was supposed to make her a copy. When S.D. went to retrieve the X-ray for her deposition in this administrative proceeding, she found several X-rays apparently given to her by her lawyer after disposition of the civil action, including one labeled "original" and bearing writing in addition to, or other than, the writing S.D. recalled from August 1993. The writing on the X-ray used in this administrative proceeding may have been placed on the "original" X- ray by experts in the civil action. The other X-rays in S.D.'s possession were not produced for use in this administrative proceeding, and it is not clear which, if any of them, is the X-ray labeled as when S.D. retrieved it in August 1993. The X-ray used in this administrative was of poor quality and actually did not show what was below the marked interspace. (As the Respondent described the lower part of the film, "It looks like a snowstorm.") As a result, it actually would not have been possible to confirm the correct level using that particular X-ray. But X-rays can deteriorate over time, and there is no way of knowing if the intra-operative X-ray as it existed on May 10, 1993, or when seen again by Respondent in August 1993, also was of such poor quality as to be virtually useless. If an unknown radiologist in fact called the OR to confirm the correct level for Respondent, it also is possible that there was a miscommunication. Respondent in his testimony made a point of explaining that he only used the terminology "correct level" in talking to the radiologist "to avoid confusion." But if Respondent just asked if he was at the "correct" level, and the radiologist just said, "yes, you're at the correct level," the radiologist actually either would be simply assuming that the level marked on the X-ray was the "correct" level, or he would be saying that pathology visible on the MRI matched the marked location on the X-ray. If the latter, the radiologist may have thought there was enough pathology showing on the MRI matching the marked interspace in this case (actually L4-L5) to justify surgery there. Taking all of this evidence into consideration, it cannot be found that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not receive "real time" radiological confirmation on which he was entitled to rely in proceeding with the second surgery. Without such proof, it cannot be found that Respondent practiced below the generally accepted standard of care, notwithstanding the little attention he paid to his December 1993 surgical notes as to the remarkably narrow interspace at L5-L6.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1580 Waldo Palmer Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tayna Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner's proposed treatment, fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis, is experimental.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Douglas J. Phillips, Jr., D.D.S. (Dr. Phillips), is a licensed dentist in the State of Florida. Sometime in January, 1993, Dr. Phillips proposed using the procedure, fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis to treat a patient. This procedure involves destruction of tissue by the application of high heat, at approximately two hundred degrees Fahrenheit. A probe or cannula (insulated needle) is placed through skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle to reach into where the tendon or ligament inserts to the bone or to where there is a small nerve root. An electrode goes through the insulated needle. Heat is then applied at approximately two hundred degrees. The treatment causes a small scar on the bone or destroys the nerve. The purpose of the procedure is to treat head and facial pain. The patient has been diagnosed with the degeneration of the temporomandibular joint on the left side, advanced degenerative osteoarthritis, and fibrous ankylosis with osteroarthritis of the left temporomandibular joint. She experiences head and facial pain. Dr. Phillips had performed fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis on the patient in September, 1991. CIGNA approved and paid for the procedure. The patient experienced relief from the pain for almost two years after the procedure was done. The patient is now experiencing pain again, and Dr. Phillips proposes to treat her again with fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. By letter dated January 29, 1993, Intervenor CIGNA, informed Dr. Phillips that his request to perform the proposed treatment was not authorized. CIGNA'S basis for denial of approval was that the procedure was experimental and was not recognized by the American Dental Association. On or about August 27, 1993, Dr. Phillips requested that Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation (Division), review the procedure pursuant to Section 440.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1993) and Rule 38F-7.0201, Florida Administrative Code. On November 22, 1993, the Division issued a determination that fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis was experimental. Dr. Phillips was taught the proposed procedure eight years ago by Dr. Ernst, a dental practitioner in Alabama. Dr. Phillips spent four days observing Dr. Ernst in Dr. Ernst's office and one week of training in a hospital under the direction of Dr. Ernst. The first procedure performed by Dr. Phillips was two years after his training with Dr. Ernst. Prior to performing the procedure, Dr. Phillips also attended a one hour lecture on the procedure given by another dentist. No other dentist in Florida practices this procedure. The American Dental Association has not endorsed the procedure. Radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is not on the American Dental Association's list of approved dental therapeutic modalities. It is not taught in any dental school or school of oral surgery. Dr. Phillips is not aware of any mention of the proposed procedure in any dental or oral surgical textbooks. Only four other dentists in the United States practice this procedure. There is no published written protocol regarding this procedure except for an article written by Dr. Wilk, which consists of a two paragraph treatment of the subject. Fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is not listed in the American Dental Association's Current Dental Terminology, nor does the proposed treatment have a code assigned to it. Donna M. Reynolds is a supervisor of the policy section in the Rehabilitation and Medical Services Unit of the Division. When she received the request from Dr. Phillips to review the proposed procedure, she contacted three consultants for the Division: Dr. Richard Joseph, Dr. Martin Lebowitz and Dr. Davis. She received responses from Drs. Joseph and Lebowitz indicating that they considered the procedure to be experimental. Dr. Davis did not respond to her request. Dr. Joseph is a board certified oral and maxillofacial surgeon. When asked by the Division to review the proposed treatment, he reviewed all the documentation submitted by the Division, which included the documentation that Dr. Phillips had submitted in support of his request. Dr. Joseph also did a medline search. Medline is a computerized medical library search that is commonly performed by physicians to research or review all of the current medical literature. The medline search of 301,000 articles revealed only two or three articles relating to the use of radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. Dr. Joseph also consulted with Dr. Gremillion, the chairman of the Department of Facial Pain at the University of Florida, College of Dentistry. Based on his research, Dr. Joseph opined that the proposed procedure was experimental. It was Dr. Joseph's opinion that radiofrequency thermoneurolysis was outside the practice parameters in the general practice of dentistry. Dr. Lebowitz, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and former co-director of the Facial Pain Clinic at the University of Florida, reviewed the documentation sent by the Division with its request to review the proposed treatment. The documentation included articles which had been supplied by Dr. Phillips to the Division. It was Dr. Lebowitz's opinion that none of the articles submitted by Dr. Phillips were scientifically acceptable based on the lack of blind studies, the quantity of patients being studied, and the lack of studies performed in different locations. In researching the issue, Dr. Lebowitz contacted Dr. Jim Ruskin, the head of the residency program in the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Department at the College of Dentistry, University of Florida. Dr. Ruskin is considered a world authority on the management of facial pain. Dr. Lebowitz also spoke with Dr. John Gregg, a Virginia dental practitioner who previously ran the facial pain clinic at Chapel Hill at the University of North Carolina. Additionally, Dr. Lebowitz spoke with Dr. Castellano, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon in Tampa, Florida. Based on his research, Dr. Lebowitz concluded that radiofrequency thermoneurolysis was experimental. Dr. John Roland Westine is board certified in oral maxillofacial surgery and is a licensed dentist. He has studied the use of electrical energy in destroying tissue and has used electro-surgical equipment for thirty years. Dr. Westine is familiar with radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. Prior to the final hearing, he had reviewed the records of forty patients who had been treated with radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. It was his opinion that the proposed procedure was not safe and could cause the following problems: irreparable damage to vision, stroke, motor deficiencies, damage to facial nerves, nerve deficits, sensory deficits, abscess formations and parotid fistulas. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Dr. Phillips has not demonstrated that the fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is widely accepted by the practicing peer group, that the procedure is based on scientific criteria, or that the procedure is reasonably safe. Radiofrequency thermoneurolysis, including fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis, is an experimental procedure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that fluoroscopic radiofrequency thermoneurolysis is experimental and denying approval for the procedure. