The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2004),2 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Roush is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. ME 83992. He is board- certified in general surgery by the American Board of Surgery. On February 8, 2005, V.R. presented to the emergency department at Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. Her chief complaint was “near syncope,” which means near fainting. She had fallen and hit her left ribs. She denied hitting her head and stated that she never “went completely out.” She complained of feeling dizzy when she stood. While in the emergency department, V.R. had a CT which indicated an abnormality. She was admitted to the hospital by Ernesto J. Perez, M.D., who was the attending physician. V.R.’s medical history included hypertension, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. A brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a carotid magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) were ordered for V.R. After the MRI and MRA were completed, V.R. was seen by Juan L. Joy, M.D., who reviewed the test results. Dr. Joy found that both studies were “unremarkable.” Specifically, Dr. Joy found that the MRI showed no posterior fossa lesions. The radiographic report of the MRA showed that there was “approximately 70 to 80 percent luminal narrowing of the proximal left ICA." Because of the abnormal MRA, Dr. Perez consulted with Dr. Roush. Dr. Roush examined the patient and felt that V.R.’s symptoms were consistent with inner ear cochlear malfunction. However, he determined that V.R. had left-sided 70 to 80 percent carotid stenosis. His assessment of V.R. was that she was “a 66-year-old female with probable asymptomatic high-grade stenosis in the left carotid internal artery." He recommended a carotid endarterectomy, which is a procedure that removes plaque from the lining of the carotid artery. An MRA is used to diagnose blockages or stenosis in the carotid arteries. An MRA can overestimate the degree of blockage. Other studies such as ultrasound, carotid Doppler studies, and standard arteriography are used to diagnose carotid stenosis. Roush did not order or perform any additional diagnostic studies to confirm the results of V.R.’s MRA prior to making the surgical recommendation. Dr. Roush performed the carotid endarterectomy on V.R., but no carotid stenosis was found. An ultrasound of the right carotid artery was ordered to determine if the original MRA had been of the right carotid rather then the left. The ultrasound showed that there was “no hemodynamically significant stenosis” and “no plaque” in the right carotid. The Department presented Dr. Michael J. Cohen as its expert witness. Dr. Cohen is board-certified in vascular surgery. It was Dr. Cohen’s opinion that an MRA, alone, was not sufficient to diagnose carotid stenosis and that Dr. Roush fell below the standard of care by not ordering additional diagnostic tests prior to recommending surgical intervention. Dr. Cohen's opinion is credited. The MRA showed a blockage of 70 to 80 percent. Dr. Cohen credibly opined that most vascular surgeons would not have operated on an asymptomatic patient such as V.R. with that level of stenosis without additional testing. It was Dr. Cohen’s credible opinion that the carotid endarterectomy which Dr. Roush performed on V.R. was an unnecessary surgical procedure; thus, Dr. Roush fell below the standard of care when he performed the surgery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Roush violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; requiring 25 hours of community service; requiring Dr. Roush to take no less than five hours of Risk Management Continuing Medical Education coursework; and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 16th day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Ford was a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license, numbered ME 0051042, was issued on July 8, 1987. Patient R.A.L, presented to the Emergency Department of Winter Haven Hospital (Hospital) at approximately 1:35 p.m. on October 9, 1997. R.A.L.'s initial chief complaint was right flank pain since 9:00 a.m. that day. He reported a history of vomiting and diarrhea and stated that it felt like a kidney stone, of which R.A.L. had a history. Right flank pain is common with a patient having a kidney stone or kidney problem. R.A.L. was initially examined by Dr. David Siegel about 30 minutes after R.A.L. came to the emergency room. On physical examination palpation, there was no flank pain, but R.A.L. did have moderate pain diffusely throughout all areas of his abdomen. His abdomen was not acutely distended, and there were normal bowel sounds. On Dr. Siegel's order R.A.L. was given Toradol intravenously at 2:22 p.m. to relieve the pain. Toradol is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. R.A.L. was also given fluids intravenously. R.A.L.'s symptoms did not provide Dr. Siegel with a definitive diagnosis. Dr. Siegel ordered the following tests to be performed: a complete blood count, an amylase, a urinalysis, a PTPDT, and X-rays of the abdomen. The complete blood count was done to make sure that the patient was not anemic and to see if there was an elevated white blood count, which would be indicative of some type of infection or acute abdominal process. The complete blood count showed a significantly elevated white blood cell count of 24.3. The test also revealed that there was a left shift of a differential, which means that there was a high differential percentage-wise of segmented and banded white blood cells. The combination of the significantly elevated white blood cell count and the left shift indicated that there was an acute infectious process or an acute illness. The amalyse test measures a serum enzyme that is secreted from the pancreas. If the serum enzyme is elevated, it could be indicative of pancreatitis. The amalyse test was normal. The urinalysis would show whether there was an infection and would show some abnormalities if there were a kidney stone. R.A.L.'s urine checked out normal. At 3:00 p.m. R.A.L. voided. His urine was strained, but there were no kidney stones present. R.A.L. did not have an adequate response to the Toradol. He was given Demerol intravenously at 3:10 p.m. Based on the test results, Dr. Siegel was unable to make a definitive diagnosis. Because of R.A.L.'s clinical condition and his continued pain, Dr. Siegel ordered an abdominal Computed Tomography (CT) scan to see if he could further define what was going on in R.A.L.'s abdomen. Because of the absence of flank pain, the elevated white blood cell count, and the normal urinalysis report, Dr. Siegel did not rule out the possibility of kidney stones, but did feel that some abdominal process of significance was higher on the list of possible diagnoses than kidney stones. Dr. Siegel went off duty at 5:30 p.m. and turned the care of R.A.L. over to Dr. Ronald Barbour. Dr. Siegel gave Dr. Barbour an oral report of his findings and indicated that he was primarily concerned about a serious intra-abdominal process. Before finishing his shift, Dr. Siegel dictated a written report, which was immediately transcribed and placed in R.A.L.'s chart. Dr. Siegel expected Dr. Barbour to get the results of the CT scan and determine whether the results would allow a diagnosis. When Dr. Barbour came on duty, he went to see R.A.L., who told Dr. Barbour that he was still having some pain. R.A.L. asked for something to relieve the pain, and Dr. Barbour ordered Demerol for him. Dr. Barbour received a call from the radiologist, who said that the CT scan was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Dr. Barbour told R.A.L. that it appeared he had a bowel obstruction and that he would be admitted to the Hospital. It is the Hospital's policy to contact a patient's primary care physician when a patient is being admitted to the Hospital from the Emergency Department. Dr. Ford was R.A.L.'s primary care physician. Dr. Ford was called by an Emergency Department nurse. Dr. Barbour spoke with Dr. Ford and advised him that the CT scan showed a small bowel obstruction. Dr. Ford stated that he would admit R.A.L. No mention was made of a surgical consult during the conversation. Dr. Barbour did not call a surgeon for a consult because normally if the patient has a primary care physician, the primary care physician would choose the surgeon should a surgical consult be necessary. R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital at approximately 8:45 p.m. At that point, the responsibility for the care and treatment of the patient shifted from Dr. Barbour to Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford gave admission orders to Lorina Duncan, a nurse in the Emergency Department. The orders included administering Demerol and Phenergan as needed and giving the patient a saline solution intravenously. Dr. Ford also ordered tests to be done the following morning. The nurse's notes do not indicate that Dr. Ford told her to order a surgical consult for the next morning. R.A.L. was given Demerol and Phenergan in the Emergency Department at 9:55 p.m. At 10:10 p.m. R.A.L. was signed out of the Emergency Department to the medical/surgical floor of the Street Building, which is known as Street One. When R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital, his abdomen was not distended. By the time he was admitted to Street One, his abdomen was distended and firm, and he was complaining of abdominal pain and nausea. When he was placed in his bed, he positioned himself in a fetal position, which is indicative of being in pain. He had no bowel sounds. While the nurse was getting a medical history, R.A.L. was lethargic and would drift off in the middle of the admission questions. His breathing was shallow and rapid. It took the nurse over an hour to complete the admission assessment on R.A.L. after he had come to Street One. At 11:50 p.m., R.A.L. was complaining that his pain had increased throughout his stomach. He indicated that his nausea was better. R.A.L. requested a patient-control anesthetic (PCA), which allows the patient to administer a metered dose of pain medication to himself by pushing a button. Around midnight the nurse had the hospital operator page Dr. Ford. He returned the nurse's call. She told Dr. Ford that R.A.L.'s abdomen was distended and that he was lethargic. R.A.L. had had no pain medication administered since being admitted to Street One, and his next dose of pain medication was to be given at 1:00 a.m. The nurse told Dr. Ford that R.A.L. was complaining of pain and wanted to have a PCA. Dr. Ford gave an order for a Demerol PCA, which would allow a five-milligram dose every five minutes with a maximum of 150 milligrams in four hours. The nurse told Dr. Ford that R.A.L. had been complaining of nausea. Dr. Ford asked whether R.A.L. had vomited, and she advised the doctor that R.A.L. had not. They discussed the possible use of a naso-gastric (NG) tube, which extends from the nose down to the stomach. It is used to aspirate the contents of the stomach, which decreases nausea and distention. Dr. Ford did not order a NG tube. At 12:30 a.m., October 10, 1997, the Demerol PCA was started. At 4:30 a.m., R.A.L. was complaining of shortness of breath. His abdomen was more distended and firm. Dr. Ford was paged, and he gave orders for lab work to be done. At 4:45 a.m. R.A.L. went into distress and died. Dr. Ford arrived at the Hospital about 5:05 a.m. A small bowel obstruction is a condition characterized by the inability of gastrointestinal fluid and material to pass through the small bowel due to some sort of blockage. Symptoms include pain, nausea, vomiting and a change in or cessation of bowel sounds. Small bowel obstructions generally cause the bowels to become inflamed and swollen, which can lead to a cut off of the blood supply to the bowel and result in the rupture of the bowel. If the bowel ruptures, it is a very acute, life-threatening situation which must be treated rapidly. Small bowel obstructions are generally classified as a partial or simple obstruction, and a complete or strangulated obstruction. A strangulated small bowel obstruction means the vascular system has been compromised and the blood supply to a part of the bowel has been cut off. If the blood supply has been cut off, the bowel tissue will become gangrenous, then necrotic, and finally die. Surgery can alleviate the strangulation. Strangulated small bowel obstructions represent 20 to 40 percent of all small bowel obstructions. Post-operative adhesions, bands of scar tissue which form inside the abdomen, are the predominate cause of strangulated bowel obstructions. Severe and constant pain, as opposed to cramping, intermittent pain, can characterize a strangulated small bowel. A strangulated small bowel is a very serious condition. Diagnosis requires obtaining a careful history, recognition of previous operations, a "hands on" physical examination and diagnostic testing. With a small bowel obstruction, a patient’s condition can change rapidly, sometimes in a matter of hours. Because any change in the condition of the patient can indicate a significant problem, serial abdominal examinations are important. Early detection and evaluation of complications from small bowel obstructions are also important. In the case of R.A.L., the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances would have been for Dr. Ford to come to the Hospital and physically examine R.A.L. when the patient was admitted to the Hospital under his care and after Dr. Ford was called by the nurse around midnight, apprising him of R.A.L.’s condition. Dr. Ford did not come to the Hospital to examine from the time R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital under his care to the time R.A.L. died. A strangulated bowel is a surgical emergency. If a physician fails to diagnose and treat a strangulated small bowel, the patient will likely die. The physician will normally consult a surgeon when the patient presents with a small bowel obstruction. In performing a surgical consult, the surgeon will make the determination of whether and when to perform surgery. The sooner the surgeon is involved, the less the chances of compromising the patient’s bowel or general physical condition. Calling a surgeon early in the course of treating a patient with a small bowel obstruction is the prudent thing to do. In the case of R.A.L., the level of care, skill, and treatment, which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, would have been for Dr. Ford to call for a surgical consult when R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital under his care. Dr. Ford did not call for a surgical consult from the time R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital under his care to the time R.A.L. died.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Ronald A. Ford, M.D. violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, placing him on two years' probation, imposing an administrative fine of $5,000, and requiring him to take five hours of continuing medical education in the area of risk management and 16 hours of continuing medical education in the area of diagnosing and treating abdominal and gastrointestinal disorders. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 William B. Taylor, IV, Esquire McFarland, Ferguson & McMullen 400 North Tampa Street Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33620 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 A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent performed a wrong-site procedure in violation of section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Dr. Lior, M.D., was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 74061, and was board-certified by the American Board of Dermatology. The Department has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Dr. Lior. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Lior committed one such offense. In the one-count Complaint, the Department charges that Dr. Lior violated section 456.072(1)(bb), "by performing or attempting to perform health care services on the wrong patient, a wrong-site procedure, a wrong procedure, or an unauthorized procedure or a procedure that is medically unnecessary or otherwise unrelated to the patient's diagnosis or medical condition." Dr. Akhtar's Examination On January 11, 2010, Patient S.L., a 74-year-old gentleman, presented to Asfa Akhtar, D.O., a general dermatologist employed by the Cleveland Clinic Florida, for an evaluation of a lesion inside his left ear. It was noted on that date that S.L. had a positive history for skin cancer. Dr. Akhtar performed a physical examination of S.L., and his contemporaneous note provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Exam of the face, ears and hands reveal a pearly papule with rolled borders on the right helix."1/ On that date Dr. Akhtar's assessment included "R/O BCC-right helix." In other words, Dr. Akhtar wanted to rule out basal cell carcinoma on S.L.'s right helix. Dr. Akhtar's plan was to conduct a "shave biopsy." Prior to performing the biopsy, the location was marked with a pen and photographed. Dr. Akhtar then performed the biopsy by scraping skin cells of the surface skin of the suspicious area. The subsequent surgical pathology report provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Final Pathologic Diagnosis SKIN BIOPSY, RIGHT HELIX: NODULAR BASAL CELL CARCINOMA WITH SURFACE ULCERATION. TUMOR EXTENDS TO THE DEEP AND PERIPHERAL MARGINS OF BIOPSY. In correspondence dated January 20, 2010, Dr. Akhtar advised S.L. that the pathologic findings from the biopsy specimen of S.L.'s right helix confirmed a basal cell carcinoma. Dr. Akhtar recommended that it "be treated by a technique called Mohs Surgery to be certain as possible that it is completely removed." January 26, 2010 Consultation On January 26, 2010, S.L. presented to Dr. Lior for a Mohs surgical consultation. In addition to being board-certified in dermatology, Dr. Lior is qualified as a Mohs surgeon. On that date, Dr. Lior, who is also employed at the Cleveland Clinic, had access to the records of Dr. Aktar's office visit, the biopsy photograph, and the pathology report. Additionally, Dr. Lior's nurse, Diane Donner, LPN, obtained additional history from the patient. Specifically, Ms. Donner noted that, "[p]atient states he has surgery in the area approximately 3 years ago. It has been present for 3 YEAR(S)." Dr. Lior then performed an examination of S.L.'s right helix; however, her examination did not include the entire right helix. Specifically, Dr. Lior did not examine the top of the helix of S.L.'s ear. Instead, Dr. Lior conducted a "focused examination" on an observed scarred pearly papule on the helix of the right ear just superior to (above) the mid-line of the ear. Dr. Lior explained the methodology utilized in limiting her examination to a specific location on the helix, as follows: Q. . . . What information from those records would indicate where on that right helix that you just described that either the biopsy was taken or that there was biopsy- proven carcinoma? A. Right. So when we get that information, patient participation is expected. We ask the patient. We get a history. Then we also need to look at the area and see what looks consistent with the biopsy site as well. And so all of these things, when you actually see a cancer and you see a scar and you see the skin graft area, and the patient tells you that that's the site, you put it together with your biopsy pathology report, as well as your office notes. It's what we use all together. Based on Dr. Lior's experience, the observed papule was consistent with the clinical appearance of basal cell carcinoma. Dr. Lior credibly testified that S.L. pointed to the same area she was palpating and advised her that he had previously undergone Mohs surgery and that the cancer had returned. Dr. Lior discussed treatment options with S.L. and advised that Mohs surgery would be appropriate, to which S.L. agreed. Dr. Lior's record of the consultation provides in pertinent part, as follows: Physical Exam: Right superior helix: There is a 1 cm scarred, crusted, pearly papule. Impression: Biopsy-proven basal cell carcinoma. Patient notes this is recurrent. Plan: Therefore indicated for Mohs surgery. February 11, 2010 Mohs Surgery S.L. returned to Dr. Lior for the scheduled Mohs surgery on February 11, 2010. Upon entering the surgical room, S.L. was engaged in a conversation with Ms. Donner concerning the location of the site. Dr. Lior greeted and approached S.L., obtained the prior photograph, approached S.L.'s ear, and stated, "let's take a look." As she was attempting to match the photograph with the area of the ear, S.L. stated to Dr. Lior, "Don't you see the scar?" while simultaneously pointing to the location of the scar tissue. Dr. Lior indeed observed the scar tissue from the prior skin graft and again, like the January 26, 2010, consultation, noted the area was consistent with recurrent basal cell carcinoma. The location was noted to be just above the scar. Dr. Lior proceeded to palpate or touch the suspicious area. Thereafter, Dr. Lior proceeded to mark the intended surgical location on S.L.'s ear with a marker pen. Subsequently, a photograph of the marked location was obtained, the patient's informed consent was obtained, and an informed consent document was executed by S.L. A time-out was then performed where Dr. Lior and her assistant agreed upon the procedure and location. The surgical site was then sterilized and injected with lidocaine. At no time prior to the surgery did S.L. voice any concerns or objections related to the proposed surgical site. S.L. was not, however, provided a mirror to examine the proposed marked location. Additionally, there was no evidence that S.L. was shown a copy of the photograph obtained by Dr. Lior prior to surgery. Dr. Lior then proceeded to perform the Mohs surgery without incident. After completing the procedure, S.L.'s ear was bandaged and S.L. waited in a separate room while the excised portion of the ear was examined to determine whether there were "clear margins"--the absence of basal cell carcinoma. After completing the examination, Dr. Lior requested that S.L. return to the operating area to discuss the findings. When S.L. returned, Dr. Lior stated, "Good news, it's all clear, the margins are clear, there's no cancer, we're going to repair the area." In response, S.L. replied that, "[t]he site was not here, it was here." S.L. then bent the top of his ear down, and Dr. Lior observed--for the first time--a papule consistent with basal cell carcinoma.2/ It is undisputed that this newly-observed papule was the site of biopsy-proven basal cell carcinoma. Dr. Lior conceded that it was her plan, at the conclusion of the January 26, 2010, consultation, to perform a Mohs surgery on the site of the biopsy-proven basal cell carcinoma. She further conceded that, on February 11, 2010, she performed the Mohs surgery on a location of S.L.'s right helix different from the location that was the subject of the biopsy performed by Dr. Akhtar.3/ Dr. Lior offered to perform a Mohs surgery on the newly-observed/previously-biopsied location; however, S.L. elected to defer the procedure for a later date. Accordingly, Dr. Lior closed the existing excision site and performed a skin graft in the area. Dr. Lior provided S.L. with her contact information and informed S.L. that she would attempt to arrange for the Cleveland Clinic to withhold the charges for the surgical procedure performed. The Cleveland Clinic reversed the charges, as requested. S.L. declined to return to the Cleveland Clinic for suture removal or for any additional procedures.
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 Respondent guilty of performing a wrong-site procedure and, therefore, violating section 456.072(1)(bb); and imposing the following penalties: a $1,000.00 fine, a letter of concern, five hours of risk management education, and a one-hour lecture on wrong-site surgery. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 20th day of May, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent, Manihi G. Mukherjee, has been a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number ME 0027749. She received her medical degree in New Delhi, India, in 1965. Respondent is Board certified in obstetrics and gynecology and is a Fellow of the American College of OB/GYN. She attends conferences regularly and has attended more than 150 hours of continuing medical education courses between 1979 and 1987. Since 1976, she has been in private practice in St. Petersburg, Florida, specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. Respondent first saw patient J.B. on November 30, 1979, for a routine gynecological examination and renewal of birth control pills. While obtaining an initial history on the patient, respondent learned that J.B. had a previous appendectomy performed in 1973, and noted the surgical incision located in the right lower quadrant. During a visit to respondent on or about September 9, 1980, J.B. told respondent that she wanted more information' about methods of contraception other than birth control pills. Respondent advised J.B. about the various alternative methods of contraception, including tubal ligation, as well as their effectiveness and complications. With regard to tubal ligation, respondent explained to J.B. that a bilateral partial salpingectomy using a mini-laparotomy could be performed for sterilization purposes and that the failure rate of such a procedure was 4 to 6 persons per 1,000. A laparotomy procedure involves the creation of an incision of about 8 to 10 inches in the anterior abdominal wall. A mini-laparotomy involves a smaller incision of between one and three inches. A salpingectomy is the removal of the fallopian tube. A partial salpingectomy is the removal of a portion of the fallopian tube. A bilateral partial salpingectomy is the partial removal of both fallopian tubes. On or about April 1, 1981, J.B. returned to respondent for a six-month check up, and advised respondent that she wanted to have a tubal ligation. Respondent again advised J.B. about the method of tubal ligation which would be used (the mini-laparotomy with bilateral partial salpingectomy) as well as the complications and failure rates of the procedure. Thereafter, on April 14, 1981, J.B. was admitted to what is now known as Humana Hospital Northside in St. Petersburg Florida, for elective tubal ligation. On that date, she signed a form entitled "Consent to Operation, Administration of Anesthetics, and the Rendering of Other Medical Services," authorizing respondent to perform a mini-laparotomy and a bilateral partial salpingectomy. While obtaining a further medical history from J.B. at the hospital prior to the scheduled surgery, respondent was informed that the patient had previously had an exploratory laparotomy in 1973, at the same time that the appendectomy was performed. On or about April 15, 1981, respondent performed a mini-laparotomy and what was described in respondent's records as a "bilateral partial salpingectomy" with a modified Pomeroy procedure on patient J.B. A Pomeroy procedure is a method of sterilization accomplished by picking up a loop of the fallopian tube, clamping across the loop, cutting and removing that portion of the loop above the clamp and ligating, or tying off, the tissue beneath the clamp with catgut sutures. Respondent modified the procedure by using chromic O sutures. In performing the surgery, respondent identified the left tube and ovary and ligated the loop of the tube. She then attempted to locate the right tube and ovary. Respondent visualized a distorted right tube, but did not see a right fimbria or a right ovary. The fimbria is the fringe-like outer end of the fallopian tube. Respondent testified that she assumed that the patient's right ovary and tube had been removed during the patient's previous exploratory laparotomy and/or appendectomy. Respondent sent specimens from what purported to be the right and left fallopian tubes to the pathology department for pathological evaluation. Her dictated operative report describes the following: "Operative Findings: On opening the abdominal cavity, her right tube was blocked, fibrial (sic) end was absent. Right ovary was absent. Left tube and ovary looked normal. Ovaries looked normal. Operative Procedure: . . . Both tubes were identified. They were held in their mid portion with the Bab- cock and transfixed with chromic O catgut suture... The loop of the right and left fallopian tube were transected and sent separately to the lab..." The pathological evaluation was performed on or about April 16, 1981. It revealed that the specimen identified as "Specimen A," which purported to be a portion of the right fallopian tube, contained sections of veins and fibrofatty tissue. Specimen A did not contain tubal matter. Specimen B contained, as expected, a portion of the left fallopian tube. The respondent was advised of the pathology evaluation report, though the time of such advice was not established. Patient J.B. remained hospitalized until April 7, 1981. Shortly after performing surgery on J.B., respondent advised J.B. that during the course of the operative procedure, respondent could not find a right ovary. However, she advised J.B. that there was nothing to worry about and that everything went well. After leaving the hospital, J.B. saw respondent on three more occasions. On April 20, 1981, respondent removed the staples from J.B.'s abdomen. She advised J.B. to remain on birth control pills for healing purposes. On May 15, 1981, and on June 8, 1981, respondent saw J.B. for postoperative visits. At the latter visit, J.B. advised respondent that she would be moving to Louisiana because of her husband's job. At no time did respondent advise J.B. that the pathological evaluation of the specimens submitted from the April 15, 1981, surgery revealed that the specimen purporting to contain a portion of tubal matter from the right fallopian tube did not in fact contain such material. At no time did respondent advise J.B. that respondent believed that the right tube was removed during the previous surgery performed in 1973. Respondent did not advise J.B. that she could become pregnant if the right tube were note properly blocked, and, therefore, that she needed to remain on birth control pills until the matter could be appropriately investigated. Respondent did not advise J.B. of the necessity to "follow-up" on the results of the pathology report by either obtaining records from the 1973 surgery to confirm respondent's belief that the patient's right fallopian tube was previously removed or by performing appropriate testing on J.B. to confirm blockage of the right ovary. On or about June 20, 1981, well after being apprised of the results of the pathological evaluation, respondent dictated a Discharge Summary for the hospitalization of J.B. from April 14-17, 1981. The Discharge Summary provided in pertinent part: Hospital Course: On April 15, 1981, a mini-laparotomy and partial bilateral salpingectomy was performed without any complications under general anesthesia. Postoperatively, the patient did fairly well. She was discharged on the second postoperative day with the advice to be seen in the office in one week. The Discharge Summary contained no reference to the results of the pathological evaluation. It also contains no documentation that respondent believed that the patient's right fallopian tube was removed during the 1973 surgery. On or about September 29, 1981, patient J.B. telephoned respondent's office because her period was two weeks late and a home pregnancy test had given a positive result. J.B. was informed that it was unlikely, but not impossible, that she was pregnant, and that with a tubal ligation procedure, a part of each tube is removed. On or about October 2, 1981, J.B. went to a physician in Louisiana and was determined to be pregnant. On October 7, 1981, she had an elective abortion. Following the termination of pregnancy, a diagnostic laparoscopy and a D & C (a scraping of the uterus) was performed on October 20, 1981. The laparoscopy revealed that the right ovary was present and a cyst was on the ovary. The right fallopian tube was present in its entirety (including the fimbria), was surgically untouched and was otherwise normal. The injection of methylen blue dye revealed that the fallopian tube was open and not blocked. A failed tubal ligation is not in and of itself malpractice or substandard care. However, a reasonably prudent physician, under the circumstances present in this case, should have immediately advised the patient that the possibility existed that one of the tubes had not been properly ligated, and, therefore, the possibility existed that the patient might become pregnant. The patient should have been advised to continue utilizing birth control methods until appropriate investigation could be undertaken to determine the condition of the right fallopian tube. A reasonably prudent physician would have then undertaken appropriate investigation. This could have included either the obtaining of previous medical records to confirm or deny that the right fallopian tube had been removed during the earlier surgical procedures performed in 1973, or the performance of a hysterosalpingogram. This latter procedure is a test which involves the injection of radiographic dye into the uterus and through the tubes. The dye is examined under x-ray to determine whether it flows freely through the fallopian tube or is stopped by blockage or ligation. The respondent admits that the term used in J.B.'s medical records to describe the procedure performed on the patient during her April, 1981, hospitalization was incorrect. Respondent did not perform a bilateral salpingectomy as noted in the Discharge Summary, but instead performed a left partial salpingectomy and excision of the tissue from the right tube. On September 5, 1981, patient R.L., an 18 year old female, was admitted to the emergency room complaining of abdominal pains. After examining the patient, the emergency room physician determined that R.L. was suffering from bilateral lower quadrant tenderness in the abdomen. A pelvic examination revealed bilateral tenderness in the adnexa and tenderness in the cervix. The impression of the emergency room physician was that R.L. had pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). PID is a progress of infection in the reproductive organs which can start in the vagina and spread to the cervix and progress upward to the uterine cavity, continue on outward to the fallopian tubes and involve the pelvis, either by direct continuous spread or through the blood supply and the lymphatics. It may be associated with either a bacterial or a viral type of infection. The emergency room physician ordered several tests to be conducted for the patient, including a complete blood count test. This test revealed that the patient's white blood cell count was 17,500. A normal count is approximately 7,800. R.L.'s white blood cell count was significantly elevated, indicating the presence of an infective process. The emergency room physician contacted the respondent, who agreed to assume the care of patient R.L. Respondent ordered the admission of the patient to the hospital, with a diagnosis of PID with peritonitis. Peritonitis is an inflammation of the peritoneum or lining of the abdomen. Upon admission, the respondent obtained an initial medical history and performed an initial physical examination on R.L. The medical history revealed that the patient had never had children, had been on birth control pills for one and one-half years, and she denied having had sexual intercourse for the past four months R.L. informed respondent that she had started having abdominal pain and a low-grade fever on the morning of the day before and that the pain had become increasingly worse and generalized, associated with some nausea and vomiting. The respondent's examination of the patient's abdomen and a pelvic examination revealed vague distention or bulging of the abdomen, muscle guarding and rigidity. Sluggish bowel sounds were audible, and there was marked tenderness and rebound tenderness in the patient's lower abdomen. The respondent's impression was acute PID with peritonitis. She ordered that R.L. be placed on intravenous fluids, that her vital signs be taken four times a day, that a chest x-ray be given, and that pain medication, aspirin, and antibiotics be administered. The respondent's main objective was to try to resolve the patient's PID conservatively, without performing surgery. R.L.'s daily progression varied with respect to her white blood cell count, her temperature, abdominal tenderness and rigidity, bowel sounds and daily activity between September 5 and 14, 1981. The patient's white blood cell count fell to 13,100 on September 7, and rose to 16,700 on September 9th. Her temperature would rise and fall on any given day. Her abdomen remained distended and rigid until September 12, when she began having less tenderness and better bowel sounds. She showed some improvement in her diet intake and in ambulation. The respondent ordered that various tests and changes of medication be performed between September 6 and 14, 1981. These included a urinalysis, a flat plate x-ray of the abdomen, an ultra sound of the abdomen and changes in antibiotics. On September 10, respondent performed a culdescentesis (the insertion of a needle into the cul-de-sac under general anesthesia), and withdrew ten cubic centimeters of frank pus. On September 11, respondent performed a colpotomy (a procedure in which an incision is made into the cul-de- sac through the upper wall of the vagina, into the peritoneal cavity) in order to drain the cul-de-sac. The patient appeared to improve somewhat after this procedure. On September 14, 1981, respondent requested Dr. Benjamin Abinales to perform a surgical consultation. Dr. Abinales' examination of R.L. on September 14 revealed that R.L.'s abdomen was slightly distended, with marked tenderness. He noted muscle guarding and rebound tenderness, and the presence of peristalsis. Dr. Abinales felt that the patient was suffering from pelvic peritonitis, and recommended that respondent continue the present plan of treatment for several days. If no improvement was evident, Dr. Abinales suggested that exploratory surgery be considered. The patient's condition did not improve after September 14th. Her white blood count value rose to 27,800 and her temperature was as high as 101 degrees on September 15, 1981. E-coli bacteria, usually found in the gastrointestinal system, were revealed from cultures performed on the pus drained during the culdescentesis. On September 16, the responded performed a second colpotomy, again draining frank pus. On September 17, R.L. was administered a new type of antibiotic, and this was changed again on September On September 18, a chest x-ray revealed that there was a possibility of a subphrenic abscess on the left side of the lungs with pleural effusion present. Thereafter, specialists in infectious diseases and pulmonary medicine were consulted. The infectious disease specialist recommended a CT Scan of the abdomen and surgical intervention after the CT Scan results were evaluated. On September 21, 1981, respondent and Dr. Abinales performed an exploratory laparotomy, lysis of extensive intestinal lesions, what was described as "removal of tubovarian abscess from the right side," an appendectomy, drainage of subphrenic abscess on the left side, and peritoneal lavage. The operative description of the exploratory laparotomy demonstrates that there was significant inflammation of the fallopian tube and the ovary on the right side and also significant inflammation of the appendix on the right side. Thus, the etiology of the infection could have been either an appendicitis with perforation or a tubo-ovarian abscess. Patient R.L. recuperated uneventfully after the surgery and was discharged from the hospital on October 4, 1981. Where possible, conservative treatment (non-surgical treatment) is the treatment of choice for PID. This is particularly true for young female patients of child bearing years. The accepted standard of practice for gynecologists is to initially pursue conservative treatment of PID with antibiotic therapy, especially in the presence of peritonitis, for a period of about 72 hours. Generally, if the proper antibiotics are administered, PID responds dramatically within 72 hours. If clinically significant improvement does not occur in that period, other complications, such as appendicitis or abscess formation, should be suspected and exploration of the abdomen surgically is necessary. The extent of surgical intervention required depends, in large part, on the condition of the abdomen as revealed on exploratory laparotomy. While a physician should be concerned about making every effort to preserve the reproductive organs in a young female, the need to preserve the reproductive system must be balanced against the need to preserve the patient's life, particularly where peritonitis exists.