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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, as well as the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida holding license number PN 0626161. At all times material hereto, Dr. Vladimir Rosenthal owned three clinics in Dade and Broward Counties at which he performed abortions. The clinics were located in Coral Gables (hereinafter referred to as the "Coral Gables clinic"), North Miami (hereinafter referred to as the "North Miami clinic") and Plantation (hereinafter referred to as the "Broward clinic"). All three clinics were licensed under Chapter 390, Florida Statutes. In September and October, 1989, Respondent was employed by Rosenthal and worked full-time as a licensed practical nurse in the North Miami clinic. During this period of time, she had no responsibilities with regard to the other two clinics owned by Rosenthal. Among Respondent's duties at the North Miami clinic during this time period was to prepare, under Rosenthal's direct supervision, packages of medications that Rosenthal gave to his patients, free of charge, to take home with them upon their discharge, a practice that Rosenthal has since discontinued. 6/ On September 30, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) conducted an on-site inspection at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was not present at the clinic during the inspection. Nor were there any patients at the clinic at the time. Approximately 50 small manilla envelopes containing multiple doses of medications were found in a drawer of a desk in the clinic. The envelopes were labeled to the extent that they indicated the name of the drugs they contained, but they did not provide any information regarding the lot number, expiration date or the name of the manufacturer of the drugs. Carmen Penaloza, one of the clinic workers who was present during the inspection, was asked to demonstrate how these packages were prepared. Penaloza proceeded to take an empty manilla envelope like the ones that had been found in the desk drawer and fill it with medication that came from a large container. In performing this demonstration, she did not use gloves and her bare hands came in contact with the medication. Carlos Arias, a licensed pharmacist and one of the HRS employees who participated in the inspection, advised Penaloza that the technique she had employed was unsanitary and recommended that in the future she use a tray and spatula like pharmacists do to perform such a task. The HRS inspection also revealed that medical devices were being stored in a refrigerator that also contained food items. On October 26, 1989, HRS conducted an on-site inspection of the North Miami clinic. Arias was among the various HRS employees who were on the inspection team. Diane Robie, a medical quality assurance investigator with the Department, accompanied the team members on their inspection. Approximately 30 envelopes containing medications were found during the inspection. They were similar to the packages that had been discovered the month before at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was at the clinic when the inspection was conducted. Penaloza was also there. No patients were present, however. Respondent was asked to demonstrate how the packages were prepared. Penaloza was nearby at the time the request was made. She saw Respondent nervously looking around and concluded that Respondent was unable to locate any sterile gloves to use. She therefore told Respondent where such gloves could be found. Respondent then donned the gloves, laid a clean piece of paper on top of the desk where she was situated, placed tablets from a large container onto the paper and pushed each tablet with a tongue blade into a small manilla envelope. 7/ The technique that Respondent used during her demonstration, while it may have been unconventional from the perspective of a pharmacist like Arias, nonetheless was antiseptic and therefore acceptable. Sometime during the inspection Respondent made a statement that led Robie to erroneously believe that Respondent was responsible for packaging medications, not just at the North Miami clinic, but at the Coral Gables clinic as well. A finding of probable cause was initially made in this case on May 14, 1990. An Administrative Complaint was thereafter issued and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department received the following letter, dated September 4, 1990, from counsel for Respondent concerning settlement of the case: This will confirm our understanding that you will file a notice of dismissal with DOAH of the case now pending against my client and, providing the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and closing order entered by the probable cause panel, that Ms. Echlov will agree not to seek fees against your agency under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. In the event the panel does not approve a final dismissal and instructs you to refile the case, neither party will be prejudiced by the present agreement and each party will retain all rights otherwise available to them, including my client's rights to seek fees should the case be refiled. If this does not reflect our understanding, please notify me at once. Otherwise, please fax me a copy of your notice of dismissal so that I can take the final hearing off my calendar. Thank you for your efforts to resolve this matter amicably. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, the following follow-up letter, dated November 6, 1990: You may recall that we reached an agreement in the above-referenced case providing for a voluntary dismissal on your part and promise on mine that my client would not seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. You had to take the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and ask them to close it. In order that I can close my file and know that this matter is, in fact, concluded, please let me know whether you have taken the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and, if so, the outcome. If there are documents reflecting same, please, please send me a copy. If the case has not been taken back before the Panel, please let me know when this will be done. Thanks. I'll be looking forward to hearing from you. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, a third letter, dated January 14, 1991, the body of which read, as follows: It has now been over four months since we reached our "understanding" that DPR would dismiss the case pending before DOAH (which you did) and that my client would forego her right to seek fees under the EAJA, providing (to quote from my September 4, 1990 letter to you) "that the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and a closing order [is] entered by the probable cause panel." The final part of the bargain has never been performed so far as I know (and, if it was performed, the action was illegal since I requested notification of the date when the matter would be presented to the panel so that I might attend or send a court reporter but never received any). I have not, of course, received any final order of dismissal from the probable cause panel. If, within ten days of the date of this letter, I have not received either: an order of closure from the probable cause panel, or the time, date and place when our agreement will be presented to the panel, I will consider that DPR is in breach of the agreement and pursue all remedies available to my client, including attorneys' fees. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. The probable cause panel met a second time, at which it determined not to reconsider its initial finding of probable cause. 8/ Neither Respondent nor her attorney were notified of this second meeting of the probable cause panel. Following this meeting, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) dismissing said complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th 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 10th day of January, 1992.