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-762 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Petitioner did not designate which portion of his proposed recommended order contained the proposed findings of fact and which portion contained the proposed conclusions of law; thus, I am unable to address the paragraphs which Petitioner may contend are his proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-5: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 6-7: Accepted that that is what the statutes and rule say. Paragraph 8: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted to the extent that the Division does submit the documentation to consultants. The evidence established that the proposed treatment is not for use in the aid or confirmation of a diagnosis; therefore, the Division would not be required to submit the documentation to four consultants based on Rule 38F-7.0201, F.A.C. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 12-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting argument. Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 8-9: Accepted to the extent that Dr. Phillips desires to use the proposed treatment. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 12-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 17: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: The first four sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 20-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 22-31: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 32-35: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 36: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 37-39: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 40-41: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert R. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Michael Moore, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Labor & Employment Security 2012 Capitol Circle Southeast, Suite S-307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Nancy Lehman, Esquire Neil J. Hayes, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion Department of Labor and Employment Security General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact David R. Ness, Petitioner, attended Southern College of Optometry in Memphis, Tennessee, and graduated in May 1990. Part of his training included a three-month externship with James C. Lanier, O.D., an optometrist practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Lanier found him a very competent student, thorough in his fact finding and case histories; and satisfactory, if not above average, in his examination of the patients. Dr. Lanier did not participate in the grading of the examination in issue and has no personal knowledge of Petitioner's performance on the examination. Petitioner sat for the September 1990 Optometry licensure examination. He passed the certification portion of the examination and the laws and rules section; he failed the pharm./ocular portion and the clinical portion. After several challenges to the examination, the Board adjusted some scores, but Petitioner's scores in the pharm./ocular section and the clinical sections were still below passing. Written Examination The pharmacology/ocular written portion of the examination consists of a series of case histories, with five questions directed to each. Petitioner explained that he challenged his score on the following specific questions: History #1, question #4; History #5; question #23; History #7, questions #32-35; and History #10, question #48. Case history #1 describes a 19-year old female soft contact lens wearer with symptoms correctly identified by Petitioner as Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis. The patient relies on her contact lenses because she is an actress. The severity of her condition is 3+ on a scale of 1-4, with four being the most severe. Question #4 requires selection from six choices of the initial management course of choice. Petitioner chose "c", Pred Forte suspension, every two hours. Pred Forte is the strongest commercially available steroid and its application every two hours is reserved for very severe cases. While the condition described is moderate to severe, the better answer is "f", "switch to preservative free system, enzyme cleaning 1 time a week". The patient's cleaning solution, described in the case history, is an old solution with a preservative which is known to cause conjunctivitis. While the safest course would be to discontinue contact lens wear, this is a radical option for a patient who must wear the lenses for her work. The preferred course then is to change the solution to see if the condition improves before moving to a less conservative treatment such as Pred Forte. Case history #5 describes symptoms and includes a color photograph of the eye in issue. Petitioner correctly identified the differential diagnosis as "Essential Iris Atrophy" and "Reiger's Anomaly". The next question, #23, states that the fellow eye shows similar findings in a slit lamp examination, and asks which of the differential diagnoses is the final diagnosis. Petitioner selected "Essential Iris Atrophy". The correct answer is "Reiger's anomaly". Essential Iris Atrophy is almost always unilateral and Reiger's is bilateral. The question required the examinee to know this distinction. Case history #7, describes a 37-year old patient with alleged recent vision field loss which occurred after thoracic surgery. The history describes an examination in which the patient remarks that he "isn't going to sue the physician" and where, with coaxing, his vision is much better than he admits. The patient also presented summary results of carotid artery testing and CT studies, which were normal. In his answers to questions 32-35, Petitioner chose diagnoses and treatment based on his conviction that he should try to help anyone who would come to him. He missed the fact that the patient described in the case history is a malingerer who likely is trying to sue his surgeon, and who requires no treatment. Case history #10 describes a 68-year old patient who is being examined for fitting of an extended wear contact lens. The best corrected vision is 20/50 OD, with or without a contact lens. The examination question includes two photographs, one of the fundus examination, the other of a fluorescein angiogram. An angiogram is obtained by injecting dye in the forearm and taking pictures with a special filter as the dye circulates through the blood vessels within the eye. This process is able to reveal abnormalities in the eye. Petitioner missed the question relating to the final diagnosis, which should have been "age-related macular degeneration with secondary choroidal neovascular membrane". Final diagnosis relied, in part, on the fluorescein angiogram. While Petitioner is not arguing that his answer is correct, he contends that the question itself is invalid, because it depends on a process which optometrists are not licensed to perform and it was too technical for recent graduates. People coming out of school have been exposed to live patients and have seen fluorescein angiograms performed and have seen their photographs. Moreover, in Florida, the number of elderly patients makes it necessary that optometrists be proficient in diagnosing age-related macular degeneration. The Practical/Clinical Examination Section 1 of the clinical portion of the practical examination involves the two examiners' review of the examinee's performance of an actual eye examination of a live patient. The two examiners are briefed extensively prior to the examination as to what to look for, but they do not confer during the examination when scoring various functions. For this reason, there may be disagreement between the two examiners. The scores are averaged. On section 1, item #6, with regard to the patient's case history, "follow-up information", the point spread is 0-7, with points being subtracted for failure to follow up on certain information. One examiner gave Petitioner the maximum number of points for the entire case history section. The other examiner gave Petitioner a "no" (0 points) under "personal ocular history", and commented on the examination score sheet that the examinee did not ask ocular history. The same examiner took off 2 points on item #6, "follow-up information" and commented, "did not ask ocular history". At some point during Petitioner's initial challenge, he was given credit for item #3, because it was determined that he did obtain an ocular history. The additional points were not restored to item #6, but should have been; as the failure to obtain that history is the basis for the reduced score. The examiner was not present at hearing to explain any other basis. Section 2 of the clinical portion of the practical examination requires the examinee to perform a series of functions under the scrutiny of two examiners (not the same two as in section 1). Again, the scores are awarded without consultation and there are discrepancies. In each area the examiner marks "yes" or "no" as to whether the procedure is properly performed. A "no" must be supported with the examiner's comment. Two yes marks entitle the examinee to 2 points; a yes/no is worth one point; and two no's are scored zero. For each function, the examinee must demonstrate twice. That is, he says "ready", and the first examinee views the result, then he prepares again and signals, "ready", for the second examiner. For section 2, the candidate is performing techniques or functions on his own patient, a patient whom he brings to the examination and with whom he is familiar. Petitioner is challenging the grading method for Section 2. In 6 out of 16 techniques or functions, the two examinees disagreed; that is, one gave a "yes", and the other, a "no". Petitioner contends that he should get full credit anytime he got one "yes", since that indicates that two people, the examinee and one examiner, agree. There are several reasons why two examiners may disagree on whether the examinee performed a function or technique properly. In some instances one examiner may give the individual the benefit of the doubt; in other cases the patient might move or blink or the examinee might lose his focus. The fact that two examiners independently assess the results gives the examinee two chances to demonstrate his skill. The third