The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October 18, 1977, a physician authorized to practice medicine in the State of Florida under license number ME 0013979. He is a board certified dermatologist and dermapathologist. Respondent's practice is located in St. Lucie County. He is the only dermapatholgist in the county. E.M. is a former patient of Respondent. He is a fair complected retiree with red hair who has lived his entire life in areas that have warm and sunny climates. Fair complected individuals are more prone to develop skin cancers as a result of exposure to the sun than are their darker complected counterparts. E.M. had been treated for skin cancer on several occasions, dating back to some time between 1954 and 1960, before becoming Respondent's patient. In June of 1988, E.M. became concerned about two lesions that he had in a dime-sized area on his left forearm below the elbow. The lesions were scaly and crusted in texture, pea-sized in diameter, irregularly shaped, reddish in color and sensitive to the touch. E.M.'s concern led him to make an appointment to see Respondent. His initial visit to Respondent's office was on June 29, 1988. Because he was a new patient, E.M. filled out a medical history form before going into the examining room. Respondent did not give E.M. a complete physical examination. He examined only E.M.'s left forearm. His examination revealed the lesions about which E.M. was concerned. These were not the only lesions Respondent discovered on E.M.'s left forearm, however. By all appearances, the lesions on E.M.'s left forearm were pre- cancerous growths. There was no evidence of any ulceration, discharge, bleeding or other indication that these lesions were malignant. Having no reason to suspect that these lesions were cancerous, Respondent determined that they were solar keratoses, which are pre-malignant growths that appear on the superficial layers of sun damaged skin. E.M. had told Respondent before the examination that he had previously used Efudex, which is a chemotherapeutic drug used in the treatment of solar keratoses. Accordingly, at the time he made his diagnosis, Respondent knew that E.M. had a history of pre-cancerous growths. As a general rule, Respondent treats growths of the type he found on E.M.'s left forearm with cryosurgery1 and cauterization.2 If, after two or three such treatments, sufficient progress has not been made, he will then perform a biopsy to determine if there are cancerous cells in the deeper layers of the skin. In accordance with his usual practice, Respondent, during E.M.'s first visit on June 29, 1988, treated the lesions on E.M.'s left forearm, which Respondent reasonably believed to be pre-cancerous growths, with cryosurgery and cauterization. He then gave E.M. a cortisone cream to apply to the treated areas to aid the healing process. An appointment for a follow-up visit was made for July 13, 1988. Respondent next saw E.M. on July 13, 1988. His examination of E.M.'s left forearm on July 13, 1988, did not reveal any evidence of a malignancy, however, he did determine that there was a need to, and therefore he did, perform additional cryosurgery. Respondent sent E.M. home with a cream that contained not only cortisone to aid in healing, but an antibiotic as well to prevent against infection. An appointment for a second follow-up visit was made for July 27, 1988. E.M.'s next visit to Respondent was on July 27, 1988. Respondent's examination of E.M.'s left forearm on July 27, 1988, revealed that the treated areas were slowly healing. Based upon his examination, he had no reason to suspect a malignancy. Nor was there any indication that further cryosurgery was necessary. Respondent noted a flat, pigmented lesion in close proximity to the areas on E.M.'s left forearm that had been treated during his two previous visits. Respondent was not particularly concerned about this lesion,3 but he nonetheless mentioned to E.M. that it might be a good idea to have it biopsied to be on the safe side. E.M. responded that he preferred that such a biopsy not be performed. Respondent did not pursue the matter any further during the visit. Once again, Respondent gave E.M. a different cream to apply to the areas that had been treated. This time it was a pure antibiotic ointment. An appointment for a third follow-up visit was made for the morning of Wednesday, August 10, 1988. Respondent typically schedules biopsies and excisions on Wednesday mornings. E.M. cancelled his August 10, 1988, appointment with Respondent. He did not make another appointment. Accordingly, Respondent did not see E.M. as a patient again. In failing to biopsy the lesions on E.M.'s left forearm, which he had no reason to suspect were cancerous, Respondent did not act in a manner that was inconsistent with what a reasonably prudent physician with his training and experience would have done under like circumstances. More than a year later, in September, 1989, E.M. noticed that a lesion on his left forearm had opened and was draining. E.M. went to see Dr. Gary Marder, an osteopathic physician who specializes in dermatology. Marder suspected a malignancy. Accordingly, he performed a biopsy and scheduled E.M. for surgery. The initial biopsy report indicated an "invasive moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma." After Marder surgically excised the area, the pathologist revisited the matter and changed his diagnosis to an amelanotic melanoma, which is a rare type of melanoma4 that is characterized by an absence of pigmented cells. Pigmented lesions, like the one Respondent noticed on E.M.'s left forearm during E.M.'s July 27, 1988, visit, are not precursors of amelonotic melanomas. It was subsequently determined that the cancer had spread. Cancerous lymph nodes were removed from E.M.'s axilla in April, 1990, and from his elbow in November, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 23rd day of January, 1992. 1/ Respondent uses liquid nitrogen to freeze and destroy the unwanted tissue. 2/ The cautery device that Respondent uses is battery-operated and produces a low current. It is particularly effective in removing rough, hard-crusted areas of skin. 3/ It did not even appear to be a pre-cancerous condition. 4/ Melanomas are one of the three types of skin cancers. Basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, which together account for 98% of all cancers, are the two other types. Of these three types of cancers, melanomas are the most destructive and the most likely to metastasize. 5/ Respondent has not been charged with failing to keep adequate medical records. 6/ Precisely what information E.M. provided on this form is unclear. 7/ The issue is not whether the practice described in this proposed finding is common, but whether it is acceptable. 8/ As noted above, the adequacy of Respondent's medical records are not at issue in the instant case. 9/ The Department did not advance this theory in the Administrative Complaint. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-3696 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Department: Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and fourth sentences: Rejected because they are more in the nature of summaries of testimony than findings of fact; Third sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that there was also a "pigmented lesion" on E.M.'s left forearm that Respondent observed during E.M.'s first visit to his office, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.5 First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance;6 Second sentence: Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence, fragment before comma: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence, fragment after comma: Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. 11-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. 14-17. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.7 First sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony than a finding of fact; Third sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Respondent believed that the pigmented lesion was a squamous cell carcinoma, it is rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony than a finding of fact; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: Rejected because it constitutes argument regarding the credibility of testimony rather than a finding of fact. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.8 First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony than a finding of fact; Second sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that "E.M. had had several prior biopsies . . . [and therefore] was aware of the reasons for a biopsy," it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that Respondent never recommended to E.M. that a biopsy be performed on the pigmented lesion that Respondent observed on E.M.'s left forearm during the July 27, 1988, visit and that, if such a recommendation had been made, E.M. "would have willingly submitted," it has been rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence; Second and third sentences: Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a recitation of testimony than a finding of fact; Second sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 28-29. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 30-34. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in subst ance; Remaining sentences: Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case. Rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.9 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary B. Radkins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Shamsher Singh, M.D. 1701 Hillmoor Drive, #A-3 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a physician should be disciplined for alleged violations of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0056502, and currently practices with Florida Radiology Associates, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Respondent is Board certified in Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. A mammogram is an examination constructed with a dedicated x-ray device, and dedicated x-ray film and dedicated holders for the film. The breast of a person is placed between a compression plate and a holder. The breast tissue is compressed to provide a maximum exposure of the breast tissue. A x-ray beam is shined through the breast tissue and the image is recorded on x-ray film. A mammogram is generally done in two projections craniocaudal (CC view) and medio lateral oblique (MLO view). The CC view is performed with a vertical beam. The x-ray is shot straight up and down and the breast tissue is compressed in a horizontal fashion. The MLO view is performed in a similar fashion, side to side. Mammography is a screening tool to identify breast cancer. A screening mammogram is performed annually. A diagnostic mammogram is generally done at a shorter time period, whether within three months or six months post identified new density. The base line mammogram should be performed between the ages of thirty-five and forty. Serial mammography continues for the rest of the life of the patient. Serial mammography is utilized to assess the patient for change or stability. Stability is preferable, change is indicative of an adverse process. A radiologist will examine the studies; if there are prior studies the radiologist compares the previous studies with the current studies and render an opinion as to the appearance of the tissues on the mammograms in question. The radiologist examines the studies on special view boxes that are constructed to optimize in the visualization of the mammogram. The radiologist during the examination of the studies, attempts to screen background and ambient light from distracting the reading of the mammogram. A density is a structure visible in only one view or dimension. A nodule is having a three dimensional characteristic visible in multiple orthogonal projections. The fundamental nature of a nodule can not be assessed through mammographic characteristics. A radiologist describes a nodule by its borders, whether they are smooth, well circumscribed or speculated, and whether or not there are calcifications or distortion of adjacent tissues. The fundamental nature of a nodule includes the composition of the structure. A sonogram is a simple mechanism, which can be used to identify the cystic or solid nature of a nodule. A cystic nodule is fluid filled and generally relates to a benign process. However, when a nodule is characterized as solid this indicates that the nodule is filled with cells that are suspicious for malignancy. A radiologist when describing the position of a nodule subdivides the breast in quadrants such as upper, outer, lower and inner and describes the positions as they correlate to a clock face, if someone is looking straight on at the breast tissue. The nipple is considered the center of the clock. The radiologist generates a report concerning the interpretation of the studies. This includes a description of the tissue, assessment of its findings and a recommendation for follow-up. The standard of care for a newly identified nodule is to assess the mammographic characteristics, its composition, its relative density on film, its margination, the presence or absence of calcifications, and the involvement or apparent involvement of adjacent tissues. Prior to making a determination that a lesion is benign, observing simple clear, well-circumscribed mammographic borders is not sufficient to make that level of determination. On or about May 25, 1995, Patient M. L., a 50-year-old female with a history of a prior left mastectomy, presented to Florida Hospital-Kissimmee for the performance of a unilateral mammogram. Patient M. L. had a series of prior mammograms at the Orlando Regional Medical Center on February 11, 1989, November 14, 1991, July 24, 1992, April 12, 1993, and April 11, 1994. She also presented on May 8, 1996 and June 23, 1997. Also, on May 15, 1996, Patient M. L. underwent spot compression views. On each occasion, Patient M. L.'s films were interpreted by Respondent. Respondent first became involved in Patient M. L.'s care on May 25, 1995, at Florida Hospital. Respondent interpreted Patient M. L.'s May 25, 1995, mammogram to be within normal limits. The evidence in this matter, including that presented by Petitioner, establishes that Respondent's interpretation of that mammogram was accurate. On May 25, 1995, Respondent was unable to compare Patient M. L.'s mammogram to her previous mammogram studies, as those studies had been obtained at a different hospital. It is undisputed that, since the May 25, 1995, mammogram was normal, the standard of care did not require Respondent to obtain the prior studies for comparison. Respondent met the standard of care in his interpretation of the mammogram of May 25, 1995. The standard of care did not require Respondent to review Petitioner M. L.'s prior mammograms, which were located at a facility other than Florida Hospital. 