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
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of violations of Section 458.331(1)(k), (m), and (t) in the practice of medicine and, if so, what penalty the Board of Medicine should impose.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0033129. His license was originally issued on August 2, 1978, and remains current. There is no prior discipline against Respondent. Respondent has been certified for over 15 years by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. His practice has been devoted to obstetrics and gynecology. In 1990, Respondent was a member of a large group practicing obstetrics and gynecology in Cape Coral. Respondent was performing about 100 breast examinations a week. On the evening of April 10, 1990, D.W., who was 30 years old at the time, discovered a mass that felt like a marble in her right breast during a breast self-examination. She was upset and cried most of the night, fearful that she had breast cancer. Early the next morning, she made an appointment with Respondent's group for a breast examination later that day. A regular patient of another member of Respondent's group, who was unavailable on April 11, D. W. had last been seen by a member of Respondent's group on February 6, 1990, when her regular physician gave her an annual examination. Her breast examination at the time was normal. During the visit, the physician or nurse reviewed breast self-examination techniques with her. The physician started D. W. on birth control pills and directed her to return for a follow-up visit in two months. The April 11 office visit was devoted exclusively to addressing D. W.'s complaint of a lump in her breast. Respondent examined D. W.'s breasts with D. W. lying down and then sitting up. He felt nothing. While sitting up, D.W. guided Respondent's hand to the mass in the right breast. Still feeling nothing, Respondent remarked that the breast was somewhat fibrous. Respondent explained to D. W. that fibrocystic disease is something that women sometimes get in their breasts and it is nothing to worry about. In fact, at least 80 percent of all women in their 30s undergo fibrocystic changes in the breast. Respondent did not reach a specific diagnosis as a result of the April 11 office visit. The handwritten entries in Respondent's medical records--the complaint and blood pressure appearing to have been written by a nurse--read in their entirety: 4-11-90 Pt. c/o lump in R breast. BP--100/60 no mass found somewhat fibrous [Respondent's initials] Respondent did not advise D. W. to return to the office for a follow-up visit at a prescribed interval or if she detected the same mass or any changes in the mass. D. W. next visited Respondent's group on April 11, 1991, for her annual visit. She was seen by another physician in the group. D. W. told the physician of the lump in her breast and said that it was getting larger. The physician conducted a breast examination and felt a mass about two centimeters in diameter. Concerned about the mass, the physician scheduled an aspiration for diagnostic purposes. The results of the procedure disclosed severely atypical cells that were suspicious for carcinoma. The physician referred her to a surgeon, who first saw D.W. on May 2, 1991. The surgeon performed a breast biopsy on May 9. The biopsy revealed an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. Based on the biopsy findings, the surgeon conducted on May 17 a right modified radical mastectomy. The excised tumor measured 2.1 centimeters along its longest diameter. D. W. underwent chemotherapy and has had no recurrence of the cancer in the five years since the surgery. There are two sets of allegations concerning D.W.'s medical records. The first set of allegations is that Respondent fraudulently altered D. W.'s medical records. Someone in Respondent's office later typed the following addition to the records of D. W. immediately beneath the handwritten entry quoted above: D[.] came to the office today having felt a lump in her right breast. I could not feel anything, although her breast was somewhat fibrous. I told her to continue to check her breast and come back if she felt it again. [Respondent's initials/typist's initials-- {both typed}] Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent dictated or typed the note in the preceding paragraph or that he authorized the addition of this note to D.W.'s medical records. The intent in adding the note was fraudulent as to the third sentence, which is the only sentence in the note that is untrue. But Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in any way involved in the fraud. The second set of allegations concerning the medical records involves the adequacy of the records. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment and violated the applicable standard of care by failing to keep adequate medical records. These allegations are best considered together with the remaining allegation, which is that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care by failing to recommend follow-up examinations and treatments for D. W.'s complaint of a lump in her breast. A violation of the applicable standard of care is 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. The standard of care in this case pertains to the practice in early 1990. Petitioner nowhere alleges that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care by failing to detect the mass of which D.W. complained. Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Harvey Gardy, conceded that such a failure would not necessarily violate the standard of care. Nor is it clear that the mass of which D.W. complained in April 1990 developed into the tumor removed from her breast a year later. The mass of which D. W. complained in April 1990 was in the three o'clock position, and the excised tumor was in the 12 o'clock position. Breast tumors do not change location, except to the extent that they grow, although patients conducting self- examinations may have difficulty locating the tumor with precision. Also, the excised tumor could have grown from an impalpable size in April 1990 to its size at the time of the mastectomy a year later. The second set of medical records allegations and the lone remaining standard of care allegation focus not on Respondent's alleged failure to detect and diagnose the mass of which D. W. complained, but on Respondent's alleged failure to respond adequately to D. W.'s complaint, even after he could not independently verify the mass. The applicable standard of care did not require Respondent to order further testing at the time to rule out a cancerous growth when he could not feel the mass. D. W. was not in a high-risk category for breast cancer based on her young age, three past pregnancies, and relevant family history. She displayed no physical signs of breast cancer. The physician conducting a breast examination is looking for a dominant or distinct mass--an isolated lump distinct from surrounding breast tissue. Respondent felt only fibrous changes. The applicable standard of care did not require that a physician order further diagnostic testing each time the physician detected a fibrous mass in a breast. Fibrous changes are not indicative of breast cancer. Petitioner has failed to prove that the applicable standard of care was any different when the patient claimed to have felt a distinct mass that the physician is unable to verify. It is more practical to direct a patient to return for a follow-up examination than to order potentially expensive tests. However, Petitioner failed to prove that the applicable standard of care required that a physician, failing to detect a mass in a patient not in a high-risk category for breast cancer, direct her to return to the office at a specified interval, such as two or three months later. Even less onerous than diagnostic testing or return office visits is the physician's direction that the patient return to the office if she feels the mass again or any changes in the mass. However, Petitioner failed to prove that the applicable standard of care required even this sensible precautionary direction from a physician. Testifying unpersuasively that the standard of care required the setting of a follow-up appointment, Dr. Gardy failed to testify at all whether the standard of care required Respondent to tell D. W. to return if she detected the mass again in a self-examination. One of Respondent's expert witnesses, Dr. Pierre Bouis, testified clearly on direct that the applicable standard of care did not require Respondent to direct D. W. to return if she felt the mass again (Tr. p. 125). On cross-examination, Dr. Bouis returned to the same issue and answered affirmatively the following, poorly worded question: Now, isn't it true that you also believe that it's an appropriate standard of care to tell a patient who presents under the same set of fact that she should keep checking herself and return if she feels it again or continue to feel it? Although there are many levels of care, there is a single applicable standard of care, which, if violated, justifies the imposition of discipline. By using "an," Petitioner's counsel suggested multiple standards of care and left open the possibility that the standard to which Dr. Bouis referred in his answer was aspirational, rather than mandatory. Respondent's other expert witness, Dr. J. Kell Williams, testified clearly that Respondent's failure to direct D. W. to return if she felt the lump again did not violate the applicable standard of care (Tr. pp. 43 and 52). Dr. Williams conceded that the better practice would have been to direct the patient to return (TR. pp. 43, 46, and 47), but he did not equate this practice with the applicable standard of care. In the absence of evidence establishing this sensible precaution as the applicable standard of care, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicable standard of care required Respondent to advise D. W. that she should return to the office if she felt the mass again or any changes in the mass. The medical records are adequate for the limited purpose of the April 11 visit. They describe the findings and adequately outline Respondent's examination of D. W. They justify the course of treatment--which was effectively no treatment--for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material allegations of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. ENTERED on May 31, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, 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 on May 31, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance, except she told him about the lump. Respondent never saw a lump. 4: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not feel the marble-like mass that D. W. felt. Respondent felt only fibrocystic changes in the breast. 