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent Manihi G. Mukherjee, M.D. be found guilty of violating Section 458.331(1) (m) and (t) , Florida Statutes, that she pay a fine o $2,500.00 and that she be placed on probation for a period of three years, with conditions and restrictions to be established by the Board of Medicine relating to her surgical assessment and care of patients and her record keeping. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 87-2283 The parties' proposed findings of fact have been fully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner 7. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. 13. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. 40. First sentence rejected as irrelevant. 49. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. 61(b). Second sentence rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. 63. Rejected as unrelated to the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent (as to J.B.) 11. Rejected as contrary to and inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. 13, 14, 15 and 17. Rejected as contrary to and inconsistent witch the greater weight of the evidence. (as to R.L.) 4. Rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. First sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 9, 10 and 11. Accepted, except with regard to timeliness. 12. Rejected, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Donald V. Bulleit and Nelly Ehouzam Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. P. O. Box 210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all time relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0020485. The Respondent has been licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida since 1973. Respondent is Board Certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology having fulfilled the requirements of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The requirements include a multi-year residency program in obstetrics and gynecology and successfully passing written and oral examinations. After graduating from medical school the Respondent completed a two- year residency in obstetrics and gynecology at St. Joseph's Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Respondent then spent one year as Chief Resident in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Lutheran Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland where approximately 2000 babies were born during the time Respondent was in residency. The Respondent then completed a two-year clinical fellowship in obstetrics and gynecology at Peninsula General Hospital in Salisbury, Maryland where approximately 3,000 babies were born each year during the time Respondent was in residency. Respondent received additional training in the subspecialty of fetal maternal medicine through a one-year fellowship at New Jersey Medical School. After the fellowship at New Jersey Medical School, Respondent served one year as a clinical instructor at University Hospital, affiliated with Mercy Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Since the time of his first residency, the Respondent has been involved in the delivery of several thousand babies. The Respondent moved to Florida in 1975 and has been engaged in the private practice of medicine since that time. The Respondent opened the Venice Obstetrics Clinic (Clinic) in 1983, and has served as its Medical Director since that time. The Clinic was at all times relevant to these proceedings licensed by the State of Florida in accordance with Sections 387.30 through 383.335, Florida Statutes, (referred to as the Birth Center Licensure Act). At all times relevant to these proceedings, the Respondent was permitted to perform surgical services (including episiotomies) and forceps delivery in the Clinic in accordance with the partial exemptions provided in Section 383.335(1), Florida Statutes. The Clinic's license has never been disciplined for noncompliance with Sections 383.30 through 383.335, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 59A-11, Florida Statutes, by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), the agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and regulating birth centers. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Marcos Lara, M.D. acted as the Clinic's consultant, and was board certified with hospital privileges at St. Joseph's Hospital and at Faucett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte. In July 1988, the Clinic employed several nurses licensed by the state of Florida. At the time the patient K.Z. came into the Clinic, the nurse-to- patient ratio was two-to-one. Normally, the ratio was one-to-one. The patient's first visit to the clinic, and with Respondent, was on March 18, 1988. The patient continued with regular visits to the Clinic seeing the Respondent through July 8, 1988. On the patient's April 27, 1988 visit the Respondent gave the patient a score of "one" on the HRS, Pre-Term Delivery Risk Scoring Form (Form), indicating that the patient was a low-risk patient. On the patient's June 28, 1988 visit the Respondent gave the patient a score of "zero" on the Form, again indicating that she was a low-risk patient. The Respondent in scoring the patient's risk did not circle or use several of the risk factors listed on the Form that would have applied to the patient, including a patient under 20 years, single parent and low socioeconomic status. Based solely on the risk factors of (a) works outside of home, (b) younger than 20 years, (c) single parent, and (d) low socioeconomic status (based only on patient's level of education), and the points assigned those risk factors, the Respondent should have given the patient a score of "six". This would have placed her in the medium-risk classification which requires a score between six and nine points. However, since the patient no longer worked outside of the home on June 28, 1988, the date of the reevaluation, her score would have been "five", placing her in the low-risk classification. Many of the factors listed in the Form are risk factors used by obstetricians in assessing a patient's risk classification. However, many of the risk factors listed in the Form, including those risk factors used to assess this patient's risk classification, are not relied on solely by obstetricians, either singularly or in combinations, to assess a patient's risk classification. The purpose of the Form is to assist birth centers in assessing a patient's risk classification to determine whether the patient should be permitted to give birth in a birth center, and not to supplant the obstetricians' knowledge and skill in assessing a patient's risk classification. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent's failure to correctly fill out the Form was the result of Respondent's failure to use his knowledge and skill as an obstetrician to properly assess the patient's risk classification and thereby fail to practice medicine within the prescribed standard of care. On June 28, 1988 the patient signed a form wherein she consented to the delivery of her child at the Clinic. At this time, the patient was advised of the risks of not delivering in a hospital and the advantages of delivering at a birth center. The normal period of gestation is 40 weeks. The methods used to calculate the estimated date of confinement (due date) are: (a) if a patient's menstrual periods are on a 28-day cycle, the due date can be determined by taking the last menstrual period (LMP) and adding 280 days; (b) substract three months from the LMP and add seven days; (c) an ultrasound can be used; (d) from the size of the fetus as determined by physical and pelvic examinations; and (e) fundal height measurement. None of these methods are absolutely accurate and therefore, the due date is considered an estimate. The fundus is the upper portion of the uterus which grows during pregnancy, with the cervix at the bottom portion of the uterus. The fundal height measurement is made from the top of the bone, which is the front of the pelvic, called the symphsis, to the top of the uterus. Both ends of this measurement are subjective in placement and vary between those making the measurement. Fundal height measurement is a way of determining the increase in size of the uterine content which is significantly, in normal cases, influenced by the growth of the fetus. The fundal height measurement is relevant to fetal age if it is consistent with other clinical assessments such as, how low is the baby to help determine the length, palpating to determine the width of the uterus, and a pelvic examination. Some obstetricians correlate the fundal height measurement with the gestation period where roughly one centimeter of fundal height equals one week of gestation, plus or minus two to four centimeters. While the Respondent measures the patient's fundal height at each visit, and did so with this patient, he does not use fundal height alone to determine the age of the fetus but uses fundal height in conjunction with other assessments found as a result of physical and pelvic examinations. On her first visit, the patient told the Respondent that her LMP had begun around the first part of December, 1987. Assuming the patient's LMP had begun on December 1, 1987, her due date should have been during the first week of September, 1988, using either method (a) or (b) above. Also on the patient's first visit the Respondent conducted physical and pelvic examinations. The physical examination consisted of palpation of the abdomen to note the size. The pelvic examination enabled the Respondent to assess the size of the uterus, which indicates the age of the pregnancy. Based on his physical and pelvic examinations of the patient on March 18, 1988 and the fundal height of 20 centimeters, the Respondent determined the age of the pregnancy to be 22 weeks with a due date of July 22, 1988. There was a difference in the due date calculated using the date expressed by the patient as her LMP as opposed to the due date determined by the Respondent from his clinical assessment as to the size of the fetus in conjunction with the fundal height. However, since the Respondent's clinical assessment did not reveal any problems, and the fact that approximately 25 percent of the pregnant women experience two or more false menstrual periods, the Respondent concluded that any size/date discrepancy was explainable. Therefore, the Respondent considered his determination of July 22, 1988 as the due date reasonable, and did not order an ultrasound since it was neither beneficial to the patient nor medically necessary at this point of the pregnancy. On April 27, 1988, June 8, 1988 and June 22, 1988 the Respondent measured the patient's fundal height as 23, 28 and 31 centimeters respectively. However, on these same dates the Respondent determined the age of the fetus to be 28, 34 and of the size of the fetus 36 weeks, respectively, based on his examination of the patient. On April 27, 1988, June 8, 1988 and June 22, 1988 the Respondent concluded that an ultrasound was not needed based on the same reasoning he had employed on March 18, 1988. On her June 28, 1988 visit, the Respondent performed physical and pelvic examinations, including palpating the abdomen, estimated the age of the fetus to be 39 weeks based on its size and advised the patient that her due date may be earlier than July 22, 1988, the initial due date. The fundal height measurement was 31 centimeters. Respondent's examination of the patient on her July 6, 1988 visit made him suspect twins and a possible abnormal delivery. Therefore, Respondent ordered an ultrasound. The ultrasound revealed a single baby in cephalic presentation (baby's head first), at term (fetus at least 37 weeks). The ultrasound did not indicate any problems in delivering the patient's baby. In fact, no risk factor was identified by the ultrasound. While the Respondent's records are sketchy in regard to his reasoning of the date/size discrepancy, the testimony of both the Respondent and Herbert F. Sandmire, M. D. supports the Respondent's reasoning in not ordering the ultrasound until the July 6, 1988 even though normally the date/size discrepancy may have justified the use of an ultrasound. Therefore, the Respondent was practicing medicine within the prescribed standard of care by not ordering an ultrasound until July 6, 1988 because there was sufficient reasons justifying the size/date discrepancy on the earlier dates, notwithstanding the testimony of Robert Brauner, M. D. to the contrary. The patient went into labor on July 8, 1988. The patient arrived at the Clinic around 11:50 a.m. on July 8, 1988, and at that time her cervix was dilated two centimeters and was 100 per cent effaced. Nurses Sally Azima and Virginia Lane were assisting with the patient and made the notations on the Nurses' Notes, with Nurse Lane making the notes from 1:30 p.m. through 7:00 p.m. and Nurse Azima making the notes from 7:30 until the end of the Nurses Notes. The patient's fetal heart rate was monitored with a Doptone. A Doptone is a devise that is placed on the abdomen which allows the fetal heart beat to be heard in the room. At 5:27 p.m., the cervix was 9 centimeters, 100 per cent effaced with membranes bulging. At 7:00 p.m., the patient suffered dysfunctional labor. The patient's uterine contractions were irregular and weak. The Respondent decided to administer Pitocin to the patient in order to regulate her uterine contractions. Pitocin is a brand name for a drug that stimulates uterine contractions. Pitocin is used for dysfunctional labor. Pitocin does not increase any risk that is not already present, and no change in management decisions is needed merely because Pitocin is being administered to the patient. The Respondent administered Pitocin to the patient by making a single injection of one ampule (10 units) of Pitocin into an existing intravenous bag. Another method of administering Pitocin is referred to as the piggy- back system wherein the Pitocin is maintained in a separate bag and infused through the existing intravenous line. While the piggy-back system may be the preferred method of administering Pitocin to a patient, neither the Birth Center Licensure Act nor the prescirbed medical standard of care in July, 1988 required the use of the piggy-back system to administer Pitocin to a patient. At the time the Pitocin was injected, the existing intravenous bag contained approximately 900 milliliters of fluid, plus or minus 20 milliliters. The Respondent set the IV flow rate at 20 drops per minute which resulted in a dosage level of approximately 10 milliunits per minute. While a dosage level of 10 milliunits per minute of Pitocin is higher than what was previously thought to be the correct dosage level of Pitocin, a patient could benefit from the higher dosage level of Pitocin, particularly under the circumstances and conditions that existed with this patient on July 8, 1988. The Respondent was practicing medicine within the prescribed standard of care when he administered the higher dosage level of Pitocin to the patient on July 8, 1988, notwithstanding the testimony of Robert Brauner, M. D. to the contrary. After setting the IV flow rate at 20 drops per minute, the Respondent instructed Nurse Azima to monitor the flow to be sure the flow remained at 20 drops per minute. Nurse Azima checked the flow by counting the drops with a second hand on her watch every 15 to 20 minutes. Nurse Azima, under the supervision of Respondent, has administered Pitocin using the drop count method ever since Respondent's residency in obstetrics. While the use of an infusion pump may be the preferred method of administering Pitocin by some obstetricians, the Respondent was practicing medicine within the prescribed standard of care when he used the drop count method of administering Pitocin to the patient on July 8, 1988 rather than using an infusion pump. His use of the drop count method, including allowing Nurse Azima to monitor the flow, met the prescibed standard of care, notwithstanding the testimony of Robert Brauner, M. D. to the contrary. An electronic fetal monitor records both the baby's heart rate and the mother's uterine contractions, and presents this information on a graph. The Respondent did not use an electronic fetal monitor while administering Pitocin to the patient on July 8, 1988. Instead, Respondent used intermittent auscultation. Intermittent auscultation involves using a stethoscope or Doptone to listen to the fetal heart beat at prescribed intervals. A nurse is assigned to check the baby's heart beat periodically and to notify the physician of any abnormality. When an electronic fetal monitor is used, a nurse is assigned to watch the chart and notify the physician of any changes indicated by the chart. Intermittent auscultation is equivalent to electronic fetal monitoring when it is done on a frequent basis, such as listening every 30 minutes when the patient is in the active part of the first stage of labor and every 15 minutes during the second stage of labor. Pitocin was administered by the Respondent at 7:00 p.m. and thereafter, Nurse Azima checked the fetal heart rate every 15 to 20 minutes. However, she did not record the fetal heart rate each time because the fetal heart rate was within an acceptable range, nothing was abnormal. The Nurses Notes indicate that Nurse Azima recorded the fetal heart rate at 7:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m., 9:00 p.m. and 9:35 p.m. There was no indication of any abnormality in the patient's heart rate or of any fetal distress at any time during the course of the patient's labor. Again, while the use of an electronic fetal monitor may be preferred by some obstetricians, the Respondent was practicing medicine within the prescribed standard of care when he used intermittent auscultation instead of an electronic fetal monitor and in his use of intermittent auscultation on July 8, 1988, notwithstanding the testimony of Robert Brauner, M. D. or the information contained in the Physician's Desk Reference to the contrary. At 7:30 p.m. the patient was fully dilated and the fetal head was at "zero" station. Station refers to the progress of the fetal head down the pelvis toward the outside. When the very edge of the fetal head is even with an imaginary line drawn between the patient's two spines (prominence in the middle of patient's pelvis) the fetal head is considered at zero station. Progressing past zero station would be indicated as zero-plus-one station, plus-two, etc. Progressing past plus-three station would be delivery of the fetal head. At 8:00 p.m., the fetal head was in right occiput posterior (ROP) position. This means the baby's face, as the mother is lying on her back, is looking up and, is a less favorable position for delivery, in that it usually leads to a longer labor. At 8:30 p.m., an hour after the patient had been fully dilated, the fetal head was at zero-plus-one station. The fetal head was now in the occiput anterior (AO) position, meaning the baby is now looking straight down while the mother is lying on her back. This position is the favorable position for delivery. The patient was transferred to the procedure room, prepped and given a local anesthetic when the fetal head was at plus-one to plus-two station. Thereafter, the Respondent noted that patient was fully dilated, fetal head was at plus-two station, but there was no further descent of the head. At this point, the Respondent decided that the patient should be