17. On May 8, 1996, May 15, 1996, and June 23, 1997, Respondent did review the prior mammogram films which were available and his actions in that regard met the standard of care. On May 8, 1996, Patient M. L. returned to Florida Hospital to undergo a repeat mammogram. On that date, Respondent identified a new 5 x 6 mm, well circumscribed, benign-appearing, density in the right breast. Respondent's characterization of the mammographic finding is not in dispute. The margins of the density at issue on the May 8, 1996 mammogram were well circumscribed. Well circumscribed margins are consistent with a benign density. Petitioner's contention that the standard of care required Respondent to order a short-term follow-up mammogram on May 8, 1996, is without merit. Petitioner's own expert could only state that the standard of care "might" include a recommendation for short-term mammographic follow-up. Without question, testimony that the standard of care "might" include a recommendation for short-term mammographic follow-up does not meet the requirement that Petitioner establish its allegations by clear and convincing evidence. The complaint contends that, on May 8, 1996, Respondent deviated from the standard of care when he did not order a sonogram. Again, Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proving that such a study was required. First, the density which had been identified had only benign characteristics. Second, the density was only 5 x 6 mm in size, which would have made it difficult to locate and analyze with sonography. Petitioner's expert conceded that there are multiple benign solid entities which may occur in a woman's breast, such as lymph nodes, fibroadenomas and papillomas, which do not warrant the performance of a sonogram. He never clearly explained the rationale for stating that a sonogram should have been performed on this density, which demonstrated multiple benign characteristics, including lucency, a hallmark characteristic of benign lymph nodes. Dr. Estner admitted that, even if a sonogram had been completed, it would not have provided any information about whether the density in Patient M. L.'s breast was benign or malignant. Rather, it merely would have revealed whether the density was cystic or solid. The complaint further contends that, on May 8, 1996, Respondent deviated from the standard of care when he did not order a biopsy. Petitioner's own expert conceded that a biopsy was probably not warranted. On May 15, 1996, upon recommendation by Respondent, Patient M. L. returned to Florida Hospital to undergo spot compression views to further evaluate the density which had been identified on the May 8, 1996, mammogram. Respondent concluded that the compression views demonstrated a benign-appearing density in the right breast, which was most likely a lymph node. Again, Petitioner's own expert agreed that the compression views demonstrated a benign appearing density. Patient M. L.'s mammogram of June 23, 1997, did not reveal a radiographically significant change from the May 8, 1996 mammogram. Respondent did not conduct an inadequate radiologic assessment. Respondent sufficiently characterized the density identified in the June 23, 1997 mammogram in his radiology report. The standard of care did not require Respondent's report of the June 23, 1997 mammogram to contain a precise measurement of the density. The standard of care did not require Respondent to order additional studies as a result of the June 23, 1997, mammogram. In particular, the standard of care did not require Respondent to order a sonogram or tissue biopsy. Further, the standard of care did not require Respondent to order a short- term follow-up mammogram as a result of the June 23, 1997, mammogram. Petitioner has also failed to present competent evidence that Respondent's interpretation of the June 23, 1997, mammogram and his recommendations related thereto were in violation of the standard of care. Petitioner's expert could not recall whether he had ever reviewed both the MLO and CC views which comprised the June 23, 1997, mammographic study. Dr. Estner's testimony that sonography should have been performed after the June 23, 1997, mammogram was in direct contradiction to his other testimony which indicated that aggressive identification of the composition or histology of the cells of a lesion, through biopsy or sonography, would only be warranted if there was enlargement or some other change in the appearance of the lesion from one year to the next. Dr. Estner had conceded at one point in his testimony that the lesion may have been stable. Further, there was no indication by Dr. Estner that there was any other change in the appearance of the lesion between May 8, 1996 and June 23, 1997. Dr. Estner also rendered conflicting testimony about whether there was any change in the density between the May 8, 1996 and June 23, 1997 films. At one point he suggested that there had been only a "minor change," yet at another point, as noted above, he stated "that the lesion has at least been stable." Even Dr. Estner's suggestion that the density may have exhibited a "minor change" between May 8, 1996, and June 23, 1997, would not support a recommendation for sonography. "Minor change" would not support a recommendation for sonography because Dr. Estner acknowledged that is possible for a lesion to appear to have changed dimension from one year to the next on a mammogram but remain the same in its actual size. Such changes can be related to the distance of the lesion from the film in the mammographic apparatus from year to year, the orientation of the breast in the machine, and the degree of compression applied. Dr. Qazi and Dr. Foley both re-iterated that sonography was unwarranted after the June 23, 1997, mammogram because the density had not changed and it continued to exhibit benign characteristics. Petitioner's complaint suggests that Respondent should have ordered short-term mammographic follow-up on June 23, 1997. Yet, Dr. Estner merely characterized short-term mammographic follow-up as "an option" and "possible." He did not indicate that such follow-up was mandated by the standard of care. Neither Dr. Qazi nor Dr. Foley believed that short term follow-up was necessary. Short-term follow-up was unnecessary not only because the density had benign characteristics, but also because it had remained unchanged over a period of one year since the previous mammogram. Respondent presented convincing evidence that the cancer which was diagnosed on May 19, 1998, was not the same density which Respondent had described in the May 8, 1996 and June 23, 1997, films. Dr. Estner, who, again, had failed to read both views which comprised the June 23, 1997, mammogram, conceded on direct examination that "it's conceivable that the lesion that we have identified at this time is, in fact, new, and maybe in a different part of the breast from the nodule we were following." The testimony of Petitioner's expert, Michael Estner, M.D., is not persuasive as it is imprecise and not explicit. Dr. Estner did not review the original mammograms which are at issue in this case. The copies of the mammogram films that he did review were degraded and incomplete. In addition, copies of mammogram films can cause certain areas to appear more enhanced and more abnormal than on the original films. Dr. Estner did not know whether the copies he had reviewed in this action had caused the alleged area of abnormality to appear more pronounced. As a result, Dr. Estner's opinions can not be considered precise or explicit and they clearly do not meet the standard set forth for clear and convincing evidence. The opinions expressed by Respondent and Respondent's expert, Michael Foley, M.D., are credible and persuasive. Respondent did not violate Florida Statute Section 458.331(1)(t). Specifically, Respondent's care of Patient M. L. did not constitute gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice 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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a final order finding that Respondent did not violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229, Mail Stop 39A Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Mary Gannon McMurry, Esquire Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, 15th Floor Orlando, Florida 32802 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all time pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Jules G. Minkes, was licensed as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida having been issued license No. OS 001516. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, and/or the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. Respondent is certified by the American College of Osteopathic Internists, the American College of Osteopathic Board of Cardiology, the American Osteopathic Board of Nuclear Medicine and the American Board of Nuclear Medicine. Respondent has no advanced or specialized training in dermatology, however, he did complete courses in dermatology as a student and, as part of his primary care practice, he does provide some minor dermatological treatments. At all pertinent times, Respondent was the medical director of South Dade Osteopathic Medical Center d/b/a Suburban Medical Center ("Suburban"). Suburban was a primary care provider facility with International Medical Center ("IMC"), a health maintenance organization ("HMO"). Suburban contracted to become part of the IMC HMO system beginning in June of 1981. Under the IMC system, a patient's primary care physician was the "gatekeeper" four medical services. In the absence of an emergency, a patient was required to first see his primary care physician in order to be referred to other specialized medical care. Conflicting evidence was presented regarding the operation of the IMC program and the procedures for referring patients to specialized medical care and/or physicians who were not part of the HMO network. The IMC referral procedures and the manner of allocating the costs of specialized treatment were not the same at all IMC facilities and were changed several times during the early and mid 1980's. (Certain pertinent aspects of the referral process are explored in more detail in Findings of Fact 37 below.) IMC developed a network of physicians to whom primary care physicians could refer patients for specialized medical treatment. In accordance with its IMC contract, Suburban was expected to provide all primary medical care for all IMC patients assigned to the center. Respondent and Suburban agreed to refer IMC patients to specialists, hospitals, etc. within the IMC network "unless approval for a nonparticipating facility or a professional is specifically approved by the medical director or executive director of IMC." At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent referred his HMO patients to the IMC specialist network with the expectation that those specialists would either treat the patient or further refer them as necessary. Some IMC affiliated providers entered into "risk" contracts with IMC and were responsible for paying specialists and/or directly negotiating arrangements for those specialists to be compensated. The evidence established that, during the time that the Patient was treated at Suburban, Suburban did not have a "risk" contract with IMC. As set forth on page 4 paragraph 23 of the contract between Suburban and IMC (Respondent's Exhibit 3) IMC paid the specialists attending to Suburban's HMO Medicare patients. In accordance with Suburban's contract, IMC allocated a specific amount per member per month to be deposited into an account and applied towards payments of the specialists. At the end of each quarter of the calendar year, IMC was supposed to distribute any sums remaining in the specialists' account to Respondent. However, during the time the contract was in effect, there were never any funds remaining in the specialists' account at the end of any calendar quarter. Therefore, no funds from this account were ever distributed to Respondent. IMC developed a plan for treating Medicare eligible patients. This program was known as the Gold Plus Plan and required the patient to essentially assign their Medicare benefits to the HMO. All patients who enrolled in the Gold Plus Plan executed an agreement acknowledging that all non-emergency medical treatment had to be provided or arranged for by IMC and that they would be limited to seeing doctors within the IMC network. All patients were advised that they could see a specialist at their own expense or could disenroll from the HMO at any time and return to their prior Medicare status. The Patient, T.G., enrolled in the IMC Gold Plus Plan in July of 1982 and executed the standard agreement. At the time she was first seen at Suburban, T.G. was approximately 68 years old. She was a somewhat difficult patient who frequently complained of numerous minor ailments. In approximately 1978, while she was living in New York, T.G. had a basal cell carcinoma removed from her forehead by a dermatologist. T.G. and her husband, C.G., moved to Florida in approximately 1978. Shortly thereafter, additional lesions appeared on her forehead. The Patient's family physician at the time, Dr. Kenneth Hertz, referred T.G. to a dermatologist, Dr. Darrell Blinski, who biopsied the lesions in August of 1981. The pathology report from the biopsy contained a diagnosis of "basal cell carcinoma; both side margins are involved. The deep margin is clear." Involvement of the surgical margins of a biopsy indicates the basal cell carcinoma has spread to the limits of the biopsy and perhaps beyond. On August 22, 1981, T.G. was admitted to coral Reef General Hospital where Dr. Blinski attempted to excise the basal cell carcinoma and performed a Limberg flap procedure to cover the skin defect on her forehead. As a result of the procedure, the Patient had a noticeable scar in the middle of her forehead. Dr. Blinski's admission notes in connection with this August 22, 1981 procedure indicate T.G. had: ... a history of multiple recurrences of basal cell carcinoma of the forehead under treatment in New Jersey and down here... incisional biopsy of a central forehead lesion was done and returned as a basal cell carcinoma, margins involved. The area in question wad in the central forehead. The physical examination revealed an ulcerated lesion measuring 2 mm x 5 mm in the central forehead with a scarred area to the left of that measuring 4 mm in diameter. Involved skin is within 1 cm. Examination of the rest of the facial skin was negative for lesions. A pathology report dated August 27, 1981 on tissue removed during the procedure performed by Dr. Blinski revealed basal cell carcinoma with the "left lateral margin free of tumor, all others surgical margins involved with tumor." In other words, not all of the tumor was removed during the surgery by Dr. Blinski. Dr. Blinski referred the Patient to Dr. Henry Menn for consultation. Dr. Menn was a professor of dermatology and head of the Mohs chemosurgery unit at the University of Miami. In a letter dated September 21, 1981, Dr. Menn advised Dr. Blinski that he thought: It would be best to initiate Mohs Chemosurgery excision of the residual basal cell carcinoma discovered by you in the surgical margins of your excised specimen performed on 27th of August, 1981, from tissue removed from the forehead. In approximately four weeks inflammation and irritation normally present after a surgical flap procedure will be reduced and the chemosurgical excision will be more easily accomplished. Dr. Menn apparently changed his treatment plan for the Patient because, instead of undertaking chemosurgery, he simply followed the patient clinically until the summer of 1982. During that time period, there were no clinical signs of regrowth of the basal cell carcinoma. While primary basal cell carcinoma typically grows in little mounds of cells, recurrent basal cell carcinoma can grow in a different, infiltrative fashion. This type of growth tends to be more subtle and the skin can appear normal for extensive periods of time. T.G. returned to Dr. Menn