5-9 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 9 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant and recitation of testimony. 10-11 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 11 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant and recitation of testimony. 12-13 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (remainder)-15: rejected as subordinate. 16 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (second sentence)-17: rejected as recitation of evidence. 18: adopted or adopted in substance, as distinguished from the 2 cm tumor within the larger excised mass. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 21: rejected as irrelevant with respect to applicable standard of care. 22: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The questions posed Dr. Bouis were ambiguous as to whether he was describing the better practice or the applicable standard of care. 23-24: rejected as irrelevant with respect to applicable standard of care. 25: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 26: rejected as subordinate. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 28: rejected as subordinate. 29-32: adopted or adopted in substance. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36-38: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40: rejected as recitation of testimony. 41-43: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 44-45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-54034 Steven Rothenburg, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 Bruce D. Lamb Shear Newman 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed physician, violated the applicable standard of care by diagnosing prostate cancer in four patients, and recommending and participating in a course of treatment for these patients, without confirming prostate cancer through tissue biopsy results; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against medical doctors licensed in the state of Florida, who are accused of violating chapters 456 and 458 of the Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed as a medical doctor in Florida, having been issued license number ME 46625. Respondent is not board-certified in any specialty recognized by the Florida Board of Medicine. Respondent has never had disciplinary action against his license to practice medicine. Respondent's Practice Since his residency concluded in 1985, Respondent has practiced urology. For more than 20 years, the focus of his practice has been prostate disease, its diagnosis, and treatment. In 2006, Respondent became the lead investigator for a General Electric study regarding its 3-Tesla magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging machine (3T MRI-s) as part of an Institutional Review Board measuring the heat generated by the machine to ensure the safety of patients. Between 2006 and 2010, 1,600 prostates were scanned with a 3T MRI-s as part of the study. Respondent reviewed the results of each radiology report associated with these scans and compared them to the clinical data he had for each patient. Respondent also completed a double-blind study of 200 of these patients who had prostate biopsies during 2008 and 2009, as well as the 3T MRI-s, correlated the results of the biopsies and the scans, and became convinced that the 3T MRI-s technology alone is a positive predictor of prostate cancer 95 percent of the time. According to both parties' experts, as well as Respondent, the standard of care in Florida and throughout the United States is to use a needle tissue biopsy to identify prostate cancer. As admitted by Respondent, medical schools teach that needle biopsy is "the way" to diagnose prostate cancer. Absent a biopsy showing malignant tissue, it is not possible for a reasonably prudent physician to diagnose or treat prostate cancer. Biopsies are usually performed to diagnose prostate cancer if a man has a combination of risk factors, such as family history, an abnormal digital rectal exam, and/or increasing levels of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). However, needle biopsies for prostate cancer carry a false negative rate of 20 to 50 percent, which means that a standard 12-point needle biopsy (where 12 samples of tissue from different locations in the prostate are sampled) often misses cancerous tissue. Prostate needle