assisted in the delivery by using the forceps to bring the fetal head down and deliver the baby. Before applying the forceps, the Respondent performed an episiotomy on the patient. An episiotomy is a obstetrical cut made between the vagina and the rectum (the perineum), through the tissue, separating the muscle to help open the vagina for delivery. The decision on whether to perform the episiotomy before or after applying forceps is a matter of clinical judgment based upon the physical characteristics of the patient, in particular the size of the introitus and the perineum. The Respondent decided to perform the episiotomy on the patient before applying the forceps based on his clinical judgment of what was best for the patient. Forceps are obstetrical instruments used to assist in the delivery of the fetal head. The Respondent used Simpson forceps, a commonly used forceps, which are designed to come apart. The Respondent attempted forceps delivery several times without success, even with the patient pushing and fundal pressure being applied simultaneously by Nurse Azima and Nurse Lane. Fundal pressure is applied by pressing down on the top of the patient's abdomen to help in the delivery of the baby and is a fairly common obstetrical procedure. During the attempt to deliver the baby with the forceps the IV came out but was restored by the Respondent. The Pitocin was discontinued at this time. The Respondent was practicing medicine within the prescribed standard of care when he performed the episiotomy before the use of the forceps and in his attempt to delivery the baby with the forceps, notwithstanding Dr. Brauner's testimony to the contrary. After the unsuccessful attempt to deliver the baby with forceps, the Respondent decided to transfer the patient to a hospital for a cesarean section. Nurse lane was instructed by the Respondent to call for an ambulance. Nurse Lane called the Sarasota Fire Department which responded in approximately three minutes. After calling the Sarasota Fire Department, Nurse Lane called St. Joseph's Hospital and advised the hospital that the patient would be on the way. The episiotomy was not bleeding excessively and the bleeding could be controlled by packing the incision with gauze sponges and keeping the patient lying down with her legs together. Since the repair of the episiotomy would have required 10 to 15 minutes, the Respondent, using his best clinical judgment, decided to control the bleeding as set out above rather than to repair the episiotomy and delay the patient's transport to the hospital. The patient's life or well-being was not threatened by not repairing the episiotomy. While blood loss is a concern, specially for someone facing an operation, apparently the blood loss for this particular patient was not an overriding concern since the decision was made at the hospital not to repair the episiotomy until after the cesarean section, some two hours later. Under the circumstances and conditions existing at the time, the Respondent was practicing medicine within the prescribed standard of care when he, in his best clinical judgment, decided not repair the episiotomy which would have delayed transporting the patient to the hospital. Upon arrival the paramedics were advised of the patient's condition, that the patient was to be transported to St. Joseph's Hospital and that the Respondent was attempting to reach Respondent's back-up physician. However, the Respondent did not want to delay transport of the patient to the hospital so he advised the paramedics to proceed to St. Joseph's Hospital in Port Charlotte before he had made contact with the back-up physician, other than with the doctor's answering service. On July 8, 1988 the Respondent's consultant (back-up obstetrician) was Dr. Lara, who was a Board certified obstetrician with hospital privileges at St. Joseph's Hospital in Port Charlotte. After the ambulance had departed for St. Joseph's Hospital, the Respondent, being unable to make contact with the Dr. Lara other than with answering service, called St. Joseph's Hospital and advised them of the patient's condition, Nurse Lane having already called the hospital to advised them that the patient was being transported there. In route to St. Joseph's Hospital, the paramedics made their own assessment of the patient's conditions and, under the conditions and circumstances existing at that time, decided to reroute the patient to the Venice Hospital which was closer. Venice Hospital did not have an obstetrical unit. Therefore, contact was established with a Dr. Chen, the supervising emergency room physician, who advised the paramedics to transport the patient to Venice Hospital for evaluation. After examining the patient, Dr. Chen called the Respondent and told him that he thought the patient was ready to deliver. However, after the Respondent told Dr. Chen of the patient's condition and not to delay getting the patient to a hospital with obstetrical service, Dr. Chen directed transport of the patient to Memorial Hospital in Sarasota. After talking with Dr. Chen, the Respondent called the Memorial Hospital, discussed the patient's condition with the nurse on the obstetrics floor, advised the nurse of what had been attempted with the patient, and that in his opinion a cesarean section was necessary. The Respondent left his phone number with the nurse so that the obstetrician handling the case could call the Respondent, if necessary. The obstetrician handling the patient's care at Memorial Hospital did not call Respondent and Respondent made no attempt to call the obstetrician. The patient was admitted to Memorial Hospital at 11:40 p.m., and was monitored with an external monitor for nearly 55 minutes before being taking to the operating room at 11:34 p.m. where she underwent an emergency cesarean section delivery at 11:49 p.m. After the delivery, the patient's episiotomy was repaired. Although the baby had forceps marks graded from "no marks" to "bad forceps marks" by personnel at Memorial Hospital, there was no evidence that the baby was in any way affected by the Respondent's attempted forceps delivery. The mother and the baby fared well while in the hospital and were discharged on July 12, 1988. There is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the Respondent was practicing medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances throughout the treatment and management of the patient, K. Z. from March 18, 1988 through July 8, 1988. During the course of the hearing the Department stipulated on the record that it did not intend to pursue Count III of the Administrative Complaint (failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment for the patient) and presented no evidence on this charge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing Counts I, II, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3149 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(9,14); 3 -11 (15,24,30,32,32,26,27,29,and 28,respectively); 12(28,29); 13(32); 14(25,27); 15(25); 16(38); 17(32-34,36 and 38); 24(37); 26(28,29); 27 - 30(16-18 and 22, respectively); 32 - 35(19); 36(43,46); 38(51,53); 43(52); 47(55); 50(46); 52 - 59(60 - 63,65,67,68); 61(66); 64(74); 67(74); 68(75); 70(74- 76); 72-74(67,68); 76(69); 79-89(72-75,77,80-84); 90-94(77- 79,82,83); 96-97(83,84); 100(84); and 105-106(85). The following proposed findings of fact are not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record: 19, 21, 23, 25, 39-42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 62, 63, 69, 71, 78, 95, 98, and 99. The first sentence of proposed findings of fact 18, 20, 22 and 37 are adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 34 and 44. The balance of proposed findings of fact 18, 20, 22 and 37 are not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The following proposed findings of fact are neither material nor relevant to the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order: 31, 46, 60, 65, 66, 75, 77, 101 - 104 and 107. 6. The Findings of Fact 1 - 30 concerning Expert Witnesses go to the credibility of those expert witnesses and are not addressed in the Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 - 11 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 2 - 12, respectively. Proposed finding of fact 12 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 13 and 14 are adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 13. Proposed findings of fact 15 and 16 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 19. Proposed findings of fact 17 - 24 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 25, 27, 30 - 33 and 84. Proposed findings of fact 25 - 29 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 27, 28, 31, and 34. Proposed findings of fact 30 - 36 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 25,33 and 37. Proposed findings of fact 37 - 45 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 16 - 24. Proposed findings of fact 46 - 52 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 39 - 42. Proposed findings of fact 53 - 56 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 43 - 45. Proposed findings of fact 57 - 61 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 46 - 49. Proposed findings of fact 62 - 68 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 50, 51 and 69. Proposed findings of fact 69 - 88 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 52 - 58. Proposed findings of fact 89 - 94 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 59 - 64. 15 Proposed findings of fact 95 - 100 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 65 - 71. Proposed findings of fact 101 - 110 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 71 - 76. Proposed findings of fact 111 - 129 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 77 - 83. Proposed findings of fact 129 - 137 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 84 - 86. Proposed findings of fact 138 - 162 are matters relating to the witnesses and go to the credibility of those witnesses and are not addressed as Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. Blazicek, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 730 South Sterling Avenue, Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 33609-4582 Darol Carr, Esquire Farr, Farr, Emerich & Hackett, P. A. 2315 Aaron Street Post Office Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 James W. Linn, Esquire Carson, Linn & Adkins 1711-D Mahan Station Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent, John L. Lentz, Jr., M.D., committed the disciplinary violations charged with respect to seven patients in three Administrative Complaints that have been consolidated for the purpose of hearing. If the facts demonstrate that any of the charged violations have been committed, then the appropriate penalty to be imposed for such violations must be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 82437. Respondent’s address of record is 15200 Emerald Coast Parkway, St. Marten Unit 506, Destin, Florida 32541. Respondent was board-certified by the Academy of Family Physicians until 2009. He currently holds no board certification in any specialty area, and did not complete any residency other than his residency in family medicine. Respondent went to medical school at the University of South Carolina and initially practiced in that state. He moved to Florida in 2001 and since that time, has worked in a variety of practice settings, including working as an emergency room physician in several hospitals in areas such as Phenix City, Alabama; Panama City, Florida; and Defuniak Springs, Florida. At some point, Respondent became interested in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease, and in approximately 2007, he opened a clinic in Destin named the Lentz Lyme Clinic. Respondent attended four continuing medical education courses that focused on the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Each of the courses he attended was three to four days long. Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease Lyme disease is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi. Lyme disease is typically transmitted by a tick bite from what is often referred to as a deer tick, more formally known as the Ixodes scapularis tick. The tick is usually very small, and must remain on the person’s skin for approximately 36 hours or more in order for the disease to be transmitted. Lyme disease is generally considered to be endemic to the Northeastern United States, in states such as the New England states, Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Delaware, and northern Virginia. While it is not impossible to contract Lyme disease in Florida, the more persuasive evidence established that it is not prevalent in this state. The most credible, compelling evidence presented established that most people who are diagnosed in Florida with Lyme disease were most likely infected while traveling in a part of the country that is endemic for the disease, and that states in the Southeastern United States are in a low-risk area for Lyme disease. There was some conflict in the testimony concerning the stages and symptoms of Lyme disease, and what factors should be considered in diagnosing the disease at the various stages. The more credible and persuasive descriptions of Lyme disease and its stages describe the disease as having three stages: early localized Lyme disease; early disseminated Lyme disease; and late Lyme disease. The probable stage of the disease at the time a patient presents for diagnosis and treatment determines what is necessary for a diagnosis. Early localized Lyme disease is the disease as it typically presents within the first four weeks of the tick bite. The patient often, but not always, presents with a rash called an erythema migrans, which is generally over five centimeters wide (and can be as large as 19 centimeters) and is sometimes clear in the center, leading to the term “bull’s-eye rash” to describe it. In addition to the erythema migrans, a patient may present with virus-like symptoms, such as fatigue, malaise, fever, chills, myalgia (muscle aches), and/or headache. Often the symptoms at this stage, or any stage, for that matter, are non-specific symptoms that are common to a variety of conditions, including ALS and MS. According to Respondent’s expert, Dr. Cichon, these are conditions that a physician should also consider when diagnosing Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. In other words, when a patient presents with symptoms that do not include the erythema migrans, but are vague and non-specific, Lyme disease and co-infections related to Lyme disease should not be the only diagnoses considered. In order to diagnose Lyme disease a thorough history is required, including information on a patient’s travel locations, whether travel included states that are typically endemic for Lyme disease; the time of year the travel occurred; whether the patient engaged in the type of activity (such as hunting, fishing, hiking, or other outdoor activities) that would expose him or her to the possibility of a tick bite; any history of rashes; and whether the patient remembers a tick bite. The history should also include any symptoms the patient is experiencing and when the symptoms began. If the patient reports travel to an endemic area, and presents with an erythema migrans that the physician can examine, a diagnosis of early Lyme disease can be made without confirmatory laboratory tests. At that early stage, laboratory tests would not be particularly useful because they detect antibodies to the Borrelia burgdorferi, as opposed to detecting the bacteria itself. At that early stage of the disease, there is not sufficient time for the body to develop the antibodies necessary for detection through laboratory testing. The second stage of Lyme disease is called early disseminated Lyme disease, which may be characterized by multiple erythema migrans lesions; cardiac symptoms, such as atrioventricular block; arthralgia (joint pain); myalgia; or neurologic involvement, such as lymphocytic meningitis, facial nerve Palsy (Bell’s palsy), or encephalitis. If a patient presents with some combination of these symptoms, along with a history indicating travel to an endemic area and activities in that area consistent with tick exposure, a reasonable prudent physician would seek confirmatory laboratory tests to reach a diagnosis of Lyme disease, assuming the patient presents four weeks or more after possible exposure to a tick bite. The type of test to use is discussed below. Late Lyme disease is characterized by neurological symptoms, such as encephalomyelitis, peripheral neuropathy; and arthritis and arthralgia, usually in a single joint, such as a knee. As with early disseminated Lyme disease, a thorough history and physical is required for a diagnosis, as well as a confirmatory laboratory test. There was a great deal of testimony presented regarding the type of testing that is appropriate for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Petitioner advocated the use of the ELISA test, followed by the Western blot test, commonly referred to as the two-tiered approach. ELISA and Western blot will be discussed in more detail below. Respondent contends that this two-tiered approach is inaccurate and that other tests are more definitive. His argument regarding the testing to use is consistent with his claim that there are two “standards of care,” one recognized by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), and one recognized by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS). The tests recognized as standard for diagnosis of Lyme disease by Drs. Robbins, Anastasio, Robertson, Rosenstock, and Powers, are the two-tiered approach ELISA and Western blot tests. The ELISA is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay screening test. If the screening test is positive or equivocal for enzymes indicative of Lyme disease, a Lyme Western blot test is performed to confirm the presence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. For patients with early Lyme disease, the two-tier testing process may produce false negatives because the patient has not had sufficient time to develop antibodies in response to the bacteria. For those with late Lyme disease, the test is highly sensitive and specific because late Lyme disease patients have ample time to develop antibodies. The two-step approach is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) because it provides for both sensitivity and specificity. Usually lab tests are either sensitive or specific, but not both. For a test to be considered “sensitive,” there are no false negatives. ELISA is considered a sensitive test. Specificity refers to the specific antibody bands being evaluated. With Western blot, there is an examination of different specific antibody bands. A Western blot IgM test looks for antibodies that are created initially from white blood cells that specifically attach to the infectious organism. A Western blot IgG looks for a different set of antibodies that continue to persist long after the infection is gone. A Western blot IgG is considered positive if five of the ten antibody bands are positive, while an IgM is considered positive if two of three bands are positive. The ILADS guidelines criticize use of the ELISA and Western blot tests because in the organization’s view, the two- tiered testing lacks sensitivity. The guidelines state that several studies “showed that sensitivity and specificity for both the IgM and IgG western blot range from 92 to 96% when only two [as opposed to five] specific bands are positive.”2/ While the ILADS guidelines criticize the two-tiered approach represented by ELISA and Western blot and indicate that other testing has been evaluated, “each has advantages and disadvantages in terms of convenience, cost, assay standardization, availability and reliability.” The ILADS guidelines do not expressly advocate not using the ELISA and Western blot, and note that while other tests remain an option to identify people “at high risk for persistent, recurrent, and refractory Lyme disease,” the tests have not been standardized. Dr. Michael Cichon, testifying for Respondent, opined that the ELISA and Western blot tests had little value and that Respondent’s failure to use them was not a departure from the standard of care. However, while at hearing he denied that he would order either test, in his deposition he indicated that he would order both tests, as a guide to diagnosis. His testimony that the ELISA and Western blot tests are not useful in the diagnosis of Lyme disease is rejected as not credible. Clear and convincing evidence at hearing established that a reasonable, prudent physician who is presented with a patient having possible exposure to Lyme disease occurring four weeks or more before seeing the physician would order the two- tier testing of ELISA and Western blot if it was appropriate to test for Lyme disease. While performing other tests in conjunction with the two-tier tests is not per se a departure, the standard of care requires either ordering the ELISA and where necessary, the Western blot, or reviewing any test results for these tests previously obtained by the patient. Treatment of Lyme disease also depends on the stage at which the condition is diagnosed. If a patient is diagnosed with early localized Lyme disease, a single course of doxycycline for 14 to 28 days is generally appropriate. Early disseminated Lyme disease and late Lyme disease may be treated with IV antibiotics, for a similar period of time. In summary, the standard of care in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease requires a physician to take an appropriate medical history, perform a physical examination, obtain objective laboratory test results in the absence of an erythema migrans rash, and refer patients who do not improve after an initial course of antibiotic treatment to an infectious disease specialist for further evaluation. An appropriate history must include the information described in paragraph nine, and the testing to be ordered should include an ELISA and, where positive or equivocal, a Western blot test. Diagnosis and Treatment of Babesiosis Babesiosis is a parasitic disease of the blood caused by infection with Babesia. Babesiosis, like Lyme disease, is typically transmitted by a tick bite, and can be transmitted by the same tick that carries Lyme disease. There are occasions when a patient properly diagnosed with Lyme disease also will have Babesiosis as a co-infection. It is, however, not a common diagnosis, and even infectious disease specialists may go an entire career without diagnosing it. If a family practice physician suspects Babesiosis, the better approach would be to refer the patient to an infectious disease specialist. However, failure to refer a patient to a specialist, assuming that the family physician performs the appropriate testing and treatment, is not necessarily a departure from the standard of care. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, the standard of care for the diagnosis and treatment of Babesiosis included the physician taking an appropriate medical history, performing a physical examination of the patient, and obtaining objective laboratory test results in order to make an evidence-based diagnosis. As with Lyme disease, the patient’s medical history should contain information regarding the patient’s travel; whether they had exposure to a tick bite; whether they recall being bitten by a tick; as well as what symptoms the patient is experiencing. Babesiosis typically presents with virus-like symptoms, fever, sweats, and the identification of Babesia parasites in the patient’s blood. The tests that a reasonably prudent similar physician would order to determine whether a patient had Babesiosis are either a blood smear to identify Babesial parasites or a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of Babesial DNA. Should a patient be diagnosed with Babesiosis, the normal and customary treatment is a ten-day course of clindamycin and atovaquone. Diagnosis and Treatment of Bartonellosis Bartonellosis is an infectious disease caused by bacteria of the genus Bartonella. It is generally transmitted by lice or fleas on a person’s body, coming off of other animals, such as rats. It also can be transmitted through a cat scratch, as the cat gets fleas under its claws by scratching itself. As is the case with Babesiosis, a family practice physician is unlikely to diagnose Bartonellosis. It is not a common diagnosis, and even infectious disease specialists may go an entire career without diagnosing it. If a family practice physician suspects Bartonellosis, the better approach would be to refer the patient to an infectious disease specialist. However, failure to refer a patient to a specialist, assuming that the family physician performs the appropriate testing and treatment, is not necessarily a departure from the standard of care. In order to make a diagnosis, a thorough history and physical is required, along with objective laboratory test results. A physician should inquire about exposure to animals that could carry fleas, ticks, or lice, and whether there had been any recent instances where the patient has been scratched by a cat. The symptoms of Bartonellosis are nonspecific and include fever, headaches, myalgia, and arthralgia. The generally accepted test used to confirm a diagnosis of Bartonellosis would be a PCR amplification of Bartonella DNA, or paired blood serologies. DOAH Case No. 15-2888PL; DOH Case No. 2011-15106 (Patient C.C.) From approximately September 28, 2010, through approximately February 28, 2012, Respondent provided medical care and treatment to patient C.C. At the time of her original presentation to Respondent, C.C. was 27 years old. Prior to seeing Dr. Lentz, C.C. had a series of orthopedic injuries. For example, in 1998, C.C. was involved in a serious car accident, resulting in multiple broken bones and internal injuries requiring a two-week stay in the hospital. C.C. joined the Air Force in 2006, where she served as an aircraft mechanic. During basic training she suffered an injury to her shoulder, which caused problems with her neck, back, and shoulder. While in the military, C.C. was involved in two additional accidents: she broke her wrist in a motorcycle accident at some point, and on March 31, 2009, she had a second accident where the car she was driving was struck by another vehicle. While C.C. denied any injuries as a result of this second accident, shortly thereafter in July 2009, she had neck surgery because of discs impinging on the nerves in her neck. C.C.’s work as an aircraft mechanic required her to work in the fuel tanks of an airplane, which is a very confined space. C.C. is approximately 5’10” tall, and the work she performed required her to become contorted in a very small space for approximately 13 hours at a time. After her neck surgery, she started having increasing amounts of pain in her back and hips, to the point where she could no longer perform her job duties and in August of 2010, resorted to a wheelchair because of her inability to walk. Although she consulted multiple doctors both in the military and through referrals to outside physicians, she did not discover the cause of her pain. On or about September 28, 2010, Respondent evaluated C.C. for complaints of severe back, buttock, and right leg pain. When she presented for her first office visit, Dr. Lentz’s review of symptoms indicated that C.C. had a frontal headache with pain at a level of 10 out of 10; sensitivity to light and sound; loss of hearing and buzzing; nausea but no vomiting; withdrawal symptoms described as sweats when she did not take Ultram or Lortab; and feelings of hopelessness and emotional lability. His physical examination reported that C.C. was in a wheelchair, and documented “soles of feet painful, SKIN: rashes, soles of feet red, NEURO: paresthesia, pain, tender extremity.” At that time, Respondent diagnosed C.C. as having chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic pain syndrome. In C.C.’s history, Respondent noted that she “grew up in Texas/Arkansas-hunting, forests, etc. There is no notation of recent travel on this first visit. Dr. Lentz asked her about any flu-like symptoms, which she denied having. Many of the symptoms listed by C.C. are general symptoms that are common to a variety of ailments. Respondent, however, focused only on chronic fatigue, chronic pain, Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and lupus. On this first office visit, Respondent prescribed CD57, C3a, C4a, and eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) laboratory tests of C.C.’s blood. With respect to the order for CD57, Respondent listed Lyme disease as a diagnosis. For the C4a and C3a, he listed Lyme disease and Lupus as the diagnoses, and for the ECP he listed a diagnosis of Babesia infection. Respondent did not prescribe an immunoassay (ELISA) test or Western blot test for Borrelia burgdorferi for C.C. The ECP test result for C.C. collected on October 6, 2010, was 20.8. The reference range for a normal test result is 1-10. The notation for the test on the lab result states: This test uses a kit/reagent designated by the manufacturer as for research use, not for clinical use. The performance characteristics of this test have been validated by Advanced Diagnostic Laboratories at National Jewish Health. It has not been cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The results are not intended to be used as the sole means for clinical diagnosis or patient management decisions. On or about October 15, 2010, Respondent diagnosed C.C. with Lyme disease. He based his diagnosis of Lyme disease on the results of the CD57 blood test. The CD57 test is a cluster designation test that measures a marker found on lymphocytes, which are a type of white blood cell that are sometimes referred to as natural killer cells. Although Respondent claimed at hearing that he did not consider the test to be definitive, in his deposition he indicated that he believed that it was in fact definitive. Dr. Cichon, on the other hand, testified that the CD57 test used by Dr. Lentz is not a definitive test for Lyme disease, but is useful for measuring the progress of treatment. At least one test result for C.C. reflecting the results for a CD57 panel has the following notation from the laboratory: This test was developed and its performance characteristics determined by Labcorp. It has not been cleared or approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has determined that such clearance or approval is not necessary. Results of this test are for investigational purposes only. The result should not be used as a diagnostic procedure without confirmation of the diagnosis by another medically established diagnostic product or procedure. On or about October 15, 2010, Respondent also diagnosed C.C. with Babesiosis. Respondent did not prescribe a blood smear examination for Babesial parasites or PCR amplification for Babesial DNA for C.C. He based his diagnosis on the ECP test. On October 15, 2010, Dr. Lentz received an e-mail from C.C.’s roommate, M.B., informing him that C.C. had visited the emergency room over the weekend because of the level of her pain. The e-mail asked whether C.C. could begin with her treatment before her next appointment. In response, Dr. Lentz called in prescriptions for doxycycline and Cleocin, both of which are oral antibiotics. On or about October 18, 2010, Respondent described C.C. as being in no acute distress, with a gait that is within normal limits. He also noted some wheezing, pain all over, tears, and cramps in her muscles. Respondent prescribed long-term IV antibiotic therapy and referred C.C. to a specialist for venous port placement for the administration of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. The specific medications prescribed at this visit are acetaminophen-oxycodone 300 mg - 7.5 mg oral tablets to be taken three times daily; Cymbalta 30 mg oral, once a day; Flagyl 500 mg oral tablets, to be taken three weeks on, one week off; heparin 5000 units/ml injectable solution, once a day; Omnicef 300 mg oral capsules, once a day; Interfase Plus Prothera, a supplement; and boluoke lumbrokinase, also a supplement. At the October 18, 2010, visit, he also ordered a Fry test for Bartonellosis and prescribed intravenous vancomycin, with weekly vancomycin trough levels. Dr. Lentz testified at hearing that the prescription for vancomycin was to treat Bartonellosis.3/ However, at this juncture, no diagnosis for Bartonellosis had been made. Heparin is an anticoagulant that is used for a variety of issues, such as blood clots, pulmonary emboli, and Berko emboli. It is also used in coronary heart disease if a patient has a myocardial infarction. The more persuasive and credible testimony established that it was below the standard of care to use heparin in the treatment of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. Not only did heparin have no efficacy, it had the potential to be very dangerous for C.C., or any other patient. On October 28, 2010, Respondent noted that the vancomycin was at 1.5 grams and still not therapeutic, and ordered that the medication be changed to Primaxin and that the Omnicef and vancomycin troughs be stopped. On November 10, 2010, Respondent noted that C.C. was experiencing flu-like symptoms, but was now resting fewer hours each day. For the first time, he noted “past 4 years in military=Virginia, Canada, Honduras, as sites for exposure to Lyme.” He also noted “no wheelchair, but slow to move, pain to rt LS-hip-leg.” He continued to list her diagnoses as Lyme disease, Babesiosis, chronic pain syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Respondent also saw C.C. in the office on December 8, 2010, and January 10, 2011. At the December 8, 2010, visit, he discontinued the use of Flagyl because of her nausea and switched to Tindamax (one tablet daily for three weeks, then off one week) instead. On January 19, 2011, Dr. Lentz received an e-mail from C.C.’s roommate regarding a fall C.C. had over the weekend. As a result, he wrote an e-mail to C.C. and told her to stop the Tindamax and “add the neurotoxins to remove the neurologic toxins that are being created by the antibiotics.” He also directed her to stop the heparin injections, as she needed to be off of heparin before having some hand surgery to remove a cyst. C.C. returned for an office visit on February 9, 2011. At that time, Respondent’s notes indicate that she was ambulatory but still significantly fatigued and still falling. He noted, “rt hip. sciatic nerve still #1 symptom, can not stand or walk for long periods of time, not sure if neurologic/Lyme or degenerative nerve dis.” In his assessment, he stated she “needs CT lumbar sacrum to r/o orthopedic issue with back pain.” During the course of treatment, Respondent was consistently prescribing OxyContin at 10 mg, three times daily. On March 16, 2011, he referred C.C. to Dr. Beach at Andrews Institute to detox off the OxyContin. He also noted that she had been given 100 percent disability through the military, and would take approximately four months to process out of the military. He also noted “electrical ablation at T9, T10 for chronic back pain per Dr. Nyguen.” Dr. Lentz continued to see C.C. on April 12, 2011; May 4, 2011; and May 13, 2011. Throughout her treatment with IV antibiotics, C.C. experienced problems with nausea, rashes, and diarrhea, but claims that over time, her symptoms began to improve so that she could walk and eventually was able to hold down part-time employment. Toward the end of her military tenure, C.C. needed a referral in order to continue to see Dr. Lentz. To that end, on June 8, 2011, she saw Dr. Janelle Robertson, M.D., a board certified infectious disease specialist at Eglin Air Force Base. Dr. Robertson evaluated C.C. for Lyme disease, and documented her history, including travel history and history of tick bites. She reviewed prior records from Eglin Air Force base that indicated C.C. had an ELISA screening on June 10, 2010 (approximately two and a half months before seeing Dr. Lentz), that was negative. The ELISA test was not only performed before C.C. saw Dr. Lentz, but well after C.C. began suffering the symptoms that led her to seek out Dr. Lentz. Accordingly, the ELISA test was administered at a time at which C.C. would have developed sufficient antibodies for the test to be useful. Dr. Robertson also noted that while C.C. had a history of tick bites in Florida, Texas, and Alabama, she did not report any rashes or illness at or near the time of the tick bites. She also had no history of migratory arthralgia or Bell’s palsy. Dr. Robertson testified credibly that C.C. was having no night sweats, weight loss, changes in vision, palpitations, difficulty breathing, or gastrointestinal problems, and that her primary complaint was back and hip pain. C.C.’s pain remained in the same locations and persisted without resolution since 2009. Dr. Robertson concluded that C.C. did not have Lyme disease, and that her prior negative ELISA test conclusively established that she did not have the disease. She opined that, given that C.C.’s symptoms had persisted since 2009, if she had actually had Lyme disease, she would have developed antibodies that would have been detected with the ELISA test. She also determined that Respondent did not have Babesiosis and recommended to C.C. that she immediately stop the therapy prescribed by Dr. Lentz, because in Dr. Robertson’s view, the therapy was unsafe. C.C. has since transitioned out of the military into civilian life. Although she believes that the treatment by Dr. Lentz was effective in treating her condition, the events since she stopped treatment for Lyme disease suggest otherwise. For example, C.C. testified in her deposition that her treatment ended in mid-May 2011 because Dr. Lentz determined that she did not need more treatment, yet it appears that the military would no longer authorize treatment by Dr. Lentz once C.C. saw Dr. Robertson. Moreover, she continues to have some of the same pain that led her to treatment with Dr. Lentz. In approximately October 2014, she had hip surgery because her “hips are pretty much shot.” She has had three surgeries for kidney stones, steroid injections for temporary relief from her back pain, and acupuncture treatments for her back pain. At least one physician attributed her problem to the kind of work she performed as an aircraft mechanic, and at deposition she indicated that a recent MRI indicated that she has some lumbar narrowing. In short, it appears that the months-long IV antibiotic therapy she endured has provided no lasting solution to her pain. Respondent’s care and treatment of C.C. was a departure from the standard of care in that he diagnosed Lyme disease based upon an inadequate history and no objective laboratory test results from an ELISA test and Western blot. Specifically, Respondent failed to obtain C.C.’s travel history or any history of rashes, possible tick bites, including the size of the tick, and in fact obtained a history devoid of any flu-like symptoms characteristic of Lyme disease. C.C.’s primary symptoms were related to her back pain. Respondent’s own expert, Dr. Cichon, testified that the key to a diagnosis of Lyme disease is the patient’s history.4/ With this inadequate history in mind, Respondent did not obtain an ELISA test or Western blot, but instead relied on a test that, on its face, indicates that it is for investigational use only and should not be used as a diagnostic procedure without confirmation of the diagnosis by another medically-established diagnostic product or procedure. The more persuasive and compelling testimony established that the failure to obtain objective laboratory confirmation of Lyme disease through the use of the ELISA and Western blot tests is a departure from the standard of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician. The more persuasive and compelling evidence also established that C.C. did not actually have Lyme disease, despite Respondent’s diagnosis of the disease. Respondent also departed from the appropriate standard of care by his failure to use the appropriate tests for the diagnoses of Babesiosis and Bartonellosis. His test of preference, the ECP test, is by its own terms, not intended to be used as the sole means for clinical diagnosis or patient management decisions. As