The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Medicaid payments which they received or whether the claims filed by Petitioners were improper. At hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of Gary Allen Kitos; Joseph Namey, D.O.: Herbert Moselli; Robert Grenitz, M.D.; Mary Bone; Herbert Topol, D.O.; Sylvan Goldin, D.O.; and Mildred Martin. Topol Exhibits 1-3 and 5 were admitted in evidence. Goldin Exhibits 1-4, 6 and 7 were admitted in evidence. Topol-Goldin General Practice (GP) Exhibits 1-7 and 35-37 were admitted in evidence. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) presented the testimony of Jules J. Cohen, D.O.; Morton T. Smith, D.O.; and Mildred Martin. HRS also presented the testimony by deposition of Lawrence E. Stivers and Michael W. Forsthoefel, M.D. HRS Exhibits 1-23 were admitted in evidence. Joint Exhibits 1-4 were also admitted, which include three inventory lists and four separate large boxes of patient records. The parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix hereto and made a part hereof.
Findings Of Fact During 1932, Petitioners Goldin, Topol, and the Topol- Goldin General Practice Clinic were all operating out of the same facility but each billed Medicaid under a separate physician provider number. Medicaid is a joint state and federal program that is completely voluntary. In entering into a provider agreement with Medicaid, Topol, Goldin and the General Practice Clinic agreed to abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Rules, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and federal laws and regulations. Under the Medicaid Program, a state may limit the services provided for under federal regulations. As part of the requirements for participation in Medicaid, the State of Florida has a peer review process to monitor all providers. Peer review is a recognized process utilized by third party payors (such as Medicaid, Medicare and insurance companies) to assure that they are getting the services for which they are paying. Florida's Medicaid peer review process is modeled after the federal Medicare Program's process. In Florida approximately 7,000 physicians are enrolled in the Medicaid program at any one time. In order to monitor all of these physicians' practices, the Medicaid Program reviews those physicians whose practice exceeds the parameters of the average Medicaid physician's practice. Reviews of physicians' practices number between 60 to 85 physicians per year. Approximately 40-50% of those physicians reviewed are referred for peer review. The Medicaid review for physicians consists of a Level I review of the physician's activity in the program compared to the physician's peers. If the physician exceeds the upper limits in the Level I review, a desk review is done by medical consultants who review a "claims detail" of all claims for payment made by the provider. If further review is needed, a disproportionate stratified random sample (DSRS) of the physician's claims is obtained and the physician's patient records for those claims are obtained. The physician's records are first reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant who determines if peer review is necessary. After a peer review is done, an in-house consultant does a line-by-line evaluation based on the peer review findings and medical necessity and makes a recommendation for denial of claims. Those claims denied are then converted into an amount of money for disallowance. The Medicaid program does not review physicians just because of the amount of money they make in the program. In September of 1981 the Medicaid Investigative Section requested updates on providers who had previously been investigated in 1977. Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were among those providers. Cases for review were then opened for Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice-Clinic in 1982. A preliminary cursory review of the practices of Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic was prepared by a nursing consultant who recommended that the investigation go forward. During the same time period that the review of Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic was beginning, a separate review of a Medicaid recipient raised questions of pingponging (going from one doctor to another) between Drs. Topol and Goldin that would justify a further review of their practice. In February and March of 1983, Level II Review reports (desk analysis) were issued on Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic. These reports contained the Level I Reviews, documentation of the provider's 1982 Medicaid practice, complaints, conclusions, and recommendations. The Level I Review reports included in the Level II Review indicated those areas where the providers exceeded the upper limits of their peers. For example, Dr. Goldin averaged 1,998 Medicaid office visits per quarter compared to an average of 86 for other Medicaid physicians. Dr. Goldin's average exceeded two standard deviations above the average for his peers. The Level II Reviews concluded that the allegations of overutilization for Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic had been substantiated and it was recommended that they be referred to Peer Review. In March of 1983, a meeting was held to discuss these cases because of their complicated nature. At that meeting, Mildred Martin was instructed to proceed with Peer Review In preparing for Peer Review, disproportionate stratified random samples (DHRS) for Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were obtained. A DSRS is the tabulation of the provider's activities or the amounts paid to him for each recipient during a specific period of time. It lists the recipients in ascending order of amounts paid to the provider. Total amounts of the payments made during the period are divided into five strata of the same or close to the same amounts of money. A DSRS is used to give an overall view of the physician's practice. On each DSRS the computer randomly picked 30 patients for a detailed review of their patient records. Because of the volume of practice of Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic, it would not have been fair to evaluate their entire practice using only 30 records. Therefore, HRS decided to review 7% of records of Topol and Goldin. The General Practice Clinic records were reviewed as randomly selected by the computer. In order to enlarge the sample to 7%, Ms. Martin utilized a random selection process employed by Medicare, which entailed selecting every third patient beginning from the bottom of each strata and working up until a 7% sample was achieved. This does mean that patients in the 7% samples represent the patients in each strata for whom the highest claims were made. When the same patient record appeared in two different samples, the next patient on the list was used to avoid duplication and disallowance of two of the providers for the same patient. The records selected for review were selected randomly and selected utilizing generally accepted statistical techniques. In June of 1983, Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were requested to submit the records of those claims selected from the DSRS and the 7% sample process. When it was obvious that the records received were not complete, Ms. Martin contacted the offices of Goldin, Topol and the General Practice Clinic, requesting the missing records. Those records received from Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were referred to the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association's (FOMA) Peer Review Committee along with information indicating the areas of concern and a letter of explanation from Dr. Goldin. The FOMA Peer Review Committee is an independent organization made up of approximately ten osteopathic physicians from various parts of the State of Florida. The FOMA contracts with third party carriers (Medicaid) to review peers. The cases supplied to the FOMA Peer Review Committee are reviewed and discussed and the committee issues its opinion on overutilization. The FOMA Peer Review Committee's findings are either no overutilization, minimal overutilization (5-20%) overutilization), moderate overutilization (20-50%) or excessive overutilization (over 50%). Upon receipt of the referral from HRS, the FOMA Peer Review Committee set up a meeting and invited Drs. Topol and Goldin. At that meeting held April 28, 1984, eight (8) physicians of the Peer Review Committee reviewed the charts and interviewed Drs. Topol and Goldin. The Peer Review Committee looked for a trend in the physicians' overall practice. The Peer Review Committee found that the records were poorly documented and difficult to read. The Peer Review Committee found that the patients were being seen more than medically necessary. It was a consensus of the members of the FOMA Peer Review Committee that there was moderate overutilization. By letters dated May 9, 1984, the FOMA Peer Review Committee notified Drs. Topol and Goldin and HRS of their findings. The medical records of Topo1 and Goldin were then sent to Dr. Michael Forsthoefel, M.D., for a line-by-line disallowance of services based upon the Medicaid rules and regulations and the Peer Review Committee's findings. Dr. Forsthoefel disallowed an amount of claims in the range of 30-35% which fell within the level of moderate overutilization (20-50%) determined by the Peer Review Committee, however, since Dr. Forsthoefel was an M.D. and not a D.O., HRS decided that in all fairness the determinations should be made by a D.O. who was a peer of the doctors being reviewed. The medical records of Topol and Goldin under review were-then sent to Dr. Morton T. Smith, D.O., for the line-by- line determination. In order to assure further fairness of the review, Dr. Smith was instructed not to review and disallow any claims by a physician that appeared on a record of the other physician being reviewed. As a result of the new review by Dr. Smith and the instructions given him, the total amount disallowed dropped to 16 or 17%. (The Transcript, p. 635, says 60-70%, but that is a typographical error and should read 16-17%). It is found that the peer review and the disallowances by Dr. Smith were reasonable and accurate. It was then necessary