on December 17, 1981 and, in a letter dated December 21, 1981, Dr. Menn advised Dr. Blinski that: ... about four months have now passed since you excised the large basal cell carcinoma on her forehead. There is no clinical evidence of regrowth of tumor even though the surgical excision margins were involved by tumor after your treatment. Close clinical inspection and palpation do not reveal the evidence of basal cell carcinoma at this time... I will continue to follow the patient at periodic intervals. If there is any evidence of malignancy, I will do an excisional biopsy and initiate chemosurgical treatment as indicated. On March 15, 1982, Dr. Blinski examined the patient and advised Dr. Menn by letter that "there is no recurrence as of this time. She will be followed in four months." By letter dated May 19, 1982, Dr. Menn advised Dr. Blinski "I re- examined our patient [T.G.] on the 18th of May, 1982. I am pleased to report that there is no evidence of regrowth of the skin cancer were [sic] you performed plastic surgery on her forehead... I will continue to follow the patient." On July 22, 1982, T.G. and her husband joined the IMC Gold Plus Plan. Because the Gold Plus Plan required the enrollees to assign their Medicare benefits, T.G. stopped seeing Dr. Menn at this time. T.G. had an appointment with Dr. Menn on October 7, 1982. Dr. Menn's notes indicate that the patient did not appear for her appointment and there is a notation that the "patient wishes to continue care in her HMO." Suburban was the HMO affiliate center to which T.G. was assigned. T.G.'s first visit to Suburban took place on September 3, 1982. During that visit, T.G. advised the Respondent that she had a history of skin cancer. During the physical examination of the Patient, the Respondent noted the scar on her mid-forehead. At the time of the Patient's initial visit to Suburban, the medical records of her prior treatment by Dr. Blinski and Dr. Menn were not available. At some point, those records were obtained by the Respondent. However, it is not clear when the records were received. T.G.'s second visit to Suburban was on September 17, 1982. There is no indication in the medical records of that visit that her forehead was examined. On October 4, 1982, T.G. returned to Suburban and complained to Respondent that her "forehead always feels hot." The Respondent noted a "small left papular swelling 4mm at lower portion of scar-subcut." Under the "assessment" portion of his medical form, Respondent wrote "(1) follow possible recurrence basal cell carcinoma-left lower forehead (2) 1-2mm lesion on right forehead (3) keratotic lesion-right arm." During the October 4, 1982 visit, Respondent hyfercated the lesions on the Patient's right forehead and right arm. Hyfercation is an electrocauterization that burns or desiccates skin lesions by removing the water content of skin cells. Hyfercation destroys tissues and, as a result, the tissue cannot be pathologically diagnosed unless a biopsy is first taken. No biopsy was taken prior to the hyfercation of either of the lesions. Although Respondent has no specialized training in dermatology, he regularly hyfercates skin lesions as part of his office practice. Respondent believes that he has the ability to differentiate between minor, obviously benign skin lesions and those that are more questionable and should be referred to a dermatologist. Respondent noted on the medical records from this visit to "follow for excisional biopsy." That comment was made with respect to the lesion on the Patient's lower left forehead. That lesion was not hyfercated. Instead, the Respondent decided to refer the Patient to a dermatologist in the IMC system for the treatment of that lesion. On October 14, 1982, the Respondent signed the referral form for T.G. to go to the IMC Dermatology Center at a facility known as the Westchester Clinic. An appointment with the IMC dermatologist was scheduled for October 21, 1982. On that day, the Patient was seen by Dr. Seymour Munzer, a dermatologist affiliated with IMC. The exact nature of Dr. Munzer's business relationship with IMC was not established, but he apparently traveled to various IMC Centers to treat patients. During the October 21, 1982 visit, Dr. Munzer noted the Patient's history of surgery for basal cell carcinoma with Dr. Blinski. He noted some nodular firmness above the left brow. His diagnostic impression was "(1) prob. [sic] scar tissue (2) r/o [rule out] recurrent basal cell carcinoma." Patient stated on several occasions that she did not like Dr. Munzer and wanted to see Dr. Menn, her options under the Gold Plus Plan were fully explained to her and she was advised that, under that plan, her treatment would have to be coordinated through the IMC dermatologist. She was also advised that she could see Dr. Menn at her own expense or disenroll from the program and continue her care under traditional Medicare procedures. The Respondent never completed any additional dermatological referral forms for the Patient. While Dr. Munzer claims that a written referral from the primary care physician was necessary every time a patient returned to see him, this testimony is rejected. The more creditable evidence established that Respondent was not required under the IMC system to issue a referral for each visit by a Patient to an IMC specialist. Dr. Munzer biopsied the lesion over the Patient's left brow and submitted it for pathological diagnosis. The pathology report was returned on October 26, 1982 and indicated "basal cell carcinoma, infiltrating. Surgical margins involved by the lesions." T.G. returned to Suburban on November 3, 1982. The records of that visit indicate that the Respondent was waiting for the pathology report. For his assessment, Respondent noted "r/o [rule out] basal cell carcinoma forehead." Respondent's plan was to "follow path report Westchester Center." During the November 3 visit, Respondent removed a 1mm keratotic lesion from the Patient's lower right chin. The Patient returned to Suburban on November 23, 1982. By that time, Respondent had received a copy of Dr. Munzer's report and the pathology report on the biopsy performed by Dr. Munzer. The Respondent discussed the results of the biopsy with the Patient and her husband and explained that she needed to follow up with the dermatologist. While the Patient and her husband have testified that the Respondent advised them that he could treat her basal cell carcinoma, this testimony is rejected. The more creditable evidence established that the Respondent advised the Patient of her need for follow-up by a dermatologist. The Respondent discussed the results of the biopsy with Dr. Munzer by phone and it was his understanding that Dr. Munzer would continue to follow the Patient and provide whatever additional treatment was necessary. The Respondent never received any additional reports or correspondence from Dr. Munzer regarding the Patient. Because the IMC specialists rotated between several hospitals, there was often alot of confusion regarding the paperwork for those patients referred to specialists. It was not unusual for there to be significant delays between the time an IMC specialist saw a patient and the time the specialist's report was sent to the primary care physician. In fact, in many instances such reports were never received. Thus, while Respondent did not receive any further reports from Dr. Munzer, Respondent thought Dr. Munzer and/or IMC was providing treatment for the Patient's basal cell carcinoma as diagnosed in the October 26, 1982 pathology report. No records of the treatment rendered by Dr. Munzer could be obtained from either Dr. Munzer or the Westchester Clinic where Dr. Munzer treated the Patient. It is not clear whether the Patient ever returned to Dr. Munzer for further evaluation or treatment. 1/ However, it is clear that Respondent and his office staff advised the Patient on several occasions that she needed to follow-up with the dermatologist. While the There is no evidence that Dr. Munzer ever developed a plan for treating T.G. Dr. Munzer could not specifically recall his treatment of this Patient except to review his report and the pathology report in Respondent's records. Dr. Munzer testified that he would not have attempted to treat a patient with recurrent basal cell carcinoma on the face, particularly in the area of scar tissue. Instead, he states that he would have recommended either Mohs chemosurgery, referral to a plastic surgeon or possibly radiation therapy. However, it does not appear that Dr. Munzer ever communicated his reluctance to treat such a condition to the Respondent. As far as the Respondent knew, Dr. Munzer and/or the IMC Dermatology Center were capable of treating this Patient. While Dr. Munzer claimed that he did not have authority to refer a patient from an affiliate center for further follow-up, at the very least his input and recommendation would have been essential to determine how to treat a patient with unique dermatological problems. In this case, it does not appear that he ever provided such a recommendation or opinion. Moreover, while Dr. Munzer contends that the Medical Director of an affiliate center was the only person who could make referrals outside the IMC network, Suburban's contract with IMC required such determinations to be made by the Medical Director of IMC. The evidence established that, under Suburban's contract, once a patient was referred to an IMC specialist for treatment, that specialist and IMC were responsible for determining whether to send the patient for additional consultation to a physician outside the IMC network. At no point during the treatment of this Patient did the Respondent attempt to treat the Patient's known basal cell carcinoma. The Patient was next seen by the Respondent on December 7, 1982. The Respondent noted "basal cell carcinoma left-forehead." There is no indication that the Respondent was attempting any treatment for this problem. The Patient was instructed to return in three months. The Patient was treated by the Respondent on February 1, 16, and March 7, 1983 for various ailments and complaints. There is no mention of the Patient's basal cell carcinoma in the medical records of these visits. On April 1, 1983, the Respondent excised a skin lesion on T.G.'s left shoulder. The Respondent submitted the excised lesion for biopsy and the pathology report stated that there was no evidence of malignancy. There is no evidence in the medical records of the April 1, 1983 report that Respondent treated or discussed the basal cell carcinoma on the Patient's forehead. The Patient returned to Suburban on April 4, 6, and May 2, 1983. She was seen by the Respondent during the April 4 and May 2, 1983 visits. The records of those three visits do not reflect any treatment or discussion of the Patient's forehead. The Patient's next visit to Suburban was on May 24, 1983. During that visit, Respondent noted a "2mm keratotic skin lesion, mid forehead." That lesion was high on the forehead near the hairline. It was not in the scar area or adjacent to the previously diagnosed basal cell carcinoma. The Patient wanted the lesion removed for cosmetic reasons and it was the Respondent's opinion that the lesion was not clinically related to the Patient's previous problems. The Respondent felt that the appropriate treatment was to obliterate the lesion and watch for any recurrence rather than to biopsy such a small lesion which appeared benign. His assessment was "keratosis, possible basal cell carcinoma." He hyfercated the lesion and noted to follow it for healing. Because no biopsy was done on this lesion, there is no pathology report available to establish whether or not this lesion was a basal cell carcinoma. Some of the expert witnesses in this proceeding have testified that the Respondent's failure to biopsy this lesion falls below the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent physician under similar circumstances. However, that testimony presupposes that the lesions was contiguous or adjacent to the prior problem areas. Moreover, even Petitioner's experts admit that a primary care physician such as Respondent should be able to recognize and distinguish cosmetic skin problems from more questionable problems that need closer scrutiny. There is insufficient evidence to disregard Respondent's clinical diagnosis. Even though the Patient had a history of basal cell carcinoma, it was possible, indeed it is likely, that a patient with her history would develop unrelated cosmetic lesions. At the time that the lesion was hyfercated, the Respondent once again advised the Patient that she needed to continue seeing the dermatologist regarding the previously diagnosed basal cell carcinoma. Sometime during the Patient's visits in April or May of 1983, Respondent became aware that the Patient had not been returning to Dr. Munzer for follow-up care of the basal cell carcinoma of her forehead. Until this time, the Respondent had assumed that the Patient was being treated by Dr. Munzer. The Patient reiterated her dislike for Dr. Munzer and also indicated that she did not like the Westchester facility. The Respondent once again explained her options under the HMO plan and advised her of the need to seek specialized care for her basal cell carcinoma. The Patient did not exercise any of the options explained to her and continued to be treated at Suburban through at least March of 1984. During that time, she was treated for various ailments, but no attempt was made to treat the basal cell carcinoma. The Patient's next visit to Suburban took place on June 1, 1983. In addition to treating other unrelated complaints, the Respondent noted that the wound from the hyfercated forehead lesion was healing. The Patient was also treated at Suburban on June 16 and 21, July 7 and 25, August 1 and 9 and October 17, 1983. The Respondent saw the Patient on all of those visits except for the June 16, July 25, and October 17 visits when she was treated by other Suburban employees. There is no indication in the medical records of these visits that the Patient's forehead and/or basal cell carcinoma were treated. The Patient did not appear for scheduled appointments on June 6, July 18, and August 12, 1983. During a visit on November 1, 1983, the Respondent noted a lesion on the Patient's right forehead. This lesion was not contiguous to the Patient's scar nor was it adjacent to the area biopsied by Dr. Munzer. The Respondent hyfercated this lesion. As with the other lesions that Respondent hyfercated, the hyfercation was performed for cosmetic reasons and not because of any medical necessity. Each of the lesions that were hyfercated healed quickly and completely without any sign of regrowth. Because the lesions were hyfercated, biopsies were not possible. The absence of a pathology report precludes a conclusion that none of the hyfercated lesions were malignant. However, the Respondent's testimony that he only hyfercated lesions in areas where no previous problems had occurred and that appeared clinically benign is accepted. Therefore, there was no deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent physician. The Patient returned to Suburban on November 8, and 28, and December 14, 1983 and January 13 and 30, 1984. There is no indication that the Respondent saw the Patient on those visits. The Patient was seen by other physicians employed by Suburban. None of those physicians attempted to treat any skin problems and/or the forehead area of this Patient. There is no indication that any of these physicians noted any abnormality on