The Issue Did the Respondent, Zafar S. Shah, M.D. (Dr. Shah), commit the violations alleged in Counts 7-10 of the Administrative Complaint dated June 26, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. Dr. Shah is and, at all times material hereto, has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0071706. Dr. Shah is board-certified in internal medicine. Dr. Shah was born, and spent the first 29 years of his life, in Pakistan. Dr. Shah is 35 years of age. Dr. Shah began working at MidTown Clinic in Zephyrhills, Florida, in October 1996, and continued to work at MidTown Clinic until he was terminated in 1999. Tammy Rachel (Tammy) worked as a certified nursing assistant at MidTown Clinic from June 1996 until she was terminated in March 1999. Tammy worked with Dr. Shah as his Medical Assistant during Dr. Shah's tenure at MidTown Clinic. At all times material to this proceeding, Tammy was married to, and lived with, Corey Rachel, her husband. Although T. H., Tammy's oldest daughter, age approximately 15 years, was at all times material hereto, living in the Rachel household, her biological father was the custodial parent. Tammy's two younger daughters also lived with their mother in the Rachel household. At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Shah did not have any family living in the United States. After Tammy began working for Dr. Shah, she and Dr. Shah became close friends. As a result, Tammy, along with her husband and her daughters, including T. H., spent a great deal of time with Dr. Shah. Tammy and her family treated Dr. Shah as if he was a member of their family. Tammy and her family, including her husband, spent almost every weekend with Dr. Shah at his home or on outings with Dr. Shah. Dr. Shah visited Tammy's home on week nights during this period of time. This visitation, both weekend and week nights, between Dr. Shah and Tammy's family occurred between December 1996 and August 1999. Initially, the relationship between Dr. Shah and Tammy was a working relationship. However, in February 1997, Dr. Shah and Tammy began a sexual relationship which lasted until March 1999. When confronted by Corey Rachel about her relationship with Dr. Shah, Tammy denied having a sexual relationship with Dr. Shah. In fact, Tammy did not tell Corey Rachel of her sexual relationship with Dr. Shah until after August 5, 1999. During the period of time that Dr. Shah and Tammy's family were visiting back and forth, Dr. Shah established a close relationship with T. H., in that Dr. Shah: (a) gave more attention to T. H. than the other girls; (b) spent more time with T. H. than with the other girls; and (c) spent time alone with T. H. when she cleaned his house and at other times at the mall, etc. Tammy was aware of the relationship between Dr. Shah and T. H. and that T. H. was alone with Dr. Shah on occasions. However, there is no evidence that this relationship was intimate or in any way sexual in nature, notwithstanding the testimony of Tammy or Corey Rachel to the contrary, which I find lacks any credibility in this regard. A prescription in the name of T. H. with a date of January 18, 1999, for 60 250-milligram tablets of Erythromycin, an antibiotic, was presented to the Winn Dixie Pharmacy by Corey Rachael. The prescription was filled on January 20, 1999, and picked up by Corey and Tammy Rachel on that same date. The prescription carried what appeared to be the signature of Dr. Shah. However, Dr. Shah denies that he ever prescribed Erythromycin for T. H. or that he wrote or signed the prescription in question. Tammy gave the medication to T. H., which T. H. used, including the refills, for the acne on her face. However, it was T. H.'s testimony, which I find to be credible, that Dr. Shah never discussed the problem of acne with her, and did not prescribe Erythromycin or any other medication to treat the acne on her face. However, T. H. did discuss the acne problem with Tammy. It was not unusual for Dr. Shah to carry prescription pads home with him, which were then available to those in his home. Likewise, it was not unusual for a Medical Assistant, such as Tammy, to have access to Dr. Shah's prescription pads at work. In fact, it was not unusual for a Medical Assistant to fill in the necessary information on a prescription for the doctor's signature. The MidTown Clinic has no medical records or any other records reflecting that Dr. Shah ever saw T. H. as a patient. Likewise, Dr. Shah did not have any records reflecting that he had ever treated T. H. as a patient or that he had given T. H. a physical examination. T. H. did not have a regular physician. When she needed medical treatment, T. H. went to the Health Department or Tammy would secure medical treatment for T. H. from physicians with whom Tammy worked. Other than the allegation concerning the acne problem, there is no allegation that Tammy sought medical treatment for T. H. from Dr. Shah, or that Dr. Shah saw T. H. as a patient. An analysis by the Board's handwriting expert indicates that the signature on the prescription in question is consistent with the presumed, not known, signature of Zafar Shah, M.D. on 20 other prescriptions taken from the Wal- Mart Pharmacy in Zephyrhills, Florida. The Board offered no evidence that the signatures on the 20 prescriptions from Wal-Mart were in fact the signature of Zafar Shah, M.D., other than the testimony of the pharmacist from Wal-Mart that the signatures on those 20 prescriptions filled at Wal-Mart appeared to him to be the signature of Zafar Shah, M.D. Although the Board's handwriting expert was given the opportunity to compare current samples of Dr. Shah's signature, to be given by Dr. Shah prior to the hearing, with the signature on the prescription in question, he chose not to make this comparison. The Board's handwriting expert did not compare the signature in question to any known signature of Zafar Shah, M.D. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Dr. Shah wrote the prescription in question, notwithstanding the testimony of the Board's handwriting expert to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility in this regard. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Dr. Shah ever treated T. H. for the acne on her face or for any other medical problem or that a patient- physician relationship ever existed between Dr. Shah and T. H., notwithstanding the testimony of Tammy or Corey Rachel to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility in this regard. On August 5, 1999, Dr. Shah had dinner with Tammy, Corey Rachel, T. H., and Tammy's two younger daughters at the Rachel's home in Dade City, Florida, as he had on many previous occasions. On August 5, 1999, Dr. Shah was to spend the night in the Rachel's home, as he had on many previous occasions. As usual, Dr. Shah was to sleep on an air mattress in the living room. Around 11:00 p.m. Tammy and Corey Rachel went to bed. Sometime thereafter, T. H. went to her room to prepare for bed and Dr. Shah proceeded to prepare for bed in the living room on the air mattress. Around 1:00 a.m. on August 6, 1999, Tammy testified that she was awakened by what she thought was a noise and got out of bed. After getting out of bed, Tammy checked on her two younger daughters, and then checked on T. H. who was not in her bedroom. Tammy then proceeded to look elsewhere in the house for T. H. Tammy also testified that when she walked into the living room she observed T. H. and Dr. Shah having, what appeared to her, to be sexual intercourse. Tammy became very upset and began beating Dr. Shah on the back and calling Corey Rachel. Dr. Shah attempted to protect himself from Tammy's onslaught by gathering his belongings and leaving the house. During the time Tammy was beating on Dr. Shah, she also slapped T. H.'s face. Corey responded to Tammy and instructed T. H. to go to her room. T. H. then went to her room. At this time, T. H. still had on the long T-shirt and under pants, which she had worn to bed. Likewise, Dr. Shaw had on the clothing that he had worn to bed. Tammy reported the incident to the Pasco County Sheriff's Department. Deputy Timothy Harris and Sergeant Rowan responded to the call by Tammy. Upon arrival at the Rachel home, the officers spoke with Tammy, Corey Rachel, and T. H. When T. H. was interviewed by Deputy Harris, she told Deputy Harris that she and Dr. Shah had been engaged in sexual intercourse at the time Tammy came into the living room. In fact, T. H. related a very explicit account of the incident, using language which was not in her normal vocabulary. T. H. also provided a written statement of the incident to Deputy Harris where she again admitted to having sex with Dr. Shah. After providing the written statement, T. H. went home with her father. T. H. was not under oath on either of these occasions. Deputy Harris inspected the scene of the incident for physical evidence that sexual intercourse had taken place between T. H. and Dr. Shah. Deputy Harris did not find any physical evidence that sexual intercourse had occurred. Deputy Harris also took some clothing that T. H. had been wearing as evidence for the purpose of examining for evidence of sexual intercourse. Upon examination, this clothing did not yield any evidence of sexual intercourse. Later in the morning of August 6, 1999, Detective Ball went to the home of Timothy Harvey and interviewed T. H. In this interview, T. H. again stated that she and Dr. Shah were engaged in sexual intercourse earlier that morning at the Rachel's home, and had, on previous occasions, had sexual intercourse at the Rachel's residence and at Dr. Shah's residence. She also related that she was in love with Dr. Shah and that they were going to be married when she turned 18 years of age. T. H. further related to Detective Ball that Tammy was jealous of her relationship with Dr. Shah. When Detective Ball requested that T. H. undergo a physical examination to uncover possible evidence of sexual intercourse between T. H. and Dr. Shah, T. H. refused to undergo the physical examination. T. H.'s reason for not taking the physical examination was that she loved Dr. Shah and any evidence found would obviously be used against him. Later, during the day of August 6, 1999, Tammy and Dr. Shah agreed to meet at Brewmasters, a restaurant in Wesley Chapel, halfway between Dr. Shah's house and Dade City, Florida. This meeting was arranged by Tammy at the request of the Pasco County Sheriff's office in an attempt to get Dr. Shah to admit to having had sexual intercourse with T. H. on August 6, 1999. Tammy was wired and the Detectives from the Pasco County Sheriff's office attempted to monitor the conversation. However, the monitoring was not too successful. During this meeting between Dr. Shah and Tammy, which lasted approximately 45 minutes, Dr. Shah repeatedly denied having sexual intercourse with T. H. At the conclusion of this meeting with Tammy, the Detectives approached Dr. Shah and requested that he accompany them to the County Jail. Although Dr. Shah was not officially placed under arrest at this time, he was unsure of his rights and felt intimated by the Detectives. The Detectives did not offer Dr. Shah the opportunity to drive his vehicle to the County Jail. Dr. Shah was transported to the County Jail by the Detectives. Once at the County Jail, the Detectives went through their interrogation (interview) routine. Dr. Shah's understanding was that the Detectives were giving him the choice of admitting to having had consensual sexual intercourse with T. H. or to having raped T. H. With that understanding, Dr. Shah admitted to having had consensual sexual intercourse with T. H. Dr. Shah was upset, confused and intimidated by the Detectives. Dr. Shah gave the Detectives the answers that he assumed they wanted. Upon being advised of Miranda rights, Dr. Shah requested an attorney and made no further statements. On September 28, 1999, Detective Ball and Bill Joseph, a Crime Scene Technician, went to the Rachel's home with a Lumalite for the purpose of illuminating body fluids that may have been left on the carpet or any other area as result of the alleged sexual intercourse. No evidence of body fluids was found. Under oath, during the State Attorney's investigation, T. H. recanted the story given in her written statement on August 6, 1999, and the story given verbally to Deputy Harris and Deputy Ball on August 6, 1999, and denied that she and Dr. Shah were engaged in sexual intercourse at the Rachel's home on August 6, 1999, when Tammy came into the living room or at any time previous to August 6, 1999. Subsequently, the State Attorney, on February 14, 2000, filed a No Information concluding that the facts and circumstances of this case did not warrant prosecution at that time. Again, under oath at the hearing, T. H. recanted the story given in her written statement on August 6, 1999, and the story given verbally to Deputy Harris and Deputy Ball on August 6, 1999, and denied that she and Dr. Shah were engaged in sexual intercourse at the Rachel's home on August 6, 1999, when Tammy came into the living room or at any other time. However, T. H. admitted to having a sexual relationship with two young males prior to August 1999. T. H.'s reason for not telling the truth in her recitation of the facts in her initial interview with Deputy Harris or her written voluntary statement to Deputy Harris or in her interview with Deputy Ball was that she was aware of Tammy's involvement with Dr. Shah and was attempting to make Tammy jealous because she was mad with Tammy due to their fight the previous evening and because of other problems that she was experiencing with Tammy. Additionally, T. H. had overheard a conversation between Tammy and Dr. Shah wherein Tammy was discussing divorcing Corey Rachel and marrying Dr. Shah, which upset T. H. T. H. testified that sometime after she and Dr. Shah had gone to bed in their respective rooms, she went in the living room to talk to Dr. Shah about the situation between she and Tammy as she had on other occasions. During their conversation, T. H. was sitting close to Dr. Shah. As their conversation progressed, T. H. became emotional and Dr. Shah "put his arm around her shoulder" to console her as he had on other occasions when she would discuss problems between her and Tammy. It was in this posture that Tammy found Dr. Shah and T. H. at approximately 1:00 a.m. on August 6, 1999. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that T. H. and Dr. Shah were engaged in sexual intercourse at the Rachel's home on August 6, 1999, or at any time previous to that date, notwithstanding: (a) Tammy's testimony to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility due to her demeanor at the hearing and her involvement with Dr. Shah; (b) T. H.'s admission that sexual intercourse had occurred, which T. H. later recanted under oath, and which she testified was only done for the purpose of making Tammy jealous; and (c) Dr. Shah's admission, while being interrogated, that consensual sex had occurred between he and T. H., which he later recanted under oath at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Dr. Shah not guilty of the charges outlined in Counts 7-10 of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the charges outlined in Counts 7-10 of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jack D. Hoogewind, Esquire 33283 Cortez Boulevard Dade City, Florida 33523 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case, as set forth in the Prehearing Stipulation, are as follows: Whether Respondent was terminated from the State Medicaid Program; [Case No. 14-2488, Count I] Whether Respondent failed to update his practitioner profile within fifteen days of the filing of the order terminating him from the State Medicaid Program; [Case No. 14-2488, Count II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with T.J.[1/] for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with T.J.; [Case No. 14-1342, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with M.B. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with M.B.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with C.J. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with C.J.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with D.K. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with D.K.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with A.H. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with A.H.; [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II] and Whether Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship with S.D. for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and/or whether Respondent engaged in sexual conduct with S.D. [Case No. 14-1343, Counts I & II]