section of the clinical examination requires an examination of a live patient where the refractive error of the patient's vision is determined, and a prescription is made. Before being presented to the examinee, the patient is examined independently by three licensed optometrists serving as "monitors". Their examinations give the refraction results against which the examinee's results are compared. Their examinations also determine whether the patient is suitable; that is, the eye must be refracted correctable to 20/20 and the other eye correctable to 20/50. A fourth monitor reviews the results before the patient is presented to the examinee. In this case the patient was examined by the monitors and was found acceptable. Petitioner had problems with the patient; the best he could read was the 20/25 line. Petitioner felt that the patient should have been disqualified and commented in writing on that at the end of his examination, as was appropriate. The comments were reviewed by Dr. Attaway, who considered that the patient had met the criteria when examined by the monitors. Petitioner's refractions varied significantly from the monitors' refractions, which also varied somewhat from each other. Petitioner received a score of 3, out of possible 20, on this portion of the examination. Dr. Attaway did not, himself, examine the patient and the monitors who performed the examinations were not present to testify. The only evidence to rebut Petitioner's findings was the written report of the monitors. Pass Rate for the Examination Out of 130 candidates, approximately 34 percent passed all parts of the September optometry examination. In 1986, 51 percent passed; in 1987, 33.5 percent passed; in 1988, 59.6 percent passed; and in 1989, 52 percent passed. These figures do not, alone, establish that the test is too technical or unfair, nor does the fact that very good students failed. When the examinations are evaluated, when the examinee's performance is rated, there is no established pass rate; the monitors have no idea how close the individual examinee is to passing, either originally or when a challenge is being addressed. Petitioner was a very articulate and candid witness. His two experts were clearly knowledgeable and were sincerely concerned that he should be licensed. None had the experience of Respondent's witnesses, also well-qualified licensed optometrists, in working with the examination. With the exception of the inconsistent score on Section 1, item #6, Petitioner failed to prove that he is entitled to a higher score on any portion of the examination, or that the examination itself was invalid or unfair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that Petitioner's final score on Section 1 of the clinical examination be adjusted to reflect full credit for Item #6; that he be permitted to retake Section 3 of the clinical examination; and that his remaining challenges to the examination be denied. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0700 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Adopted in paragraph 2. 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 4.-6. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in summary in paragraph 2. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Finding of Fact #15 reflects the grades after adjustment. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. This fact does not make the examination invalid so long as it fairly evaluates the qualification of the applicant. 13.-14. Rejected as statements of statutory language rather than findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Hearing Officer is unable to find where in the record the exact final score of Petitioner is reflected. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as restatement of testimony rather than findings of fact. 4.-5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6.-15. Rejected as restatement of testimony; summary statements, or argument, rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Ness 611 Poinsettia Avenue Titusville, FL 32780 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford, Exec. Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Optometry 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry (Petitioner), against Miranda Smith, D.D.S. (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Respondent was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, holding license no. DN 15873, with an address-of-record at 17020 County Line Road, Spring Hill, Florida 34610, and operating a dental practice identified as "Smiles and Giggles Dentistry." On August 23, 2011, the Respondent performed a dental examination of S.W., a three-year-old female. This was S.W.'s first visit to the Respondent's office. Routine procedures at the Respondent's office included taking radiographs (x-rays) of every new patient. After checking in with the receptionist and waiting for a brief time, S.W. and her mother were called from the reception area by a dental assistant, who accompanied them to a type of x-ray machine called a "Panorex." Patients can remain in a standing position while x-rays are taken with a Panorex, and the images can be produced without requiring the insertion of x-ray film into a patient's mouth. Despite encouragement from her mother and the offer of various enticements by the dental assistant, S.W. refused to stand in the Panorex, and no x-rays were taken. After the attempt to use the Panorex failed, S.W. and her mother were taken into an examination room ("operatory"). Each operatory at the Respondent's practice contained a standard x-ray machine that required the insertion of film into a patient's mouth to produce images. The evidence fails to establish that there was any attempt to obtain images from S.W. using the x-ray machine in the operatory. After S.W. was taken into the operatory and seated, the dental assistant performed a routine cleaning ("prophylaxis") and then left the room. S.W. was cooperative during the prophylaxis. After the prophylaxis was completed, the Respondent entered the room with a different dental assistant and proceeded to perform a comprehensive oral evaluation using routine dental tools. S.W. was cooperative during the examination. The Respondent examined the condition of S.W.'s teeth and verbalized her observations to the dental assistant, who recorded the information by hand into the patient chart. According to the patient chart, the Respondent observed decay in the teeth designated as A, B, I, J, K, L, S and T. After the evaluation was completed, S.W.'s mother was advised that the Respondent had observed "eight cavities" in S.W.'s teeth. The evidence failed to establish whether the mother received the information from the Respondent or from the dental assistant. Thereafter, the dental assistant escorted S.W. and her mother to the "check out" desk, where the mother was advised to schedule a follow-up appointment for dental work related to the Respondent's observations of decay. The follow-up appointment was scheduled for November 17, 2011, and the mother was advised that sedation would be administered at that time. S.W. and her mother then left the Respondent's office. According to the patient chart, the Respondent proposed to treat the observed decay by performing resin-based composite restorations on the teeth. S.W. did not return to the Respondent's office for the follow-up appointment. The Respondent provided no further dental care to S.W. Concerned about the Respondent's evaluation of her child's teeth, S.W.'s mother spoke with a friend who had been employed as a dental assistant, and then decided to seek another opinion regarding the condition of S.W.'s teeth. On or about September 6, 2011, S.W. and her mother went to see Dr. Eva Ackley, a dentist practicing at the Ackley Dental Group, for an evaluation of the child's teeth. Dr. Ackley was aware that S.W.'s mother was seeking a second opinion of the child's dental health. S.W. was cooperative throughout her appointment with Dr. Ackley. S.W. submitted to being x-rayed at Dr. Ackley's office. Dr. Ackley examined the child's teeth and reviewed the x-ray images and observed that, although S.W. had one tooth that required follow-up observation for potential decay, there were no actual cavities requiring treatment. According to S.W.'s mother, the child has been evaluated by two other dentists since 2011, one of whom observed three cavities and the other of whom observed none. According to the mother, neither of the subsequent dentists took x-rays of S.W.'s teeth. At the hearing, the Respondent presented an "expanded functions dental assistant" employed by the Respondent, who testified as to office procedures routinely followed at the Respondent's practice. The witness was not personally involved with S.W. on August 23, 2011. The witness testified that it was sometimes difficult to obtain x-rays from younger patients and that, in such cases, x-ray images would be obtained during a follow-up visit. If required, sedation was administered to calm the patient and obtain the images. The witness testified that during the course of her employment with the Respondent, no restorative treatment had been performed on a patient without x-ray images having been obtained prior to treatment. Her testimony was credible and convincing, and it has been accepted. The witness also testified that, in cases where no x-rays were taken at an initial evaluation, the routine procedure at the Respondent's office was to document the need to obtain x-rays at a follow-up appointment in the patient's file. Although the patient records of S.W.'s evaluation by the Respondent on August 23, 2011, state that the patient "would not do any x-rays," the records do not specify that they were to be taken at the follow-up appointment. The witness testified that the failure to document the need to obtain the x-ray images in the patient records was contrary to routine office procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 3rd day of October, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A-02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Christopher Claude Torres, Esquire Casey and Torres, LLC Suite 200 1240 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-8707 Adrienne C. Rodgers, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