to apply the amount disallowed in the 7% sample to the overall Medicaid claims of Topol and Goldin. HRS performed this calculation by determining the average overpayment for the recipients in each strata sample and multiplying that average by the total number of recipients in each strata. However, because the samples were selected from those recipients in each strata with the highest claims (See Finding of Fact 32), the "average overpayment per recipient" method of extending the overpayments in each sample to the total population of claims is arbitrarily skewed. The result is that Topol and Goldin were exposed to liability greatly in excess of the total amount claimed. The more reasonable method for extending the overpayments in each sample to the total population of claims would be to determine the percentage of disallowed claims in each strata sample and to apply that percentage to the total paid in each strata. For example for Dr. Goldin in Strata I a total of $922 was paid and $30 was disallowed, or a 3.25% disallowance. Applied to the total paid in that strata of $21,600.28, a total overpayment for Strata I is shown to be $702.01. Using this method of calculation, it is determined that Dr. Goldin has been overpaid as follows: Strata I $702.01 (30/922 X 21,600.28) Strata II $2,957.64 (204/1490.92 X 21,620.18) Strata III $2,238.49 (274.24/2378.94 X 21,627.92) Strata IV $3,506.92 (617.95/3805.88 X 21,594.33) Strata V $5,886.05 (1841.36/6729.80 X 21,513.33) Total $15,291.11 Using this method of calculation, it is determined that Dr. Topol has been overpaid as follows: Strata I $1,417.87 (60.98/728.16 X 16,939.88) Strata II $2,263.31 (160.00/1199.63 X 16,966.34) Strata III $2,099.45 (225.74/1823.52 X 16,958.37) Strata IV $2,335.17 (402.96/2935.57 X 17,007.75) Strata V $4,195.75 (1358.14/5443.97 X 16,816.65) Total $12,311.55 The General Practice Clinic was treated differently because it was operated differently. The provider number issued to the General Practice Clinic was applied for and granted to Drs. Topol and Goldin as authorized agents. General Practice Clinic was actually operated and run by Mary Petruff Bone. At the General Practice Clinic, Ms. Bone prescribed and mixed antigens for allergy patients, determined what testings were to be done, and handled other medical problems of patients. Neither Dr. Topol nor Dr. Goldin had any expertise in the field of allergy treatment. The records of the General Practice Clinic were the responsibility and the product of Ms. Bone. At all times material hereto, Ms. Bone was a certified physician's assistant competent to provide services to allergy patients. A physician's assistant is not a physician. At all times material hereto, physicians' assistants could not receive a provider number from Medicaid under which they could bill the Medicaid Program. Ms. Bone billed Medicaid for her services under the General-Practice Clinic's physician provider number. Medicaid was billed for physician's services by the General Practice Clinic even though a physician did not see the patient. It is not usual and customary practice for physicians to bill for their services when they do not see the patients. The State of Florida's Medicaid Program does not authorize payment for services to a physician's assistant under the supervision of a physician. The Medicaid program paid $75,654.73 to the General Practice Clinic in 1982 under its physician provider number. Medicaid did not learn that the General Practice Clinic's billings were for non-physician's services until the Peer Review Committee met with Petitioners on April 28, 1984. For the General Practice Clinic, Dr. Goldin admitted that $40,642.85 should have been disallowed due to improper billing procedures. The $40,642.85 calculated by Dr. Goldin did not take into account any possible double billing or the fact that the clinic's services were performed by a physician's assistant. The records for the General Practice Clinic were not referred to a physician consultant because the payment denials were due strictly to noncompliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, not the overutilization findings of the Peer Review Committee. Medicaid claims for the General Practice Clinic were denied for four basic reasons: 1) No records provided to substantiate the claim; 2) improper billing for B-12 injections; 3) duplicate billing where the General Practice Clinic and Topo or Goldin billed on the same day; and 4) office visits not rendered by a physician. Antigen injections and allergy testing were not disallowed in the claims submitted by the General Practice Clinic because those services are commonly reimbursable when done by someone other than a physician under a physician's supervision. The amounts disallowed for the sample of claims for the General Practice Clinic was then applied to the overall clinic practice in the same manner that the Topol and Goldin amounts were applied to their practice in order to obtain an amount owed the HRS Medicaid Program for the disallowed services. However, again the method used by HRS to extend the overpayment amount determined from the sample to the total population of claims