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Medicine (the “Department”) is the State agency responsible for licensing and monitoring physicians in the State of Florida. The Department regulates the practice of medicine in accordance with section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2014 codification. Respondent is a licensed Florida physician, certified in the area of pain management, holding license number ME 97134. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was practicing medicine at one of two locations: the Back Authority for Contemporary Knowledge, (a pain management clinic known as the “Back Center” located in Melbourne, Florida); and Advantacare (in its Altamonte Springs and Daytona Beach offices). Respondent was employed at the Back Center from January 2008 through September 2011, and at Advantacare from March 2012 through April 2013. Respondent provided pain management services for numerous patients during his tenure at each of the clinics. While at the Back Center, he saw 50 to 60 patients per day in an 8-hour workday, doing about 15 medication injections per day. At Advantacare he was seeing about 30 patients per day. By all accounts, Respondent is a skilled and proficient pain management physician. At Advantacare, Respondent would see patients for regular office visits at the Altamonte Springs office on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; Wednesday would be set aside for administering injections under a fluoroscope, described as sort of a C-shaped X-ray machine, performed at the Daytona Beach office. None of the sexual behavior alleged in the Administrative Complaints occurred during injections performed under fluoroscope. A general policy existed at the Back Center that required physicians to have another facility employee (medical technician, nurse, other) present in an examination room when a physician was providing care to a patient not of the same gender as the doctor. This “chaperone” policy is standard in the health care industry. There is no credible evidence that Respondent was ever shown the Back Center’s policy in writing, although it is probable the policy was accessible on the website of the entity (Osler Corporation) that owned the Back Center for a period of time. As a practicing physician, Respondent was also presumed to be aware of and to follow the chaperone policy and he admitted knowing about the policy in general. Respondent was, however, verbally apprised of the policy by his supervisor, Dr. Hynes, by the clinic operations manager, Mr. Pachkoski, and by the chief administrative officer, Cathy Bird. Respondent acknowledged that it was best to have another person in the examination room if he was providing treatment to a female patient. If no chaperone was available, it was his stated practice to keep the door open. Respondent did not feel like assistants were always available to chaperone, but neither his supervisor (Dr. Hynes) nor a co-physician (Dr. Zaidi) remembers Respondent complaining that staff was not available at the Back Center. The testimony of all six complainants in this case contradicts Respondent’s contention; each of them said they were treated by Respondent (alone) in a room with the door closed. When asked directly whether he ever treated female patients at the Back Center in a room with the door closed, Respondent admitted that it happened on occasion. The best and most persuasive evidence in this case is that a chaperone policy did exist and that Respondent did not follow the policy. Between September 2008 and January 2013, Respondent treated six female patients who are the subjects of the Department’s Administrative Complaint. Each of the patients is identified only by their initials in an attempt to maintain their confidentiality and privacy. The six patients will be addressed in chronological order based on the dates of their alleged mistreatment by Respondent. Patient S.D. Patient S.D. was a patient of Respondent between September and December 2008. S.D.’s status as a patient was stipulated to by the parties.2/ While she was Respondent’s patient, S.D. was also an employee of the Back Center. During the period of time Respondent was treating S.D., they engaged in a series of emails which could be construed as very sexual in nature. For example, on September 23, 2008, Respondent and S.D. had the following email exchange: S.D. – “You buying Dinner….Or am I your [f***ing] dinner????”Respondent – “What do you think? I want u as breakfast, lunch and dinner. My precious love.” S.D. – Ok so what am I going to eat LOL??? Let me guess a protein shake”Respondent – “If I shake it hard enough yes.” Then, on September 25, the two had this email exchange:Respondent – “NO I WANT U TO FEED ME!!! AND NO YOU R NOT GOING THERE!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I’M UR MAN AND I SAY NO.”S.D. – “Then act like it and stop flirting with the [f***ing] skank!”Respondent – “WHY? GETTING JEALOUS SWEETHEART?”S.D. - “No I guess I have no reason to be.” Respondent – “EXACTLY, YOU HAD ME AT LUNCH AND LEFT TO GO TO WORK. SO YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING, PRECIOUS.” Respondent denies that the exchange of emails with S.D. suggests anything of a sexual nature. He said, e.g., that in his Iranian culture, talking about eating someone was tantamount to saying you cared deeply for them. Respondent’s denial of the sexual nature of the emails is not persuasive. S.D. did not testify at final hearing nor was her testimony preserved by way of a deposition transcript. The Department offered into evidence an exhibit comprised of various emails between S.D. and Respondent, two of which were discussed above. At least one co-worker, Lizamar Korfhage (a physician’s assistant at the Back Center), heard S.D. yell loudly in the office--as S.D. was being terminated from employment--that she (S.D.) and Respondent were having sexual relations. Cathy Bird, former chief administrative officer at the Back Center, had discussed the alleged affair with S.D. during several conversations before S.D.'s employment with the Back Center ended. Bird also talked with Respondent about the situation after S.D. was fired from the Back Center. Respondent was concerned that S.D. would tell Respondent’s wife about the affair and sought Bird’s guidance in the matter. Based upon the entirety of the clear and convincing evidence presented, Respondent was involved in a sexual relationship with S.D. at some point in time when S.D. was also a patient of the Back Center. Patient T.J. Patient T.J. was a 37-year-old patient when she saw Respondent at the Back Center on October 29, 2010. T.J. had seen Respondent professionally some 16 or so times previously. No inappropriate conduct had occurred on any of those visits. On the October 29 visit, T.J. was escorted into an examination room by a nurse as usual. Respondent came in and, after examining her, suggested that trigger point injections might help alleviate her pain, which she described as being a “2” on a scale of 1 to 10.3/ She agreed to the plan of treatment. Respondent had T.J. sit on an armless stool and lean her arms and head onto a desk. Respondent stood on her left side and began administering injections into her neck. As he leaned against her body, T.J. felt what she described as Respondent’s erect penis rubbing on her upper arm or shoulder. She felt like Respondent was intentionally rubbing her in what she later concluded to be a sexual manner. When he finished the injections, Respondent did not act any differently than usual. T.J. felt like something “weird” had just happened, but decided not to report it because she was not completely sure about her perceptions. Respondent, in contradiction to T.J.’s testimony, said he generally stayed four to five inches away from his patient when administering the injections, but would sometimes come into contact with them. T.J. returned for a follow up visit on November 24, 2010, receiving another injection by Respondent. She reported no misconduct by Respondent on that date. On December 23, 2010, T.J. returned to the Back Center for additional treatment. This time, her pain was radiating all the way down to her buttocks area and was described as a “3” out of 10. She was again escorted to an examination room to wait for Respondent. Respondent came in and closed the door, as was his usual practice during T.J.’s visits. After examining her, Respondent suggested injections for sacroiliac joint pain. T.J. was told to lie on the examination table on her left side. Respondent had T.J. lower her jeans to just below her knees. She had her left leg out straight and her right leg bent at the knee and across her left leg. Respondent then began to press his fingers on different parts of her inner thigh searching for the source of her pain. The pain was centered between her knee and buttocks area, and Respondent made an injection in that area. Respondent then had T.J. roll over to her right side as he pulled the table slightly away from the wall and placed himself between the wall and the table. Respondent began pushing on her inner thigh again, starting at her knee and moving upward toward her buttocks. As he did that, his tone of voice changed and he began panting. He continued to touch and probe her thighs as his hands went higher until he ultimately touched her vagina. T.J. immediately said, “That’s it” and quickly got off the examination table and pulled up her jeans. Respondent appeared sweaty and red-faced, looking to T.J. like a person who had just engaged in sex. T.J. then began to consider whether Respondent’s behavior during the October 29, 2010, visit had indeed been sexual in nature as well. She concluded that it was, and decided not to see Respondent for treatment in the future. She did not, however, report either of the incidents to the Back Center immediately. She ultimately did so, telling physician's assistant Korfhage about the incident some 10 months later. After seeing a report on television in 2013 that Respondent had been accused by another patient of sexual misconduct, she decided to make a report to the police about her own experiences with Respondent. When the police did not prosecute, she contacted an attorney in order to file a civil action against Respondent. T.J. appeared to be honest and forthright during her appearance at final hearing. Her testimony about her version of the events was credible, clear, and convincing. In his testimony at final hearing, Respondent did not specifically refute T.J.’s testimony so much as he explained how his normal process would not allow for the kind of touching T.J. alleged to have occurred. Respondent did not specifically or directly deny touching patient T.J.’s vagina, saying only that there would be no reason to do so. Patient D.K. (also known as D.W.) D.K. was a regular patient of Respondent and the Back Center. She had an appointment on January 13, 2011, to see Respondent for pain she was experiencing in her lower back and sides. On previous visits to the Back Center, Respondent had done localized injections to help D.K. deal with the pain. On those visits, she had simply rolled her pants down below her waist and leaned against the examination table in order for Respondent to do the injections. On the January 13 visit, she was told to lie on the table and pull her jeans down to her knees while Respondent went to prepare the medications. Respondent returned, closing the door as he came into the room. Respondent began injecting medications into her back and both sides. He then moved lower and administered injections into her thighs although she had not complained about any pain in that area. Respondent then moved her jeans down to her ankles and began administering injections into her calves. While he was injecting her, she felt him rubbing his erect penis against her thighs and heard his breathing get heavier. She could also feel Respondent lean closer to her and felt his breath on her thighs as he injected her calves. After the injections were complete, D.K. said Respondent was sweating, flushed, and “looked like my husband after we’ve had intercourse.” D.K. left the office and returned to her car. She immediately began to mentally process what had occurred to her, but did not immediately tell anyone at the Back Center. She was shocked and upset by the event but waited a few days before telling her husband what had happened. She then reported the events to someone at the Back Center. The Back Center asked her to come in so she could discuss the situation with Dr. Hynes, medical director of the Back Center. Later, D.K. made a complaint to local law enforcement about the incident. D.K. has also contacted an attorney to look into filing a civil lawsuit against Respondent. In response to the complaint by D.K., Dr. Hynes mandated that Respondent have a medical assistant with him during any contact with female patients. Despite the prohibition, Respondent continued to see female patients in an examination room without others present. He was confronted several times by the site operations manager about this violation, but Respondent did not change his behavior. D.K. was a credible witness. She provided a clear and unequivocal description of what transpired during her visit to the Back Center on January 13, 2011. Patient C.J. Patient C.J. presented to the Back Center experiencing pain as a result of shrapnel wounds received while she was serving in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. C.J. did not testify at final hearing so her physical demeanor could not be assessed. Her deposition transcript was admitted into evidence over objection. In May 2011, C.J. was referred to the Back Center by her treating physician at Patrick Air Force Base. She took the referral, called the Back Center, and was assigned to Respondent for pain management services. C.J. went to the Back Center on May 4, 2011. She was experiencing significant pain and was physically uncomfortable. C.J. was processed in by a receptionist and then led to an examination room by a female employee. The employee took C.J.’s blood pressure, gathered some personal information, and left the room. On that date, C.J. was wearing jeans, a blouse, and open- toed shoes. She had on “full underwear” that day. Respondent came into the room and examined C.J. as she sat on the examining table. He advised C.J. that an injection might benefit her. As C.J. remembered it, the injection was to be in the side of her neck, and then in her back or hip. Respondent left the room to obtain the medications as C.J. waited. Upon his return to the room, Respondent injected Depo- Medrol 40 mg, Toradol 30 mg, Lidocaine 2% 0.5 mL, and Marcaine 0.5 mL into the left side of her neck. After the initial injection, Respondent left the room while the medication took effect. C.J. began to feel very relaxed and sleepy. Respondent recollects that C.J. complained of feeling light-headed, but does not believe any medication he injected would have caused that to happen. Respondent later returned to the room and prepared to give C.J. another injection into her hip area. She sat up on the table as Respondent pulled one end of the table slightly away from the wall.4/ After moving the table, Respondent had C.J. lie down on her side, lift her blouse, and unbuckle her jeans. She then slid her jeans and underwear down past her hips as directed. At that point, Respondent began injecting a solution into C.J.’s hip. As the injection was proceeding, she felt Respondent slide his hand over her hip and “in my groin