biopsies are sometimes painful and carry a risk of complications, including common complications such as bleeding and infection, and the unlikely complications of septic shock and death. Respondent is convinced that there is a significant risk from a prostate needle biopsy to spread prostate cancer cells outside the prostate capsule, which is referred to as "seeding" or "needle tracking." Respondent's belief is founded upon a one-page 2002 article published in the American Urological Association, Inc.'s Journal of Urology (Journal), which refers to two cases in which a tumor was discovered in the rectal wall after prostate biopsies and cryoblation.1/ The tumors were suspected of being the result of needle tracking from prostate cancer biopsies. Significantly, this article makes clear that needle tracking resulting from prostate biopsies are rare and "exceedingly uncommon." Respondent's concern, regarding prostate biopsies spreading prostate cancer, is also in part founded upon a one-paragraph 1991 Journal abstract reporting a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine study of 350 patients in which needle tracking was suspected in seven patients (two percent).2/ According to Respondent, his belief that prostate biopsies spread prostate cancer is "intuitive," although he acknowledges this is not the prevailing view in Florida. Respondent argues that doctors do not want to believe needle tracking takes place with prostate biopsies and suggests there is a financial motivation for doctors to require a positive biopsy before definitively diagnosing prostate cancer. Respondent is so convinced of the dangers of needle biopsies for prostate cancer that he published a book, Men at Risk: the Dirty Little Secret – Prostate Biopsies Really Do Spread Prostate Cancer Cells, in 2012, which he provides to all his patients. In his book, Respondent states: For me, a 3T MRI scan is the best objective marker to a diagnosis of prostate cancer. To summarize, patients must answer one question. Should I agree to a prostate biopsy procedure where it has been proven to spread prostate cancer cells or do I keep my fingers and toes crossed, hoping for the best? In two words, . . . "absolutely not." To me, the decision is easy – the literature validates avoiding random biopsies and supports imaging with a 3 T magnet. There is no other organ in the human body where diagnosis is dependent on sticking needles randomly and blindly into a delicate organ in an attempt to find cancer. This practice is archaic, patently barbaric, unacceptable and preferentially favored by virtually all urologists. Beyond the obvious benefit to being able to see a cancer and its pattern of invasion with the 3.0 Tesla MRI scan, there is no other exam or scan that competes in terms of diagnostic accuracy or predictability. The discerning patient will soon recognize that guessing where cancer is located, through random biopsies, is for the less informed.[3] Respondent refers to the use of 3T MRI-s as the "truth serum" of prostate cancer diagnosis. During all times material hereto, Respondent held himself out as a urologist who could diagnose and treat prostate cancer without a needle biopsy. In fact, the four patients at issue in this case found Respondent through an Internet search. Respondent defines his office, the Diagnostic Center for Disease (DCD) as, "A comprehensive prostate cancer diagnostic center in Sarasota, Florida specializing in non-invasive diagnostics (MRI/MRIS) without biopsy as an integral part of the diagnostic evaluation of prostate cancer."4/ Respondent also advertised himself as "a world expert in High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), having diagnosed and treated more patients for prostate cancer from more countries than any other treating doctor in the world."5/ HIFU is a treatment alternative to brachytherapy (the insertion of radioactive seeds into the prostate), radiation, and prostatectomy (the surgical removal of the prostate gland) for prostate cancer and uses highly focused ultrasound waves in a small area to create intense heat, which destroys prostate cancer tissue. HIFU was not an approved treatment for prostate cancer in the United States until October 9, 2015, at which time the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the Sonablate machine for prostate tissue ablation. Prior to that time, Respondent referred his patients to treatment facilities in Mexico and the Caribbean where he performed HIFU treatments. The standard of care in Florida precludes treating prostate cancer with HIFU in the absence of a tissue biopsy confirming the presence of cancer. In order to be eligible for HIFU treatment, in addition to a positive diagnosis, the patient's prostate gland must be less than 40 grams. HIFU is not appropriate on patients with multiple calcifications in their prostate because they interfere with the treatment. Because a smaller prostate gland is easier to work with, prior to undergoing HIFU treatment, patients are often prescribed Bicalutamide (also known by its brand name, Casodex) and