The Issue The issue for decision herein is whether or not Respondent exhibited fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the examination and fitting of a patient for contact lenses in violation of Subsection 463.016(1)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of optometry in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 463, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed optometrist who holds license number 0000437, and his last address of record is Zodiac Optical, 1211 South Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida 33 On February 21, 1987, Respondent examined and fitted Patricia Gama for hard contact lenses and Ms. Gama paid $154.00 for the lenses. On that date, Respondent obtained an initial refraction for the right eye of -1.25 and for the left eye of -1.00 (eye glass prescription only) and by use thereof, fitted Gama with contact lenses. At the time, Gama was employed as a cashier at a commercial retail establishment. Gama immediately began experiencing discomfort with the contacts, specifically blurred vision, red eyes and headaches. Gama found it difficult to read the cash register keys and function as a cashier. Gama advised Respondent of her discomfort on February 25, 1987, and at that time, Respondent fitted Gama with another set of contact lenses. Gama continued to experience discomfort with the contact lenses and after advising Respondent of such, Respondent on February 27, 1987, fitted Gama with a third set of contact lenses. Gama's discomfort with the contact lenses continued and she again advised Respondent of his discomfort. On March 18, 1987, Respondent fitted Gama with a fourth set of contact lenses. Through it all, Respondent used eleven different lenses in an effort to properly fit Gama; however, she continued to experience discomfort. Throughout Respondent's endeavor to properly fit Gama with contact lenses, he did so in a courteous and professional manner. However, Gama's husband insisted that she seek a second opinion from another optometrist, obtain a refund from Respondent and discontinue using the lenses Respondent prescribed. On April 22, 1987, Respondent's partner, Dr. William Hunter, refunded $74.00 of the total purchase price of $154.00 that Gama paid. He also gave Gama the prescription prepared for her by Respondent. Respondent works in a group practice which is owned by Dr. Hunter. Dr. Hunter has a policy of giving only a 50% refund within thirty days of purchase if the patient is not satisfied. On the following day, April 23, 1987, Gama was examined and fitted for contact lenses by Dr. Julian Newman. Respondent's initial refraction was twice as strong as Dr. Newman's refraction. It is not uncommon for patients, such as Gama, to test differently for glasses on different days which can result in different refraction readings on different days. Likewise, it is not unusual for an optometrist to note different refractions for the same patient on different days, or to make an error in the refraction readings for the same patient. When this is done however, the optometrist should try to correct the mistake if, in fact a mistake is made. Here, Respondent strived to satisfy Gama and never ceased efforts to comfortably fit her with contact lenses. Respondent made a refund to Gama in keeping with office policy which appeared reasonable under the circumstances considering the time spent with Gama before she decided to seek another opinion from another optometrist. (Testimony of Drs. Julian D. Newman, O.D. and Joel Marantz, O.D. both of whom were expert witnesses in this proceeding.) Respondent's receptionist, Beatrice Franklin, paid $100.00 to Gama on or about December 11, 1987, in exchange for Gama signing a request to drop her charges against Respondent at the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent had no knowledge of Ms. Franklin's actions, and in fact, Sharon Hosey, a receptionist employed by Respondent, corroborated Respondent's testimony respecting lack of knowledge on his part as to any payments to Gama other than the $74.00 refund in exchange for her withdrawal of the complaint with Petitioner or to otherwise obtain Gama's signature on a release. Respondent was conscientiously attempting to comfortably fit Gama with contact lenses when Gama decided to seek a second opinion. He did so by changing the prescriptions on several occasions, including changing to lenses made by a different manufacturer. In the process, Respondent tried eleven different contact lenses. Respondent was willing to continue treating Ms. Gama and provide the required follow-up care.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Board of Optometry enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 16 day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack L. Hargraves, O.D. 1211 South Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33629 Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Florida Board of Optometry Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Antonio R. Gasset, M.D. (Dr. Gasset), is and has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license number is ME 0015074. Dr. Gasset specializes in opthamology. Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. In April 1986, Dr. Nelvis Velazquez, worked with Dr. Gasset at the Miami Eye Institute, Inc., which was owned and operated by Dr. Gasset and his immediate family. On April 14, 1986, Dr. Velazquez saw Patient #1 who was complaining of not seeing well. She performed an eye exam which consisted of checking his vision, checking his eye pressure, and dilating his pupils. She diagnosed his problem as cataracts. On April 23, 1986, she performed cataract surgery on Patient #1's right eye. She saw him again on April 24, 25, and May 2 and removed the stitches on May 16. On June 6, 1986, Dr. Velazquez did a slit lamp examination and a fundus exam on Patient #1. On July 18, Patient #1 saw Dr. Velazquez, complaining that his eye lids were coming down so far that they interfered with his vision. She examined his eyes and determined how much the lids were interfering with his vision. On September 26, she did the pre-op for lid surgery. On October 8, she performed lid surgery and saw Patient #1 for post-op on October 9. Dr. Velazquez removed the stitches on October 13. On October 27 she again saw Patient #1 and noted the wrinkling of a membrane which is left behind after cataract surgery. On October 31, she performed a yag laser capsulotomy to remove the membrane. Patient #1 returned to the Miami Eye Institute on November 7 and was seen by Dr. Gasset. A slit lamp eye examination was performed. He noted a cataract in the left eye, which was the same diagnosis made by Dr. Velazquez on Patient #1's initial visit to the Miami Eye Institute. On December 19, Dr. Gasset saw Patient #1 for a routine checkup after laser treatment. Patient #1 was complaining of a floater. A slit lamp examination was performed. Patient #1 did not appear at the Miami Eye Institute again until July 14, 1987, at which time he was seen by Dr. Velazquez. His vision had decreased. Dr. Velazquez performed a vision test, a slit lamp examination, and dilated his eyes. On July 21, Patient #1 had an infection in his eyelid. On August 4, he was seen again but his vision was 20/40 with no explanation for the decrease in the vision. Dr. Velazquez told Patient #1 to return, which he did on August 11. He still had an eyelid infection, and Dr. Velazquez drained the lid. On August 25, 1987, Patient #1 came in for a fluorescein angiogram. As a result of the test, Dr. Velazquez diagnosed a macular edema. On September 1, she performed a slit lamp examination and a vision test, injected a cortiocosteroid, and placed him on Pred Forte, cortiocosteriod drops, for the macular edema. On September 15, Dr. Velazquez gave Patient #1 another injection and told him to continue with the Pred Forte drops. He was again seen on September 29 at which time his vision had improved a little. Dr. Velazquez again told him to continue with the Pred Forte. Based on financial and operational disagreements, Dr. Velazquez terminated her working relationship with Dr. Gasset on October 9, 1987. On October 23, 1987, Patient #1 returned to the Miami Eye Institute and was seen by Dr. Gasset. The patient complained of decreased vision. Dr. Gasset performed a slit lamp examination. Patient #1's next visit to the Miami Eye Institute was on May 13, 1988, when he was seen by Dr. Gasset. The patient complained of poor night vision. He was given a slit lamp examination and a pressure check and was told to return in six months. On October 10, 1989, Patient #1 came to Dr. Gasset for a routine checkup. A slit lamp examination was performed as well as a pressure check. The patient's visual acuity was 20/25 OD and 20/60, left eye. Patient #1's next visit to Dr. Gasset was on August 28, 1990. Patient #1 came to the office complaining that he had lost his reading glasses. Having judged the credibility of Patient #1, I find that Patient #1 did not tell Dr. Gasset that he was seeing "a black ball" in his eye or in any way indicate that he was experiencing floaters. Based on Patient #1's complaint, Dr. Gasset performed a pressure check, noted a cataract on the left eye, and wrote "status quo" on the patient's chart. Patient #1's vision was 20/20 minus in his right eye and 20/60 minus in his left eye. Dr. Gasset did not dilate Patient #1's eyes during his examination. On the same date, Dr. Gasset prescribed glasses for Patient #1, and Patient #1 obtained eyeglasses from the optical department at the Miami Eye Institute. Dr. Gasset did not dilate Patient #1's eyes from October 23, 1987, through August 28, 1990. On September 17, 1990, Patient #1 went to see Dr. Velazquez, complaining that he had had decreased visual acuity in his right eye for approximately 20 days. An eye examination was performed and Patient #1's visual acuity was 20/100 in the right eye and 20/70 in his left eye. A pressure check was also performed. Dr. Velazquez dilated Patient #1's eyes and discovered a retinal detachment. A retinal detachment refers to a condition wherein a tear or hole develops in the retina and the fluid dissects, causing the retina to bulge forward, affecting the vision. Patient #1 had a horseshoe tear in the superior nasal quadrant of his eye. The detachment was bullous, meaning that it was billowing out like a sail. Because of the location and nature of the tear, the retinal detachment most probably occurred very