area.” While doing that, Respondent’s crotch was pressed against C.J.’s buttocks. C.J. felt what she believed to be Respondent’s erect penis pushing against her buttocks as he administered the injection. After the injection was completed, Respondent came around from behind the table and told C.J. she would need to come see him again in a few weeks. C.J. got up from the table and began to realize that “something was not right” about the treatment she had just received. When C.J. went to the front desk to check out, she asked a nurse to identify the medications which had been injected but was unable to get that information. C.J. then left the Back Center and immediately called her nurse case manager at Patrick Air Force Base to report what had occurred. Her nurse advised C.J. to call 911 to report the incident; C.J. did so as she walked out to her car in the parking lot. A policeman arrived some 20 minutes later and took her statement. The officer then went inside to talk to Respondent. He said Respondent appeared to be surprised and shocked by C.J.’s allegation. The police decided not to file any charges against Respondent based on C.J.’s complaint. The reporting police officer (Middendorf) seemed to question C.J.’s veracity or truthfulness on the day of the incident. He said C.J. was upset and seemed lethargic, except when she was talking on the telephone to “one of her superiors.” According to Middendorf, C.J. acted consistent with someone who may be under the influence of drugs. He did acknowledge that C.J. had just come out of a pain management clinic. Middendorf also felt C.J. was either confused or not telling the truth concerning where Respondent had allegedly touched her. C.J., who was obviously distraught at the time, indicated both her pubic area and her outer thigh when she told Middendorf that Respondent had touched her “groin.” Middendorf challenged her about that and C.J. became defensive and argumentative. He did not provide any credible testimony as to why he believed she might be lying to him. His statement that C.J.’s voice changed when she was talking to her office on the phone is not conclusive evidence that she was not telling him the truth. C.J. never returned to the Back Center. She obtained pain management treatment elsewhere. Inasmuch as C.J.’s demeanor could not be judged because she did not appear in person, her testimony must be considered using other factors. In this case, the testimony was very similar to the facts described by other patients of Respondent concerning their treatment by him. The events as described by C.J. were believable and convincing, especially when compared to the allegations by other alleged victims. Neither C.J. nor any of the other alleged victims/complainants has talked to other alleged victims about their experiences, so there does not appear to be any collusion between the victims. Patient M.B. Patient M.B. was already a regular patient at the Back Center when she first saw Respondent on July 7, 2011. Respondent’s notes in M.B.’s chart indicate the patient was presenting for “initial evaluation” that day, but that was not correct; she had already been seen several times by other physicians at the Back Center. M.B. had chronic lumbalgia (low back pain) and lower extremity dysesthesia (a burning sensation) which was increasing progressively. Respondent examined M.B., discussed his findings, and scheduled a follow-up appointment for August 2, 2011, at which time he gave her an injection of 1% Xylocaine with approximately 30 ml of Lidocaine 1% on both of her side hips. He also injected a block with a solution containing 2 ml of Marcaine 0.5%, 2 ml of Lidocaine 2%, and 2 ml of Depo- Medrol 80 mg into M.B.’s joints. M.B. reported no suspicious or untoward behavior by Respondent during the July 7 and August 2 appointments. On August 29, 2011, M.B. returned to see Respondent. She presented with pain in her hips and left side. Nurse Bobbi McDonald escorted M.B. to the examination room and took her vital signs before leaving. Respondent came into the room, alone, and closed the door. At that visit, M.B. was wearing khaki mid-thigh cargo shorts, a blouse that tied around her neck, and bikini underwear. Respondent asked about her pain, touched points on her body to identify the exact pain locations, and adjusted her back manually. He then suggested injection of a steroid as a stop-gap measure prior to scheduling her for a fluoroscope injection later. M.B. agreed to the plan. Respondent left the examination room to get the medication. When he returned, he was alone and again he closed the door. Respondent told M.B. to pull her shorts down below her waist and to cover herself with a paper gown. She pulled her shorts and underwear down about halfway across her buttocks, which was lower than she would normally pull them for fluoroscope injections. Respondent began to clean the area for the injection and asked M.B. to pull her garments down further, below her buttocks. Respondent then pulled the table out from the wall and he went between the table and the wall. He injected M.B.’s hip about five times with a solution containing Depo Medrol 80, Toradol 60, Lidocaine, and Marcaine 1 ml. As he injected her, M.B. could feel Respondent’s groin touching her hip. She could feel what she believed to be Respondent’s erect penis rubbing against her in a back and forth motion. By this time, her paper gown had fallen off, exposing her buttocks and vaginal area. After the last injection, M.B. felt Respondent’s fingers touching her vagina. As she pushed upward to get off the table, M.B. felt Respondent touch her vagina again. She got off the table, pulled up her pants, and sat down as the doctor began talking to her. M.B. did not say anything to Respondent. She immediately believed that she had been sexually assaulted, but was too confused and shocked to say anything to anyone. M.B. did not initially report Respondent’s behavior to the Back Center. She later reported her allegations to the Melbourne Police Department and also filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and the Back Center. (M.B. would continue to return to the Back Center, but did not see Respondent again for any of her treatments.) M.B.’s testimony was not as immediately believable as that of some of the other witnesses. Based on her personality, fear of the process, or some other factor, she seemed to be fairly emotionless in describing the incident. However, inasmuch as her testimony was corroborated by what other patients had experienced, her clearly enunciated statements are convincing. Further, M.B. exhibited extreme visual cues as to her intense dislike for Respondent at the final hearing. The testimony of M.B. alone would not be clear and convincing evidence of any wrongdoing by Respondent. However, her testimony is corroboration of and support for the testimony of other victims. Respondent's employment at the Back Center was terminated shortly after M.B.'s appointment with him. There is no evidence as to Respondent's employment from September 2011 until he went to Advantacare in March 2012. Patient A.H. Patient A.H. presented to Advantacare (Daytona Beach office) on January 9, 2013, in an effort to address pain she was suffering as a result of an automobile accident that occurred in October 2012. She wanted to reduce her pain while also reducing the amount of medications she was taking. A.H. had a job which required driving, so she needed to be as drug-free as possible. A.H. was escorted to the examination room. She remembers that Respondent came in, closed the door, and propped it shut. Respondent remembers the door to that room being open, that it would open by itself unless something was placed against it. The medical technician assigned to Respondent said the door did not have any problems, but it would always be half open. There is no corroborated evidence as to whether the door to the room was open, closed, or ajar when A.H. was being examined. Respondent examined A.H. and began to show her some exercises and stretches that he thought might alleviate some of her pain. As she was sitting in a chair being shown how to stretch, A.H. felt Respondent’s erect penis pushing against her back. She quickly told Respondent “I’ve got it” in order to stop his actions. She got up quickly and moved to another chair in the office. A.H. clearly described what she had felt and had no confusion or doubt about what happened. Her testimony about the incident was credible. Respondent then told A.H. to lie on the table on her side with her arms stretched out in front of her. Despite what had just happened, A.H. complied with his directions.5/ When she got into position, Respondent had A.H. move her body over to the very edge of the table and began to manipulate her back. As his hands continued down her back, she felt his hands go down inside her panties. As this happened, she could feel Respondent “humping” her, grinding his groin area against her backside. Respondent then told A.H. to change positions on the table, moving her feet to the opposite end. Amazingly, she again complied with his instructions. Respondent began touching her upper thigh near her vagina and “did the same thing he had done before.” At that, A.H. quickly moved off the table and onto a chair, where she sat rigid and refused to move. Respondent seemed calm and relaxed, showing no sign of having acted inappropriately. A.H. did not tell anyone at Advantacare about the incident on that day because she could not fully grasp what had happened. As she began to understand the situation better, she was worried about reporting the incident because it would be her word against the doctor’s. A.H. did tell another doctor (Dr. Jacobson) about the incident when she saw him the next day for a regularly scheduled appointment. Dr. Jacobson had been an employee with Advantacare and presumably relayed A.H.’s allegations to the center. A.H. also reported the incident to the Board of Health and to law enforcement. She later contacted an attorney about filing a civil lawsuit against Respondent. A.H. did not return to Advantacare for treatment after this event because of the traumatic impact of the incident. Respondent has no independent recollection of A.H. as a patient, but said he did not touch her inappropriately. A.H.’s testimony was believable. She was a credible witness and articulated her testimony clearly. It is strange that A.H. would continue to obey Respondent even after he had touched her inappropriately, but she was obviously a compliant person, especially as it relates to physicians. Respondent’s defenses to allegations by patients Respondent claims he never saw a written chaperone policy at the Back Center but that he knew that it existed. According to him, there was insufficient staff available to make it possible to comply with the policy. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is rejected as being contrary to better, more persuasive evidence. Respondent said he was on several medications for “five or six years” prior to the final hearing, including Zoloft for mild depression, Lisinopril for hypertension, and Toprol for hypertension. One of the possible side effects of those medications is impotence or erectile dysfunction. However, during the time he was taking these drugs, Respondent fathered his two children. There is no competent evidence that Respondent suffered from impotence or erectile dysfunction during the time of any of the allegations about sexual misconduct. Respondent usually wore a lab coat when treating patients. The coat is long and had large pockets in the front, at about groin level. Respondent would keep empty syringes in his coat pocket. He suggests that female patients who said they felt his erect penis were actually feeling the syringes. His suggestion is not very plausible or persuasive. Respondent demonstrated at final hearing the normal physical stance he took when doing an injection of a patient in an examination room setting. He suggested that his body would be turned at a 45-degree angle from the patient rather than facing them directly, thus eliminating the possibility of full frontal contact with the patient. He also said that he generally stood four or five inches away from the patient, but might come into contact with the patient occasionally. Neither the statements nor his demonstration were persuasive. Respondent’s contention is that each and every one of the patients who alleged sexual misconduct was lying. He suggests that patient D.K. was overweight and thus would not have sexually aroused him. Also, he maintains that her description of the injections being performed while Respondent was rubbing against her would have necessarily resulted in horrible pain at best or a broken needle at worst. He claims that since patient M.B. was married to a policeman, she would have necessarily taken photographs of her numerous injections to preserve a record and she would have complained immediately. Her failure to do so, he suggests, impugns her testimony. Respondent contends that patient T.J.’s tardiness in reporting her allegations suggests the allegations were false. Respondent refutes A.H.’s allegations on the basis that there was a disagreement as to the physical layout of the medical office. Respondent contends there is no evidence that patient S.D. (his alleged lover) was his patient, even though there is a stipulation to that effect. Despite these speculative defenses, the evidence presented by the alleged victims is credible and accepted as fact. Failure to update practitioner profile A letter dated March 27, 2013, advising Respondent of his termination from participation in the Medicaid Program, was mailed to Respondent at two separate addresses: 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard, Suite 610, Melbourne, Florida 32901, i.e., the address of the Back Center, and 930 South Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida 32901, the address for Osler (the company with whom the Back Center merged at some point in time). The letter to 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard was received on April 1, 2013, and an acknowledgement was signed by Chandra Carrender, a Back Center employee. Respondent’s employment with the Back Center had been terminated some 16 months previously, i.e., in August 2011. The letter mailed to 930 Harbor City Boulevard was returned as undeliverable. The termination letter provided Respondent notice of his right to contest the decision. He was given 21 days from receipt of the letter to file a Petition if he wanted to challenge the termination. Respondent did not file a challenge, so on or about June 21, 2013, a Termination Final Order was filed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), setting forth Respondent’s termination from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. The termination was issued pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes. By law, Respondent was required to update his Florida practitioner profile within 15 days of receipt of the Termination Final Order. The Termination Final Order was mailed to Respondent, return receipt requested, at two different addresses: The 930 South Harbor City Boulevard address and the 2222 South Harbor City Boulevard address. Respondent denies having received the letter or TFO until just prior to the formal administrative hearing in this matter. Licensed physicians in the State of Florida are required to maintain a current address of record with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and the Department of Health. Neither Respondent nor the Department provided evidence as to what Respondent’s official address of record was at the time the TFO and the letter were sent to Respondent at the two Harbor City Boulevard addresses. According to the deposition testimony of Michael West of the AHCA Medicaid Program Integrity office, the notices were sent to Respondent’s “address of record” per section 409.913(6), Florida Statutes. West’s testimony, however, did not specify what address that was. It might be logically presumed that one or both of the Harbor City Boulevard addresses were the “address of record,” because that is where the notices were mailed. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence as to Respondent’s official address of record at the time the Termination Final Order was mailed. The statutory section referred to by West states: Any notice required to be given to a provider under this section is presumed to be sufficient notice if sent to the address last shown on the provider enrollment file. It is the responsibility of the provider to furnish and keep the agency informed of the provider’s current address. United States Postal Service proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of such notice to the provider at the address shown on the provider enrollment file constitutes sufficient proof of notice. Any notice required to be given to the agency by this section must be sent to the agency at an address designated by rule. Respondent did not update his Florida practitioner profile because he claims never to have received a copy of the TFO or the letter. Neither Respondent nor the Department provided direct evidence of Respondent’s “address last shown on the provider enrollment file” as of March 27, 2013.6/ Other factual considerations Respondent was terminated from employment at the Back Center in September 2011. The termination occurred as follows: T.J. reported the alleged October 29, 2010 incident in April 2011. Dr. Hynes was already aware of another incident (from D.K. in January 2011). Dr. Hynes met with Respondent to discuss his alleged behavior. Respondent denied the allegations, saying that people just seem to like him and take advantage of him. He said the patients were lying about the incidents. Dr. Hynes mandated at that time that Respondent have a chaperone in the examining room with every female patient. Rather than being allowed to exercise “medical judgment” like other doctors in the clinic, Respondent was ordered to always use a chaperone with all female patients. After patient C.J.’s allegations came to light in May 2011, Dr. Hynes told Respondent that three times was enough; something had to be done. The Back Center commenced preparation of a termination letter. The letter was to tell Respondent that, pursuant to his Employment Agreement, the Back Center was providing him the 180-day notice of termination of employment “without cause.” The purpose of that letter was to allow Respondent time to find a job and not have a blemish on his record. One of the bases for the termination letter was that Respondent had been referred to the Physicians Recovery Network (PRN) for counseling to address his behavior. Dr. Hynes presumed Respondent was obtaining that counseling. However, when C.J. reported the incident on May 4, 2011, Dr. Hynes found out that Respondent had not been going to PRN as he had previously indicated. At about the time the 180-day letter was being drafted, another incident (by patient M.B.) was reported to the Back Center. Upon hearing of that allegation, Dr. Hynes verbally fired Respondent, effective immediately, with cause. The 180-day letter was not actually delivered to Respondent until after the verbal termination, so the letter was moot when it arrived. Respondent did not tell his next employer, Advantacare, that he had been terminated from employment by the Back Center. He also did not advise Advantacare about the sexual allegations made by patients at the Back Center. In summary, Respondent engaged in activities of a sexual nature with patients at the Back Center in December 2010, January 2011, May 2011, and August 2011 (in addition to his relations with S.D. in 2008–2010). He engaged in sexually related touching of a patient at Advantacare in January 2013. His employment with the Back Center was terminated in September 2011; his employment with Advantacare was terminated in April 2013. Former patients of Respondent expressed dismay that he was being charged with the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. They found Respondent to be a caring and professional doctor. It is clear Respondent did not treat all his patients the same way he treated the victims identified herein. Some of his co-workers said they did not see Respondent engage in any of the alleged actions. They did not receive any complaints from other patients. Respondent obviously has a stellar reputation with some of his patients and co-workers. That status, however, does not excuse his behavior with the victims in the present cases. It is also alleged that Bobbi McDonald was a rumor-mongerer and a liar. She appeared credible at final hearing and there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the dispersions cast by others. It should be noted that several witnesses identified by Respondent were displeased with the manner in which they were questioned by Department personnel prior to the final hearing. The witnesses expressed extreme discomfort when Department employees (attorneys) suggested that Respondent was “an addict” or a sociopath. While a state agency is bound to pursue all claims against individuals which it is responsible for licensing and monitoring, it is improper to harangue or disparage such persons in order to sway potential witnesses’ testimony. Upon full review of the evidence in this case, the potential witnesses who complained about the Department’s aggressive nature did not provide substantive testimony on the issues of this case. Thus, any harm which may have resulted from the Department’s statements would not affect the final decision herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health revoking Respondent, Albert Esmailzadeh, M.D.’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order assess the cost of investigating and prosecuting this case, and that payment of such costs be assessed against Respondent, Albert Esmailzadeh, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 19th day of November, 2014.
The Issue When the hearing commenced, the parties through counsel agreed that sufficient facts would be presented to sustain a finding of violations of Counts One, Two, and Three a. and b., within the Administrative Complaint drawn by the State of Florida, Department of Health, Case No. 1999-53281. It was left for the fact finder to portray those facts consistent with the agreement. The parties presented their cases and facts have been found on the record which promote findings of violations of the aforementioned counts. In addition, as envisioned by the parties and accepted by the undersigned, determinations concerning recommended sanctions for the violations have been made on the record presented at hearing.1
Findings Of Fact Respondent's History At all times relevant, Respondent has been licensed as a physician in the State of Florida in accordance with license No. ME:0061141. His practice has been in the field of psychiatry. Respondent is Board-certified in psychiatry. Respondent has a Bachelor's of Science degree from the University of Michigan. He holds a Masters' degree in Clinical Social Work from Tulane University and a Medical Degree from Louisiana State University Medical School. Respondent did a four-year residency at Ochner Foundation Hospital in Psychiatry. Respondent has been married to Brenda Schenthal for 25 years. The Schenthal's have two sons, ages 10 and 12. The family resides in Destin, Florida. Respondent began private practice in the Fort Walton Beach, Florida, area in 1993 with Dr. Victor DeMoya. Respondent was affiliated with that practice when circumstances arose for which he stands accused. Respondent practiced in the group known as Emerald Coast Psychiatric Care, P.A., in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Respondent does not have a prior disciplinary history with the Board of Medicine. M.B.G. M.B.G. was born July 23, 1981. Respondent first saw M.B.G. on March 21, 1996, when she was 14 years old. M.B.G. presented with issues of uncontrollable behavior, running away from home, anger, rage, drug use, suspected alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity. M.B.G. did not have a history of acting out until she was 13 or 14 years old. Respondent had been treating M.B.G. for approximately two months, when in May 1996, M.B.G. was involved in a physical altercation with another student in her school. The evaluation Respondent performed at that time revealed that M.B.G. was extremely angry, presenting sufficient risk that Respondent determined to involuntarily commit M.B.G. to Rivendell Hospital in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. At the time M.B.G. remained hospitalized for a couple of weeks. Following her hospitalization M.B.G. was seen by Dr. Deborah Simkan, an adolescent psychiatrist. Dr. Simkan was associated with Respondent's clinic. M.B.G. remained in treatment with Dr. Simkan until August of 1996. At the time M.B.G. was also being seen by Betty Mason, a mental health counselor affiliated with Respondent's practice. There was some concern about the progress M.B.G. was making under Dr. Simkan's care and the family determined to move M.B.G. from the Fort Walton Beach, Florida, area to live with an aunt in Charleston, South Carolina. M.B.G. had been sent to live with her aunt because M.B.G. was defiant, would not follow the rules in her household, and was difficult to control. After living with her aunt in Charleston, South Carolina, for several months it became apparent that the aunt was unable to control M.B.G. There was some suspicion that M.B.G. was using drugs while residing with her aunt. When M.B.G. returned from Charleston, South Carolina, she ran away from home as she had before. When she was found she was sent to live in a treatment facility in Trenton, Alabama. That facility was Three Springs. The reasons for her placement related to the inability to control her conduct, suspected alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity. M.B.G. remained at Three Springs from January 1997 until her return home in April 1998. Her stay in that facility was in accordance with a very structured environment. While at Three Springs M.B.G. revealed for the first time that she had been the victim of sexual abuse by a male YMCA counselor when she was nine years old. As a means to express her feelings, while at Three Springs, M.B.G. was encouraged to write in journals, in that she found writing about her feelings an easier means of expression then verbalizing her feelings. M.B.G. could share or refuse to share the things that she had written in the journals. Upon her release from Three Springs M.B.G. asked that Respondent resume her care. It was anticipated that Respondent would treat M.B.G. for the sexual abuse that had occurred earlier in her life and as a means to transition from the very structured environment at Three Springs into greater freedom she would have living at home. In April 1998, when Respondent again undertook M.B.G.'s care, his response to his duties was initially appropriate. However, upon reflection Respondent questions the decision to undertake the care following his former decision to place M.B.G. in Rivendell Hospital under the Baker Act. In April, M.B.G. was being seen by Respondent in his practice twice a week for one hour each visit. A couple of months later the schedule changed from two one-hour sessions per week to one two-hour session per week. Around August or September 1998, Respondent began to see M.B.G. three or four times a week in his office. By January of 1999, Respondent was seeing M.B.G. almost on a daily basis, not always in his office. Some of the increases in contacts between M.B.G. and the Respondent were associated with group therapy sessions involving M.B.G. and other sexual abuse patients under Respondent's care. One of the persons in the group was considerably older than M.B.G. It was not shown that the inclusion of the older patient in the therapy group was designed to advance some inappropriate purpose in the relationship between Respondent and M.B.G. Nonetheless, Respondent now questions the appropriateness of placing M.B.G. in the group with such divergence in ages among the participants. Upon her return from Three Springs M.B.G. became pregnant as was manifest in May 1998. She informed Respondent of her pregnancy. Reluctant to tell her parents about her condition, M.B.G. expressed the belief that an abortion was a better choice in responding to her pregnancy. Respondent left it to M.B.G. to inform her parents or not concerning the pregnancy. Respondent arranged for M.B.G. to talk to a patient who had gone through a somewhat similar experience. Ultimately M.B.G. told her mother of the pregnancy and the desire to terminate her pregnancy. Her mother was supportive of that choice and arranged for the abortion procedure. Respondent offered to go with M.B.G. and her mother M.G. when the abortion was performed. Respondent now concedes the error in the choice to offer to accompany and the accompaniment of M.B.G. and her mother to the place where the abortion was performed. This was not an appropriate response for a care-giver. Upon her return from Three Springs M.B.G. had a better relationship with her family than before. But the cordiality did not last. Over time their relationship became strained. M.B.G. was especially irritated with her mother. As before, M.B.G. maintained journals upon her return from Three Springs, portions of which she shared with Respondent. M.B.G. considered the journals to be private. Her mother was aware of the issue of privacy. Without permission M.G. read her daughter's journals. Being aware that the mother had read the journals, Respondent brought M.B.G. a safe to help maintain the journals in privacy. This purchase constituted involvement with the patient M.B.G. beyond the provision of appropriate care and into the area of problem solving in which Respondent should not have been involved. Respondent has come to understand that the purchase of the "lock-box" was not an appropriate decision. Another indication that Respondent was deviating from the normal physician-patient expectations in treating M.B.G. occurred in September 1998, in a meeting between M.B.G. and her parents. Rather than maintain his professional objectivity, Respondent sided with the patient M.B.G. in a setting in which the parents were attempting to impose rules and restrictions on her conduct. In retrospect Respondent feels that he should have handled that appointment differently, realizing his conduct indicated that something was going on within him that was not desirable, as evidenced by his starting to side with the patient. In November 1998, in response to one of the therapy sessions Respondent was engaged in with M.B.G., Respondent provided the patient with a can of Spaghettios and a poster board that he sent home with her mother. With these items he wrote a note that indicated that the Spaghettios were a reward for her efforts and he signed the note "your protector" and the name "Steve" in informal reference. As Respondent acknowledges, this was "an indication there was certainly more going on with myself," referring to feelings he was developing for the patient that were not proper conduct for a physician. M.B.G. and her family took a Christmas holiday in 1998. M.B.G. did not enjoy the trip. In explaining the lack of enjoyment, M.B.G. indicated that she did not enjoy spending time with her family on the vacation. Upon the return home M.B.G. went to stay with a friend from school. The friend with whom M.B.G. was staying upon the return from the vacation was being visited by some students from Florida State University. It was decided that M.B.G.'s friend, M.B.G., and those students would go to M.B.G.'s house to play pool. The next morning, M.B.G.'s mother found evidence that beer or other forms of alcohol had been consumed in the basement where the pool table was located. D.G., M.B.G.'s father also saw this evidence. M.G. confronted M.B.G. with the evidence. M.B.G.'s response was to leave her home and return to her friend's home. Later M.B.G. called her home and left a message that she was going to spend the night with her friend. Beyond that point Respondent became aware that M.B.G. and her mother had a