the Patient's forehead. During those visits when the Respondent saw the Patient, the Respondent would typically check her forehead to determine if there were any changes in the scar or the area that Dr. Munzer had biopsied. No changes were evident until the Patient's visit on February 6, 1984. During the February 6, 1984 visit, the Respondent noticed a slight nodularity on the Patient's forehead. Respondent did not attempt to treat that bump. He again recommended to the Patient that she see the dermatologist. The only notation in the medical records was "follow slight nodularity-forehead-hx [history] basal cell CA." The Patient was instructed to return in two weeks. The Patient returned to Suburban on February 7, 13, 27, and March 14, 1984. The Respondent only saw the patient on the February 13 visit. During these visits, she was treated for various unrelated matters and there is no notation regarding her basal cell carcinoma or the nodularity noted on February 6. On March 7, 1984, T.G. transferred to Dr. C.N. House's IMC affiliated provider center. On her first visit to Dr. House on April 6, 1984, T.G. was referred to a dermatologist, Dr. Kenneth Rosen, for a biopsy of her forehead. At the time of this visit, Dr. House did not have any of the Patient's prior records. Dr. Rosen took biopsies from three areas of the Patient's forehead: one from the "right forehead", one from the "mid-forehead", and one from the "mid-forehead above left side." The pathology reports on all three sections indicated basal cell carcinoma that had been incompletely excised. The multiple sites of carcinoma indicate that the tumor was infiltrating. Dr. Rosen advised Dr. House that he was not qualified to treat the Patient. He advised Dr. House that the Patient needed to be referred for Mohs chemosurgery. At the time, the only physician in Miami that Dr. House knew could perform that surgery was Dr. Menn. Mohs chemosurgery, now known as Mohs micrographic surgery, is the treatment of choice for recurrent basal cell carcinomas because of its high cure rate and conservation of healthy skin. Dr. House's contract with IMC was a "risk" contract. Under that contract, the fees for treatment by specialists were directly deducted from his payment from IMC. Dr. House arranged his own network of specialists to whom he would refer patients. As indicated above, the Respondent's contractual arrangement with IMC was different and, at least during the time this Patient was being treated, Respondent only referred patients to the network developed by IMC. Dr. House arranged for the Patient to be seen by Dr. Menn on May 15, 1984. In making this arrangement, Dr. House agreed to personally assume responsibility for Dr. Menn's fees. T.G. was treated by Dr. Menn at the University of Miami with the Mohs Chemotherapy technique in four stages over a period of three days, May 29, 30, and June 1, 1984. The Mohs Surgery revealed an extensive basal cell carcinoma that covered most of the Patient's forehead area. Extensive skin was removed during the surgery and, in some areas, the surgery penetrated to the underlying bone. The surgery reports indicate that all of the area was one continuous basal cell carcinoma of the forehead, the eyelids and the nasal dorsum. Dr. Garland believes that the basal cell carcinoma treated by Mohs Chemosurgery in May of 1984 was the same tumor present and growing at the time that Dr. Menn was seeing this Patient in 1981 and 1982. After the Mohs Surgery, the Patient was referred by Dr. House to Dr. Gary Zahler, an IMC Plastic Surgeon, for repair by skin grafting of the extensive wound to her forehead. After the surgery, the Patient was followed by Dr. Menn until his death in 1985. Dr. Larry Garland, a colleague of Dr. Menn at the University of Miami and a dermatologist specializing in Mohs Chemosurgery and cutaneous oncology, continued following the Patient after Dr. Menn's death. T.G. died from other causes in 1989. She had no recurrence of basal cell carcinoma following the Mohs surgery. The evidence established that the Respondent is a capable and dedicated physician. There is no evidence that the Respondent manipulated the Patient for his own financial gain. It is clear that at the time this case was initiated, there were some erroneous factual assumptions made by at least one expert retained by the Petitioner. Petitioner sent the Patient's medical records for review by Dr. Joseph Rosen. His opinion served as one of the grounds for the initial finding of probable cause in this case and the subsequent issuance of the Administrative Complaint. That opinion was premised on the erroneous assumption that the Respondent never referred the Patient to a dermatologist for treatment. At the hearing in this cause, Dr. Rosen amended his opinion and acknowledged that a referral did take place. However, he felt that the Respondent had still failed to meet the applicable standard of care because he failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the Patient's basal cell carcinoma was treated. This issue is addressed in the conclusions of law below.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners enter a Final Order finding the Respondent, Jules G. Minkes not guilty of the allegations contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing that Count, but finding Respondent guilty of Count II and III, issuing a letter of concern and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of December, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The matters presented for consideration in this action are related to an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against Dr. Lee, accusing him of having violated various provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, pertaining to his practice of medicine. The complaint accuses the Respondent of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, related to the treatment of several patients. Respondent is also accused of having failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment for those patients in violation of Section 458.331(1)(n) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact William J. Lee, M.D., is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida through a license issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, License No. MEO12345. He has held that license at all times relevant to this case and in that time sequence has practiced general medicine and general surgery in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, in his office and at Jacksonville Beach's Hospital in that same community. Dr. Lee is 51 years old and is a graduate of Emory University in 1958, receiving his M.D. from Emory in 1964. He did an internship at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, followed by a residency in general surgery at the University of Florida from 1965 through 1968 and completed his residency at Duval Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1969. The Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of this hearing was filed on February 22, 1983. Proper service of the Administrative Complaint was effected upon the Respondent and Dr. Lee made a timely request for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. THELMA A. PARKER From August 9 through 13, 1974, Thelma Parker was treated medically at Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, for acute diverticulitis. This treatment was provided by Dr. C. Cooksey. In particular, Dr. Cooksey's medical regime was NOP, IV fluids, and large doses of Fibramycin. A barium enema was done on the patient on August 10, 1974, and revealed diverticulosis of the sigmoid colon and one large acutely inflamed diverticulum of the mid-sigmoid level. This diverticulum was unusually long and Dr. Cooksey was of the impression that the diverticulum produced some edema of the bowel wall with low grade obstruction. Finally, Dr. Cooksey felt that at some point the diverticulum should be resected because of its size. In late August 1978, Ms. Parker, who had become a patient of the Respondent's, began to experience cramping, and diarrhea pain for which she took lomotil to slow down the bowel activity. This relieved her symptoms temporarily. Nevertheless, the symptoms persisted and on September 2, 1978, Ms. Parker went to the emergency room at Jacksonville Beach's Hospital, displaying the same type of pain and showing a mild distention. This pain was a generalized to and fro type of pain of cramping nature across the area of the abdomen. It was not localized. Dr. Lee admitted the patient to that hospital on that date. At that time, Dr. Lee was aware of the prior 1974 bout which the patient had with diverticulitis. Lee obtained an x-ray obstruction series and based upon this information felt that possible explanation was adynamic ileus versus early obstruction. He did not feel that the patient was suffering from diverticulitis in that there was no indication of lower left quadrant abdominal pain, bowel dysfunction such as constipation or obstipation and no indication of temperature elevation, indicators of diverticulitis. The symptoms she did display were not inconsistent with diverticulitis. At admission, the Respondent did note the past history of diverticulitis and the emergency room admission and hospital records indicated chronic lower quadrant abdominal pain and change in bowel habits and diarrhea, which are consistent with diverticulitis. Based upon examination of the patient, x-rays and associated materials, Respondent performed an exploratory laparotomy on September 4, 1978, for the purpose of relieving a small bowel obstruction. In the surgery, he found grossly dilated loops of the small bowel with obvious obstruction of the terminal ileum approximately 15 cm's proximal to the ibocacal valve. He found that area to be "firmly adherent to a mass of scar tissue in the sigmoid colon area of the pelvis with chronic low grade inflammatory reaction present in the region." The portion of the ileum that was involved in this was wound severely upon itself with the massive scar tissue in the area. Given the condition, he determined to resect that portion of the small bowel and effected a repair by anastomosis. No evidence was revealed in the course of the operation of any blockage of the large bowel, based upon his observations and manipulations. Gross examination was also made of the sigmoid colon and this revealed no dilation. No contrast studies were done to examine the lumen of the sigmoid colon, such as barium enema or colonscopy. Those studies would have ruled out diverticulitis in the area of the sigmoid colon. The post operative diagnosis by Dr. Lee was small bowel obstruction, secondary to diverticular disease and upon the discharge date of September 14, 1978, the diagnosis was 1) small bowel obstruction and 2) diverticular disease. The patient was seen in Dr. Lee's office on September 18, 1978 and had a fever and abdominal symptoms. She was told to see the doctor again on the next day and lacking improvement on that date was admitted to the hospital on September 19, 1978. At the time of admission on September 19, 1978, initial impression by Dr. Lee was that the patient was suffering intra-abdominal abcesses, secondary to anastomostic break or leakage in the area of the resection of the small bowel. The patient demonstrated a tenderness in the lower abdomen and had some nausea and vomiting. On rectal examination, the patient demonstrated a fluctuant area in the rectum, at the pelvic basin formed by the peritoneum. This area was determined to be an abscess and on September 26, 1978, Dr. Lee performed a procedure by going through the anus into this area of abscess and making an incision in the wall of the rectum to allow drainage of the abscess through the rectum. There was some improvement but the patient continued to have temperature elevation and abdominal pain and on October 2, 1978, further laparotocy was done and an anastonimotic break was discovered. Reanastomosis was achieved following a second resection in the area of the initial small bowel obstruction. Gross examination during the course of this surgery did not reveal any evident blockage of the large intestine or active diverticulitis. Again, no specific diagnostic work was done to determine the condition of the sigmoid colon related to diverticulitis. During the surgery, in addition to the revision of the ileostomy, abdominal abscesses were also evacuated. The patient was discharged on October 21, 1978. After her release in October 1978, the patient was seen on a number of occasions by the Respondent and indicated occasional episodes of cramping, diarrheal type stool but no localized pain in the left, lower quadrant, constipation or obstipation. The patient developed a ventral hernia in the area of the incision related to the abdominal surgery performed by the Respondent and on June 21, 1979, was admitted to the hospital to attend that condition. Exploratory laparotomy was dome on June 22, 1979 and the Respondent did further resectioning and reanastomosis in the area of the small bowel repair together with repair to the ventral incisional hernia. The large intestine in the area of the previous diverticular disease was examined and no indication, on gross examination, was given as to obstruction of the large bowel or any showing of acute inflammation in the area of the sigmoid colon suggesting diverticulitis. As was the case before, no specific examination of the sigmoid colon by a process of barium enema or otherwise was made at the time of this hospitalization. The patient was seen in the Respondent's office on July 3, 1979, and it was noted that her wound from the most recent operation was healing and that her appetite was good and bowel movements normal. A further visit of July 6, 1979, revealed a pink, serous drainage from the portion of the most recent incision and the abdomen was tender. Eventually, the patient had to be readmitted on July 23, 1979. Upon admission, it was believed that the patient was suffering intra-abdominal abscesses. She demonstrated temperature elevation and abdominal pain. The serous drainage from the incision had subsided. On this admission, particularly July 27, 1979, Dr. Lee did obtain a barium enema for purposes of examining the sigmoid colon and it showed a narrowed portion within the sigmoid colon with a communication to an abscess in the pelvis and from there a fistula to the small bowel at the site of the anastomosis. The abscess described was an abscess that had been addressed by Dr. Lee on September 26, 1978. This narrowing in the sigmoid colon was a partial obstruction, leaving an approximate functional capability of 10 percent. No dilation was observed in the bowel proximal to the area of partial obstruction and there was no distention. The narrowing was caused by the diverticular disease process. No evidence was found of an active condition of diverticulitis in the sigmoid colon. On July 30, 1979, a further surgical course was pursued by Dr. Lee and a segment of the small bowel in the area of the previous attempts at anastomosis was removed and a reanastomosis was done with a cleaning up of the previously described fistula tract and associated repairs. No attention was given to the narrowing of the sigmoid colon. On August 6, 1979, Dr. Lee opened and drained large abscesses in the abdominal wall and this was followed on August 9, 1979, with his notation of a small bowel fistula. On August 10, 1979, the patient requested consultation with another surgeon, Dr. James Corwin and was transferred to his care on August 12, 1979. Corwin advised the patient to have a loop colostomy to try and address continuing problems as described by prohibiting the sigmoid colon from contributing to those difficulties. This procedure was carried out by Dr. Corwin on August 17, 1979. Resection of the sigmoid colon was done by Dr. Corwin on September 17, 1979. (Pathology related to the sigmoid colon showed diverticulosis, indication of diverticular disease. It did not show active diverticulitis.) The patient accepted Dr. Corwin's suggestion that the colostomy and resection of the sigmoid colon were necessary, without hesitation. Respondent's suggestion by testimony or record that he had discussed with Ms. Parker the need to address her diverticular condition and possible resection of the sigmoid colon and her rejection of such diagnosis and treatment is not accepted. These discussions allegedly occurred between her release from the hospital in October 1978, and her hospitalization in June 1979. When examined in light of the facts found, specifically her willingness to submit to all other operations and procedures by Dr. Lee and to accept Corwin's treatment of the colon when suggested, Respondent is not to be believed on this subject. Ms. Parker failed to recover from the series of problems as discussed and died on October 28, 1979. The diverticular disease in the colon contributed to her demise and Dr. Lee failed to diagnose and treat that condition. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Parker did not take care of herself in terms of her physical condition, related to her drinking habits, Respondent was not relieved from the necessity to diagnosis and address the problem with the sigmoid colon. Dr. E. R. Woodward testified on behalf of the Petitioner, after being accepted as an expert in medicine with particular emphasis on general surgery. Dr. Woodward is a professor of surgery and former chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University of Florida, College of Medicine, and is a member of various boards, colleges and associations related to the practice of surgery and has written approximately 250 publications and authored two books in the field of general surgery. His testimony was based upon the review of hospital records related to Parker's various hospitalizations under the care of Dr. Lee that have been addressed. Dr. Woodward is of the opinion that the patient suffered diverticulitis in the sigmoid colon at times relevant to the inquiry and finds fault with Dr. Lee's failure to diagnose and treat this condition which Dr. Woodward felt was the underlying cause of the patient's problems pertaining to obstruction in the small bowel and associated anastomotic failures. Even without such diagnoistic procedures as barium enema or otherwise, Dr. Woodward feels that Dr. Lee recognized the diverticulitis of the colon in describing the chronic inflammatory reaction in the area of the sigmoid colon in his September 4, 1978, post operative report. Dr. Woodward revealed that in the September 19, 1978, admission that one of the x-rays showed air fluid levels in the right colon which is indirect evidence of a possible problem of an obstruction in the sigmoid colon. Moreover, given the fact that the intestines heal extremely well, according to Dr. Woodward, the problem with the anastomosis was possibly due to the fact that the lining of the intestine beyond the anastomosis was not open sufficiently and that there was some degree of obstruction as was revealed in the area of the sigmoid colon, which had been caused by chronic diverticulitis. By the time of the June 21, 1979, hospitalization, Dr. Woodward felt that the patient's condition was such that her recovery was not promising. Even in the face of information found after the July 27, 1979, barium enema, Dr. Lee did not address the difficulty with the narrowing in the colon by some process of diverting colostomy or other surgery of the colon. In Dr. Woodward's mind, this was necessary at the time of the September 4, 1978, surgery and continued to be a need at the time of the July 30, 1979, surgery. Risk of mortality increased from 2 percent to as high as 10 percent at the July 30, 1979, operation. Subsequent to that operation, the patient was so ill and the infection so severe that the mortality risk related to surgery was prohibitive, per Woodward. In summary, Woodward felt that the Respondent's failure to diagnose and treat the diverticular condition in the sigmoid colon led to her eventual demise and was such quality of treatment as to constitute gross or repeated malpractice and the failure to practice medicine with a level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions or circumstances. Dr. Corwin, gave his expert opinion, as a general surgeon, after being accepted in that field. This is the same Dr. Corwin who treated Thelma Parker. Dr. Corwin feels that given a past history of diverticulitis, which the Respondent knew about and the condition which he found upon the original surgery performed in the abdomen, Respondent should have searched for the cause of that condition which most likely was the patient's diverticulitis. This opinion refers to the need for an examination by barium enema or some other form of contrast study to determine the condition of the sigmoid colon. The narrowing or obstruction in the area of the distal colon, as described, was felt by Dr. Corwin to be almost total in that the colon was reduced to an approximate 10 percent function. Corwin felt that the Respondent had made a major mistake in his treatment of the patient in not attempting to ascertain the cause of the abscesses and obstruction and to deal with the problem in the colon which he considered to be the underlying cause of her difficulties. According to Corwin, the quality of that mistake was so severe as to constitute gross mistreatment of the patient. He feels there was malpractice in that the problem in the colon was at least partially responsible for the anastomotic breaks. At minimum, Dr. Corwin felt that a diverting colostomy was necessary to address the problem with the colon and probably a resection of the sigmoid colon, which procedures were done by Corwin subsequent to assuming the case. Dr. Wiley Douglas Fowler, Jr., who is a board certified, general surgeon, practicing in the community where Respondent practices, gave testimony. He too felt that the Respondent had failed to deal with the condition in the sigmoid colon which he considered to be diverticulitis. There was a need to do a diverting colostomy and to do further definitive treatment as necessary to address the diverticular condition, per Fowler. He felt that there was a breakdown in surgical judgment to the point that the doctor was unable to perform the responsibilities of care in the case. Dr. Samuel Stephenson, who is a board certified general surgeon practicing in Jacksonville, Florida, testified. He did not find the quality of Dr. Lee's care to be-substandard related to the patient Parker. He placed emphasis on the fact that in his opinion gross signs such as dilation in the colon or large bowel were not observable and no active condition of diverticulitis was ever discovered during Parker's treatment course from the time of the Respondent's involvement to her demise. He did indicate that the barium enema results of July 27, 1983, might make one wonder if the narrowing in the sigmoid colon had caused some of the other recurring problems associated with anastomotic breaks in the small intestine. He indicated that by July 30, 1979, there might be a need for a colon resection. Stephenson was impressed with the fact that the patient died even after attempts to address the problems with the colon, i.e., the temporary colostomy and resection of the colon done by Dr. Corwin, leading him to wonder if the cause of continuing failure in the area of repair at the small bowel was due to some circumstance other than problems in the sigmoid colon. He believed that in the initial admission of September 1978, that there was a possibility of a problem with diverticulitis as well as the small bowel obstruction but no gross signs indicated an active condition of diverticulitis in the area of the colon, such as dilation. The mass that was discovered at the point of the initial laparotomy in September 1978, might have been from the colon or might not have been in the mind of Dr. Stephenson. The thrust of Dr. Stephenson's testimony seems to be that absent a clear indication that diverticulitis in the colon or the narrowing in the colon was the proximate cause of the anastomotic breaks and attendant processes of infection, there was no duty on Dr. Lee's part to rule out the possible involvement of the sigmoid colon as an explanation for the problems with the healing process in this patient. Upon reflection, the impressions gained by Drs. Woodward, Corwin and Fowler, witnesses for the Petitioner, are more compelling than those of Dr. Stephenson, on the subject of culpability by the Respondent related to the patient's care. Evidence reported establishes that the Respondent should have examined the colon by barium enema or some similar process at the point of the initial surgery and certainly before her final admission in July 1979, and when finally so examined the colon was not treated. This failure is excerbated by the fact that the Respondent knew that the patient had a history of diverticulitis. The diverticular condition in the colon, to include the partial obstruction by narrowing, based upon the opinions of the third party experts, is found to have been a contributor to the continuing problems of anastomotic leakages, abscesses and other conditions which would not allow a successful treatment course for the patient. Even if diverticulitis in the colon or the diverticular condition in that organ did not cause failure in her treatment results, per the physicians, whose opinion is accepted, the circumstance in the colon should have been examined and ruled out at a minimum. The idea expressed by Dr. Stephenson, that in the absence of being able to clearly establish that the colon's condition caused the patient's demise, the Respondent may not be held accountable, is unacceptable. Having determined that the diagnosis should have been made, Respondent should have performed the diverting colostomy to be followed by a resection of the colon if necessary, again in keeping with the opinions of Petitioner's experts. Finally, the opinion related to Respondent's malpractice and failure to perform at an acceptable standard for same or similar physicians, as attributed to Dr. Woodward and supported in concept by Dr. Corwin, is accepted. Respondent is accused of having failed to keep adequate medical records pertaining to the patient Parker. Although there was some demonstrated ambiguity in his record keeping, that ambiguity does not rise to the level of finding facts showing a violation related to record keeping on this patient. JOHN WILLIAM PHILLIPS On July 2, 1979, John William Phillips had an accident in which he fell off of a ladder and came to the emergency room at Beach's Hospital for treatment. An admission was made on July 3, 1979, and Dr. Lee undertook the care of the patient. The patient suffered multiple fractures of the ribs, had a contusion of the left shoulder, was demonstrating slight tenderness in the left flank and evidenced a large swollen and contused area in the left chest wall posterior with tenderness. He showed a normal abdomen with bowel signs present but hypo-active. The patient suffered nausea, abdominal distention and tachycardia. From admission through July 12, 1979, the patient waxed and waned. He received fluids and pain medication and a series of x-rays were taken to better understand his condition. On July 12, 1979, a liver scan was made which demonstrated a cold area in the left lobe of the liver, leaving Dr. Lee in the position of ruling out hemotoma versus tumor versus cyst, though he believed the condition to be benign and unrelated to the accident. The cold spot on the x- ray appeared as a smooth contoured defect. The patient continued to show distention following the liver scan and continued to evidence tachycardia and vomiting for the next several days. Respondent did not choose to verify his preliminary clinical impression of the condition of the liver related to the defect, by use of sonogram or angiogram, electing instead to wait for the patient's condition to change for better or worse. On July 15, the patient showed marked increase in temperature. On that date, a chest x-ray demonstrated plate-like atelectasis in the right lung and an elevated diaphragm. With the advent of the temperature elevation on July 15, the patient was transferred to the CCU unit of the hospital and among other matters prescribed, a broad spectrum antibiotic was ordered. The patient was showing an elevated blood count at that time. Following the liver scan, the patient had also developed rapid pulse and shown mental confusion. By the morning of July 15, the patient's condition was one approaching septic shock if not in that condition. Clinically, there was indication of sepsis or septicemia. The family of the patient requested a second opinion and the patient was subsequently transferred to Dr. Corwin. Dr. Woodward gave his opinion about the treatment of Phillips, expressing the belief that the problems evidenced related to this patient were too long and severe and too related to an abdominal condition to be associated solely with the injury in the chest. Given the location of the injury, Dr. Woodward felt like the defect in the liver, seen on the scan, may have been related to the injury. Dr. Woodward felt that the Respondent should have established whether or not the lesion in the liver was caused by the accident, either by exploratory laparotomy or selective arteriogram. To do otherwise would be less than expected of a prudent general surgeon, according to Dr. Woodward. In essence, Dr. Woodward felt that something should have been done to verify the character of the defect shown on the liver scan and whether that defect was associated with injury suffered by the patient. Dr. Corwin testified about the treatment afforded Phillips. He felt that at the time that he took over the case on July 15, that the quality of the septicemia suffered by the patient was such that he was in septic shock and that an operation was necessary to address the defect in the liver. An operation was undertaken to remove that defect and when first visualized, Dr. Corwin was not sure whether the defect was a cystic hemangioma or not, although it gave an appearance of being that condition. (At the time of the liver scan, given the location of the liver defect, Corwin felt that most probable explanation was hematoma or tear in the left lobe of liver, cystic hemangioma being a rare occurrence in liver.) After removal of this cyst, the patient began to improve and Dr. Corwin believes that the removal of the cyst contributed to that improvement. He thinks that the area of the cyst became a seed bed for the septicemia in the sense of aiding in the circulation of bacteria in the patient's system. Dr. Corwin had criticism of Dr. Lee in the treatment of Mr. Phillips in the sense that once the patient's condition began to decline, approaching the place and time at which Corwin was substituted as the physician, Dr. Lee should have done more to determine the true nature of the patient's problem. He does not feel that the Respondent's treatment can be described as malpractice. He is simply of the opinion that the case was not handled very well and