rapidly. Additionally, it is more likely than not, the tear was not present when Dr. Gasset saw Patient #1 on August 28, 1990. Dr. Velazquez sent Patient #1 to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (Bascom Palmer) that same day. Patient #1 had retinal detachment surgery at Bascom Palmer on the following day. The next time Dr. Velazquez saw Patient #1 was on December 10, 1990. His best corrected vision was 20/200. He was still being seen by the doctor at Bascom Palmer. Patient #1's next visit to Dr. Velazquez was on January 28, 1991. Dr. Velazquez did a slit lamp exam and a vision check and dilated his eyes to check his retina. On March 18, 1991, Patient #1 was again seen by Dr. Velazquez. He was complaining of distorted vision. The best that she could get him to see was 20/100. Patient #1 was rather nearsighted in the right eye and farsighted in the other eye. The disparity between the visual acuity in his eyes bothered him. Based on the testimony of Drs. Segall and Velazquez, the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in the instant case would be dilation of Patient #1's eyes at least once each year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the portion of Count One of the Administrative Complaint which alleged that Respondent failed to reach an appropriate diagnosis, finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to dilate Patient #1's pupils on a timely basis, issuing a reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3887 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Based on the credibility of the witnesses, it is rejected. Paragraphs 5-7: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 9-12: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 13-17: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 19-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 22-23: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 25: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26: Accepted to the extent that it states the standard of care but rejected to the extent that it implies that Patient #1 complained of floaters to Dr. Gasset. Paragraph 27: Accepted in substance but rejected to the extent that it implies that Patient #1 told Dr. Gasset that he had decreased vision and floaters. Paragraphs 28-29: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 30: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 31: Having judged the credibility of Patient #1, I reject the portion which states that Patient #1 told Dr. Gasset that he was having difficulty in reading because he could see a little black ball while reading. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 32-34: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 35-40: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 41: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 42: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 43: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary and constituting argument. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraphs 16-17: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20: Rejected as recitation of testimony and constituting argument. Paragraph 22: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 22-23: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 24-25: Rejected as recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos J. Ramos, Esquire Kenneth J. Metzger, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David P. Dittmar, Esquire Roland Continental Plaza, Suite 400 3250 Mary Street Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Introduction The Respondent, Jon F. Stoneburner, O.D., is a licensed optometrist in the State of Florida, and has been so licensed since January, 1977. On November 7, 1985, Alison Lichtenstein and Mary Pfab, O.D., went to the office of the Respondent, Jon F. Stoneburner, O.D., for eye examinations. Both used fictitious names. Ms. Lichtenstein presented herself as Alison Smith, and Dr. Pfab presented herself as Mary Parker. During the visual analysis by Dr. Stoneburner of Ms. Lichtenstein, Dr. Pfab was seated six to eight feet away. T2. 43. Dr. Stoneburner's back was facing Dr. Pfab, and she was viewing the examination of Ms. Lichtenstein from an angle. T2. 41. On the diagram drawn by Dr. Pfab, Dr. Pfab was seated in the position marked either 1 or 2, Dr. Stoneburner was located at the position marked St., and Ms. Lichtenstein was seated in the chair which is marked C. R. Ex. 3; T2. 40. Located in the room was a stand, a Phoropter, a biomicroscope, a keratometer, a retinoscope, and a tangent screen. T2. 40, 42. It is normal for such equipment to be placed on either the right or left side of the examination chair. T2. 43. It is concluded that some of this equipment was to one side or the other of the examination chair in which Ms. Lichtenstein was seated, but the actual positioning of the equipment is not in evidence in this record. T2. 41- Although the equipment may have been to the left or right of the examination chair, from the diagram it is evident that placement of the equipment to either the left or right side would not have obstructed Dr. Pfab's vision of Dr. Stoneburner and Ms. Lichtenstein since Dr. Pfab was seated on an angle behind Dr. Stoneburner. R. Ex. 3. From the diagram drawn and Dr. Pfab's testimony, it is concluded that Dr. Pfab was unable to clearly see Dr. Stoneburner's examination of Ms. Lichtenstein with respect to placement of Dr. Stoneburner's hands very close to Ms. Lichtenstein's face, i.e., one or two inches away from Ms. Lichtenstein's face, since Dr. Pfab's vision of such movements would have been partially blocked by Dr. Stoneburner's body. Other than that blind spot, Dr. Pfab could clearly see Dr. Stoneburner's movements during the examination, and could hear everything he said. T2. 43-44. Dr. Pfab received a degree in optometry in 1985. T. 10. At the time of the examination by Dr. Stoneburner, Dr. Pfab had had an externship in Jacksonville, Florida, and Fort Lee, Virginia, and was a licensed optometrist in Tennessee. T. 10-11. During her externships, she was required to perform eye examinations that conformed to the requirements of rule 21Q- 3.007, Fla. Admin. Code. T. 11. Dr. Pfab was licensed as an optometrist in Virginia and North Carolina in 1986, and in Florida in 1987. T. 11. Dr. Pfab was tendered as and accepted as an expert witness in the practice of optometry in Florida. T. 12, 16-18. In the first day of the formal hearing, the Hearing Officer sustained an objection to the testimony of Dr. Pfab to the extent that it involved her work for the Petitioner as an investigator. Following the close of the hearing, the Hearing Officer on his own motion determined that this ruling was in error, and reopened the record to allow Dr. Pfab to testify as to the results of her investigation on behalf of the Petitioner. That portion of the reopened hearing was conducted on August 31, 1988. Ms. Lichtenstein was not accepted as an expert with respect to the minimum examination procedures in the practice of optometry in Florida. T. 47, 50-51. She was allowed, however, to testify as a lay witness to what she perceived in the course of her investigation conducted on behalf of the Petitioner. Following the November 7, 1985, visit of Dr. Pfab and Ms. Lichtenstein, Ms. Judith Leff interviewed the Respondent and obtained copies of the records of the examinations of Dr. Pfab and Ms. Lichtenstein. T. 65. Ms. Leff asked Dr. Stoneburner to show her in the records of each patient where each of the minimum procedures listed in the rule had been recorded as having been performed, and Dr. Stoneburner showed Ms. Leff in both records where there was an entry that each procedure had been performed. T. 74. The patient records that are at issue in this case, P. Exs. 5 and 6, were not signed by Dr. Stoneburner in his capacity as a licensed practitioner of optometry, and Dr. Stoneburner's signature on these patient records was not required by law. It is normal practice in optometry for an optometrist to improvise and devise his or her own techniques for performing the minimum examination procedures. T. 92, 95. The visual fields or confrontation fields test A visual fields test tests the retina and the nerve pathways to the brain. T. 84. A visual fields test is a check for a brain tumor, and particularly a pituitary tumor. T2 -22. A visual fields test is required as a part of a minimum eye examination by an optometrist in the State of Florida. A minimum visual fields test is a confrontation fields test. T. 28, 80. In the confrontation fields test, the patient covers one eye with an opaque object, commonly a paddle. The patient is then asked to focus the other eye upon an object held by the examiner. The patient is required to tell the examiner when he or she can see the object moving into his or her peripheral vision. The examiner then moves a second object from beyond the peripheral vision of the patient from both horizontal sides (left and right) and from both vertical sides (up and down). The examiner observes that the patient continues to focus upon the target object. A confrontation fields test necessarily involves communication from the patient to the optometrist. T. 20-21,80-81, 124, 164, 185. The movements necessary to conduct a confrontation fields test (movement of paddles, movement of objects to the right and left sides of and above and below the patient's head) would have been visible to Dr. Pfab seated behind Dr. Stoneburner, and would not have been blocked by his body or equipment. Dr. Pfab, of course, could easily have observed these movements during her own examination. Dr. Pfab could have heard Dr. Stoneburner communicating with Ms. Lichtenstein during the confrontation fields test had he done so, and certainly would have observed Dr. Stoneburner communicating with her during her own examination. Neither Dr. Pfab nor Ms. Lichtenstein had any handicap or other impediment that would make normal voice communication not feasible between either of the two patients and Dr. Stoneburner. T. 189. Other forms of visual fields tests are more complicated and involved than a confrontations fields test. There is no evidence in this record that Dr. Stoneburner used any other more complicated test. Dr. Stoneburner could not remember whether he did a confrontation fields test on Ms. Lichtenstein by moving objects in and out of her peripheral