disagreement about what had happened in the basement at their home. M.B.G. denied being involved in drinking. Respondent became involved in what he considered to be a stand- off between M.B.G. and her mother concerning terms acceptable for M.B.G.'s return home from her friend's house. As Respondent described it, he was allowing himself to get stuck in between M.B.G. and her mother on this subject. During the time that M.B.G. lived away from her home with the friend, Respondent spoke to M.G. about a contact which M.G. had with Three Springs, in which it was stated that M.B.G. might be returned to that facility or that M.B.G. might possibly be emancipated. Respondent spoke to Dr. Ellen Gandle, a forensic child/adolescent/adult psychiatrist, expressing his feelings of responsibility to help M.B.G. other than in the role of psychiatrist. Dr. Gandle strongly suggested Respondent not abandon his role as psychotherapist in favor of that of guardian for M.B.G. The possible guardianship was another subject that had been discussed with M.G. Respondent also tried to contact Dr. Charles Billings who had been the Respondent's residency director at Ochner to discuss this situation concerning M.B.G. In conversation, Dr. Victor F. DeMoya, Respondent's partner in the practice, advised Respondent that Dr. DeMoya considered it to be a conflict in roles for Respondent to be a therapist to M.B.G. and her guardian and that Respondent should seek the "feedback" of other colleagues about that prospect. Given the schism that existed between M.B.G. and her mother, the mother expressed a reluctance to provide continuing financial support to her daughter, the mother wanted the daughter to return the car the daughter was allowed to drive, and the mother wanted the house keys and credit cards returned. These views were made known to Respondent. Respondent went with a member of M.B.G.'s therapy group to M.B.G.'s home to remove her belongings. This retrieval of the patient's belongings was a boundary violation of conduct expected of a physician. Beyond that point Respondent continued to pursue a course of conduct involving boundary violations in his relationship with M.B.G. While M.B.G. was living with her friend from December 1998 until February 12, 1999, Respondent saw her frequently outside the treatment setting. In these instances Respondent discussed with M.B.G. her living circumstance. Respondent was involved with paying rent to the family of the friend with whom M.B.G. was living. Respondent was involved with shortening M.B.G.'s school day as a means to assist her in getting a job. Respondent helped M.B.G. to fill-out applications for college. Although Respondent had the expectation that M.B.G. would eventually repay the money expended, Respondent and his wife purchased an automobile and gave it to M.B.G. Respondent opened a joint checking account in which M.B.G. had access to monies that had been placed there by Respondent. Respondent provided M.B.G. a pager which was used by Respondent in contacting M.B.G. at her friend's residence after curfew hours that had been imposed by the friend's parents. Sometime around the latter half of January 1999, Respondent became convinced that he was falling in love with M.B.G. He gave expression to these feelings both verbally and in cards that he sent to M.B.G. In addition, Respondent had sexual fantasies about M.B.G. Respondent went so far as to discuss with M.B.G. the possibility of marrying her and the consequences of that choice. Eventually, Respondent made his wife aware of his feelings toward M.B.G. On February 11, 1999, while seated in the car Respondent had purchased for M.B.G., they kissed briefly. On February 12, 1999, M.B.G. and the friend in whose house M.B.G. was living, had an argument and M.B.G. left the home. After leaving she called Respondent early on February 13, 1999. She explained to Respondent that she had left the friend's home and was planning to drive to Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In response Respondent offered to meet M.B.G. They met at a parking lot at a Walgreens store. While seated in the car they talked for a while and kissed. Respondent invited M.B.G. to stay at his residence. She declined. Respondent then offered to get her a hotel room. On February 13, 1999, Respondent paid for a room in a local motel for M.B.G. to use. Respondent carried her belongings into the room. They sat on the bed in the room and talked, kissed, and hugged. In the course of the hugging Respondent placed his hand inside the band of M.B.G.'s sweat pants that she was wearing. Respondent touched M.B.G.'s breast on the outside of her clothing. Respondent then left the lodging and returned home. When at home he explained to his wife what had transpired with M.B.G. Following the encounter on February 13, 1999, in the motel, Respondent discussed the situation involving M.B.G. with his partner in the clinic. His partner told Respondent that Respondent needed help. Respondent contacted Dr. Henry Dohn, an adult psychiatrist practicing in Pensacola, Florida. This visit took place on February 14, 1999. They discussed the situation with M.B.G. An arrangement was made for a return visit which occurred on February 19, 1999. Respondent reports that Dr. Dohn told Respondent that the Respondent was not thinking clearly and needed to stop practicing and to attend to whatever issues needed attention in association with the boundary violation pertaining to M.B.G. Respondent was told by Dr. Dohn that if he did not report himself, Dr. Dohn would make a report concerning the conduct. In turn Respondent called a Dr. Dwyer, the on-call doctor at the Physician's Resource Network. Consistent with the discussion held between Respondent and Dr. Dohn, Respondent determined to admit himself for treatment at the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas. Respondent was admitted to the clinic on February 22, 1999. He had told his partner Dr. DeMoya that he was going to the clinic. Respondent admitted himself to the Menninger Clinic on a voluntary basis. While under treatment at Menninger Clinic Respondent was cared for by Dr. Richard Irons. Respondent also consulted with Dr. Glenn Gabbard, who specializes in boundary violations. Respondent was treated at the Menninger Clinic from February 22, 1999 through February 24, 1999, on an in-patient basis. He continued his treatment on an out-patient basis from February 24, 1999 until March 19, 1999. Respondent was released from the Menninger Clinic on March 19, 1999, and returned to Florida. Without justification and contrary to appropriate conduct for a physician, especially when recognizing his past indiscretions with M.B.G., Respondent made an arrangement to meet M.B.G. in person. This was contrary to any of the advise he had been given either medical or legal. While it had been suggested that Respondent offer assistance in placing M.B.G. in therapy with another care-giver, it was not contemplated that the arrangements would be made in person. Moreover, Respondent had a more expansive agenda in mind when meeting M.B.G., beyond acknowledging his responsibility for what had transpired between them, the offer to assist in finding a therapist and the possibility of paying for the therapy. Broadly stated, Respondent believed at that point-in-time that he could "fix things between them." Respondent was unaware that M.B.G. had contacted the authorities after their encounter in the motel room and complained about his conduct. She agreed to assist the authorities in investigating Respondent, to include taping telephone conversations between M.B.G. and Respondent while he was in Topeka, Kansas, undergoing treatment and upon his return. As well, M.B.G. was wearing a transmitter when she met Respondent in a park in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on March 22, 1999, that would allow the authorities to record the meeting. The meeting was also video-taped. When the meeting concluded Respondent was arrested by Okaloosa County, Florida, Sheriff's deputies upon charges of battery, attempted sexual misconduct by a psychotherapist and interference with child custody. As a consequence, Respondent was charged in State of Florida vs. Stephen Schenthal, in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County, Florida, Case No. 99-497-CFA. The case was disposed of by entry of a plea of nolo contendere to Count One: attempted interference in custody, Count Two: attempted sexual misconduct by a psychotherapist. In response an order was entered by the Court withholding the adjudication of guilt and placing defendant on probation on September 2, 1999. Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years under terms set forth in the court order. These criminal offenses relate to the practice of medicine or the ability to practice medicine. In his testimony Respondent acknowledged that he committed boundary violations with M.B.G. that are depicted in the fact finding. Whether Respondent recognized the damage he was causing while he was engaged in the misconduct, he does not deny that he violated the fiduciary relationship with his patient by betraying M.B.G.'s trust and participating in the re- traumaterzation of her past. No independent evidence from a person treating the patient was presented concerning M.B.G.'s mental health following Respondent's transgressions. But Respondent recognizes the potential for significant damage to his patient by making it hard for M.B.G. to trust other physicians, therapists, authority figures, or to trust relationships in general and the possible re-enforcement of the trauma that had occurred in her childhood. Dr. Peter A. Szmurlo, a psychiatrist who practices in Florida, was called upon to review the circumstances concerning Respondent's relationship with M.B.G. Dr. Szmurlo has not had the opportunity to examine M.B.G. However, in a report dated November 1, 2000, concerning Respondent's actions, Dr. Szmurlo stated, "I believe that the patient's relationship with Dr. Schenthal was nothing but destructive and may preclude her ability to ever be able to develop a trusting relationship with another male and/or with another psychotherapist." In his deposition Dr. Szmurlo expressed the opinion that the issue of potential harm to M.B.G. was clear and that the potential harm was in association with "further undermining of the patient's sense of safety and, therefore enhancing or recreating the original trauma (assuming it really occurred), and that's the sexual trauma which occurred in early years." Dr. Joel Ziegler Klass, practices psychiatry in Florida. Dr. Klass reviewed information concerning Respondent's relationship with M.B.G. Dr. Klass did not personally assess M.B.G., however, within his knowledge of the facts concerning the relationship between Respondent and M.B.G. and the patient's prior history; Dr. Klass did not think a lot of damage had been done by Respondent to M.B.G. He did express the opinion that M.B.G. lost out on valuable time to get help for her mental health based upon Respondent's indiscretion. As of November 27, 2000, when M.B.G. gave her deposition, she was attending the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. She explained that she had been seen by a mental health care provider, Dr. Carol Ware, a psychologist in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The purpose for seeing Dr. Ware was basically pertaining to "things that had happened with Dr. Schenthal." M.B.G. last saw Dr. Ware in July or August 2000. M.B.G. expressed an interest in seeing a psychiatrist and indicated that she had called three different doctors. She wishes to see a female psychiatrist and she understands that only one or two female psychiatrists were practicing in Tuscaloosa when she inquired. She provided information to facilitate being seen by one of those psychiatrists but has not heard back from either practitioner concerning their willingness to treat M.B.G. In her deposition M.B.G. expressed the feeling of depression "just ups and downs and it comes as fast as it goes and it’s getting a lot worse and I need somebody to help me with it." Dr. Szmurlo expressed the opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Respondent used information gathered from the physician/patient relationship during the therapeutic sessions to establish trust and exercise influence over M.B.G. thereby engaging in a course of conduct for purposes of engaging a patient in a sexual relationship. That opinion is accepted. Dr. Szmurlo also expressed the opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Respondent in his treatment of M.B.G. practiced medicine with a level of care, skill, and treatment, which would not be recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. That opinion is accepted. Respondent: Diagnosis, Care, and Practice Opportunities Respondent returned to the Menninger Clinic on March 29, 1999, and was seen on an in-patient basis until May 14, 1999. Dr. Richard Irons was Respondent's principal treating physician at the Menninger Clinic. Upon his release from the Menninger Clinic, Respondent has been routinely treated by Dr. Roberta Schaffner, who practices psychiatry in Pensacola, Florida. Her treatment began July 9, 1999, and was continuing upon the hearing dates. Her treatment involves psychotherapy and the use of medications. As Dr. Schaffner explained in correspondence to counsel for Respondent, Dr. Schaffner's treatment does not involve the role of making specific recommendations about the timing and details of Respondent's possible return to practice. The treatment provided by Dr. Schaffner was in agreement with the treatment plan from the Menninger Clinic and was discussed with Dr. Irons and Dr. Gabbard who had cared for Respondent at the Menninger Clinic. Dr. Schaffner does not oppose the recommendations of Dr. Barbara Stein, a psychiatrist who has evaluated Respondent concerning his fitness to return to practice and under what circumstances. With this knowledge, Dr. Schaffner has indicated that were she persuaded that the suggestions by Dr. Stein for restrictions on Respondent's possible return to practice were ideas that were dangerous or inappropriate, Dr. Schaffner would be active in expressing her opposition, recognizing Respondent's difficulties. This is taken to mean recognizing Respondent's underlying mental health which needs attention. As Dr. Klass explained in his testimony, Respondent's present physician Dr. Schaffner would not offer her specific observations concerning Respondent in the interest of maintaining the physician/patient relationship. Using the diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV, Mental Disorders, Dr. Irons identified Respondent's condition as follows: Axis I: 296.22 Major depressive episode, single, in full remission V. 62.2 Occupational problem associated with professional sexual misconduct Axis II: 301.9 Personality disorder NOS, a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic, histrionic, compulsive and dependent features. Dr. Irons expressed this diagnosis in correspondence dated March 24, 2000, directed to Dr. Raymond M. Pomm, Medical Director for the Physician's Resource Network. In addition to the prior treatment described, Dr. Irons has seen Respondent for internal review of Respondent's progress and rehabilitation. On November 29 and 30, and December 1, 1999, Dr. Irons noted that: The patient continued to show progress and understanding in appreciating boundary- related issues, as well as problems of potential vulnerability associated with professional re-entry. The patient shows incremental improvement in understanding dynamics of boundary violations and appears to have gained some insight into the nature of his own transgressions. I concur with opinions presented by Dr. Schaffner, as well as Dr. Gabbard that ongoing and continuing work should be strongly encouraged. Collectively, Dr. Gabbard, Dr. Schaffner, and myself believe that this individual has the potential to practice psychiatry but only with the use of a carefully structured and monitored professional re-entry program. view: We would support professional re-entry into a psychiatric