Trelstar. Bicalutamide suppresses the uptake of testosterone and Trelstar suppresses the production of testosterone, with both drugs having the effect of shrinking the prostate gland. Side effects of these drugs include hot flashes, weakness, and a sense of a loss of well-being. Facts Related to Patient G.P. Patient G.P., a 69 year-old retiree, had a prostate biopsy performed in December 2005 after a rise in his PSA level. This biopsy was negative for prostate cancer, but Patient G.P. was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate and benign prostate hyperplasty (BPH). In May 2008, Patient G.P. learned through a physical exam for a life insurance policy that his PSA level was elevated. After another check of his PSA level in November 2008, Patient G.P. was advised to undergo another prostate biopsy. Because his first prostate biopsy was painful, Patient G.P. searched the Internet for alternatives to biopsy and learned of Respondent and his use of the 3T MRI-s at the DCD in Sarasota for diagnosing prostate cancer. Patient G.P. traveled to Florida from Michigan to meet with Respondent on January 5, 2009. Patient G.P. underwent a 3T MRI-s scan at Respondent's office. Respondent told Patient G.P. that he was unsure of the results because they were consistent with BPH and not prostate cancer. However, Respondent advised Patient G.P. was considered "high risk" because his father died from prostate cancer in 2002. Rather than undergoing any treatment at that time, Patient G.P. was prescribed Avodart for his BPH and agreed to active surveillance (A.S.) whereby he would receive regular PSA screening. When Patient G.P.'s December 2009 PSA level went up after being on Avodart for most of the year, he was concerned and telephoned Respondent's office. Respondent prescribed Casodex based upon his telephone call with Patient G.P. on January 15, 2010. By February 2010, G.P.'s PSA level decreased significantly, but not as much as he believed it should have after taking Casodex for several weeks. Patient G.P. also experienced urinary frequency problems and pain. He returned to Respondent's office where Respondent performed an ultrasound and digital rectal exam. Respondent told Patient G.P. it was likely he had prostate cancer, but that he could not be sure without a biopsy. However, Respondent's medical records reflect that Respondent diagnosed Patient G.P. as having prostate cancer without a tissue biopsy.6/ Respondent offered to do a targeted biopsy based on an MRI scan. Respondent also discussed his concerns regarding needle tracking from biopsies with Patient G.P. Patient G.P. made it clear he did not want a biopsy, and he wanted to proceed to HIFU. Respondent advised Patient G.P. of the risk of erectile dysfunction following HIFU, but did not discuss the possibility of urinary stricture problems. In April 2010, Patient G.P. traveled to Mexico where the HIFU procedure was performed by Respondent. In March 2011, Patient G.P. saw a urologist in Michigan about his diminished urinary stream and pain. The urologist used a reamer to open Patient G.P's urethra, but on April 15, 2011, he went to the emergency room because he was completely unable to urinate. Patient G.P. was catheterized and subsequently underwent electro-vaporization on April 25, 2011, to relieve the urinary stricture. In August 2011, Patient G.P. also underwent hydro- dilating in an attempt to relieve the symptoms of his urinary stricture. In September 2011, Patient G.P. saw board-certified urologist Dr. Joel Gelman, who specializes in urethral reconstruction. At that time, Patient G.P. was advised that his urinary stricture, caused by the HIFU treatment, was a significant problem because his urethra was closed off almost to the bladder neck. Dr. Gelman performed a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). As part of the TURP procedure, Dr. Gelman took samples of Patient G.P.'s prostate tissue and no evidence was found of prostate cancer. Although Patient G.P. had no complaints regarding his course of treatment from Respondent, Dr. Gelman filed a complaint against Respondent because he was concerned that Respondent prescribed medications and performed HIFU on Patient G.P. for prostate cancer without a tissue biopsy. Facts Related to Patient J.W. Patient J.W., a 74 year-old retired dentist, had two biopsies performed in 2005 and 2007 ordered by his urologist in Alabama in response to elevated PSA levels. No evidence of malignancy was found. Patient J.W.'s PSA level was again elevated when tested in March 2012. He was reluctant to have another biopsy because the first two were painful. Patient J.W. was told about Respondent by a friend, and he viewed Respondent's website. Patient J.W. was interested in consulting with Respondent because Respondent advertised he had an MRI machine that could detect cancer cells, and Respondent believed prostate biopsies spread cancer. Patient J.W. traveled from Alabama to meet with Respondent at the DCD on May 14 and 15, 2012. After a sonogram and MRI, Respondent diagnosed Patient J.W. with prostate cancer. Respondent