showed poor judgment by the treating physician. Dr. Fowler testified about the care of the patient Phillips after examining the records of hospitalization. He indicated that given the deteriorating condition of the patient, that there was an indecisive action pattern on the part of Dr. Lee but it was not of such proportions as to constitute a breakdown in the care of the patient. He had no specific opinion as to whether this conduct by Dr. Lee constituted gross or repeated malpractice. Stephenson's opinion of the Respondent's treatment of Phillips was to the effect that it was not substandard. Given the appearance of the cold spot on the liver scan, he felt certain that this was a cyst or hemangioma and not a hematoma. He indicated that uncertainty in this regard could have been confirmed by a sonogram. He did not find the necessity to conduct surgery to discover the condition of the liver. Having considered the facts of the treatment of Phillips and the opinions of the experts, while the Respondent's reactions to Mr. Phillips' condition were less than sterling, they did not reach the level of constituting gross or repeated malpractice or care unworthy of a same or similar physician. Again, the records kept by the Respondent related to the care of Mr. Phillips were sufficient. CLIFTON WORCESTER On January 31, 1977, Respondent conducted surgery on Clifton Worcester to patch a perforated duodenal ulcer. Worcester had further hospital admissions on June 21, 1978 and August 1, 1978, for recurrent ulcer symptoms. On these occasions he was treated medically. On December 27, 1978 through January 4, 1979, the patient was admitted for the treatment of pneumonia. On September 6, 1979, Worcester was admitted to the hospital under the Respondent's care for conditions which preliminarily seemed to be related to respiratory and cardiac problems. At that time, the patient was 74 years old and was in a deteriorated condition suffering from a variety of maladies to include cardiac and respiratory conditions as well as the peptic ulcer disease. On September 9, 1979, Respondent after diagnosis determined that the patient was suffering from ulcer disease and an operation was done to repair the perforated pyloric ulcer. A Graham closure was used with omental patch and permanent silk sutures were employed. This ulcer was the same ulcer as had caused problems for the patient in 1977. On the morning of September 12, 1979, blood was visualized from the nasogastric tube which had been placed in the patient and when the patient was later irrigated, a large amount of blood appeared. The initial impression by Dr. Lee was that this blood was either due to the active peptic ulcer or possibly gastritis. To ascertain the source of bleeding, Dr. Corwin was called in to do a gastroscopy. That procedure was done around 7:00 pm. on September 12, 1979. Although the entire area of the stomach could not be visualized, Dr. Corwin was of the impression that the cause of the bleeding was not gastritis, leaving the most probable explanation to be that the patient had a problem of a bleeding ulcer. Dr. Corwin made it known to the Respondent that the bleeding was probably due to an ulcer as explanation for the lesion and Dr. Lee acknowledged that the probable source of bleeding was an ulcer condition. In the early morning hours of September 13, 1979, Dr. Lee again operated on the patient, envisualized the prior pyloric ulcer and was satisfied that the sutures in that ulcer were holding fast. He also discovered a gastric ulcer. The gastric ulcer measured approximately 8 centimeters in diameter. The gastric ulcer was shallow in its depth. There was present in the patient 1200-1500 cc's of old blood and a clot in the duodenum. No active bleeding was seen at that time and no major vessels were present in the ulcer beds. Dr. Lee waited 15 to 20 minutes to see if any active bleeding would occur and failing such appearance, he placed a tube gastrostomy. After cleaning out the blood and placing the gastrostomy tube, the patient was closed. No direct attention was given to the ulcers either in the oversewing of the ulcers or by more definitive surgery addressing both ulcer beds. The reason given for not conducting some form of definitive surgery was to the effect, according to Dr. Lee, that he was worried that the patient would not survive the time it would take to conclude such surgery. The surgery that was done took two hours and twenty minutes to achieve. On reflection, Dr. Lee believes that he should have at least sutured the gastric ulcer by oversewing it like a baseball, being unable to identify a bleeding point. This is in opposition to what he did which was to hope that the patient would not rebleed after the operation of September 13, 1979. That hope was not realized because on September 15, 1979, the patient again experienced massive bleeding between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. Dr. Lee had tried to treat the ulcers with Tagamet and irrigation through the gastrostomy tube. On September 16, 1979, Respondent operated and performed a vagotomy and antrectomy related to the pyloric and gastric ulcers. At that time, the patient was not better able to tolerate that operation than he would have been on September 13, 1979. In fact, between those two operations, he lost a considerable amount of blood, further weakening his resistance. In view of the relative condition of the patient, that is to say, generally poor health, the effects of the bleeding ulcers and associated insult caused by the surgeries, the patient died on September 27, 1979. Among the problems experienced by the patient, in the waning days of his life, were an anastomotic leak and peritonitis. Dr. Woodward, after review of the patient's hospital records, was of the opinion that the bleeding experienced by the patient on September 13, 1979, was from one of the ulcers and not because of gastritis. This belief is held notwithstanding the failure of the ulcers to bleed in the course of the operation on September 13, 1979. Bleeding sometimes subsides during surgery. Given the patient's circumstance related to bleeding ulcers, the least acceptable approach by the treating physician would have been to oversew and/or excise the ulcer craters. The excision would relate to the gastric ulcer. In addition, if possible, Respondent should have done a vagotomy and antrectomy or vagotomy and pyloroplasty during the September 13, 1979, surgery. Alternatively, the ulcers could have been treated medically after oversewing or excision. Use of Tagamet and irrigation would not stop the ulcers from bleeding, in Woodward's opinion. Woodward felt that a patient such as Worcester, who was in distress during the course of the operation, and had lost a great volume of blood, was a patient in greater need of the aforementioned procedures than the average patient, based upon the patient's inability to tolerate additional blood loss if the ulcer started to rebleed after he had been sewn up. At the time of the September 13, 1979, operation, there was evidence that the patient was in shock, which might cause the surgeon to stabilize the patient before conducting the minimum procedures identified, according to Dr. Woodward, but this would not cause the closure of the patient without addressing the bleeding ulcer or ulcers. The shock in Woodward's opinion was due to blood loss. In summary, in Dr. Woodward's mind, to visualize the ulcers on September 13, 1979, having recognized that they were the source of bleeding and to do nothing to stem that bleeding, was unacceptable Performance by the surgeon. Per Woodward, the procedures of September 16, 1979, a vagotomy and antrectomy, were correct but too late. The risk of mortality on September 13, 1979, as opposed to September 16, 1979, was 10 to 20 percent versus a prohibitive chance for recovery. Dr. Woodward found the treatment of Clifton Worcester to be clearly substandard in the face of the requirement to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Dr. Woodward's opinions as stated herein are accepted with the exception that pyloroplasty was not an appropriate choice given the location of the pyloric ulcer. Antrectomy would have been the substitute choice. Dr. Corwin, with the knowledge that Dr. Lee had been informed of the results of the gastroscope indicating that the source of bleeding on September 13, 1979, was probably an ulcer, felt that the Respondent, when he opened the patient on September 13, 1979, even though the ulcers were not bleeding, should have dealt with those ulcers to prohibit rebleeding, as opposed to cleaning out the ulcer beds and closing the patient. The minimum response would have been oversewing the ulcers with nonabsorbable sutures, and the aging condition of the patient should not have deterred Dr. Lee in that task. When asked if Dr. Woodward had performed the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, Corwin was of the opinion that the patient had received very poor treatment and that most any physician practicing as a surgeon would have done differently. Corwin did not think there was any value to the irrigation of blood within the stomach and the treatment of the ulcers by Tagamet through the gastrostomy tube. The treatment of the patient in failing to correct the bleeding constituted gross malpractice according to Dr. Corwin. The opinions of Corwin are accepted. Dr. Fowler also believed that to simply open the patient on September 13, 1979, and close without treating the bleeding ulcer in the sense of definitive suturing was unacceptable. While the antrectomy and vagotomy were recognized as appropriate responses, in terms of surgical technique, Dr. Fowler felt that in the sense of appropriate judgment, those procedures came too late, having followed another bleeding episode after. the September 13, 1979, surgery. According to Dr. Fowler, when asked the question about whether this conduct by Dr. Lee in his September 13, 1979, operation in his treatment of Worcester was at the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent, similar health care providers as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, he was of the opinion that the breakdown in surgical judgment was to the point that the doctor was unable to fully perform the full responsibilities of care in the case. Dr. Fowler's opinions are also accepted. Dr. Stephenson felt that the choices made on September 13, 1979, to close the patient and treat with Tagament and to irrigate were appropriate. He felt that the source of the bleeding might have been gastritis but was most likely from the ulcers. To him, conservative treatment of the patient in not further addressing the ulcers was acceptable given the condition of the patient. Had the patient been in better health, Dr. Stephenson said he might have taken a chance in addressing the ulcers. He felt that when you cannot visualize the source of the bleeding oversewing isn't particularly helpful because you don't know whether anything is achieved. Given this patient's condition, he felt that the chances were one in three that the patient would not rebleed. Dr. Stephenson's opinion as to the acceptability of the Respondent's conduct at the time of the surgery of September 13, 1979, is not accepted. Even this physician recognized that the patient's source of bleeding was most likely the ulcer beds and that there was a great likelihood that he would rebleed and this considered together with the fact of the tremendous amount of blood that the patient had already lost prior to the September 13, 1979, surgery causes a rejection of the opinion of this physician about Respondent's performance. The related charge of failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of patient Worcester has not been shown. There is ample information to gain an understanding of the patient's condition, as evidenced by the ability of the experts to give opinion testimony.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2000), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state department charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes (2003), and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes (2003). Dr. Dunn was issued license number ME 37819 in 1981 and is board certified in internal medicine and oncology. At all material times to this proceeding, Dr. Dunn was a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida. Prior to this case, Dr. Dunn has never been the subject of disciplinary action regarding his license to practice medicine in Florida. B.P. became Dr. Dunn's patient in 1984, when she was diagnosed with a tumor at the base of her tongue. The tumor was a malignant, large cell lymphoma. Dr. Dunn treated her with radiation and chemotherapy, and the lymphoma disappeared. Dr. Dunn monitored her for seven years, and B.P. did well until 1991, when nodules were discovered on the sides of her neck, underneath her arm, and in her groin area. She was diagnosed with diffuse mixed lymphoma. At the time she was diagnosed with lymphoma, she had asthmatic bronchitis and was under the care of pulmonary physicians. B.P. again received chemotherapy, but the results were not as positive as they were with her earlier bout of lymphoma. She was switched to an oral chemotherapy, which she took until 1993 when she began a remission. Her remission lasted until 1998, when she was diagnosed with lymphoma in her blood and bone marrow. Another course of chemotherapy was begun. However, the chemotherapy did not completely cure the lymphoma, and B.P. had problems with low blood counts and intermittent reappearances of the lymphoma cells in her blood. From 1998 to 2000, B.P. also suffered chronic respiratory problems with asthmatic bronchitis and fibrosis in the lungs. In July 2000, B.P. was diagnosed with proptosis, which meant that her eye was bulging out of the eye socket. The lymphoma had reoccurred, and a mass of lymphoma cells were behind the eye pushing the eyeball forward. Dr. Dunn attempted to treat B.P. with radiation therapy, but B.P. could not complete the radiation therapy because her blood counts were too low, and her bone marrow was malfunctioning. B.P.'s white blood count steadily decreased, and she was not producing red blood cells. On August 17, 2000, Dr. Dunn saw B.P. in his office and ordered a blood transfusion to increase her blood counts. On August 25, 2000, B.P. was hospitalized in Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) for a fever and a low white blood count. She was given antibiotics and blood transfusions. After she was released from the hospital, Dr. Dunn continued to see her in his office to monitor her blood counts. On October 3, 2000, B.P. came to Dr. Dunn's office. She appeared very ill and frail and was confined to a wheelchair. B.P.'s prognosis was very poor. Her breathing was problematic; her bone marrow was overrun with lymphoma; the mass behind her eye was causing the eye to bulge; and she was unable to tolerate either radiation therapy or chemotherapy. There was very little that could be done for B.P.'s condition other than to try measures to keep her comfortable. At the time of the October 3 office visit, B.P.'s blood counts were low. Dr. Dunn ordered a transfusion for B.P. in an attempt to raise her hemoglobin count above ten so that her oxygen-carrying capacity would be optimal. There was little that could be done for the low platelet and white cell counts. The transfusion was to be performed at ORMC, where B.P. had most of her care done. ORMC did not have any beds available so B.P. was sent to Sand Lake Hospital to have the