practice that involves males and females if the site provided for direct supervision with regular reports to appropriate regulatory authorities in Florida. In the correspondence Dr. Irons went on to express his It is my professional opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Steven Schenthal has made sufficient progress to be able to return to the practice of psychiatry with reasonable skill and safety on the following conditions: The patient will return to practice serving an all-male population. The patient will not serve females professionally under any circumstances. Dr. Schenthal will not engage in marital therapy or couples therapy or work with groups involving males and females. Dr. Schenthal will engage in a program that will involve monitoring of his practice through a sexual boundary violation contract with the Physicians Recovery Network. The patient will enact practice modifications which include appointments only during office hours with support staff in attendance, limitation of office hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., office policies and office practice to be monitored by a psychiatrist agreeable to Dr. Schenthal and the Physician Resource Network, ongoing individual psychotherapy with Roberta Schafner, [sic] M.D., twice weekly at this time and a frequency agreeable to Dr. Schafner [sic] and other concerns [sic] parties. The patient will practice in an office which includes other therapists if not other physicians, and will arrange for clinical supervision with the supervisor having regular contact with Roberta Schafner [sic]. Dr. Barbara N. Stein, is Board-certified in psychiatry and practices in Florida. She was requested by Respondent to provide a second opinion on what parameters would allow Respondent to practice medicine with reasonable skill and with safety to patients. Reportedly, this request was made by Respondent who was dissatisfied with Dr. Irons' recommendations concerning the circumstances under which Respondent might return to practice. Based upon a review of the history of Respondent and the treatment provided to M.B.G. and an interview conducted on August 22, 2000, Dr. Stein concluded that Respondent suffers from Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, without psychotic features, Mild DSM-IV 296.21; Dysthymic Disorder, DSM- IV 300.4; and that there is evidence that Respondent suffers from personality disorder, not otherwise specified with narcissistic, histrionic, and anti-social personality traits, DSM-IV 301.9. In her report Dr. Stein went on to express her opinion on how Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients and stated that within her opinion with reasonable medical certainty Respondent can practice safely as long as certain restrictions were in place to include: Dr. Schenthal continues at least weekly (and preferably twice a week) therapy as recommended with Dr. Schaffner. Dr. Schenthal continues in weekly PRN Caduceus group. Dr. Schenthal continues to have regular, indirect physician monitoring of his cases directed by the Board. Dr. Schenthal works only in an institutional or group practice setting and does not treat (with psychotherapy) any female patients under 30 for at least two years or until which time he is deemed safe to do so. Dr. Schenthal may do medication management with females under 30 if and only if he has a licensed female health care worker in the room at all times and he does not have any call responsibilities that would cause him to treat these patients after hours without a chaperone. He should not ever treat female adolescents again. Dr. Schenthal takes a series of professional boundary/risk management courses on an annual basis. Patient survey and physician survey forms are employed quarterly and results are satisfactory. Dr. Schenthal has appointments only during regular office hours. Dr. Schenthal continues taking his antidepressant medication until his depressive symptoms have remitted for a minimum of six months and/or Dr. Schaffner recommends discontinuation. Dr. Schenthal and his wife participate in marital therapy if recommended by Dr. Schaffner. Dr. Schenthal is fully compliant with the above and with his long-term PRN contract. With the above recommendations for continued rehabilitation, supervision and monitoring in place, it is my medical opinion that Dr. Schenthal can begin his re-entry into professional practice with the reasonable skills and safety to patients. Dr. Raymond M. Pomm is a psychiatrist. He is the Medical Director of the Physician's Resource Network. Dr. Pomm was aware of Dr. Stein's findings concerning Respondent when Dr. Pomm prepared his own report on October 27, 2000. Based upon Dr. Stein's evaluation, Dr. Pomm's knowledge of the case and with the recognition that restrictions on Respondent's return to practice would be monitored by the Physician's Resource Network, in part and by the Agency for Health Care Administration otherwise, Dr. Pomm described the nature of restrictions he would recommend, should Respondent be allowed to return to practice. They were as follows: Dr. Schenthal should continue at least weekly psychotherapy. This will be a requirement of his PRN contract. Dr. Schenthal should continue his weekly PRN Caduceus group. This also will be a part of his PRN contract. Dr. Schenthal should have indirect physician supervision. This supervision would entail Dr. Schenthal meeting with a physician who is Board-Certified in his specific specialty of Psychiatry on a monthly basis. Each visit will require the supervisor to review with Dr. Schenthal a randomly selected ten percent of Dr. Schenthal's charts pertaining to his treatment of female patients. Therefore, every quarter, a minimum of thirty percent of his charts should have been reviewed. The review would be looking at the appropriateness of evaluative techniques used, therapeutic and psychotropic medication management issues, as well as, countertransferential issues. Also, this review will determine the appropriateness of the ongoing treatment plan and Dr. Schenthal's follow-up with said treatment plan. Dr. Schenthal should only work in an institutional or group practice setting. Dr. Schenthal should not treat any female patient under thirty years of age with psychotherapy for at least two years, and until such time he is deemed safe to do so. Dr. Schenthal may do medication management with females under thirty years of age, if an only, if, he has a licensed female health care worker in the room at all times. Dr. Schenthal should never have any call responsibilities that would cause him to treat the restricted population after hours without a chaperone. Dr. Schenthal should never treat female adolescent patients again (any female patients under twenty-one years of age). Dr. Schenthal should receive annual CME credits in boundary violation and risk management. Patient survey forms, which will be supplied by PRN, should be distributed to his patients by his office manager for one entire week every quarter. These completed forms would then be sent to his indirect physician supervisor for review. Dr. Schenthal should only have appointments with patients during regular office hours. Dr. Schenthal should continue to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis as required by his PRN monitoring contract. Dr. Schenthal will be required to inform his office staff of the difficulties he is experiencing, the terms of his agreement with the Agency for Health Care Administration, as well as, the terms of his agreement with his PRN contract and give his staff the PRN phone number. The tenure of the PRN contract will be license-long. Dr. Klass was called upon by Respondent to offer an opinion concerning Respondent's conduct, in relation to the care Respondent provided M.B.G. After familiarizing himself with the circumstances, to include the reports of Dr. Schaffner concerning treatment provided Respondent and the forensic psychiatric examination performed by Dr. Stein, Dr. Klass arrived at his opinion concerning Respondent's status. Dr. Klass also spoke to Dr. Schaffner by telephone concerning her opinion and attitudes about Respondent. Implicit in Respondent's request was the intent that Dr. Klass speak to the issue of Respondent's future opportunities to practice and under what conditions. In arriving at his conclusions Dr. Klass performed an assessment of Respondent. Dr. Klass expressed the opinion that if Respondent were allowed to return to practice, Respondent could do so acceptably if the following restrictions were in place: 1) No treatment of a female patient younger than 21 years of age until Respondent completes his therapy, as attested to by two sources, one of whom is his treating psychiatrist and the other psychiatrist who is selected; 2) Supervision of all female cases not just young females; Respondent would have to take the charts of his female patients to a qualified Board-certified expert and go over those cases so that it can be determined whether Respondent is significantly affected by his problem in that it is not resolved; 3) Marriage counseling; 4) Participation in group therapy; 5) Medication as necessary; 6) Urine checks that Respondent would have to consent to on an unscheduled basis to determine if he is taking prescribed medication; 7) Further psychiatric/psychological testing if deemed necessary by treating therapists or the Board of Medicine; 8) Literature review on the subject of countertransferance which was in evidence in Respondent's conduct directed to M.B.G.; 9) No patients seen before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.; 10) Contact with Physician's Resource Network professionals who have similar problems to those experienced by Respondent; 11) Allowing assessment by a third- party through a psychological or psychiatric evaluation; Allowing communication with female consenting patients concerning limited questions about their therapy; and Maintaining a "dream journal." With these restrictions in mind, Dr. Klass believes, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, that Respondent could practice psychiatry safely. The restrictions which the physicians have recommended recognize that Respondent has yet to achieve a level of improvement in his condition that would not require close monitoring of his practice and their belief that he not be allowed to treat young female patients. These opinions are held while recognizing Respondent's improvement and willingness to continue with treatment. The opinions concerning restrictions on practice are accepted as well informed and meaningful. Dr. Madison Haire is a practicing internist and nephrologist in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. In the past, Dr. Haire referred patients to Respondent and was persuaded that Respondent provided those patients with excellent supervision, monitoring, and care, prior to the incident with forms the basis for this case. Dr. Haire was unaware of any complaints against Respondent. Dr. Patricia Harrison is a Board Certified psychiatrist who is practicing in the Fort Walton Beach area and has had the opportunity to observe Respondent in the performance of his duties. Dr. Harrison has observed that Respondent exercised professionalism and good judgment in rendering good care and treatment to his patients, aside from the present case. Other physicians have offered favorable opinions concerning Respondent's practice as evidenced in Respondent's Exhibit No. 8.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which imposes the following penalties: Count One: Imposition of a $5,000.00 administrative fine; Count Two: A suspension of one year from the date upon which the final order is entered; Count Three: Placement of Respondent on two years probation following the service of his suspension, subject to such conditions as the Board may specify and restriction of Respondent's practice consistent with those recommendations that have been made by the treatment specialists, as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 15th day of March, 2001.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Bret L. Lusskin (Respondent) was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0007919. Respondent has been practicing medicine in Florida for approximately 33 years. Respondent is board-certified in orthopedic surgery. On January 8, 1992, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine (Board of Medicine) filed a Final Order of disciplinary action against Respondent in DOAH Case No. 90-1565, DPR Case Nos. 89-07389, 89-011684, and 89- 011856. By the Final Order, the Board of Medicine reprimanded Respondent's license and further ordered the following: Within 60 days, Respondent must be evaluated by a psychiatrist approved by the Physician's Recovery Network and must comply with all recommendations of said psychiatrist including entering into and complying with a contract with the Physician's Recovery Network, if applicable. Respondent shall not examine or treat any female patients without a female employee who is a health care professional licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation present in the room. Respondent must complete the continuing medical education course offered by the University of South Florida and the Florida Medical Association entitled, "Protecting Your Medical Practice: Clinical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in Prescribing Abusable Drugs," or an equivalent course approved by the Board. Respondent appealed the Board of Medicine's Final Order to Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 92-0251. The appellate court filed its decision, which was "Per Curiam Affirmed," on December 9, 1992, and issued its Mandate on February 26, 1993. On April 7, 1993, the Board of Medicine filed a Final Order of disciplinary action against Respondent in DPR Case Nos. 90-03022 and 92-03622, in which Administrative Complaints were filed against Respondent. One of the Administrative Complaints, Case No. 92-03622, filed on July 13, 1992, was based upon Respondent's failure to present himself for evaluation by a psychiatrist approved by the Physician's Recovery Network (PRN) within 60 days of the Board of Medicine's Final Order filed on January 8, 1992. The Final Order in DPR Case Nos. 90-03022 and 92-03622 approved a consent agreement involving the cases. The consent agreement provided, among other things, that Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact in the Administrative Complaints, that Case No. 92-03622 be dismissed, that Respondent be reprimanded, and that an administrative fine of $2,000 be imposed. On January 29, 1993, following the appellate decision, a psychiatric evaluation of Respondent was performed at the University of Florida, College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, by Dr. George W. Barnard, M.D., a psychiatrist, and Dr. Michael J. Herkov, Ph.D. Dr. Barnard was a professor and Director of the Forensic Psychiatry Division at the University, and Dr. Herkov was an assistant professor at the University. Dr. Barnard was approved by PRN. Among other things, Drs. Barnard and Herkov administered several psychological tests to Respondent. The tests were the Minnesota Multiphastic Personality Disorder (MMPI), Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI), and the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Drs. Barnard and Herkov opined, among other things, that Respondent suffers from a "dysthymic condition" and from "characterological problems that play a considerable role in his [Respondent's] behavior." Further, Drs. Barnard and Herkov opined that Respondent denies any responsibility for his inappropriate conduct, instead blaming his patients, and that such denial places Respondent "at serious risk to continue to engage in these inappropriate behaviors." Drs. Banard and Herkov made several recommendations. Concerned with the "intransigence of [the] characterological traits and the strength and pervasiveness of his [Respondent's] current denial," Drs. Banard and Herkov recommended, among other things, that Respondent participate in a structured and intensive