is unreasonable because it does not accurately project the total amount overpaid. For example, in Strata I for the General Practice Clinic, a total of $15,177.73 in Medicaid benefits were paid in 1982. Yet, using the HRS method, a total overpayment of $22,201.44 is determined for that strata, or $7,023.71 more than was ever paid in that strata. Such a result must be unreasonable. If instead the percentage method applied above is used, it is determined that the General Practice Clinic has been overpaid as follows: Strata I $12,659.76 (362/434 X 15,177.73) Strata II $12,784.78 (1447/1719 X 15,188.00) Strata III $12,578.68 (3284/4001 X 15,325.00) Strata IV $13,102.67 (4244/4969 X 15,341.00) Strata V $12,215.79 (5369/6427 X 14,623.00) Total S63,341.68 Some disallowances were made on all three provider numbers because no documentation was provided, even after Ms. Martin asked a second time. These disallowances are proper and correct because Medicaid will not pay for services where there is no documentation justifying the services. The fact that Petitioners now claim to have that documentation is irrelevant to the correctness of the disallowances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order which provides: That Dr. Herbert Topol, D.O., reimburse the Medicaid Program for $12,311.55 in Medicaid overpayments for 1982. That Dr. Sylvan Goldin, D.O., reimburse the Medicaid Program for $15,291.11 in Medicaid overpayments for 1982. That the Topol-Goldin General Practice reimburse the Medicaid Program for $63,341.68 in Medicaid overpayments for 1982. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert Topol, D.O. 1111 W. Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Sylvan Goldin, D.O. 1111 W. Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr., Secretary Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Petitioners' proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 32. Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 76. Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 77. Proposed Finding of Fact 39 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 70. Proposed Finding of Fact 52 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 55. . 6. Proposed Findings of Fact 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 47 and 48 are rejected as constituting argument and as being conclusory. 7. Proposed Findings of Fact 2, 4, 16, 22, 23, 24, 30, 33, 35, 36, 40, 46, 49 and 50 are subordinate to the fact actually found. 8. Proposed Findings of Fact 7, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45 and 46 are irrelevant and/or unnecessary. 9. Proposed Findings of Fact 17, 25, 28, 32, 43 and 51 are not supported by the competent, substantiated evidence. Additionally, Proposed Findings of Fact 25, 28 and 32 are based on and refer to exhibits which were not admitted in evidence. The exhibits are attached to the proposed order and are rejected as an inappropriate attempt to supplement the record. Rulings on Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact. Each of the following proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the pro- posed Findings of Fact: 1(1); 2(58); 3(59); 4(60); 5(S1); 6(62); 7(63); 8(64); 9(65); 10(66); 11(67); 12(68); 13(69), 14(70) 15(71); 16(72); 17(60); 18(2); 19(3); 20(4); 21(5); 22(6); 24(7) 25(8); 26(9); 27(10); 28(11); 29(12); 30(13); 31(14); 32(15), 33(16); 34(17); 35(18); 36(19); 37(20); 38(21); 39(22); 40(23). 41(24); 42(25); 43(26); 44(27); 45(28); 46(29); 47(30); 48(31), 49(32); 50(33); 51(34); 52(35); 53(36) 54(37); 55(38); 56(39). 57(40); 58(41); 59(42); 60(43); 61(44); 62(45); 64(46); 65(47) 66(48). 67(49); 68(50); 69(51); 70(53); 74(73); 75(74); 76(76); 79(75); 81(78). Proposed Findings of Fact 23, 63, and 80 are irrelevant. Proposed Findings of Fact 71, 72, 73, 77 and 78 are subordinate to the facts found.
The Issue Should the certificate of registration of Petitioner, Professional Pain Management, Inc., License No. PMC 296, as a privately-owned pain management clinic, be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Professional Pain Management, Inc., License No. 296, is a pain management clinic (PMC) subject to the requirements of sections 458.3265 and 459.0137, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ PMC 296 is not wholly-owned by medical doctors (M.D.s), osteopathic physicians (D.O.s), or a combination of M.D.s and D.O.s. PMC 296 is not a health care clinic licensed under chapter 400, part X, Florida Statutes. PMC 296 has three equity shareholders. Their names and percentages of ownership interests are: Robert Ciceles (20 percent); Terra Hom (40 percent), and Erez Cohen (40 percent). None of the three equity shareholders is a physician, M.D. or D.O. Erez Cohen is, and at all pertinent times, has been president of PMC 296. He is not an M.D. or a D.O. Since at least August 2010, the owners and officers of PMC 296 were aware of the requirement that it be wholly physician-owned, effective October 1, 2010. PMC 296 was, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, not wholly-owned by physicians, M.D.s, D.O.s, or a combination of M.D.s and D.O.s. A dispute among the shareholders arising out of a dissolution of marriage proceeding has prevented PMC 296 from establishing ownership by a M.D., a D.O. or a combination of M.D.s and D.O.s. Management of PMC 296 plans to transfer ownership to physicians at an unspecified future date once the shareholder dispute is resolved. There was no evidence of any exemption from the operation of sections 458.3265 and 459.0137 presented at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health issue a final order revoking the certificate of registration of Professional Pain Management, Inc., License No. PMC 296. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Ruth Rogers is a licensed medical physician authorized to practice medicine in this state. The Complaint allegations centered around testimony of the Respondent, Ruth Rogers, during a custody proceeding in which the Child Protective Services (a State Agency) was attempting to gain custody of one Dena (Nikki) Decker based on facts which will be set forth in detail hereinafter. Jack McGowan, a medical doctor engaged primarily in pediatrics in Fort Pierce, Florida, testified that he first treated Dena Decker during August of 1973, at which time Decker was approximately seven weeks old. Dr. McGowan made subsequent treatments of Dena Deckur on a regular basis through December of 1976. During December, Dr. McGowan noted that Decker's lymph glands were enlarged and he ordered that certain lab work be performed, the results of which were returned to him sometime during early January of 1977. Based on the lab results, Dr. McGowan tentatively diagnosed Dena Decker as being a patient suffering from acute leukemia. To confirm this diagnosis, he referred her to the Shands Teaching Medical Center in Gainesville, wherein Dr. McGowan's diagnosis was confirmed. The treating physicians of Patient Decker at Shands Teaching Hospital were Drs. Jerry L. Arbosa and David Pockmore. It was their medical opinion that Dena was in fact suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia and that this disease should be treated by chemotherapy at Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville. Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore explained to the parents of Dena Decker the benefits and side effects of chemotherapy treatment, and they suggested that this was the best method of treating a patient such as Dena Decker, who was suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia. They noted, however, that there were some side effects, such as loss of hair and the destruction of certain "good" cells as well as "bad" cells. Dema Decker's parents requested time to consider the chemotherapy treatment and Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore stressed to her parents that "time was of the essence". After a few days, the parents of Dena Decker declined the treatment and at that juncture, Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore called in the Child Protective Services of Gainesville wherein a custody proceeding was convened, with the State seeking a custody award of Dena Decker. During that proceeding, Dr. Ruth Rogers, Respondent, testified that she would treat such a patient suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia with natural foods, herbs and optimal psychological support. It was Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore's opinion that the method of treatment outlined by the Respondent would be futile and that the patient would die in a short period of time. There was no evidence that the Respondent, Ruth Rogers, counseled with Dena Decker's parents or that she at any time treated Dena Decker by the method to which she testified during the custody proceeding in Gainesville. Following the conclusion of the Petitioner's case, Respondent's counsel moved for a directed verdict, summary judgment, or a judgment based on a failure on the Petitioner's part to establish a prima facie case. After some consideration, the undersigned concluded that, based on the evidence adduced during the Petitioner's case in chief, insufficient evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent had violated Chapter 458.1201(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged. Section 458.1201 is the section of the Medical Practices Act which deals with the power of the Board in the denial, suspension, revocation of license, and other discipline of medical practitioners. It reads, in pertinent part: "458.1201l--Demial, suspension, revocation of license; disciplinary powers-- The board shall have authority to deny an application for a license or to discipline a physician licensed under this chapter or any antecedent law who, after hearing, has been adjudged unqualified or guilty of the follow- ing: (Here is set forth several categories of disqualification or misconduct included in which is subsection (m))." Subsection (m) sets forth as grounds for. . . discipline of a physician, the following facets of misconduct: "(m) Being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct, incompetence, negligence or will- ful misconduct. Unprofessional conduct shall be any departure from, or the failure to conform