vision and communicating with her concerning what she saw. T. 180. He did not testify that he performed any other specific form of confrontation fields test on Ms. Lichtenstein. He asserted, however, based upon his written record that some form of visual fields testing was done. T. 181. At no point during the examination did Dr. Stoneburner ask Ms. Lichtenstein if she could see his fingers or any other object moving or to look straight ahead at any object. T. 56-57. At no point during the examination did Dr. Stoneburner stand in front of Ms. Lichtenstein and bring an object into and out of view or ask her to line up objects horizontally and vertically. T. 59. Ms. Lichtenstein moved her eyes, as one normally does, as she entered the room and while she was in the examination room. T. 62. Observation of a patient as he or she walks and avoids obstacles gives the optometrist some indication as to the visual field of the patient. It is not an adequate confrontation fields test. The expert who testified as to this issue was asked on two occasions whether mere observation of a patient walking would constitute an adequate visual fields test, and he failed to answer except to imply that such observation would be a partial visual fields test. R. Ex. 2, pp. 15-17. It is concluded that observation of a patient as he or she walks and avoids obstacles is not an adequate visual fields test. Ms. Lichtenstein could have observed Dr. Stoneburner moving equipment within the room, but Dr. Stoneburner did not ask her the extent to which she saw the equipment move. T. 64. Without such communication, the movement of equipment is not an adequate visual fields test because Dr. Stoneburner would have had no way to know the extent to which Ms. Lichtenstein saw such movement. Dr. Stoneburner did not perform a visual fields or confrontation fields test on Ms. Lichtenstein. T2. 19. Dr. Stoneburner called out to his secretary for recording the results of a confrontation fields test for Ms. Lichtenstein, however, and Ms. Lichtenstein's patient record has an entry indicating that a confrontation fields test was done. T2. 19; P. Ex. 5. Dr. Stoneburner called out to his secretary for recording the results of a confrontation fields test for Dr. Pfab, and Dr. Pfab's patient record has an entry that indicates that a confrontation fields test was done, but Dr. Stoneburner did not perform a confrontation fields test on Dr. Pfab. T2. 25-26; P. Ex. 6. The pupillary examination A pupillary examination is required as a part of a minimum eye examination by an optometrist in the State of Florida. T2. 27. A pupillary examination is useful to detect brain tumors, diabetic conditions, retinal detachment, temple arteritis, optic neuritis, and other diseases. T. 82; T2. 21-22. There are three parts to a pupillary examination: direct, consensual, and accommodative. T. 79. In the direct pupillary examination, the doctor observes if the pupils are the same size and shape. T. 25. The eye is then approached from about 12 inches away with a light such as a penlight, and if the pupil constricts, a normal response is recorded. In the consensual pupillary examination, the light from 12 inches is moved to the opposite eye, and the response of the first eye is observed. T. 79, 26, 34, 123. Additionally, the light is swung back and forth from eye to eye from about 12 inches to check for Marcus Gunn pupil defect. T. 26, 34. The accommodative pupillary examination is performed by having the patient focus in the distance; the patient then is asked to look at a close object, with the eyes crossed, and the reflex of the pupils is observed. T. 80. A pupillary examination is performed in dim illumination. T. 25; T2. 21, 44-46. The actions of a doctor performing a pupillary examination are very obvious to an observer familiar with the nature of such an examination. The exam is not difficult to see as it occurs. T2. 36. The movements of hands and oral communication necessary to conduct a pupillary examination on Ms. Lichtenstein (movement of a light back and forth from a distance of 12 inches and communicating with the patient to ask the patient to focus in the distance and then to focus at a close object) involve activities that Dr. Pfab could have clearly perceived from where she was seated behind Dr. Stoneburner. Dr. Pfab clearly could have observed and heard these same actions during her own examination. It is irrelevant that she could not observe the results of the examination. T2. 44. Dr. Stoneburner stated to investigator Leff that he normally performed the external examination and the pupillary examination during the biomicroscopy (slit lamp) examination, and that he normally also performed the external examination during the ophthalmoscope examination. T. 68. In direct testimony, however, Dr. Stoneburner testified that he normally does the external examination and the pupillary examination with his penlight. T. 169. He also stated that he did these examinations right after (or during) the visual acuities test. T. 169. He testified that he generally does the visual acuities test, but he assumed that his staff did it on Ms. Lichtenstein and Dr. Pfab, though he was unclear on the point. T. 168, 183. There is no evidence that Dr. Stoneburner used a pen light to examine either Ms. Lichtenstein or Dr. Pfab. Later in his testimony, Dr. Stoneburner testified that he did the pupillary examination in three ways. The first was by "sweeping of the pencil while they're watching the chart . . . ." T. 173-74. The second was during the slit lamp observation. T. 174. And the third was with the ophthalmoscope. T. 174. During the examination of Ms. Lichtenstein, Dr. Stoneburner did not shine the light of the opthalmoscope into either of her eyes from a distance greater than one inch. T. 52- 53. Dr. Stoneburner did not stand in front of her and shine a light into either of her eyes. T. 59. Dr. Stoneburner testified that he felt he could do a direct pupillary examination with a slit lamp, but admitted that a consensual pupillary examination is often not done with a slit lamp. T. 175. Since the slit lamp is so large and heavy, it is unsuitable to use for a consensual pupillary examination because it is so difficult to move the slit lamp back and forth. T2. 31-32. Moreover, the slit lamp fits directly against the face, and has a chin rest, making such gross movements improbable. T. 143. In the examination of Ms. Lichtenstein and of Dr. Pfab, Dr. Stoneburner did not swing the biomicroscope (slit lamp) from eye to eye. T. 60; T2. 64. Dr. Stoneburner did not conduct a pupillary examination upon either Ms. Lichtenstein or Dr. Pfab, T. 59-60, T2. 17, 20-21, 27, 30, but the notation "normal" for the direct and consensual pupillary test ("pupils D & C") was entered on the charts of both Ms. Lichtenstein and Dr. Pfab. P. Exs. 5 and 6; T2. 30. The extra ocular muscle balance test An extra ocular muscle balance test is one of the minimum procedures that must be performed by an optometrist during vision testing in the State of Florida. T2. 16-17, 23. The purpose of the extra ocular muscle balance test is to check for the existence of binocular vision (use of both eyes) and the neurological integrity of the eye muscles. T2. 64. From notations in Ms. Lichtenstein's record, Dr. Stoneburner believed that the extra ocular muscle balance test was performed on Ms. Lichtenstein. T. 181-82. Relying upon notations on the chart, since he had no memory on the subject, he concluded that a stereo fly test and depth perception fusion tests had been performed on her, and that these tests assessed extra ocular muscle balance. Id. He noted in particular that "No. 8," which is the place on the chart for recording phorias, was "ortho" or normal. Ms. Lichtenstein's record shows the notation "0" for phorias No. 8. P. Ex. 5. He also noted that there was a negative (abbreviated "ng") notation on her record for the cover test. Observation of a person moving his or her eyes around the room from across the room is not an acceptable method in the practice of optometry to perform an extra ocular muscle balance test. T2. 78. One form of extra ocular muscle balance test is a cover test. The test is performed with the patient focusing upon a distant object and a near object. In both cases, the optometrist covers and uncovers the one eye several times, watching the movement of the eye that is not being covered. Then the other eye is tested in the same way. Finally, the object used to cover the eye is moved back and forth to cover one eye and then the other, and the movement of the uncovered eye as it is uncovered is observed. Thus, the cover test has four parts. T2. 20; T. 126. Only one fourth of a cover test can be performed during a visual acuity test. T. 31, 34-35. Thus, an extra ocular muscle balance test cannot be done by an acuity test. T2. 37. A stereo acuity test is not an acceptable method in the practice of optometry to perform an extra ocular muscle balance test. T2. 64, 38. Phorias is a form of extra ocular muscle balance test. T2. 30. Phorias are a measurement of the alignment of the eyes. T2. 29. The patient's eyes are disassociated with prisms, and the patient is asked to align the image from each eye vertically and horizontally. Id. Although there is a notation in her record (the symbol O) that phorias were performed on Dr. Pfab, Dr. Stoneburner did not perform that procedure upon her. P. Ex. 6; T2. 29. Dr. Pfab certainly would have observed if Dr. Stoneburner had disassociated her eyes with prisms. The movements necessary to perform a cover test (covering and uncovering an eye) would have been clearly seen by Dr. Pfab from where she was sitting behind Dr. Stoneburner. Dr. Stoneburner did not perform a cover test or extra ocular muscle balance testing on Dr. Pfab, but he called out tests results for a cover test, and those results were recorded on Dr. Pfab's chart by the notation "ng." T2. 25, 27, 29; P. Ex. 6. Dr. Stoneburner did not perform an extra ocular muscle balance test or a cover test upon Ms. Lichtenstein, but he did call out results of a cover test for recording on Ms. Lichtenstein's chart, and those results were recorded on Ms. Lichtenstein's chart by the notation "ng." T2. 20, 23; P. Ex. 5. The tonometry test A tonometry test is required as a part of a minimum eye examination by an optometrist in the State of Florida. T2. 