inpatient psychotherapy treatment program, specializing in sex offenders; that, after the inpatient treatment, Respondent receive long-term psychotherapy in his local community with a therapist trained in dealing with sexual offenders, noting that prior outpatient psychotherapy had been ineffective; that periodic reports be made to the PRN; that Respondent become a member of the local Caduceus Group; and that Respondent continue the practice of always having a female assistant present when examining a female patient. Furthermore, Drs. Banard and Herkov stated that Respondent's "motivation for change appears to be poor, and any intervention program hinges to a great extent on patient [Respondent] willingness to change" and that Respondent "may have to be faced with dire consequences before he possesses the necessary motivation to participate in such a program." Respondent desired a second opinion. On April 9, 1993, a second psychiatric evaluation of Respondent was performed at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, by Dr. Anthony Reading, M.D., a psychiatrist, and Dr. Irving B. Weiner, Ph.D. Dr. Reading was the Chairperson of and a professor at the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at the University. Making no specific diagnosis, Dr. Reading opined, among other things, in the evaluation that Respondent does not represent an ongoing danger to female patients through inappropriate sexual behavior and that Respondent has a number of emotionally constricted personality attributes which are under control. Dr. Reading recommended, among other things, that the requirement of having a female professional present during Respondent's examination of female patients be continued and that Respondent receive outpatient psychiatric treatment, conducted by a PRN-approved individual who is trained in the therapy particularly associated with Respondent's problems and who has no prior social or professional relationship with Respondent. A copy of Dr. Reading's evaluation was forwarded to the PRN. A review of the evaluations by Drs. Banard and Reading was conducted by Dr. Raymond Pomm for the PRN. Dr. Pomm was a PRN staff psychiatrist who renders opinions to PRN's director, Dr. Roger Goetz, regarding psychiatric, chemical dependency and boundary violation cases. Based on Dr. Pomm's review, PRN took the position that Dr. Reading's evaluation was based on incomplete information and was, therefore, invalid. Wanting to obtain an independent review, PRN forwarded a copy of the two evaluations performed by Drs. Banard and Reading to Dr. James Edgar, a psychiatrist at the South Tampa Medical Center, Tampa, Florida, for his review. Having reviewed the evaluations, Dr. Edgar reached several conclusions and notified PRN of his conclusions by letter dated May 5, 1993.2 Dr. Edgar concluded that Respondent suffers from "a characterological disorder characterized by narcissistic traits of self-centeredness and relative callousness to the needs of others, denial of personal responsibility for his action and a preference for getting his own needs met without much regard for the needs of others." Dr. Edgar determined that Respondent's prognosis was "extremely guarded if not poor" and that Respondent "shows no evidence of motivation for treatment." Further, Dr. Edgar concluded that Respondent had misrepresented himself to Dr. Reading and that Respondent was a "significant risk" to patients. Moreover, Dr. Edgar concluded that, if Respondent was to be allowed to continue his practice under the auspices of the PRN, Respondent should be participating in a "well structured treatment plan." Dr. Edgar provided specifics regarding the treatment plan, including an autonomous female attendant, inpatient treatment and, after the inpatient treatment, outpatient psychotherapy. Also, Dr. Edgar indicated that he was "pessimistic" that the inpatient treatment would have any significant impact on Respondent's personality structure. Dr. Edgar's report was presented to the PRN. After reviewing the evaluations and Dr. Edgar's report, PRN required Respondent to present himself for admission for inpatient therapy and provided Respondent with a choice of facilities for the therapy. The Menninger Clinic at the C.F. Menninger Memorial Hospital in Topeka, Kansas, was chosen. It was agreed by Respondent and PRN that they would abide by the recommendations made by The Menninger Clinic. On or about May 3, 1993, Respondent presented himself to The Menninger Clinic for evaluation by Dr. Donald E. Rosen, M.D., Director of the Professionals in Crisis Program at The Menninger Clinic, and by Dr. Rosen's staff. However, inpatient admission did not occur. In his report, Dr. Rosen stated, among other things, that Respondent "clearly did not desire inpatient treatment (or treatment in general)"; that Respondent, during the initial interview, "denied the presence of any psychiatric symptoms, psychological conflicts, or presence of any treatment goals that he would hope to accomplish in a treatment process"; and that Respondent was openly cautious and withheld some information, with his withholding being "overt and in other ways, more subtle." Dr. Rosen was, therefore, unable to make any specific recommendation, stating, among other things, that "no specific recommendations for ongoing psychiatric treatment are made at this time." Further, in his report Dr. Rosen addressed the situation of a female attendant being present during Respondent's treatment and examination of female patients. Dr. Rosen was concerned with Respondent's manipulative behavior and stated that, considering Respondent's "long-standing history of sexual relations with his patients, his lack of guilt about these relationships, his inability to see this behavior as a personal ethical issue, and the overt manipulativeness that surrounded this evaluation," he could not "state with confidence that the patient [Respondent] will not attempt to make his employees allow him to see female patients without a female healthcare professional in the room at all times." It is undisputed that Dr. Rosen did not make any recommendations. By letter dated May 6, 1993, to Respondent and written at Respondent's request, Dr. Rosen confirmed that Respondent presented himself for inpatient admission but was not admitted. Furthermore, Dr. Rosen stated the reasons for Respondent not being admitted, which were because Respondent "denied the presence of any psychiatric symptoms, denied any psychological problems you [Respondent] wished to work on, and had no goals for what you [Respondent] hoped treatment would accomplish." These reasons were the same reasons expressed in Dr. Rosen's report. Inpatient treatment could not be accomplished, if Respondent refused to admit that he had psychological problems and that he needed to work on his psychological problems, and to establish goals for what he hoped the treatment would accomplish. By certified letter dated August 3, 1993, to Respondent, PRN confirmed its request made May 26, 1993, that Respondent not practice medicine until he completed inpatient treatment. Furthermore, in the letter PRN notified Respondent that, before he could return to the practice of medicine, his treating psychiatrist must confirm that he is able to return to the practice of medicine with reasonable safety to the public. By letter dated February 10, 1994, to the then Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), PRN notified the Department that Respondent was in violation of the Board of Medicine's Final Order filed January 8, 1992. PRN recapped, among other things, the evaluations performed, including the evaluation at The Menninger Clinic, and the results of the evaluations. Furthermore, PRN advised the Department of the request PRN made to Respondent in May 1993 that Respondent refrain from practicing medicine until he had undergone inpatient treatment at The Menninger Clinic and the same request it had made in August 1993. PRN concluded, among other things, that Respondent had violated the Final Order; that it (PRN) was unable to monitor Respondent, as to refraining from practicing medicine; that Respondent continued to need inpatient therapy at The Menninger Clinic; and that Respondent presented a danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. On July 20, 1994, Dr. Burton Cahn, M.D., a psychiatrist, wrote a letter addressed to "To Whom It May Concern," stating that Respondent "does not represent either a danger to himself or to others." Prior to writing the letter, Respondent was Dr. Cahn's patient from November 1989 through 1991. Dr. Cahn never conducted any diagnostic tests, such as the MMPI, on Respondent. Also, Dr. Cahn is a personal friend of Respondent. By letter dated September 6, 1994, the Compliance Officer for the Board of Medicine notified Respondent that he had complied with all of the requirements of the Final Order dated January 8, 1992. The letter further reminded Respondent of the restriction that a licensed female healthcare professional was required to be present when he treated or examined female patients. However, the Compliance Officer issued the letter in error. She had failed to communicate with the PRN, prior to issuing the letter, to determine whether Respondent had completed the requirements as to the PRN, such as being evaluated by a PRN- approved psychiatrist and complying with the recommendations of the psychiatrist. If the Compliance Officer had communicated with the PRN, she would have been informed by PRN that Respondent had not completed its requirements. Further, legal counsel with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)3 informed PRN that Respondent was under no obligation to comply with PRN's request of May 1993 and August 1993 to refrain from practicing medicine until he undergoes inpatient treatment at The Menninger Clinic. Moreover, the legal counsel further informed PRN that Respondent was only required to comply with the recommendations of the psychiatrist. By letter dated November 1, 1995, to the legal counsel of AHCA, the PRN again expressed, among other things, its concern that Respondent was capable of manipulating his staff when treating or examining a female patient. The PRN advised the legal counsel that it considered Respondent's impairment to affect his ability to practice medicine and that his impairment "constitutes an immediate, serious danger to the public health, safety and welfare." Subsequently, on February 22, 1996, the Administrative Complaint in the present case was filed by the Petitioner. At that time, the prevailing opinion amongst all of the PRN-approved psychiatrists, except for Dr. Rosen, was that Respondent was suffering from a psychological illness. Moreover, the prevailing opinion amongst all of the PRN-approved psychiatrists, except for Dr. Rosen, was that inpatient therapy was required. Dr. Rosen was unable to make any diagnosis or recommendations. Even though Respondent presented himself for inpatient admission, he was not admitted due to his denial that he had a psychological illness that required therapy; without Respondent admitting that he had a psychological problem, no treatment could be effectuated. Without treatment, Respondent remained ill; he suffered from a psychological illness. Without treatment, Respondent was a danger to his female patients and was unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to his patients by reason of illness.4 After the filing of the Administrative Complaint in the present case, the parties agreed that Respondent would be evaluated by a psychiatrist acceptable to the PRN. After consideration, including the location of Respondent's practice, which was on the East Coast, and Respondent's wish for a psychiatrist on the East Coast to conduct the evaluation, Dr. Ronald Shellow, a psychiatrist in Miami, was recommended by PRN, but PRN also indicated that Dr. Shellow was not an expert in the behavioral disorder with which Respondent had been diagnosed by other PRN approved psychiatrists. On August 7, 14, and 23, 1996, Dr. Shellow conducted an evaluation of Respondent, with each session lasting one hour. Dr. Shellow administered the Bender-Gestalt and the House-Tree- Person psychological tests. In his report dated September 2, 1996, Dr. Shellow states, among other things, that Respondent related to him the incident involving the female patient, on which the Administrative Complaint in the present case was filed, but that Respondent "would not say whether this had happened with other patients." Clearly, Respondent was not being forthright with Dr. Shellow because, prior to this incident, other incidents involving female patients had occurred. This additional information was not available to Dr. Shellow for his consideration in his evaluation. Again, Respondent was withholding information. In his evaluation, Dr. Shellow opined, among other things, that Respondent was not suffering from a psychiatric disturbance and that Respondent had no psychiatric disorder; however, based on Respondent's history, Dr. Shellow Respondent did have a dependent personality disorder. Dr. Shellow concluded, among other things, that the reoccurrence of the incident with another female patient was "unlikely" as long as Respondent's marriage remained "satisfying" and he continued to "see his psychiatrist on a quarterly basis." Dr. Shellow indicated that Respondent's present psychiatrist, Dr. Cahn, concurred with him. Subsequently, Dr. Shellow received a copy of the evaluation conducted by The Menninger Clinic from Dr. Cahn. Having reviewed The Menninger Clinic's evaluation, which revealed past encounters by Respondent with his female patients, by letter dated November 14, 1996, to Dr. Pomm of the PRN, Dr. Shellow notified PRN that his opinion had not changed. Dr. Cahn had begun treating Respondent again in 1995. His opinion remained, and remains, unchanged. Dr. Cahn is of the opinion that, even though Respondent was suffering from a personality disorder when he first began treating Respondent in 1989, Respondent no longer suffers from a psychological illness and, therefore, requires no psychiatric treatment.5 Dr. Cahn agrees that a personality disorder is a psychological illness. Considering the proof, the opinions of Dr. Cahn are less than persuasive, and it is concluded that Respondent continues to suffer from a psychological illness.6 Furthermore, Dr. Shellow expressed in his letter dated November 14, 1996, that he was of the opinion that Respondent could practice medicine with skill and safety under certain conditions. Dr. Shellow stated that if Respondent "is to continue practicing medicine with skill and safety, he should be in psychotherapy on some sort of sontinuing [sic] basis, and he should be supervised to prevent these actions from occurring again." Regarding the monitoring of Respondent's practice, Dr. Shellow was of the opinion that any monitoring should be devised and decided upon by the PRN and that, with Respondent being in his 60's, Respondent should enter into a contract with the PRN for as long as he practices medicine. Also, Dr. Shellow opined that some way should be developed to use Respondent's skills, but that, if Respondent prevented anyone in his office from reporting to the PRN, Respondent was not practicing medicine with skill and safety. At no time did Dr. Shellow receive or review the evaluations of Drs. Banard, Reading or Edgar. On December 2, 1996, AHCA filed an Order of Emergency Restriction of License against Respondent. His medical practice was restricted as to his treating or examining female patients, monitoring by PRN, and entering into a contract with PRN. On December 30, 1996, Respondent executed an advocacy contract with PRN. In the contract, Respondent designated, among other things, Dr. Cahn as his treating psychiatrist, with whom he would have quarterly psychiatric treatment meetings; Dr. Michael Langone, M.D., as his supervising practitioner; and Gretchen Nelson, a registered nurse, as the female chaperon during his treatment or examination of female patients. Dr. Cahn is known to the PRN. He has been a referral psychiatrist for PRN for several years. Nowhere