transfusion done on an outpatient basis. When B.P. went to Sand Lake Hospital, an Interdisciplinary Patient Care Flowsheet was completed, indicating that B.P. could communicate pain and that she was not having any pain. Originally it was not anticipated that the transfusion would require an overnight stay. However, because of the hour when the transfusion would be completed, the nurses requested that B.P. be allowed to stay overnight. The transfusion was completed around 1:20 a.m. on October 4, 2000. At approximately 5 a.m., B.P. attempted to go to the bathroom alone and fell. She sustained a bruise to the head approximately five-by-four centimeters in size. There was a reddened area on her left temple and a laceration to the left internal cheek. There were no other external injuries. Ice was applied to B.P.'s head, and her mouth was rinsed with water. At 5:45 a.m., a nurse called Dr. Dunn's answering service to advise of B.P.'s condition and that B.P. had fallen. The evidence does not establish that the answering service called Dr. Dunn at his home. At 8:00 a.m., a nurse called Dr. Dunn's office concerning B.P. Dr. Zehngebot, Dr. Dunn's partner, returned the telephone call. The nurse advised Dr. Zehngebot that B.P. had been found on the floor where she had fallen around 5 a.m. and that B.P. had sustained a quarter-sized bruise to her left forehead. Dr. Zehngebot was told that the patient was not in distress and that she was alert and oriented times three. Dr. Zehngebot ordered a complete blood count (CBC) to determine B.P.'s blood count level. The nurse was told to call Dr. Dunn if the results of the CBC were abnormal. According to Dr. Zehngebot's telephone order, B.P. was to be discharged on that day and was to follow-up with Dr. Dunn in one week. At 8 a.m., another Interdisciplinary Patient Care Flowsheet was completed for B.P. It was noted on the form that B.P. had a purple, quarter-sized bruise on her left forehead and a bruise on her right upper chest area. It was noted that the doctor was aware of these bruises. Based on the timing of the telephone conversation between the nurse and Dr. Zehngebot, the completion of the Interdisciplinary Patient Care Flowsheet and the nurse's notes, it can be inferred that the doctor referenced on the 8 a.m. Interdisciplinary Patient Care Flowsheet as having been advised of the bruises on B.P. was Dr. Zehngebot and not Dr. Dunn. It was also noted on the Interdisciplinary Patient Care Flowsheet completed at 8 a.m. that B.P. was having intermittent headaches. Nothing in the record indicates that either Dr. Zehngebot or Dr. Dunn was ever advised that B.P. was having headaches after her fall. The CBC was done, and the results were abnormal. The white count was 1100 and the platelet count was 6000. The normal platelet count range is from 145,000 to 355,000. A nurse telephoned the results to Dr. Zehngebot at 9:50 a.m. At 10:30 a.m., another call was placed to Dr. Zehngebot to get a response to the lab work which had been performed. A message was left with the doctor's nurse. By 12:30 p.m., the nurse at Sand Lake Hospital had not received a response from either Dr. Zehngebot or Dr. Dunn; thus, another call was placed to Dr. Dunn's office. A message was left with a nurse in Dr. Dunn's office that B.P.'s husband was at the hospital to pick up his wife and that they were still waiting for an answer from the doctor's office. At 2 p.m., Dr. Dunn returned the telephone 12:30 p.m. call from the hospital. He was aware of the laboratory results. Although, the white cell count and the platelet count were similar to what they had been in his office on October 3, the hemoglobin count was up to 10.9; thus, Dr. Dunn felt that the transfusion had accomplished its purpose by raising the hemoglobin count above ten. The nurse gave him a patient status update and advised him that B.P. was alert and oriented times three and that her vital signs were stable. Dr. Dunn was aware at the time of his two o'clock telephone call that B.P. had fallen; however, the record does not clearly establish that Dr. Dunn knew that B.P. had sustained bruises to her head as a result of the fall or that B.P. had headaches after her fall. He did not order a neurological consult nor did he go to the hospital to examine B.P. before he gave the order to discharge B.P. at 2:00 p.m. Normally a physician may not come to the hospital to examine a patient while the patient is at the hospital to receive a transfusion on an out-patient basis. Dr. Dunn did not see B.P. from the time she went to Sand Lake Hospital on October 3, 2000, and the time he discharged her on October 4, 2000. On October 6, 2000, Dr. Dunn received a telephone call from B.P.'s husband, who told Dr. Dunn that B.P. had slipped and fallen on the way to the bathroom and was now having headaches and nausea. Dr. Dunn told the husband to take B.P. to the emergency room at ORMC, called the hospital, and ordered a stat CT scan to be done as soon as B.P. arrived at the hospital. Dr. Dunn went to the hospital to see B.P. B.P. was diagnosed with Traumatic Subdural Hematoma, admitted to ORMC, and referred to a neurosurgeon who, on October 16, 2000, performed an evacuation of the hematoma. B.P. died on October 22, 2000. The Department called Dr. Howard R. Abel as its expert witness. Dr. Abel opined that Dr. Dunn fell below the standard of care because he did not go to the hospital and evaluate B.P., or if Dr. Dunn could not go to the hospital, he did not request a neurological consultation. Dr. Abel's opinion is premised on the assumption that Dr. Dunn was aware that B.P. had sustained head trauma when she fell. Dr. Abel further opined that if Dr. Dunn were not aware that B.P. had suffered a head trauma, Dr. Dunn did not fall below the standard of care by not going to the hospital or ordering a neurological consultation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Philip Herbert Dunn, M.D., did not violate Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2000), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 20th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Levine, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Michael R. D'Lugo, Esquire Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A. Post Office Box 2753 Orlando, Florida 32802-2753 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's medical licensure should be subjected to discipline for the reasons asserted in the Administrative Complaint, involving his alleged malpractice concerning patient, E.L.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent at all times material hereto has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. ME0030859. The Respondent practices at 1800 N.E. Street, Suite 521, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida. It is charged by the Legislature, as pertinent hereto, with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and related rules, pertaining to the regulation of licensure and the quality of practice of medical doctors within the State of Florida. The Respondent is a board-certified dermatologist, practicing that specialty in the State of Florida in excess of 15 years. There is no evidence of any prior disciplinary action against the Respondent's licensure nor of any prior instance when his practice failed to conform to appropriate professional standards. In the course of his practice, the Respondent sometimes does his own microscopic pathological examination of tissue samples taken from patients (biopsies) on occasions when he deems it appropriate and that a consulting opinion is not required. It is undisputed by the parties that a dermatologist such as the Respondent, who had extensive training in dermatopathology during his medical education, can appropriately do such biopsy work within the standard of care of a reasonable physician practicing under similar conditions and circumstances. If he does so, however, he is held to the standard of a dermatopathologist in the course of his professional practice. The Respondent treated E.L. (an 80-year-old male patient at times pertinent hereto) since approximately 1982 for various problems involving pathology of the skin, including skin carcinoma. On November 21, 1991, E.L. presented as a patient of the Respondent showing a crusty area measuring approximately 1 x 2 centimeters on the vertex of his scalp or the back of his head. The lesion in question appeared on the skin with a hard crust, whitish or yellowish in color, and the Respondent diagnosed it as hypertrophic actinic keratosis. This is sometimes a pre-cancerous condition of the skin. Upon making his diagnosis, which he did clinically, without biopsy, the Respondent performed a curettage, or scraping of the tissue, to remove and destroy it. He did this by injecting the area with lidocaine as an anesthetic before performing the curettage. The Respondent had previously treated the same sort of condition on E.L. with liquid nitrogen but chose, this time, to treat the lesion with extension cautery and curettage. He did this because he was attempting to lessen the discomfort in his 80-year-old patient, who had already undergone a number of procedures to remove pre-cancerous or cancerous lesions of the skin on his head. The use of liquid nitrogen and the associated burning of the tissues involved would cause more difficult healing and discomfort for the patient. The treatment which the Respondent accorded the actinic keratosis condition, by curettage, is an acceptable, appropriate treatment for such a condition. It is undisputed by either the Petitioner's or the Respondent's expert witnesses, as well as the Respondent in his testimony, that such a clinical diagnosis and the following treatment by curettage is within the professional standard of care and practice by dermatologists practicing under similar conditions and circumstances. A biopsy is not a necessary prerequisite to such treatment. After the November 21, 1991 destruction of the skin lesion, the patient did not return for approximately one month. On December 19, 1991, he returned to the Respondent concerned about possible infection at the removal site. The Respondent, however, detected only granulation tissue, which are normal granular projections on the surface of a normally-healing wound. Consequently, there was no reason within the bounds of reasonable medical treatment standards for the Respondent to have biopsied the lesion area on that office visit occasion, either. Patient E.L. returned on January 3, 1992, at which point the Respondent noted a minor area of "dermatitis" or a non-cancerous inflammation of the skin, for which he prescribed a cortisone ointment. The Respondent did no biopsy at that time, either, and the clear and convincing evidence does not demonstrate that a biopsy was required under those conditions and circumstances within acceptable, reasonable bounds of the Respondent's professional practice. Patient E.L. returned to the Respondent on January 23, 1992 complaining of unsatisfactory progress with the healing of the lesion. The lesion by that time had become a rounded, raised growth with central cratering, characteristic of a keratoacanthoma. The Respondent examined the lesion or tumor clinically and determined that it appeared to be a keratoacanthoma. A keratoacanthoma is a rapidly-growing nodule with a central "crater", which then fills with a crusty material. It usually remains localized and most often resolves itself spontaneously, even if untreated. On very rare occasions does it become an aggressively-growing tumor. The Respondent biopsied the suspected keratoacanthoma by performing an excision of the area. He excised the nodule, taking a narrow margin of several millimeters around it and then performed a suture closure of the wound. He performed a biopsy of the tissue thus taken himself and interpreted the biopsy results approximately one week later as confirming his clinical diagnosis of a keratoacanthoma. Keratoacanthoma is regarded as a "low-grade" form of squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based upon a clinical observation with the naked eye, based upon history, as well as by pathological diagnosis. Conservative treatment is appropriate for a keratoacanthoma since they often resolve themselves spontaneously. Simple observation, surgical excision, curettage with or without electro-desiccation, radiation therapy, intra-lesional injection, and topical application of 5-fluorouracil and methotrexate are all acceptable forms of treatment for keratoacanthoma and can be reasonably expected to cure the condition. On rare occasions, keratoacanthoma can recur, even with such treatment. The diagnosis and treatment of keratoacanthoma is a matter of good- faith differences of opinion among reasonable dermatologists and pathologists, based upon their clinical judgment and experience. Some diagnose it as keratoacanthoma, which is a low-grade form of squamous cell carcinoma; and some diagnose it as squamous cell carcinoma with varying degrees of "differentiation". The photograph of the lesion as it was seen by the Respondent prior to the January 23, 1992 surgery shows a lesion consistent with the clinical appearance of a keratoacanthoma. The Respondent has been properly trained as a dermatologist in dermatopathology, and he commonly reviews biopsy and pathology slides. He is not required, under pertinent practice standards, to seek consultation when he believes that he has made a proper diagnosis. It was proper for him to read and review the pathology slide of the biopsy specimen, even though he himself acknowledges, as do the two expert witnesses, that he would be held to a dermatopathologist's professional practice standard by doing so. The Respondent opined that actinic keratosis developed into the keratoacanthoma. Dr. Breza, the Petitioner's expert witness, opined that actinic keratosis does not develop into keratoacanthoma but, rather, into squamous cell carcinoma. Even he acknowledged, however, that good pathologists have trouble making the diagnosis of keratoacanthoma and prefer generally to diagnosis such conditions as simply "low-grade" squamous cell carcinoma. Dr. Hanke, in his testimony, established that keratoacanthoma and squamous cell carcinoma are different gradients of diagnosis on the same continuum or range describing squamous cell carcinoma. That is, in lay terms, a keratoacanthoma is a "low-grade" squamous cell carcinoma. They are not precisely the same diagnosis, but both diagnoses describe the same general type of cells. As shown by Dr. Breza, squamous cell carcinoma tumors or lesions generally tend to appear somewhat flatter than that characteristic of a keratoacanthoma. Squamous cell carcinomas tend to be more indurated or firm on the outer edges and to have more inflammation on the outer edges, including occasional ulceration. The Respondent's description in E.L.'s medical record seems more consistent with squamous cell carcinoma, but the photographic images of the growth or lesion at issue, made at the time the biopsy and excision was performed, appear also consistent with keratoacanthoma. Based upon the information, including clinical appearance, that the Respondent had to consider in making his diagnosis and given that reasonable pathologists can differ concerning the gradients of diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (which includes keratoacanthoma), as shown by the expert testimony, the Respondent's diagnosis does not constitute a departure from appropriate, professional standards. The deficiency in the Respondent's practice in this instance began with the excision made on