27. Dr. Stoneburner had an air-puff tonometer in his office, but not in the room he used to examine Ms. Lichtenstein and Dr. Pfab. T2. 27, 42. Dr. Stoneburner has delegated the tonometry examination to a non- optometrist member of his staff. T. 133. Dr. Pfab wore hard contact lenses during her visit to Dr. Stoneburner. P. Ex. 6. Dr. Stoneburner determined to not perform tonometry testing on Dr. Pfab because he determined that he needed her records to be able to do a proper test because she wore hard contact lenses. T2. 83. Dr. Stoneburner noted in Dr. Pfab's patient record that he would perform tonometry on her next visit. P. Ex. 6. Dr. Pfab was not told that she needed to return for tonometry testing. T2. 28. Prior disciplinary action By order dated January 30, 1984, Dr. Stoneburner paid $500.00 in costs to settle disciplinary case number 31308, but neither admitted nor denied the charges brought against him. The case ended by settlement, and Dr. Stoneburner was not represented by a lawyer. The charge is accurately represented in P. Ex. 9 and concerned the allegation of practice under a trade name. "The Eye Center," and thus the allegation of engaging in the practice of optometry with unlicensed persons.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry, enter its final order finding that Jon F. Stoneburner, O.D., committed the violations alleged in counts one, two, and three, of the administrative complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $4,000 and probation, upon such conditions as the Board may direct, for 12 months. DONE and ENTERED this 24th of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 24th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4103 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact in this appendix are hereby adopted as additional findings of fact in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: None. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 1-2. These proposed findings of fact are not supported by the record. Dr. Pfab was not tendered as an expert consultant or investigator, but as an expert in the practice of optometry. T. 12, 16. The Hearing Officer's initial ruling to exclude Dr. Pfab's testimony was limited to her role as an investigator, not as an expert as tendered; Dr. Pfab was at all times in this case accepted as an expert as tendered. T. 17-18. The Hearing Officer subsequently determined that this initial ruling, a ruling that precluded testimony, but was not based upon lack of expertise, was in error since the employment rule of the Petitioner was not intended to preclude testimony in a hearing. Rejected as explained in findings of fact 3-5, 17-18, 33, and 54. It appears from the record that in the March 16, 1986, statement, Dr. Pfab stated that a pupillary test was not obviously done, and visual testing was not done. T. 32-33. Since some "visual testing" was in fact done, it is inferred by the wording of the question that "visual testing" here means visual fields testing. The records clearly indicate that tonometry was not performed on Dr. Pfab. Thus, the only relevant question is whether Dr. Pfab omitted the extra ocular muscle balance test in her March 16, 1986, statement, and if she did, whether her credibility was impaired. The text of Dr. Pfab's sworn statement dated March 16, 1986, was not placed in evidence. Thus, the context of her statement is unknown. Absent some further evidence as to the context and circumstances surrounding the making of the March 16, 1986, statement, a finding of a lack of credibility of Dr. Pfab cannot be made based upon the foregoing, particularly in light of her credible demeanor during cross examination. The text of Dr. Pfab's sworn statement dated March 16, 1986, was not placed in evidence. There is no other evidence in the record as to Dr. Pfab's characterization of the lack of performance of the pupillary examination on either herself or upon Ms. Lichtenstein in the March 16, 1986, statement in this record. Thus, a finding of "great discrepancy" between that statement and testimony with respect to the pupillary exam is not supported by the record evidence. There was some cross examination concerning Dr. Pfab's statement in her November 8, 1985, report (also which is not in evidence) that the pupillary exam was "not obviously done," but that had nothing to do with the March 16, 1986, statement. Moreover, Dr. Pfab credibly explained that a pupillary exam, when performed, would be obvious. T2. 36. This proposed finding of fact is not supported by the evidence of record. The proposed finding of fact fails to identify the nature of the "major differences," or to cite to the record. The observations of Ms. Lichtenstein were observations to which any competent lay witness could testify, and added credence to the testimony of Dr. Pfab. This proposed finding of fact is irrelevant since Ms. Leff was simply presented with Dr. Stoneburner's false records. Her conclusion is limited to her conversations with Dr. Stoneburner on April 9, 1986. R. Ex. 1; T 65-74. 14, 16-19, 21, 22, 25, 26. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 20. Dr. Kantor's testimony was too vague to constitute a contradiction of Dr. Pfab's testimony. Dr. Kantor only described bits and pieces of the minimum tests that might be used. He never explicitly described or defined an adequate test. For example, he acknowledged that a pupillary examination might involve consensual light reflex and direct light reflex, R. Ex. 2, p. 7, but failed to explain how consensual light reflex might be tested with a slit lamp. Dr. Pfab, on the other hand, testified that swinging the slit lamp back and forth would be very awkward, very obvious, and was not done by Dr. Stoneburner. 23. Dr. Shewmaker's description of the pupillary examination, and the movement needed if the biomicroscope was used, was essentially the same as Dr. Pfab's. T. 117, 122, 123. Dr. Shewmaker's description of the movements needed to perform the procedure and need for communication in the visual fields test was essentially the same as Dr. Pfab's. T. 117, 124. Dr, Shewmaker's description of the cover test was essentially the same as Dr. Pfab's. T. 125. To the extent that Dr. Shewmaker testified that a cover test can be done during a visual acuity test, that opinion, having not been explained, is rejected in favor of Dr. Pfab's explanation to the contrary. T. 24-25, 34- 35. Thus, Dr. Shewmaker is not found to be a "more credible witness" than Dr. Pfab. A comparison to Ms. Lichtenstein is irrelevant. Ms. Johnson's description of the pupillary examination was incomplete, and thus it cannot be concluded from her testimony that she observed a minimally adequate pupillary examination. T. 140. Ms. Johnson could not testify that a visual fields test was in fact performed. T. 140-41. Ms. Johnson testified that Dr. Stoneburner performed the extra ocular muscle balance test upon Ms. Lichtenstein using the Phoropter, T. 142, but there is no credible evidence in the record to sustain a finding that an adequate extra ocular muscle balance test can be performed with a Phoropter. Ms. Johnson was not qualified as an expert to express an opinion as to what the minimum requirements are. This proposed finding of fact is true, since that is Dr. Stonburner's testimony, but further findings of fact have not been made from the testimony due to clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The records from which this proposed finding of fact must be made were not identified by competent evidence as including a record of examination by another doctor; the only indication come from the assertions of counsel, and there is no stipulation of fact in the record precisely explaining the nature of the records. R. Ex. 2, p. 12, lines 6-7, p. 18, lines 5-7. Moreover, the testimony indicates that the witness performing the record comparison was too unfamiliar with the forms to develop a credible opinion. R. Ex. 2, pp. 12-15, 18-20, especially p. 12, lines 23-24 and p. 20, lines 13-17. This proposed finding of fact is actually a conclusion of law, and has been rejected for the reasons stated throughout this recommended order. The second half of this sentence is rejected as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence of record. 32, 33 and 35. These proposed findings of fact have been rejected as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence of record. 34. The Respondent did not keep a written record of the failure to perform the three minimum tests upon Ms. Lichtenstein and Dr. Pfab. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire Phillip Miller, Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Robert J. Elkins, Esquire 46 North Washington Street, Suite 12 Sarasota, Florida 33577 Mildred Gardner, Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 ================================================================= AGENCY ORDER REJECTING MOTION FOR REHEARING ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF OPTOMETRY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 86-4103 JON F. STONEBURNER, O.D., Respondent. /