discussed a treatment plan which included what Respondent called "chemical castration" for a period of six months, to be followed with a trip to Mexico for HIFU treatment at the cost of $32,000.00. Respondent did not suggest any other treatment options to Patient J.W. or recommend a tissue biopsy. The idea of "chemical castration" scared Patient J.W., who sought a second opinion in June 2012 from another urologist, Dr. M. Eric Brewer. Dr. Brewer told J.W. that HIFU was not an accepted treatment in the United States for prostate cancer. Patient J.W. declined to go forward with treatment by Respondent. Dr. Brewer recommended A.S. and, as recommended by Dr. Brewer, Patient J.W. has his PSA level checked every six months. Patient J.W.'s PSA levels have decreased without any treatment. Dr. Brewer discussed Patient J.W.'s case with his partners, the tumor board, the president of the Southeastern Urological Association, and the president of the American Board of Urology, who unanimously advised Dr. Brewer to file a complaint with Petitioner against Respondent for cancer diagnosis and recommending treatment in the absence of a pathologic specimen. Facts Related to Patient K.S. Patient K.S. is a 62-year-old video producer and editor from Tennessee. He has no family history of prostate cancer. Patient K.S. had his PSA level tested in 2005 and 2009, at which time it was considered elevated. Patient K.S. was referred to a urologist by his primary care physician. After again showing elevated PSA levels, Patient K.S. underwent a prostate biopsy in 2011 and 2012. Neither biopsy was positive for prostate cancer. However, Patient K.S. and his wife were concerned about his rising PSA level and sought a second opinion. Patient K.S.' wife was concerned that if her husband had prostate cancer, his local urologist would recommend removal of the prostate. She researched alternative treatments on the Internet and found Respondent's website. On October 15, 2012, Patient K.S. and his wife traveled to the DCD in Sarasota to meet with Respondent. Respondent initially performed an ultrasound on Patient K.S. and then told Patient K.S. he was "concerned" Patient K.S. had prostate cancer. He recommended HIFU treatment to Patient K.S. Respondent made it clear to Patient K.S. that Respondent would not perform a needle biopsy because it pushes cancer further into the prostate. Respondent told Patient K.S. that the MRI would make it clear whether Patient K.S. had prostate cancer. Later that same day, Patient K.S. had an MRI performed at the DCD. Approximately a week later, Patient K.S. received a telephone call from Respondent with the MRI results who told Patient K.S. that based on the MRI, he had Gleason 7 prostate cancer, a fairly aggressive form of prostate cancer that could be treated with HIFU in Mexico the following month. This was followed up with an e-mail from the DCD to Patient K.S. demanding a payment of $32,000.00 within three days to schedule the HIFU procedure in Mexico. Patient K.S.' wife immediately secured a bank loan for the $32,000.00 Due to the seriousness of the diagnosis and the rush for payment for HIFU, Patient K.S. visited his primary care doctor for another opinion. Patient K.S' primary care doctor, Dr. Jeffrey Jump, told him that no one can diagnose prostate cancer as a Gleason 7 without a tissue biopsy. Further, it was a "red flag" to Dr. Jump that a cash payment of $32,000.00 was expected in such a short time frame to schedule treatment. After speaking to Dr. Jump, Patient K.S. decided not to have HIFU and instead opted for A.S. Subsequent PSA level tests for Patient K.S. have shown a decrease in his PSA level. Patient K.S.' wife filed a complaint with the Petitioner against Respondent. Facts Related to Patient V.P. Patient V.P. is a 63-year-old construction worker and guide from Alaska. He has no family history of prostate cancer. In August 2013, at age 60, Patient V.P. had his first physical examination. As part of the exam, he took a PSA test, which showed an elevated PSA level of 6.3. As a result, Patient V.P. was referred to a urologist who recommended a biopsy. Patient V.P. heard from friends that prostate biopsies are painful, so he looked on the Internet for alternatives. Patient V.P. found Respondent's website, which claimed Respondent could diagnose prostate cancer without a biopsy by using new MRI technology. Patient V.P. traveled to Sarasota to meet Respondent on September 11, 2013. Respondent performed a digital rectal exam and told Patient V.P. that his prostate was much enlarged. Respondent next performed a prostate ultrasound on Patient V.P. Immediately after the ultrasound, Respondent told Patient V.P., "I'm telling you right now you have prostate cancer." Respondent provided Patient V.P. with a prescription for Bicalutamide and Trelstar, which Respondent said would wipe out Patient V.P.'s testosterone and slow the growth of the cancer. Respondent told Patient V.P. that prostate biopsies are dangerous and metastasize cancer cells. Respondent said that even though he knew Patient V.P. had cancer, he