January 23, 1992. The Respondent took the tissue material from the excision for biopsy and, after pathological examination of the sample, diagnosed the nodule as keratoacanthoma. The Respondent, however, did not establish a "negative margin" for the excision. That is, the tissue removed had positive margins, especially the deep margin, which means that carcinoma cells could be observed on the surface of the piece of tissue removed. This means that the Respondent could not be assured that carcinoma cells did not remain in the tissue area surrounding the walls of the excision site because the margin of the excision around the nodule to be removed was not wide enough. The same slide and tissue sample which the Respondent used for biopsy in January 1992 was examined by a dermatopathologist, but not until some six months later, in July 1992. The dermatopathologist reported his opinion that the biopsy showed an "infiltrating squamous cell carcinoma with involvement of the lateral and deep margins." An infiltrating carcinoma implies that it is a more aggressive tumor than would be the case with a normal keratoacanthoma. The Respondent did not report those positive margins from the results of his excision and biopsy in January 1992. His testimony indicates that he may have seen them or been aware of them but did not make a larger incision in order to achieve a negative margin because of his concern about the complicated closure techniques that would be necessary. He was concerned with attendant additional discomfort to this elderly patient, as might be entailed with the possible use of grafting in order to make closure of the wound. He also seemed to discount the need to excise a larger margin because of his belief that he was dealing with a non-aggressive keratoacanthoma. In fact, however, the clear and convincing evidence shows that a larger margin wound could have been excised without the necessity for more elaborate techniques of closure and attendant discomfort to the patient. Moreover, it was established that even this elderly patient, with his attendant heart problems, could have tolerated a more elaborate excision of the tumor in question, since the procedure could still be done under low-risk local anesthesia in the Respondent's office. An infiltrating carcinoma is one which is more aggressive. It can move from its original location and infiltrate the skin and blood vessels, which can, in some cases, result in the tumor spreading via the blood stream or by infiltrating the lymphatic system, with migration to regional lymph nodes. The squamous cell carcinoma is not known for being a readily metastasizing form of cancer. It is known on some occasions to metastasize, however. The finding of positive margins on the pathological examination in July 1992 means that the tumor extended to the cut surface of the excision at the time of the January excision procedure from which that biopsy sample was taken. Thus, tumor cells remained in the patient's scalp after the January 1992 excision procedure. The finding of a positive margin requires that another margin be established, meaning that the physician must cut another level of tissue until normal skin (a negative margin) is revealed. This can be done by conventional surgery, by just a larger excision area being removed, or by "MOHS" surgery, which involves freezing sections of the excision area, with small portions of the suspicious area removed at a time and with attendant pathology examinations so that each "thread" of cancer cells can be removed with minimal damage to surrounding tissues and less attendant discomfort and healing problems associated with the resulting surgical wound. The patient could have tolerated either type of procedure in January 1992. The Respondent did not establish a negative margin, however. He only excised the carcinoma once. He stated that he was really seeking only a biopsy sample and that he considered the treatment by excision of the nodule itself and attendant scraping of the wound to be adequate as conservative treatment, to take care of what he believed to be a non-aggressive keratoacanthoma. This may be a correct assessment if the physician is certain that he is confronted with a non-aggressive, non-infiltrating keratoacanthoma. However, if positive margins to the excisional wound result, the patient is better served, and a successful treatment result much more likely, if all suspected carcinoma cells are removed at that time. If the Respondent knew of the positive margins to the excision and had made an additional excision to remove all positive margins, the provision of additional, more elaborate treatment techniques would not have been delayed for nearly six months and likely would have been unnecessary. The determination of the existence of positive margins, after the January 1992 excision procedure, should have caused him to remove additional tissue to obtain a safe, negative margin. That failure of care, in his capacity as a dermatopathologist, resulted in a six-month delay before the dermatopathologist, at Sacred Heart Hospital, identified the positive margins. He identified them on the Respondent's same January 1992 pathological slide, when he examined it in July 1992, after which radiation and further more radical treatment was attempted. Thus, the delay in treatment action, resulting from the delay in acting on the existence of positive margins by the Respondent, resulted in a six-month delay in appropriate treatment being provided the patient, which is a deviation from the accepted standard of care, as established by the testimony of Dr. Breza, which is accepted in this regard. Earlier determination (or acting on a determination) of the positive margins, after the January 1992 excision procedure would have alerted the Respondent that the excision procedure was unsuccessful and that further treatment was necessary. The patient's lesion occurred on a sun-damaged scalp. The Respondent had treated the patient repeatedly for sun-damaged skin problems, including carcinomas, in the past. Squamous cell carcinomas can be susceptible to mestastases, either regional or systemic when they are located on the scalp, although they are much less susceptible to such mestastases than if they are located on the lip or possibly the dorsal surface of the hand. The Respondent, as a board-certified dermatologist, knew or should have known that the scalp is an area of the body that can be susceptible to metastatic disease such as squamous cell carcinoma. The patient, as even acknowledged by the Respondent's expert, Dr. Hanke, was one with a high risk for developing skin cancer. In any event, after the excision procedure on January 23, 1992, the patient was seen on February 10, 1992 for removal of sutures and examination of the wound. It appeared to be healing nicely at the time, and the patient was advised to return to the Respondent in three months, unless a problem developed. The Respondent next saw the patient on April 6, 1992, when he complained of persistent pain at the excision and tumor site. This was treated by the Respondent by drainage, antibiotics, narcotic pain medications, and sleep- inducers. Later during the treatment regimen, in approximately May 1992, the Respondent felt that chemotherapy was indicated because apparently, the lesion had not been completely excised. Consequently, he prescribed injections of intralesional cortisone methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil. These, however, did not produce satisfactory healing or control of the pain. During April and May 1992, the Respondent saw the patient for complaints of persistent pain, poor healing, and drainage of the wound. On May 18, 1992, the Respondent performed a drainage of the lesion which had begun to show an abscess formation. An abscess formation is an indicator of squamous cell carcinoma, which should have been recognized by the Respondent. This should have alerted him that his diagnosis of simply keratoacanthoma was not correct, at least by that time. With the presence of these continuing and exacerbated problems with the wound site, the Respondent did not seek or perform further biopsy of the tumor site, despite continued complaints of persistent pain and further growth of the lesion between April and July 1992. The patient made 16 visits to the Respondent between April 1992 and July 14, 1992 for treatment and pain relief. During this time, little improvement occurred in the patient's condition, but no additional biopsy or consultation was requested or performed by the Respondent. The lack of improvement in E.L.'s condition during the period of April through July 1992 should have alerted the Respondent that something was incorrect about the patient's condition and that more extensive radical treatment would be necessary. In fact, the Respondent did respond to the continued complaints by, in addition to prescribing antibiotics and pain medication, prescribing the above- referenced intralesional injections of cortisone, methotrexate, and 5- fluorouracil. On July 9, 1992, another curettage procedure was performed and the pathology of the scrapings was sent for evaluation by a pathologist. The Respondent's interpretation of this tissue at the time apparently was a keratoacanthoma; well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. This was ultimately described by the pathologist to whom it was referred as a moderately- differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. Subsequently, after the C&D procedure, the patient was referred to Baptist Hospital in Pensacola, Florida, for radiation therapy. He received a full-course of radiation therapy with some booster therapy afterward and then, on his own volition, went for a second opinion to the University of South Alabama Medical Center in Mobile, Alabama. Five physicians at that facility recommended more extensive surgery, which ultimately the patient refused. There is no clear and convincing evidence that, at least at that point in the patient's progress, the persistent tumor had actually mestastized, although it was apparently growing locally. The fact that the lesion at issue was failing to heal and producing persistent pain by the visit of April 6, 1992 should have been interpreted so as to set in motion further investigative procedures, including an additional biopsy, to find out the reason for that condition and its persistence. Although a proper procedure involving excision and biopsy was done in January of 1992, the frozen sections of the lesion could have been interpreted to show that the tumor was an infiltrating carcinoma extending to the lateral and deep margins of the excision and something more aggressive could have been done to treat it at that time. It could have either been re-excised with frozen section control of the margins, referred to a "MOHS'" surgeon for a similar type of surgery or referred to a general surgeon. Radiation therapy could have been tried, at least by the time the persistence of the problem was determinable in April of 1992. The resultant reduction of delay in securing more extensive treatment of the lesion would have certainly benefited the patient. The persistence of the pain in the six-month period of time after the January 1992 excision of the tumor, until just before the time the patient was referred for radiation therapy indicates there was probably perineural invasion by the tumor (infiltration of the nerves), which produced pain. This should have alerted the Respondent that something more than a non-aggressive keratoacanthoma was involved, as well. In summary, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent failed to practice medicine within that level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent, similarly-situated physicians as acceptable under the circumstances, by failing to make an additional biopsy after the patient re- presented with problems associated with persistent pain and improper healing in April 1992; by failing to recognize and act on the presence of positive margins to the excision material taken in January 1992, to effect an additional excision at that time, so as to secure a safe, negative margin to the tumor. The failure to obtain consultation on the biopsy taken from a dermatopathologist was not in itself evidence of falling below appropriate professional levels of care, skill and treatment, but the Respondent, by doing his own interpretation of the biopsies was, as he agrees, creating a situation in which he would be held to the same standard as a dermatopathologist. The failure to correctly interpret the biopsy he took in January 1992, by failing to recognize the positive margins to the excised material and failing to act to remove those indicia of the continued presence of the tumor, at a time when it was thus easily excised, likely prevented an easily-effected cure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, in the manner concluded above, and that the Respondent receive a private reprimand, a $2,000.00 fine, and that he be required to attend 20 additional hours of Category I continuing medical education in the area of diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 30th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3531 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-8. Accepted. 9-10. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Rejected, as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. The evidence does not reflect that one biopsy sample only showed one part of the lesion at issue but, rather, several parts were represented. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. 15-21. Accepted. 22-24. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 25-26. Accepted. 27. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 28-36. Accepted. 37-41. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 42-44. Accepted. 45. Rejected, as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 46-53. Accepted, but not in their entirety materially dispositive. 54. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 55-56. Accepted. Rejected, as not in its entirety supported by clear and convincing evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted, to the extent of failing to practice medicine within the appropriate standard of care by not making earlier and more frequent biopsies only. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-17. Accepted. 18. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 19-20. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and as not entirely in accord with the clear and convincing evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted, but not necessarily as to its material import and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, which contain additional findings of fact not contained in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 23 and which are material, relevant, and necessary to a clear picture of the patient's progress and treatment rendered during the period of April 6, 1992 through July 14, 1992. Accepted, but not as to its purported material import. Rejected, as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not as to its purported material import. 27-31. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Senior Attorney Mary Anne Davies, Certified Legal Extern Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Donald Partington, Esq. CLARK, PARTINGTON, ET AL. Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, FL 32591-3010 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esq. General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32309