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, by committing the acts alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed optometrist in the state, holding license number OP 1513. Background Respondent performed optometry examinations on patient S.R. on September 12, 1988, and on September 22, 1988. The examinations were performed at Linsey Eyecare, 2021 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is a subcontractor for Dr. Steven Venokour who manages Linsey Eyecare. Linsey Eyecare advertises that it is a ". . . department store that . . . " fills ". . . 90% of most prescriptions . . . in about one hour. . ." and offers ". . . a complete and comprehensive visual diagnosis . . ." in which ". . . your eyes are screened for glaucoma." S.R. went to Linsey Eyecare because she saw its advertisement in the local newspaper. Respondent knew that S.R. had a family history of glaucoma. S.R. informed Respondent when she gave her ocular history to Respondent at the outset of her eye examination on September 12, 1988, that her father had lost his eyesight due to glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma may be at a greater risk of having glaucoma than a patient without such a history if the family history of glaucoma is hereditary rather than the result of an accident or disease. Respondent knew that his assistant had not performed a non-contact tonometer on S.R. Respondent did not perform a non-contact tonometry test (a "tonometry test") on S.R. during eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. A tonometry test is one of the tests used to screen for glaucoma. It is used to take a pressure reading using a machine that blows a puff of air in the patient's eye. The puff of air creates a startling sensation in the patient's eye that the patient does not easily forget. The machine used to give the tonometry in Linsey Eyecare was malfunctioning on September 12, 1988, and that particular test was not given to S.R. However, S.R. was given additional tests for glaucoma. S.R. discovered through conversations with a third party that a tonometry test is one of the tests customarily used to screen for glaucoma. S.R. recalled that she had not received a test using a puff of air in her eye. S.R. called Linsey Eyecare and scheduled another eye examination for September 22, 1988. A tonometry test was given to S.R. during her second eye examination on September 22, 1988. 3/ Negligence The minimum standard of medical care requires that a patient with a family history of glaucoma receive a complete glaucoma screening. The examination of such a patient should be more extensive than the examination given to a patient without a family history of glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma, at a minimum, should receive a tonometry test. If a tonometry test cannot be performed, intraocular pressure should be measured using the Goldman applanation tonometry. 4/ Irrespective of the method used to measure intraocular pressure, the cup to disc ratio should be measured to determine if cupping has occurred. Cupping is another clinical sign that increases the risk of glaucoma. The anterior angle should also be examined under a biomicroscope to determine if the angle is opened or closed. If a narrow angle is detected, fluid may not be draining properly and a gonioscopy should be performed to more accurately determine if the anterior angle is opened or closed. If all of the findings from the foregoing tests are positive, the patient should be given a visual field evaluation. Respondent failed to conform to the minimum standard of care when he did not measure S.R.'s intraocular pressure by either a non-contact tonometry or an applanation tonometry during his patient's initial visit to Linsey Eyecare. Some type of tonometry test is the minimum requirement for glaucoma screening. For a patient with a family history of glaucoma, it is essential that the tonometry test be performed during the initial examination and not during a follow-up examination. Respondent did not dilate S.R.'s eyes for further examination during her initial visit because S.R. had no other person available to drive her home. Respondent dismissed S.R. without performing any tonometry test, knowing that his patient had a family history of glaucoma. Respondent did not reschedule S.R. for a follow-up examination nor advise S.R. to arrange such an examination with Respondent's office or any other optometrist. The patient returned to Linsey Eyecare for a follow-up examination at her own insistence and not at the direction of Respondent. Respondent conformed to the minimum standard of care for S.R. during her follow-up examination on September 22, 1988. Respondent performed both a non-contact tonometry and an applanation tonometry. Respondent measured the cup to disc ratio, the depth and angle of the anterior chamber, and performed a visual field screening using confrontation fields. All of the test results were within normal ranges. Based upon the absence of positive findings, a gonioscopy was not appropriate and was not done. The only act of negligence committed by Respondent was the failure to perform some type of tonometry during S.R.'s initial eye examination on September 12, 1988. Medical Records Respondent failed to keep adequate written optometric records (the "records") for the initial eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. Respondent failed to document the reasons for omitting a tonometry from S.R.'s eye examination. In all other respects, the records maintained for the initial eye examination were adequate. The only notation in the family history is glaucoma. While the family history documented in the records was incomplete, the patient was unresponsive or uncooperative in providing such information. The reason for the incomplete family history was sufficiently documented with the notation "N". 5/ Respondent kept adequate records for the second eye examination given to S.R. on September 22, 1988. The notations in the records were difficult to read and the copies used by Petitioner's expert witness were of poor quality. Upon cross examination by Respondent, however, it was uncontroverted that proper and adequate records were maintained by Respondent for S.R.'s second eye examination. The records of the second examination reveal that the cup to disc ratio was sufficiently documented by the notations "CD" for clear and distinct and ".3N" in both eyes. Color of the optic nerve head was adequately described by the notation "WNL". The depth and angle of the anterior chamber was adequately documented by the notation of "3/3+" (three over three plus). The confrontation fields were adequately documented by the notation of "full OU". Adequate records were maintained by Respondent even though they contained sloppy penmanship and the copies reviewed by Petitioner's expert were poor in quality. Advertisement Respondent did not advertise goods or services in a manner that was fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading in form and content ("misleading"). The advertisement in question was not misleading. Even if it was misleading, the advertisement was placed by Linsey Eyecare under the direction of Dr. Venokour. Respondent was a subcontractor for Linsey Eyecare and had no control over the placement and content of advertising for that entity. 6/ Repeated Violations Respondent is guilty of repeated violations of applicable provisions of Florida law. In a Final Order entered on November 10, 1982, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, Respondent was found guilty of having failed to remove all of the metal fragments found in a patient's eye during repeated attempts at removal on December 24, 25, and 28, 1981, in violation of Section 463.016(1)(g). Respondent was fined $500 and placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to provide a tonometry during the patient's initial presentation and failing to document the patient's records as the omission and the reason for such an omission in violation of Sections 463.016(1)(g) and 463.016(1)(k), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order should impose an administrative fine in the aggregate amount of $4,000 and place Respondent on probation for one year subject to reasonable terms of probation to be determined by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 September, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner earned a passing grade on the X-ray portion of the chiropractic licensure examination given in November 1999.
Findings Of Fact Crivelli took the chiropractic licensure examination in November 1999. The examination consists of three sections: physical diagnosis, technique, and X-ray interpretation. The minimum passing score for each section is 75. Crivelli passed the physical diagnosis and technique portions of the examination, but failed the X-ray interpretation portion with a score of 72. There are 68 questions on the X-ray portion of the examination. Crivelli challenges questions 17 and 30. Question 17 asks for a diagnosis relating to two X-ray slides of the cervical spine and the lumbar spine of a 53-year- old male. Crivelli contends that her answer of rheumatoid arthritis is correct based on the patient's age and the limited history provided in the question. She argues that the answer that the Department contends is correct is not correct because the Department's suggested diagnosis first manifests itself in much younger patients. However, question 17 does not state that this is the first manifestation of the disease. Crivelli admitted that the best X-ray for diagnosing rhuematoid arthritis is an open-mouth frontal view. The X-rays for question 17 did not provide an open-mouth frontal view. Crivelli's answer to question 17 is not correct. The Department's answer to the question is correct. Question 30 called for a diagnosis related to a 12-year- old boy complaining of knee pain. Crivelli contends that the correct answer is enchondroma based the location and shape of the tumor and the indication of pain. Crivelli's answer is incorrect because, although an enchondroma can occur in long bones, the majority occur in the short tublar bones of the hands and feet. In Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, a drawing of the skeletal distribution of solitary enchondroma does not show that it occurs in the tibia, which is the location in the X-ray given for question 30. Enchondroma usually presents itself as a painless tumor. When there is pain with an enchondroma, either it is associated with trauma or it is at the end of the pathology when the patient has had the enchondroma for a long time. The history for the patient did not indicate there had been any trauma. Given the age of the patient, it is not realistic to think that he has had the enchondroma for a long time. Crivelli argues that the Department's answer is not correct because the X-ray shows the tumor as concentric, and the diagnosis claimed by the Department to be correct is usually an eccentric tumor. The Department's diagnosis is usually eccentric; however it can be seen as a "blown-out" appearance of bone. The X-ray for question 30 is very similar to a picture of an X-ray in Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, depicting the Department's diagnosis. Crivelli's answer for question 30 is incorrect. The Department's answer for question 30 is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Diana Crivelli's answers to questions 17 and 30 of the chiropractic licensure examination were not correct and that she failed to pass the chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 11th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diana Crivelli 900 West 47th Street Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