on the advocacy contract was there a provision to identify the relationship of the supervising practitioner and the chaperon to the physician who is being monitored. Dr. Langone was an associate and employee of Respondent. Nurse Nelson was an employee of Respondent. On January 16, 1997, PRN executed the advocacy contract. By letter dated February 4, 1997, PRN notified the legal counsel for AHCA that an advocacy contract had been entered into between it and Respondent. In March 1997, PRN experienced a problem as to the female chaperon, Nurse Nelson. The PRN telephoned Respondent's office to confer with Nurse Nelson. Upon speaking with Nurse Nelson, among other things, PRN learned that she was not aware of her responsibility as the female chaperon to the advocacy contract and that she was employed by Respondent. By letter dated March 24, 1997, PRN notified Respondent that it had contacted his office several times and had problems contacting the individuals indicated in the advocacy contract; that the contract needed to be reviewed with the individuals; and that the individuals would be receiving random monitoring telephone calls from PRN to access compliance with the contract. Further, PRN notified Respondent that copies of the contract mailed to the female chaperon and the office staff person designated to handout and collect the Patient Survey Form were returned, and PRN requested that Respondent make sure that the individuals receive copies of the contract. After discovering that Respondent had designated an associate and employee as the supervising practitioner, PRN was concerned that Dr. Langone may have a conflict of interest. Also, PRN discovered that Dr. Langone was leaving Respondent's practice. PRN decided to no longer approve Dr. Langone as the supervising practitioner. By letter dated June 2, 1997, PRN notified the legal counsel for AHCA that PRN had attempted to monitor Respondent's practice without success and that Respondent was currently not being monitored by PRN. Furthermore, PRN stated that Respondent, in its opinion, continued to require monitoring by it. Respondent has not been charged with a violation of the advocacy contract. PRN has not notified the Petitioner that Respondent was not in compliance with the contract. Neither Dr. Cahn nor any individual designated in the contract has notified the PRN that Respondent was not in compliance with the contract. Dr. Cahn, Respondent's approved treating psychiatrist, is of the opinion that by having a licensed female professional present when Respondent examines or treats a female patient, Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Dr. Pomm of PRN is of the opinion that, with a monitoring contract in place and compliance with the contract, Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. However, Dr. Pomm is also guarded as to the success of any future contract due to Respondent's history of manipulation and personality disorder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Respondent violated Subsection 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes, in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Suspending Respondent's license until he is able to demonstrate that he is able to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Placing Respondent on probation, under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Board of Medicine, for five years following the removal of the suspension. Imposing an administrative fine of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter Alagona, Jr., is licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. He is board-certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty in cardiology and has practiced cardiology since 1981. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been the subject of professional discipline except for this proceeding. In 1989, the Respondent became acquainted with V.P., who worked as a receptionist at a hospital where he had practice privileges. Their work relationship became friendly and, although the Respondent was married and had children, he and V.P. responded to each other's friendly manner by mutual flirtation. At first, their flirting was discrete but later became more open and romantic. The Respondent began to write V.P. notes and greeting cards and send her flowers. In approximately May, 1989, V.P. indicated her willingness to begin an intimate and sexual relationship. The Respondent did not hesitate to oblige her. There is no evidence that the Respondent used a doctor-patient relationship to induce V.P. to engage in sexual activity with him, as alleged. When the sexual relationship began, there was no doctor-patient relationship between them. During her tenure at work at the hospital, V.P. from time to time complained of a rapid heart beat, and one of the four cardiologists at the hospital would respond to her complaint. The Respondent was one of the several doctors who had occasion to respond. No treatment ever was required. V.P.'s heart beat would soon return to normal, and everyone would return to work. No true doctor-patient relationship was established, and neither the Respondent, the other doctors nor V.P. ever thought one had been established. The allegation that the Respondent essentially intentionally used drugs he prescribed for V.P. during the course of their affair to control her and prolong the sexual relationship with V.P. against her will hinges on the following reference in V.P.'s deposition transcript: Q. Just so that I'm clear, did Alagona ever tell you that if you did not have sex with him, he would not write prescriptions for you? A. Those aren't the words. He has made comments about, "Where are you going to get your prescriptions?" Q. When did he make those comments? A. I don't know. During the relationship, at the end of the relationship. Q. Give me some of the circumstances surrounding those comments. A. It was, I'm sure, during an argument or something. I don't know. In view of all the evidence, that allegation is rejected as not proven. It is factual that, in another poor judgment that flowed from the poor judgment in initiating and conducting the affair in the first place, the Respondent began to act as V.P.'s personal physician for limited purposes during the course of the affair. When she complained of migraine headaches, he prescribed pain medication such as Tylox, a Schedule II controlled substance containing oxycodone, and Inderal, a beta-blocker and a legend drug. For stress, he prescribed Valium, which contains diazepam, also a legend drug. Although the Respondent clearly was acting as the doctor in a doctor-patient relationship when he prescribed these drugs, he still did not view himself as acting in that role and did not keep a written record of the drugs or the course of treatment in connection with those prescriptions. The allegation that the Respondent failed to practice medicine in accordance with required standards of care by not ordering the patient to receive mental health counseling but instead inappropriately allowing the patient to remain on Tylox also depends in large part on the testimony of V.P. In view of all the evidence, V.P.'s testimony pertinent to this allegation is rejected. The evidence was that the Respondent repeatedly advised V.P. to seek counseling, albeit not for drug abuse. Until April, 1990, the Respondent was not aware that V.P. was abusing drugs. The Respondent's Tylox prescriptions were not excessive and would not, in and of themselves, have indicated to the Respondent that V.P. was abusing Tylox or inappropriately remaining on Tylox; nor did V.P. exhibit clear signs of drug abuse or addiction prior to April, 1990. However, V.P. apparently was obtaining Tylox and other legend drugs from other sources without the Respondent's knowledge. She was seeing other physicians for the purpose of obtaining prescriptions, and she also was forging the Respondent's and other doctors' names to prescriptions to obtain additional drugs illegally. (One of the doctors whose name she forged predeceased the date of the forged prescription.) In April, 1990, the Respondent was notified that V.P. had been hospitalized for a drug overdose. In response to the request for advice from the attending physician, the Respondent recommended a psychiatrist for counseling. However, V.P. did not cooperate. She attended only one counseling session and refused further counseling. After the overdose hospitalization, the Respondent did not prescribe any more Tylox. However, again without the Respondent's knowledge, V.P. continued to obtain Tylox and other drugs from her other sources. The Respondent's judgment continued to be distorted and poor as a result of his intense sexual and romantic relationship with V.P. He continued to urge V.P. to obtain counseling for several reasons but, again, not specifically for drug abuse. By mid-1990, V.P. had dissolved her marriage, and she began putting pressure on the Respondent to divorce his wife and marry her. She began acting erratically, and her judgment also was poor. During a week- long visit to her family's home during the summer of 1990, she contacted an old boy friend, married him, changed her mind, and began annulment proceedings. By late 1990, V.P. started dating another doctor, and the pressure on both V.P. and the Respondent increased. The Respondent was unable to decide what to do, and the stress got ever greater as V.P. threatened to end the affair with the Respondent. While probably genuinely concerned for V.P.'s welfare, the Respondent probably also believed that, if V.P. got counseling, she would "see the light" and decide not to end their affair. Finally, the Respondent himself felt the need for counseling due to the stress of the affair, and he probably believed that she felt the same stress. Eventually, in early 1991, V.P. followed through on her threat and made it known to the Respondent that she was dropping him and choosing the other doctor. For some time, the Respondent was devastated and continued to try to persuade V.P. to return to him. Meanwhile, V.P. remained less than resolute, holding out to the Respondent some hope that she would return to him if he divorced his wife. Finally, practically an emotional wreck and despairing of any other way to get over his affair with V.P., the Respondent checked himself into an out-of-town residential psychiatric program. He purposely did not tell V.P. where he was, but she found out and, on the day of his discharge, sent him flowers with a card saying that she would never let him go. Eventually, the affair ended, and V.P. married the other doctor soon after.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent not guilty under Counts I and II but guilty under Count III; (2) placing him on probation for two years; (3) requiring him to take appropriate continuing medical education, if available, dealing with the physician-patient relationship and the prudence of avoiding the dual sexual/physician-patient relationship; and (4) imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, 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 7th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2467 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, as to second sentence of 5., although he cannot now remember when he prescribed Tylox, the Respondent's testimony is accepted that, at the time, and for this extraordinary patient, he was able to bear in mind adequately approximately when and what he last prescribed so as not to expose V.P. to a health risk. 6. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, as to the last sentence, although he cannot now remember his prescriptions, the Respondent's testimony is accepted that, at the time, and for this extraordinary patient, he was able to bear in mind adequately when and what he last prescribed so as not to expose V.P. to a health risk. 7.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that patients need to be kept under "surveillance." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. As to last sentence, rejected as not proven that all "drugs," in all doses, "control a patient's emotional state and level of pain." Accepted that some can, in certain doses, and otherwise accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted that it is not the only indication; subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. 13.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the Respondent "did not follow through with V.P.'s medical problems." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First two sentences, rejected as not proven; third, accepted that she said it, but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. First sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted that she said it, but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Rejected as not proven that he reviewed all of the prescription and hospital records. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. To the extent not conclusion of law, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven; second, cumulative; third, in part cumulative and in part rejected as not proven (that he had no justification); fourth, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found (he did some diagnostic testing); and last two rejected as not proven in that the evidence was that V.P. rejected the Respondent's repeated recommendations to her that she seek mental health counseling, but otherwise accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, accepted but not necessary; rest, rejected as not proven. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-22. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. 26.-27. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In large part, argument and conclusion of law; in part, accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear . . . that V.P. feels that Alagona left her." (Much of their behavior is difficult to explain, such as why V.P. would act as if she did not want to let Alagona go, while chosing Palay over Alagona.) Otherwise, accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence of C), rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to infer that V.P. forged these prescriptions." (The evidence raises the question and possibility of forgery, especially in the absence of testimony on the subject from V.P. and Palay, but it is not "safe to infer.") Otherwise, accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. First four sentences, argument and subordinate. Rest, generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, while V.P. may have been "in the emotional driver's seat," it does not appear that she knew where she was going.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the Respondent did not suggest psychiatric counseling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the Respondent did not suggest psychiatric counseling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the Respondent did not suggest psychiatric counseling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. As to the third and fourth sentences, there was no evidence as to the nature of doctors' "orders." But, based on the evidence, the Respondent did not "order" counseling. He suggested or recommended it and offered to help her get it, and V.P. declined. If the Respondent had "ordered" counseling, the patient still may or may not have followed his "order." In either case, it would appear that the critical decision is what a physician does in the face of the patient's failure to comply. It would seem that the only thing a physician reasonably can do in this situation is stop prescribing and, if necessary, terminate the physician-patient relationship. As to the rest, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 39.-42. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Rothenburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Regional Office VI-Legal Division 9325 Bay Plaza, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 L. D. Murrell, Esquire 319 Clematis Street, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4618 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