to, the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice in his area of expertise as determined by the board, in which proceeding actual injury to a patient need not be established; when the same is committed in the course of his practice whether committed within or without this state." (Emphasis supplied) The administrative charge herein claimed to be proscribed by the above- quoted section of the statutes deals only with the testimony of the Respondent as to a method of treatment that she would use for treating acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Based on my examination of this record and an analysis of the reported case law, I conclude that the giving of such testimony is not proscribed unprofessional conduct as that term is included within this particular subsection of Chapter 485.1201(m). As the Court of Appeals stated in Lester v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Fla.App., 348 So.2d 923 (1977), the Court stated: "In construing the language and import of this statute we must bear in mind that it is, in effect, a penal statute since it imposes sanctions and penalties in the nature of denial of license, suspension from practice, revocation of license to practice, private or public reprimand, or probation, upon those found guilty of violating its prescriptions. This being true the statute must be strictly construed and no conduct is to be regarded as included within it that is not reasonably pro- scribed by it. Furthermore, if there are any ambiguities included such must be construed in favor of the applicant or licensee." This being so, I conclude that the above-cited conduct claimed to be violative of Chapter 458 is not proscribed by Chapter 458.1201(m) and I shall recommend that the Board enter a final administrative order dismissing the instant action against the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, hereby RECOMMEND: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein against the Respondent be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 201 Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Rogers, Esquire 3101 Maguire Boulevard Post Office Box 20065 Orlando, Florida 32814 George S. Palmer, M.D. Execuivo Director State of Florida, Board of Medical Examiners 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 220 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner correctly answered questions 37, 44, 49, 83, and 206 of the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating physician assistants. Sections 455.574 and 458.347(7), Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Molina sat for the Physician Assistant Examination administered on June 25 though 29, 1998. At the hearing, he disputed the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 37, 44, 49, 83, and 206 are incorrect. The questions that comprise the General Written Exam portion of the June 1998 Physician Assistant Examination were objective, multiple-choice questions. The questions were drawn from a bank of questions written by licensed physician assistants trained by a psychometrician employed by the Department. Prior to being included in the question bank, these questions were reviewed and field-tested to ensure that they were good, fair questions that adequately and reliably tested the applicant's ability to practice as a physician assistant with reasonable skill and safety. After the test questions for the June 1998 examination were selected from the question bank, the questions were reviewed before the examination and after the examination. The candidates taking the examination in June 1998 were directed in the instructions to the examination to choose the best answer from among four possible answers. This instruction was included in the examination booklet provided to each candidate, and the Department's normal procedure was to read the instructions aloud prior to the examination. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 37 is "C"; Mr. Molina chose answer "B." Although question 37 is, on its face, clear and unambiguous, the reference book relied upon by the Department to support its answer, although an authoritative source for physician assistants, does not, in fact, unambiguously support the Department's answer. Question 37 refers to the "entire anterior chest," and the answer to the question can be derived from the "Rule of Nines." The "Rule of Nines" is a standard rule used in the practice of medicine and is illustrated in an authoritative text entitled Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment, which contains a chart showing the outline of the human body divided into sections, each representing approximately nine percent of the body's surface area. The chart shows, in pertinent part, the trunk of the human body divided into the "posterior" upper trunk and the "posterior" lower trunk, with a line drawn somewhat above the umbilicus to illustrate the division of the trunk into the upper and lower portions. The Department's expert testified, without explanation, that the "entire anterior chest" is composed of both the upper and the lower trunk. This conclusion cannot be drawn from the chart contained in the reference book relied upon by the Department, and Mr. Molina's answer to question 37 is as reasonable as the answer the Department considers correct. Accordingly, Mr. Molina should receive credit for his answer to question 37. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 44 is "D"; Mr. Molina chose answer "B." Question 44 asks for the "MOST likely diagnosis" based on the facts contained in the question. Question 44 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from information included in the reference book entitled Ophthamology for the Primary Care Physician, which is considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 44 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. 3/ According to the Department, the correct answer to question 49 is "A"; Mr. Molina chose answer "C." Question 49 asks for the "MOST likely" diagnosis based on the facts contained in the question. Question 49 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in volume 1 of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a reference book included in the list of recommended books sent to the candidates for the Physician Assistant Examination and considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 49 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 83 is "D"; Mr. Molina chose answer "C." Question 83 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in volume 1 of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a reference book included in the list of recommended books sent to the candidates for the Physician Assistant Examination and considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 83 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 206 is "C"; Mr. Molina chose answer "A." Question 206 asks for the "MOST common" presentation of a precancerous lesion. Question 206 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in volume 2 of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a reference book included in the list of recommended books sent to the candidates for the Physician Assistant Examination and considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 206 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding that Nigel Molina is entitled to credit for his answer to question 37 of the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998; finding that Mr. Molina is not entitled to credit for his answers to questions 44, 49, 83, and 206 of the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998; and recalculating Mr. Molina's score on the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 8th day of February, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marty Johnsey (Johnsey), was at all times material hereto licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1766782. From November 10, 1986, to November 25, 1986, Johnsey was employed as a certified registered nurse anesthetist at Broward General Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On November 24, 1986, while on duty at Broward General, Johnsey was observed by Dr. Alfredo Ferrari, an anesthesiologist, to be in a rigid and cyanotic condition. Dr. Ferrari immediately summoned assistance, and Johnsey was placed on a stretcher, given respiratory assistance, and taken to the emergency room. While in the emergency room, Johnsey was administered Naloxone, a specific narcotic antagonist used to reverse the effects of synthetic narcotics such as Sufentanil. Within minutes of being administered Naloxone, Johnsey began to breath normally, wake up, and relate to his environment. A urine sample taken from Johnsey on November 24, 1986, as well as a syringe found by Dr. Ferrari next to Johnsey when he first assisted him, were subsequently analyzed and found to contain Sufentanil. Sufentanil is a synthetic narcotic analgesic, and a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Section 893.03(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that on November 24, 1986, Johnsey, while on duty at Broward General, was under the influence of Sufentanil to such an extent that he was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $250.00, suspending the license of respondent until such time as he can demonstrate that he can safely practice his profession, followed by a one year term of probation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0115 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph l. 2-3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4-7. Addressed in paragraph 3. 8-10. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 4. 11-15. Addressed in paragraph 5. Otherwise rejected as subordinate. 16. Addressed in paragraph 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Mr. Marty Johnsey Department of Professional 180 Skyline View Drive Regulation Collinsville, Illinois 62234 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter, Executive Director William O'Neil Department of Professional General Counsel Regulation Department of Professional Board of Nursing Regulation Room 504, 130 North Nonroe Street 111 East Coastline Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0570 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