stated by Dr. Robbins, it has no clinical relevance and is diagnostic of nothing. Likewise, his credible testimony indicated that use of the Fry test was not appropriate, as it is a proprietary test of the laboratory and not FDA approved.5/ Respondent’s care and treatment of C.C. also departed from the applicable standard of care by prescribing surgery for placement of a venous port for administration of intravenous medication, and by prescribing both intravenous and oral antibiotic therapy in inappropriate and excessive amounts. The more credible and persuasive testimony demonstrated that C.C. did not have Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis, and therefore did not need any of the antibiotic therapy prescribed. Even had C.C. received a correct diagnosis, the more persuasive evidence demonstrated that the amounts and duration of the antibiotics prescribed were not only unwarranted, but potentially dangerous for the patient. C.C. had the possibility of negative reactions from the many antibiotics prescribed, but also the very real possibility that she has built up a resistance to the antibiotics such that they will be ineffective should she actually need them in the future. Finally, Respondent’s care and treatment of C.C. departed from the applicable standard of care by the prescription of heparin. There was no medical justification for the prescription of an anticoagulant for the treatment of Lyme disease, even if appropriately diagnosed (which did not happen here), and as with the prescription of multiple long-term antibiotics, was potentially dangerous and harmful to the patient. DOAH Case No. 15-2889PL; DOH Case No. 2011-18613 (Patients D.H., S.L., J.L., W.L., and D.D.) Patient D.H. Respondent provided care and treatment to patient D.H. from approximately November 24, 2010, to approximately October 14, 2011. D.H. was previously seen by a physician’s assistant, Thomas Gregory Roberts, who at various times worked under Respondent’s supervision, including the period from April 29, 2009, to May 26, 2010, and again from September 21, 2010, through December 18, 2010.6/ Mr. Roberts had ordered a previous CD57 test for D.H., and had prescribed doxycycline for him on a long-term basis. Mr. Roberts’ office was closing and his records were no longer available, so on November 24, 2010, D.H.’s wife, J.H., e-mailed Dr. Lentz to request laboratory tests and to schedule an appointment for D.H. She stated in part: Dear Dr. Lentz: Both my husband and I have been to you before, but not at your current office. [D.H.] went to Tom Roberts at Village Health Assoc. and was sent for blood work. His CD57 counts were off, so he put him on Doxycycline [sic] and was on it for several months. His last blood work was done in July and by the sound of it showed some improvement, but he told him to stay on the antibiotics. Tom Roberts gave him an order for follow up bloodwork which reads CD57 + NK Cells Dx2793. Since he is currently not practicing that we know of, we are requesting that you please write an order so that [D.H.] can have blood work done and come to you for the results. Based upon this e-mail, Respondent ordered a CD57 test, using the diagnostic code for and reference to Lyme infection, and an ECP test using the diagnostic code for and reference to Babesia infection. He did so without actually seeing D.H., taking a history, or performing a physical examination. Respondent diagnosed D.H. as having Lyme disease and Babesiosis. He communicated the diagnoses to D.H. on December 25, 2010, via e-mail, stating, “CD57 is positive for Lyme and ECP positive for Babesia. Call Amy at 424-6841 for an appointment. Dr. Lentz.” It does not appear from the record that he considered or ruled out any other condition for D.H.’s complaints. Respondent did not prescribe or order for D.H. an ELISA or Western blot test, PCR amplification of Bartonella or Babesial DNA, or blood smear tests at any time during D.H.’s care and treatment. Respondent did not refer D.H. to a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases, such as Lyme disease, Bartonellosis, and Babesiosis at any time during Respondent’s treatment and care of D.H. D.H.’s first office visit was January 17, 2011. At that time, J.H., D.H.’s wife, who attended the majority of his doctor’s visits with him, testified that his only complaint at that point was fatigue, and ongoing diarrhea she attributed to the lengthy time he had already been on antibiotics. She acknowledged that he checked off those items on a form at the doctor’s office, but was not going to see Dr. Lentz complaining about those: he went simply because of his fatigue. He had no rash at that point, and never complained of a tick bite. Dr. Lentz’s records, however, indicate that he complained about exhaustion; face-neck, jaw, and orbital pain; diarrhea; cramping; stiff and painful joints; mood swings; irritability; explosive [sic]; and poor concentration. From what J.H. could remember, the physical examination Respondent performed on D.H. was very brief. Respondent took D.H.’s blood pressure, possibly looked in his mouth, palpated his abdomen, and did a knee reflex test. She did not remember him doing anything else, except having D.H. fill out a long form. Dr. Lentz’s medical records for this visit contain no prior medical history, no pulse, and no respiration rate. Respondent diagnosed D.H. with Lyme disease. When J.H. asked him if he was sure, Respondent said, absolutely. J.H. had done some research and knew that Respondent had only ordered a CD57 for D.H. She asked him about ordering the Western blot, but he did not order it. She could not remember Respondent’s exact response, but was led to believe that he did not think that the Western blot test was as accurate in diagnosing Lyme disease. At this first visit, Respondent also ordered the Fry test. Results from the Fry test are dated January 25, 2011, and indicate: Based on the accompanying test results for the sample for listed patient and accession number is suggested for follow up confirmation of the putative organism(s). Protozoan: The Special Stains (100x magnification) or the Advanced Stains (magnification listed) for this sample is suggestive of a protozoan. PCR testing for putative FL1953 is suggested for follow-up confirmation. EPierythrozoan/Hemorbartonella: The Special Stains (100x magnification) or the Advanced Stains (magnification listed) for this sample is suggestive of epierythrozoan/ hemobartonella. PCR or serology testing for the putative epierythrozoan/hemobartonella (Bartonella spp.) is suggested for follow up confirmation and speciation. (emphasis added). The records do not indicate that Respondent ordered any of the follow-up testing recommended by the Fry laboratory which, ironically, is the very testing for Bartonellosis that a reasonably prudent similar physician should order for this condition. His records also do not indicate that he ever added Bartonellosis as a diagnosis for D.H. During the course of his treatment, Respondent prescribed for D.H. the antibiotics Omnicef, azithromycin, and Cleocin, as well as Interface Plus Prothera (an enzyme supplement formulation), boluoke lumbrokinase (a fibrinolytic supplement), atenolol (a beta blocker used primarily in cardiovascular disease, added March 7, 2011), heparin injections (an anticoagulant, also added March 7), artemisinin (an antimalarial, added June 14), Mepron (an antiparasitic, added June 14), Tindamax (added June 14), Plaquenil (an antimalarial), and Vermox (an anthelmintic)(both added August 21). J.H. understood that, based upon Respondent’s explanations, the heparin was prescribed to help other medicines be absorbed into the cells, or something along those lines. She was concerned about D.H. being on the heparin, in part because as a result of him injecting the heparin in his abdomen, D.H. had a lot of bruising and knots all over his belly. She was also concerned because D.H. worked as a boat captain on the Mississippi River, which required him to be away from home for weeks at a time. She was concerned about the ramifications should he have an accident at work when he had no access to medical care. Her concerns were warranted. The couple also had concerns about the number of medications D.H. was taking while under Respondent’s care. He developed blurred vision, did not sleep well, and had chronic diarrhea. When D.H. came home from his last visit, which J.H. apparently did not attend, he reported that Dr. Lentz had said something about having a port placed for the administration of more antibiotics. That shocked her, so before he would go through with port placement, they sought a second opinion. Dr. Patrick Anastasio is an osteopathic physician who is a board-certified infectious disease specialist. During all times relevant to these proceedings, he was a solo practitioner in private practice at Emerald Coast Infectious Diseases in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. He has worked in the area for approximately 12 years. D.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Anastasio regarding his Lyme disease and Babesiosis diagnoses. To that end, he saw Dr. Anastasio for the first time on September 29, 2011. Dr. Anastasio did not believe that D.H. had the symptoms initially to place him in a high risk group for Lyme disease. During his examination, he looked for signs that would be consistent with Lyme disease, such as arthritis, cognitive problems, or neurological problems, but did not discover any. Dr. Anastasio did not believe that D.H. had either Lyme disease or Babesiosis, but ordered a blood smear, and a Western blot and a Babesia PCR test to rule out the conditions. All tests came back negative.7/ Dr. Anastasio recommended to D.H. that he stop taking all of the medications prescribed by Dr. Lentz, and D.H. did so. It still took months for the diarrhea, most likely caused by the long-term antibiotic therapy, to subside. However, D.H. began to feel better once he stopped taking the antibiotics. Dr. Charles Powers, M.D., testified that Dr. Lentz’s medical records for D.H. were not adequate for the evaluation of whether D.H. had Lyme disease. He also believed that it was below the standard of care to use the CD57 for the diagnosis of Lyme disease as opposed to the ELISA and Western blot tests, and that it was below the standard of care not to order the ELISA and Western blot tests in the absence of an erythema migrans rash that Dr. Lentz could physically observe. Dr. Powers believed that there was no basis upon which to diagnose D.H. with Lyme disease, and therefore any treatment based on this faulty diagnosis would be below the standard of care. Even assuming the diagnosis was correct, Dr. Powers opined that the treatment ordered also was below the standard of care. According to Dr. Powers, a reasonably prudent family practitioner would usually prescribe doxycycline for the majority of cases, as opposed to the regimen of medications used by Dr. Lentz. Prescribing antibiotics the way they were prescribed would include adverse side effects, such as nausea and/or diarrhea with resistance to bacteria; development of C. difficile infection, which can be difficult to treat; and potential for allergic reactions, which can be fatal. Dr. Powers testified that when a combination of antibiotics is being used, with each additional antibiotic prescribed, the risk for complications increases exponentially. His testimony is credited. Dr. Powers also opined that the use of heparin in the treatment of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis was a departure from the standard of care, and was a dangerous choice for this or any other patient who did not have a need for a blood thinner. Dr. Robbins also believed that Respondent’s care and treatment of D.H. was below the standard of care. He testified that Respondent breached the standard of care by diagnosing D.H. with Babesiosis using the ECP test and the Fry testing for the purpose of diagnosing Bartonellosis. He also testified, consistent with Dr. Powers, that using heparin in the treatment of any of these three diseases was an egregious departure from the standard of care. The testimony of Drs. Robbins and Powers is credited. Dr. Cichon expressed concerns about the amount of medications prescribed by Dr. Lentz to D.H., specifically singling out the prescriptions for Plaquenil and Vermox. While his testimony fell far short of declaring that prescribing these medications represented a departure from the standard of care, his testimony was certainly not a ringing endorsement. It seemed as if he was trying to convince himself that Respondent’s care and treatment of this patient fell within the standard of care. His testimony to that effect is rejected as not credible. D.H. did not have a medical condition that justified the prescription of any of the medications and supplements that Dr. Lentz prescribed, much less for the duration taken. The prescription of any of these medications without a valid diagnosis was a departure from the standard of care attributed to a reasonably prudent similar physician. Patient S.L. Respondent provided care and treatment to patient S.L. from on or about August 17, 2010, to on or about January 7, 2011. On or about August 17, 2010, at her first office visit with Dr. Lentz, S.L. presented with and reported to Respondent a history of heavy rectal bleeding, which occurred every four to five days. At that visit, S.L. informed Respondent that in June, she had been advised to get a colonoscopy. Because of economic constraints, S.L. did not obtain the requested colonoscopy. There is no indication in the patient records for S.L.’s first office visit (or any later visit) that the reason for S.L.’s bleeding prior to his treatment of her had been determined or that it had resolved. S.L. first went to see Dr. Lentz at Hope Medical Clinic8/ because she believed that she had a urinary tract infection. She also had severe back pain, with pins and needles down both legs. Her back pain had started in 2005, following a car accident. S.L. does not recall Respondent ever performing a physical examination, although the patient records indicate that at least a minimal examination was performed. She does recall him talking to her about being from Pennsylvania, but does not recall him asking her about any travel history, whether she had been exposed to ticks, or had ever been bitten by a tick. Dr. Lentz’s medical records for this first visit make no mention of a travel history; no mention of tick exposure; and no mention of any type of rash. Much of the history related to other issues, such as S.L.’s history of bleeding, as opposed to any symptoms that could be said to be indicative of Lyme disease. The symptoms documented are “paresthesis to both legs due to lumbar path. Recent hematochezia. No melena. No upper abd. Pain. No diarrhea. Mostly awake sxs, not hs.” Yet in his assessment/plan notes, he lists diagnoses of lumbago, displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy, and chronic pain syndrome. He prescribed Lyrica, Elavil, Lortab, and ordered a CD57, listing the Lyme disease diagnostic code. There was no medical basis, based on the history presented, to suspect or test for Lyme disease. On September 21, 2010, S.L. presented to Dr. Lentz for a follow-up appointment. At this appointment, Respondent diagnosed S.L. as having Lyme disease. He ordered a Fry Bartonella test as well as an ECP test, and prescribed doxycycline, Omnicef, and Flagyl. On September 30, 2010, S.L. called Respondent and reported throwing up all of her antibiotics, and asked about medication for her nausea. Dr. Lentz added the diagnosis of Bartonellosis without seeing S.L. or performing any further physical examination. The results of the Fry test in the patient records state: “rare (1-4 organisms per total fields observed) coccobacilli adherent to erythrocytes – indicated by yellow arrow(s). This is suggestive of Hemobartonella(1) or Hemoplasma(2).” The notes also state, “[t]his stain is not FDA approved and is for research only.” At S.L.’s next appointment on October 5, 2010, Dr. Lentz prescribed rifampin and Cleocin, as well as Lovenox injections. Lovenox is a low molecular weight heparin that can be given subcutaneously. At the time Dr. Lentz prescribed it, there was no determination regarding the cause of her heavy rectal bleeding just a few months before. On October 19, 2010, just two weeks after starting the Lovenox injections, S.L. presented to the emergency room at Sacred Heart Hospital with complaints of blood in her urine.9/ Physicians in the emergency room attributed the blood in her urine to the Lovenox injections, and discharged her with a diagnosis of hematuria. That same day, she presented to Dr. Lentz and told him about her emergency room visit. Dr. Lentz lowered the dose for Lovenox, but did not discontinue its use. His notes for this visit indicate that she had left flank pain, slight liver tenderness, no masses, and a “light liver test elevated, <2X normal.”10/ He added a diagnosis for Babesiosis, but did not appear to explore what was causing the liver tenderness and elevated tests. Under his assessment and plan, it states: “1. Cut Lovenox BID to QAM. 2. Add Culturelle/probiotics to GI tract due to antibiotics being used, if urine lightens up and less blood on dipstick, then improvement.” Respondent did not prescribe S.L. a PCR amplification or Bartonella or Babesial DNA, or Western blot immunoassay tests at any time during Respondent’s care and treatment of S.L. Respondent did not refer patient S.L. to a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases, such as Lyme disease, Bartonellosis, and Babesiosis, at any time during Respondent’s care and treatment of S.L. S.L. testified that the physicians at Sacred Heart Hospital informed her that there was no reason for her to be on the antibiotics or blood thinner prescribed by Dr. Lentz, and based upon their advice, she stopped the medication regimen he prescribed. The medical records from Sacred Heart do not mention this advice, and she saw Dr. Lentz at least twice after her emergency room visit: October 19 and November 2, 2010. After that, the only communications in Dr. Lentz’s medical records for S.L. appear to be requests for medication related to urinary tract infections as opposed to treatment for Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. In any event, she quit seeing Dr. Lentz for Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and Bartonellosis at least as of November 2, and testified credibly that she feels fine. Based on the credible testimony of Drs. Powers and Robbins, Dr. Lentz’s diagnosis and treatment of S.L. violated the applicable standard of care in that he failed to obtain an appropriate history to diagnose Lyme disease, Babesiosis or Bartonellosis in the first place. He failed to obtain a travel history, any information regarding possible tick bites, and if there was such a bite, the size of the tick and duration of the bite. He also failed to document symptoms that would suggest the possibility of Lyme disease to justify any objective laboratory testing. S.L.’s symptoms were related to back pain and a history of heavy bleeding. Her symptoms simply did not justify testing for Lyme disease. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to perform an adequate examination. As noted above, while S.L. does not remember one, the medical records reflect notations indicating that one was in fact performed. The problem is that the history and physical examination do not support further investigation for Lyme disease. Respondent also departed from the applicable standard of care by relying on tests that were not appropriate for the diagnosis of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. As stated above, there was no basis to test for these conditions at all, but if testing was going to be performed, then the appropriate tests were not the CD57, ECP, and Fry tests, but rather the ELISA, Western blot, PCR, and serologies discussed above. Respondent’s prescription of multiple antibiotics of lengthy duration also violated the standard of care, for reasons discussed above at paragraphs 60 and 79. Likewise, Respondent’s prescription of Lovenox fell below the standard of care. The use of Lovenox for Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and Bartonellosis is not warranted at all, but is especially egregious here, where S.L. had excessive bleeding problems of which Respondent was aware just months before Lovenox was prescribed, with no documentation that the cause of the bleeding had been identified and addressed, and no indication that Respondent did anything to investigate the cause of the bleeding. That he continued to prescribe the Lovenox, albeit at a lower dose, after her visit to the emergency room with hematuria, just compounds the problem. Dr. Cichon testified that Respondent met the standard of care in diagnosing and treating S.L., saying that she had unexplained pain that could be due to Lyme disease. He struggled to identify any symptoms that are commonly associated with Lyme disease. His testimony seemed to indicate anytime there is unexplained pain, Lyme disease is a possibility. His testimony on this issue is not credible. The same can be said for his support of the diagnosis of Babesiosis. Dr. Cichon identified the primary symptoms of Babesiosis as headaches, sweating, and air hunger. S.L. did not have these symptoms, leaving only the ECP test as a basis for diagnosis. Relying on the ECP (which is only slightly elevated) is contrary to Dr. Cichon’s own testimony regarding the primary importance of a thorough history to support such a diagnosis. Similarly, Dr. Cichon acknowledged in his testimony that he could not tell from Respondent’s medical records whether S.L. had any symptoms to support a diagnosis for Bartonellosis, and stated that her symptoms could be due to her lumbar pathology. Given these inconsistencies, his opinion that Dr. Lentz did not depart from the applicable standard of care in the diagnosis of each of these diseases is not credible and is rejected. Medical records must justify the course of treatment for a patient. Dr. Lentz’s medical records for S.L. do not justify the diagnosis or treatment of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis. The medical records do not document symptoms that are consistent with the diagnoses of any of these diseases, and fail to provide a complete medical history. Patients J.L., W.L., and D.D. J.L. is the mother of S.L. W.L. is J.L.’s husband and S.L.’s father, and D.D. is S.L.’s son and J.L. and W.L.’s grandson. On September 22, 2010, approximately one month after S.L. began treatment with Dr. Lentz, J.L. wrote him the following e-mail: Dr. Lentz: Thank you for talking with me on the phone today. We are really concerned about S.L. and we can not [sic] express to you how much you are appreciated for all you have done for her. You are a true blessing to our family. My husband was bitten by a tick over the July 4th weekend in MO. He developed the bulleye [sic] rash and went to our family doctor. Dr. Calvin Blount. He was give [sic] 10 days of antibiotics, but no follow up or blood test were ever ordered. We would like to be tested for Lyme. We believe that S.L. might have contracted Lyme before she became pregnant with D.D. and would like him tested also. Here is our information. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you again for all you have done. As noted above, there was an insufficient basis to justify the ordering of any tests related to Lyme disease for S.L. The only basis for ordering tests for D.D. is the suspicion that S.L. may have been infected prior to giving birth to D.D. If there is no basis for suspecting S.L. has Lyme disease, there is no basis for suspecting D.D. has Lyme disease. Respondent did not make an appointment for, take a history from, or perform a physical examination of J.L., W.L., or D.D. Based upon this e-mail alone, he ordered CD57 and ECP tests for all three of them, as well as C4a and C3a tests for J.L. and W.L. To justify ordering the tests, he listed “Lyme Disease (088.81)” under his assessment/plan for each patient. Although he never saw any of these patients, he coded each encounter as “high complexity.” On October 14, 2010, Dr. Lentz sent an e-mail to J.L. stating that “D.D. is positive for Lyme and negative for Babesia.” On October 24, 2010, Dr. Lentz sent an e-mail to J.L. stating, “W.L. C4A is back=20,000+ indicative of active Lyme.” On October 25, 2010, Dr. Lentz sent an e-mail to J.L. which stated, “[t]he CD57 is 50=positive, and the ECP is 11.5=positive for Babesia. My initial charge is $400 and $200 for return visits. Since I will be seeing both you and [W.L.], I will drop that to $300 initial visits. Call Amy for the schedule.” Dr. Lentz testified that he did not diagnose J.L., W.L., or D.D. with any condition, and did not really consider them to be patients. In his view, he was simply doing a favor for the family members of a patient. However, he created records that referred to each patient as being new patients needing tests for Lyme disease, and included diagnostic codes for the lab tests. With respect to each of them, he made an interpretation of the tests that he ordered. At least with respect to D.D., he admitted in his deposition that he diagnosed D.D. with Lyme disease based on the laboratory tests. Both S.L. and W.L. testified credibly that, based on the communications received from Dr. Lentz, they each believed that he had diagnosed them with Lyme disease, and that he had diagnosed J.L. with Babesia. It is found that he did, in fact, provide diagnoses to J.L., W.L., and D.D., without the benefit of a personal history, or a physical examination. Respondent did not refer J.L., W.L., or D.D. to a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases such as Lyme disease, Bartonellosis, or Babesiosis. Respondent did not order for J.L., W.L., or D.D. an ELISA or Western blot test, PCR amplification of Bartonella or Babesial DNA, or blood smear tests. J.L. and W.L. decided to get a second opinion regarding the Lyme disease and Babesiosis diagnoses, and went to see Dr. Anastasio. Dr. Anastasio testified that J.L. did not have the required exposure to or symptoms for Lyme disease. Because she came to him with a Lyme disease diagnosis, he ordered a Lyme Western blot, a PCR for Babesiosis, and a PCR for Bartonellosis. J.L.’s Western blot IgM was negative, with two of the three antibody bands tested returning as absent. The Western blot IgG was negative, with all ten antibody bands returning as absent. J.L.’s PCRs for both Babesiosis and Bartonellosis were negative. Dr. Anastasio testified that he did not believe that J.L. had either Lyme disease or Babesia. His testimony was persuasive, and is credited. Dr. Anastasio testified that, given W.L.’s history of a tick bite followed by a rash, there was at least a basis to believe his symptoms could be an indication of Lyme disease. The tick bite and rash were approximately six months prior to W.L. presenting to Dr. Anastasio, and almost three months prior to Dr. Lentz ordering tests for him. Given these time frames, there was plenty of time for W.L. to develop antibodies to Lyme disease if he was in fact infected with the disease. Dr. Anastasio testified that at the time he saw W.L., W.L.’s symptoms were not consistent with late Lyme disease. Dr. Anastasio ordered several tests for W.L., including a Lyme Western blot, a PCR for Babesiosis, a blood smear for Babesiosis, and a PCR for Bartonellosis. The Western blot test was negative, with zero out of ten antibodies present. Both PCR tests and the blood smear were also negative. Dr. Anastasio concluded that W.L. did not have Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis, and his testimony to that effect is credited.11/ Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care with respect to the care and treatment of patients W.L., J.L., and D.D. Based on the credible testimony of Drs. Powers and Robbins, Dr. Lentz departed from the standard of care in ordering tests for all three patients when he did so without seeing them, taking a history with respect to any of them, or conducting a physical examination of any of them to determine whether any of the requested tests were warranted or even justified. Respondent also departed from the applicable standard of care when he ordered tests that would not even assist in diagnosing Lyme disease, Babesiosis, or Bartonellosis had testing for those conditions been appropriate. Moreover, Dr. Powers testified credibly that the appropriate way to order tests for a suspected condition is to use the symptoms that are being investigated by the physician ordering the test, as opposed to the suspected disease being considered. For example, one ordering a mammogram would list “screening” or “diagnostic,” not “breast cancer,” because at that point, breast cancer has not been, and might never be, diagnosed. Documenting the symptom as opposed to the disease is important in terms of continuing care, so that there is no confusion by a subsequent health care provider reading the records about a premature diagnosis. Dr. Powers’ testimony is credited. Dr. Lentz also claimed that because J.L., W.L., and D.D. were not his patients, he did not need to have medical records for them that complied with section 458.331(1)(n). However, Dr. Lentz created patient records for all three in order to order the laboratory tests for them. He coded the action taken as having high complexity. The definition of medicine includes “diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition.” § 458.305(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent clearly engaged in the practice of medicine when he wrote prescriptions for tests for the purpose of diagnosing disease. By ordering these tests, creating medical charts for them (however limited they may be), interpreting the test results and communicating those results, he established a physician-patient relationship with J.L., W.L., and D.D. Accordingly, he was required to have patient records that justified the course of treatment (here, the diagnosis of Lyme disease, Babesiosis, and Bartonella). The records presented do not meet that requirement. DOAH Case No. 15-2890PL; DOH Case No. 2012-01987 (Patient C.H.) At the time of the events giving rise to this case, C.H. was a 23-year-old woman. She was married and attending her final year of chiropractic school in Kennesaw, Georgia. C.H. testified that in December 2010, she had experienced a bout with the flu, including an episode where she passed out in the shower, for which she was prescribed a Z-pack, and recovered. She then had gum surgery during the Christmas break, requiring anesthesia, after which she visited her husband’s family in Missouri over the Christmas holiday. After C.H. returned to Georgia, she returned to class for the spring semester. In early February of 2011, she had an episode in class where her heart started beating very rapidly, and upon a physician’s advice, went to the emergency room. Tests given there were normal. Follow-up tests also did not reveal the basis for her symptoms, and in March 2011, her mother contacted Dr. Lentz based upon the suggestion of a family friend who had treated with him. On or about March 20, S.H. contacted Respondent by e-mail regarding her 23-year-old daughter, C.H. S.H. had been referred to Respondent by a family friend. S.H. reported that she had found a checklist for Lyme disease symptoms online, which included some of the symptoms her daughter was experiencing, such as fatigue, rapid heartbeat, chest pain, headaches, blurry vision, and difficulty concentrating. She also related that C.H. was in her final year of chiropractic school and had recently completed her national boards, and thought that some of the symptoms might be related to stress and anxiety from her studies. In that e-mail, S.H. reported to Respondent that C.H. had tested negative for Lyme disease the previous week. Respondent received a copy of C.H.’s negative Lyme disease test report from blood collected on or about March 16, 2011. On or about March 22, 2011, Respondent documented his assessment of C.H. as Lyme disease and chronic fatigue syndrome. He ordered CD57, C3a, C4a, and ECP laboratory tests of C.H.’s blood. At the time these tests were ordered, Respondent had not seen or talked to C.H., taken her history, or performed a physical examination. Respondent did not at any time prescribe an ELISA test or Western blot test for C.H. On April 14, 2011, S.H. e-mailed Dr. Lentz to see if any test results had been received for C.H. Dr. Lentz replied, “CD57 51+ positive for Lyme. Babesia is negative at this time.” When asked how to proceed, he told her she needed to start treatment until the CD57 is over 120.12/ S.H. asked via e-mail whether C.H. should get treatment from Dr. Lentz or her family doctor, saying they would prefer to work through him, as this is his specialty. Dr. Lentz responded, “This is more than a good family physician can handle. I have 35 years of family practice and know first hand. Lyme is a multi-faceted problem and requires extra time and effort to educate and direct this complex problem.” On or about April 18, 2011, Respondent prescribed the antibiotics Omnicef (cefdinir) and azithromycin to C.H. At the time he prescribed these medications, Respondent had not seen C.H., and there is no documentation in the patient records that Respondent made any inquiry regarding potential allergies before prescribing these antibiotics. On or about April 25, 2011, C.H. presented to Respondent for the first, and only, office visit. The medical records for that date contain symptoms that C.H. credibly denies having reported to him, such as double vision, twitching, tremors and shakes, explosive (behavior), and shortness of breath. C.H. does not recall being weighed at that visit, although the record contains a weight for her. It does not however, indicate her temperature, pulse, or respiration rate. She recalls a minimum examination for which she remained clothed in shorts and a t- shirt. During the examination, Respondent asked if she had ever been bitten by a tick or had a rash, and checked some areas of her body for a tick bite/rash, which she denied ever having. Dr. Lentz did not inquire about her travel history. Despite the fact that one of her symptoms was the inability to take a deep breath and had suffered from heart palpitations, his patients do not reflect a temperature, pulse, or respiration rate. At that visit, Respondent added the antibiotic Flagyl (metronidazole) and Interfase Plus Prothera, an enzyme formulation, to C.H.’s medications. C.H. testified that at that visit, Dr. Lentz told her that he was a specialist with numerous years of experience, and that he was the only one certified to be able to treat this, and she would have to be under his constant care. C.H. also testified that he told her she would need to be medicated for the rest of her life, because Lyme disease lives forever in your body, and that she would probably never be able to get pregnant or have children. C.H. was devastated by this information. The entire visit with Dr. Lentz, including both the taking of her history and the physical examination, lasted approximately ten minutes. C.H.’s testimony is credited. On or about June 10, 2011, Respondent prescribed CD57, C3a, C4a, and ECP tests for C.H. On or about July 2, 2011, Respondent prescribed C.H. with Babesiosis. He made this diagnosis completely on the basis of test results, as C.H. had not returned to his office after her first and only visit. On or about July 9, 2011, Respondent added artemisinin (an antimalarial), Hepapro (a nutritional supplement); Mepron (atovaquone, an antiparasitic), heparin injections (an anticoagulant), magnesium oxide (antacid, laxative, dietary supplement), and omega-3 fatty acids to C.H.’s treatment. Respondent did not prescribe a blood smear examination for Babesial parasites or PCR amplification for Babesial DNA for C.H. At no time during her treatment did Dr. Lentz refer C.H. to a specialist. Indeed, he represented to her and to her mother that he was a specialist in Lyme disease and that he was better equipped to treat these conditions than a normal family practitioner would be. C.H.’s condition worsened rather than improved under the medication regimen Dr. Lentz prescribed. She suffered diarrhea and blurred vision and her other symptoms did not improve. Dr. Joel Rosenstock is a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Georgia. He is board certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty in infectious disease, and has practiced infectious disease medicine for over 30 years. During the time related to this proceeding, Dr. Rosenstock was practicing in Atlanta, Georgia, at the AbsoluteCARE Medical Center and Pharmacy. C.H. first presented to Dr. Rosenstock on July 12, 2011, at which time she reported Dr. Lentz’s diagnoses of Lyme disease and Babesiosis. In contrast to her brief visit with Dr. Lentz, her consultation with Dr. Rosenstock lasted two to three hours. Dr. Rosenstock immediately ordered a Western blot test for C.H., which was negative. He conducted a thorough history and physical for her, and asked C.H. questions about her travel history, her dogs and where they slept, her hobbies, etc. He advised her that he did not believe that she had Lyme disease or Babesiosis, and recommended that she stop all of the antibiotics and other medications that Dr. Lentz had prescribed. He warned her that it could take several months before the drugs were out of her system, so relief from the side effects would not be immediate. Within a few weeks of stopping the medications, C.H. was feeling much better and was on her way to feeling back to her old self. Dr. Rosenstock did not believe that any of the tests that Dr. Lentz ordered for C.H. were useful in diagnosing Lyme disease or Babesiosis, and did not believe that heparin served any purpose in treating C.H. Based on the credible opinions of Drs. Powers and Robbins, and the testimony of Dr. Rosenstock as a subsequent treating provider, it is found that Dr. Lentz departed from the applicable standard of care in the care and treatment of C.H. in several respects. First, Respondent departed from the applicable standard of care by ordering blood tests and prescribing antibiotic treatment for C.H. (as well as other medications) when he had never actually seen her. At the time he ordered the blood tests, and at the time he first ordered medications for C.H., he had not obtained a history for her, much less a history that was suggestive of Lyme disease, and had not conducted a physical examination of any kind. All he had as a basis for ordering tests was the e-mail from her mother. This e-mail was an insufficient basis upon which to determine that testing for Lyme disease was warranted. When he did actually see C.H., he failed to perform an adequate physical examination and failed to take an adequate history that included travel history, possible exposure to ticks, how long any tick bite may have lasted, and the size and appearance of the tick. Respondent failed to use the generally accepted tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and Babesiosis, instead relying on tests that are meant for investigational purposes and indicate on their face that they are not meant for diagnostic purposes. Moreover, as noted above, at the time he ordered the tests, he had no basis upon which to believe C.H. had Lyme disease. Although even his own expert witness consistently stated that a diagnosis of Lyme disease is based in large part upon a thorough history, here, Dr. Lentz had no history. Dr. Cichon’s testimony that it was appropriate to rely on the information in S.H.’s e-mail about her daughter’s symptoms (keeping in mind that her daughter is an adult, not a child) is rejected as not credible. Respondent also departed from the applicable standard of care by prescribing Omnicef, azithromycin, artemisinin, Hepapro, Mepron, heparin injections, magnesium oxide, and omega-3 fatty acids for a condition that she did not have. Given that C.H. had no condition justifying the prescription of these drugs, the prescriptions were both inappropriate and excessive. They also were prescribed for a duration that was not justified, and exposed C.H. to complications that were unnecessary. Respondent was required to keep medical records that justified the course of treatment. His medical records for C.H. fell well short of this requirement. He failed to document a complete history, an adequate physical examination, or why he did not refer her case to a specialist. He also departed from the applicable standards when he used a diagnosis of Lyme disease as the basis for blood tests at a time when he had never seen the patient. Failure to Timely Report Diagnoses or Suspicion of Lyme Disease to the Department of Health (DOAH Case Nos. 15-2889 and 15-2890) Finally, in DOAH Case Nos. 15-2889 and 15-2890, the Department alleged that Respondent failed to report his diagnoses of Lyme disease or suspicions of Lyme disease for patients D.H., J.L., W.L., S.L., D.D., and C.H. to the Department of Health. Section 381.0031, Florida Statutes (2010-2011), requires certain licensed health care practitioners and facilities in Florida to report the diagnosis or suspicion of the existence of diseases of public health significance to the Department of Health. Lyme disease is one of the diseases identified by rule that meets the definition of a disease that is “a threat of public health and therefore of significance to public health.” § 381.0031(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 64D-3.029. There are forms that are identified by rule for use in reporting these cases. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64D-3.030(3). Ashley Rendon is a biological scientist for the Department of Health in Okaloosa County. Ms. Rendon is an epidemiologist whose duties include investigating reportable disease conditions and outbreaks of public health significance in Okaloosa County. According to Ms. Rendon, whose testimony is consistent with the Department’s rules on this subject, all diagnosed or suspected cases of Lyme disease must be reported to the Department. Once reported, the county health office will conduct an analysis of the reported diagnosis or suspicion, based on a “guidance to surveillance” document, to determine whether the reported case meets the definition for Lyme disease such that the case needs to be reported to the statewide system and to the CDC. Ms. Rendon testified that whether a suspected case or a diagnosis meets the case definition is not for the practitioner to decide. Ms. Rendon’s testimony is credited. According to Ms. Rendon, the Department maintains records both for those reported cases that met the case definition and those reported cases that did not. For 2010, there was one case of Lyme disease that was confirmed, probable, or suspect. None were reported for 2011. There were seven to eight additional cases that were reviewed, but not reported as probable, confirmed, or suspect. Not all reported results are confirmed by ELISA or Western blot. Ms. Rendon reviewed the records of the Department to determine whether Dr. Lentz had reported any cases of Lyme disease, whether suspected or diagnosed, to the Department. There was one instance where a patient of Dr. Lentz’s apparently called in and asked questions, but there was no record of Dr. Lentz or anyone in his office reporting Lyme disease. Dr. Lentz claimed that he had at least on one occasion attempted to report in the past, but that he could not say if he had reported any of the patients named in the Administrative Complaints. He claimed that the Department would not accept reports that are not supported by two-tier testing results, so he stopped trying to report. His claim is rejected as not credible. There is clear and convincing evidence to establish that Respondent failed to report his diagnoses of Lyme disease for patients D.H., J.L., W.L., D.D., S.L., and C.H. General Observations Of the seven patients presented in this proceeding, Dr. Lentz saw only two before ordering tests for Lyme disease and in some cases, Babesiosis or Bartonellosis. With respect to C.H., not only did he fail to see her before ordering testing, but he ordered medications for her without ever obtaining a medical history or performing a physical examination. Some of the patients specifically requested testing for Lyme disease. However, it is the physician’s responsibility to determine whether there is any realistic reason to believe that a patient has a need for such tests. Moreover, in several instances, the general, non-specific symptoms related by the patients suggest several other alternative conditions that could cause the patients’ problems. Even Respondent’s expert opined that Lyme disease, Bartonellosis and Babesiosis share a lot of general, non-specific symptoms with other illnesses, including serious diagnoses such as ALS, MS, and rheumatoid diseases. These are all, according to Dr. Cichon, differential diagnoses that a physician should sometimes consider when trying to find a diagnosis. Yet with all of these patients, Dr. Lentz went straight to Lyme disease every time. He did not consider much of anything else when even to a lay person, the records cry out for a more thoughtful and measured approach. In short, it seems that Dr. Lentz wanted to find Lyme disease regardless of the symptoms presented, and so he did. By doing so, he cost these patients not only the money used for testing and, with respect to C.C., W.L., S.L., and C.H., subjecting them to treatments they did not need and, in at least with respect to S.L., could not afford, but he subjected them to a treatment regimen that made them miserable, was of questionable benefit, and exposed them to unnecessary risks. Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Dr. Charles Powers, a general family practitioner, and Dr. William Robbins, an infectious disease specialist. It also presented the testimony of subsequent treating physicians: Dr. Janelle Robertson, Dr. Patrick Anastasio, and Dr. Joel Rosenstock. Each subsequent treating physician testified credibly that the symptoms presented simply did not justify a diagnosis of Lyme disease, and the testing they either conducted or reviewed did not indicate a basis for such a diagnosis. Their testimony was consistent with that of both expert witnesses presented by the Department, and the testimony of these subsequent treating physicians and expert witnesses have been accorded great weight. Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Cichon, a retired infectious disease specialist. Dr. Cichon’s testimony was in many respects inconsistent, and at times he seemed to be struggling to actually support the care and treatment that Respondent performed in these cases. While he championed Respondent’s use of the CD57, the ECP, and the Fry test, he also admitted that he seldom, if ever, used some of these tests, and that there were problems with standardization of the tests. Moreover, the tests themselves indicated on their face that they were for investigational, as opposed to diagnostic, use, and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis of patients. Because of the significant inconsistencies with his testimony and the contrasts between what he advocated and what Dr. Lentz sometimes did, his testimony is given little weight.
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 has violated section 458.331(1)(g), (m), and (t), as alleged in the three Administrative Complaints at issue in this proceeding; and by the findings that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t) with respect to all seven patients, Respondent is guilty of repeated malpractice. It is further recommended that the Board of Medicine revoke his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $30,000, and impose costs pursuant to section 456.072. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 8th day of July, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner's failure to file a Petition for Relief constitutes a failure to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings and, if not, whether Respondent violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on his disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began his employment as a firefighter with the City of Leesburg on or about October 20, 1987. Respondent operates two fire stations: Station One and Station Two. At all times material here, Petitioner was assigned to Station One. In the months prior to October 15, 2001, Respondent began using an advance life support (ALS) rescue truck at Station One. The ALS rescue truck had to have a paramedic on board for all emergency calls, a requirement that did not exist for fire trucks. The ALS rescue truck was required to respond to all emergency calls for both rescue stations. All firemen, even those who were not paramedics or emergency medical technicians (EMTs) had to take turns, on a rotating basis, riding with the paramedic in the ALS rescue truck. Petitioner was nearing the time when he could retire. He felt that his seniority in the department entitled him to a transfer to Station Two, which answered fewer calls and did not have an ALS rescue truck. Petitioner requested the transfer, telling some of his superiors that he did not feel he was qualified to ride the ALS rescue truck. Petitioner told Lieutenant Richardson that he did not like riding the ALS rescue truck and "wanted off of it." Captain Pierce, Petitioner's supervisor, denied Petitioner's request to transfer to Station Two. However, Captain Pierce did agree to ask some of the more junior firemen to take Petitioner's rotation on the ALS rescue truck from time to time. On or about October 15, 2001, the firefighters assigned to Station One were viewing a training video. During the video presentation, Petitioner was reclining on a sofa with a built-in recliner. Petitioner had his arm over his eyes and a sucker in his mouth. Lieutenant Richardson asked Petitioner if he was sick. Petitioner replied that he was taking his temperature. Lieutenant Richardson asked Petitioner what he meant in stating that he was taking his temperature. Petitioner responded that he was going to get off that rescue truck, one way or the other. Shortly thereafter, Lieutenant Richardson again asked Petitioner if he was OK. Petitioner replied that he was fine. Station One then got a call to respond to an emergency. Petitioner questioned Lieutenant Richardson about the ALS rescue truck responding to the call. Lieutenant Richardson explained that the ALS rescue truck was to follow the fire engine. Petitioner then stated that he wanted to make sure that he was doing things properly because his time on Rescue One, the ALS rescue truck, was limited. Lieutenant Richardson asked Petitioner to repeat his statement. Petitioner complied with the request. The emergency call on the afternoon of October 15, 2001, came in about 4:00 p.m. The weather was hot and sunny. The firemen were bunkered out, wearing heavy fire pants and jackets, safety boots and gloves, and helmets. The firemen did not wear their air packs/breathing units. The emergency was located at the scene of an automobile accident on Dixie Highway near Leesburg Regional Medical Center in Leesburg, Florida. The accident involved two vehicles: a small car and a large truck/trailer. There were two persons in the car. The driver of the car died in the accident. The passenger in the car was alive, but unconscious, when the firemen arrived at the scene. The rescue crew immediately removed the passenger, who was sent to the hospital by ambulance. Petitioner assisted in the rapid extrication of the passenger. The firemen could not extricate the deceased driver of the car until a wrecker pulled the semi-truck off of the car. Therefore, the firemen stood around, during a brief delay, waiting for the wrecker. A large crowd gathered at the scene because the accident was very severe. Petitioner assisted in crowd control, asking some people to stand back. Alphonso Sanders, Petitioner's former neighbor was in the crowd. Petitioner did not appear to be his usual chipper self, so Mr. Sanders asked Petitioner what was wrong. Petitioner replied, "I don't feel good. I think it's my sickle cell and my legs are hurting." After the wrecker moved the truck, the firemen began extricating the driver of the car. The extrication required the use of heavy hydraulic equipment. For a while, Petitioner assisted in operating the levers that turned the hydraulic power off and on. As the extrication process continued, other firemen began operating the hydraulic equipment. Petitioner, who was no longer involved in the operation, leaned casually back on the rear of the car that contained the deceased victim. Petitioner had his legs and feet crossed in front of him. Lieutenant Richardson, the officer in charge of the operation, was standing within six feet of Petitioner. Lieutenant Richardson perceived Petitioner’s stance to be unprofessional and disrespectful due to the severity of the accident and the presence of the deceased victim in the car. Lieutenant Richardson gave Petitioner a direct order to stop leaning on the car. Petitioner replied that he was tired and did not change his position. Lieutenant Richardson then gave Petitioner a second direct order to stand up. Petitioner responded that his leg hurt and did not obey the order. Petitioner did not appear to be in pain to Lieutenant Richardson, who is trained as an EMT to observe and assess people in physical distress. Captain Pierce was also standing close to Petitioner. He asked Petitioner if he had heard his lieutenant give him two orders and if he was going to obey his superior officer. Petitioner responded, "No, I'm tired, my leg hurts, I'm not going to stand up." Captain Pierce then ordered Petitioner to get into the Captain’s vehicle in order to leave the scene. Once ordered to leave the scene by Captain Pierce, Petitioner walked unassisted from the car to the Captain’s vehicle and sat inside. The car and the Captain’s vehicle were approximately 50 feet apart. Petitioner was not limping and did not appear to be distressed in any way. When Petitioner and Captain Pierce got into the Captain's vehicle, Captain Pierce asked Petitioner whether he was hurt or injured. Petitioner denied being hurt or injured. Petitioner then began to chastise Captain Pierce for not transferring him to Station Two. After returning to the fire station, Petitioner stood outside in the sun, filling out paperwork. He did not request nor receive any medical attention. Upon report of the incident to Deputy Chief Geoffrey Beyer, Petitioner was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation of the incident at the scene and Petitioner’s failure to obey direct orders. Petitioner continued on administrative leave until November 20, 2001, when he was terminated. Petitioner was told he had sickle cell trait in 1971 when he was in the military. In 1981, Petitioner complained to a physician that he had blood in his urine on two occasions. In 1991, he complained to a physician had blood in his urine on one occasion. Petitioner admits, and his medical records reflect, that he is diagnosed with sickle cell trait and not sickle cell disease. All firefighters like Petitioner are required to undergo an annual medical examination. The doctors performing these exams do not make any report to Respondent about the exams unless they find some indication that a fireman is not fit to perform their duties pursuant to state guidelines. Petitioner also had medical examinations every time Respondent changed health insurance carriers and on certain occasions when Petitioner was ill. During at least some of these exams, Petitioner informed the physicians that he had sickle cell trait. However, Respondent was not entitled to review Petitioner's medical records without his permission. Moreover, Respondent never had a reason to make such a request. Sickle cell trait in and of itself is not a disease or disability. Rather, sickle cell trait is a genetic predisposition for the presence of Hemoglobin S in the blood. Petitioner has had only a few occasions throughout the past 20 years where he experienced any symptoms related to sickle cell trait. Dr. Lourdes Mathew, Petitioner's hematologist, classified the occurrence of these symptoms, such as urine in the blood, thrombosis or cramping, dehydration or joint pain, as sporadic in nature. Permanent effects or long-term impact have only been observed in rare cases where severe nerve damage has occurred. Dr. Mathew’s opinion is that despite Petitioner’s diagnosis with sickle cell trait, he was physically able to perform his normal job duties at the City of Leesburg as a firefighter. Dr. Mathew also testified that sickle cell trait does not substantially impair any of Petitioner’s major life activities. However, Dr. Mathew would not advise Petitioner to engage in fighting forest fires where he might become overexerted and unable to maintain his hydration. There are no medications that are generally prescribed for individuals with sickle cell trait. Treatment for individuals with sickle cell trait is merely self-policing in nature and involves preventative and corrective measures, such as maintaining hydration and avoiding overexertion. Respondent learned for the first time of Petitioner’s alleged "disability" as a result of the charge filed against Respondent. At no time prior to the incident on October 15, 2001, did the City of Leesburg or its employees have knowledge of any physical limitations of Petitioner due to sickle cell trait. Any evidence to the contrary is not persuasive. Respondent's Human Resources Director, Jakki Cunningham-Perry, performed an investigation of the October 15, 2001, incident. During her interview of Petitioner, he told her that he had been diagnosed as having sickle cell trait. Petitioner also told Ms. Cunningham-Perry that he could have moved away from the vehicle when Lieutenant Richardson ordered him to stand up but that he did not know what to do because whatever he said seemed to fall on deaf ears. Respondent has written rules and regulations, operating procedures, and general orders that are provided to all firemen. The document contains the following provisions, in pertinent part: ATTENTION TO DUTY Department personnel shall at all times be attentive to their duties and by their alertness and observations, demonstrate their interest in their work. They shall act with dignity, maintaining a bearing conducive to a good department at all times. OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS All personnel shall respect and obey all laws and ordinances and the provision of departmental orders from their superior, including rules and regulations, duties, and procedures. Respondent's disciplinary policy defines insubordination as refusal to carry out a reasonable request/directive given by a supervisor. The disciplinary range for insubordination includes suspension for one to three days, suspension for four to five days, and discharge/termination. Ms. Cunningham-Perry recommended termination of Petitioner in a report dated November 13, 2001. Termination of Petitioner's employment was appropriate instead of some form of progressive discipline due to Petitioner's refusal to obey direct orders during a rescue operation. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner refused the orders because he wanted to be transferred to Station Two and not because he was experiencing a flare up of symptoms related to sickle cell trait. Respondent did not receive any medical information from Dr. Mathew about Petitioner's sickle cell trait diagnosis until November 15, 2001. Petitioner admits he did not give prior direct notice to anyone at the fire department of any physical limitations or symptoms he experienced as a result of sickle cell trait. Petitioner’s physical performance on the job had always been outstanding. Prior to receiving Dr. Mathew's letter on November 15, 2001, Respondent never had a reason to question Petitioner's fitness for duty. In fact, Petitioner was extremely fit for his age. On one occasion, Petitioner won a foot race with other younger firemen. The race took place in August during a training session in which the firemen were fully bunkered out and wearing their air packs. Petitioner’s alleged disability was not a factor in the Respondent’s decision to terminate him. The decision was based solely upon Petitioner’s insubordination, failure to show attention to duty, and failure to obey direct orders in violation of City policy and fire department rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