wanted an MRI to see the amount of cancer. Respondent also offered Patient V.P. the opportunity to participate in a private placement offering for a HIFU company he was forming for a minimum investment of $50,000.00. The following day, Patient V.P. had an MRI and then met with Respondent to review the results. Respondent showed Patient V.P. his MRI images and pointed to areas of concern. Respondent told Patient V.P. he had extensive prostate cancer and that Patient V.P. did not have much time to decide whether to have HIFU because the cancer was about to metastasize. Respondent told Patient V.P. to take the Bicalutamide for ten days and then return for an injection of Trelstar to atrophy his prostate and make him ready for HIFU in 90 days. At Respondent's direction, Patient V.P. began the Bicalutamide and then returned to the DCD on September 20, 2013, for a three-month injection of Trelstar. During this visit, Patient V.P. questioned the cost if the HIFU was not successful in getting all the cancer and he needed further treatment. Respondent told Patient V.P. that he "doesn't miss," but an additional treatment of HIFU would cost another $10,000.00 to $12,000.00, in addition to the $32,000.00 for the initial treatment. Concerned about these costs, Patient V.P. asked about going to Loma Linda, California, for proton therapy as an alternative. Respondent told Patient V.P. that proton therapy would cause bladder cancer and any alternative to HIFU would require a needle biopsy first. Respondent actively discouraged Patient V.P. from any non-HIFU treatment for prostate cancer. As soon as Patient V.P. questioned Respondent about alternatives to HIFU, he was suddenly fast-tracked for HIFU scheduled October 24 through 26, 2013. He was told he needed to make a $10,000.00 deposit to hold the date and the total cost was $32,000.00. Despite his concerns regarding the expedited scheduling of his procedure and the cost of the HIFU treatment, Patient V.P. returned to the office with a check for $10,000.00 to cover the cost of the deposit to hold the October treatment date. While waiting to hand the check to Respondent's receptionist, Patient V.P. overheard Respondent on a speakerphone arguing with a radiologist concerning an MRI report. Respondent was insisting the radiologist include the word "cancer" on MRI reports and the radiologist insisted it was not possible for him to make such a diagnosis. After hearing this conversation, Patient V.P. immediately left Respondent's office with his check. Patient V.P. subsequently discussed his experience with a trusted friend who practiced as a nurse in a cancer clinic. She, too, expressed concerns about diagnosing and treating prostate cancer without a biopsy. Patient V.P. was referred by this friend to Dr. Vipul Patel, a physician specializing in urologic cancer in Orlando. Patient V.P. met with Dr. Patel on October 18, 2013. Dr. Patel advised Patient V.P. that it was not possible to diagnose prostate cancer without a biopsy. Dr. Patel also disputed that prostate biopsies can spread prostate cancer. Dr. Patel performed a digital rectal exam and found Patient V.P.'s prostate to be slightly enlarged (which is not abnormal for a man of Patient V.P.'s age), normal, and smooth. Dr. Patel told Patient V.P. that he doubted he had prostate cancer. Patient V.P. then underwent a prostate biopsy by Dr. Patel, which was negative for prostate cancer. This was surprising to Patient V.P. because Respondent led him to believe, based on the MRI, that his prostate was full of cancer. Patient V.P. experienced significant side effects as a result of taking the medications ordered by Respondent. The Bicalutamide caused Patient V.P. to experience overwhelming depression, shakes, hot flashes, tunnel vision, and headaches. The Trelstar caused erectile dysfunction, increased frequency of hot flashes, night sweats, and made Patient V.P. so weak he was unable to work for eight months. Standard of Care As discussed above, the experts who provided depositions or live testimony in this case were unanimous in their conclusions that the standard of care in Florida from 2008 through 2013 precluded diagnosis or treatment of prostate cancer in the absence of a tissue biopsy. A reasonably prudent physician would not tell a patient he had prostate cancer based upon an ultrasound and/or MRI. A reasonably prudent physician would not prescribe medication, suggest treatment, or participate in treating a patient for prostate cancer, based upon an ultrasound or MRI. Respondent claims that in each of these cases, he advised the patient that a needle biopsy was the definitive test for prostate cancer, but it was a method he did not favor due to the possibility of needle tracking. Respondent's testimony in this regard is not credible in light of the credible testimony of the three patients that Respondent made clear he would not perform a needle biopsy and actively discouraged them from anything other than diagnosis by MRI and subsequent HIFU treatment. Respondent's suggestion, that he offered needle biopsy as an option, is wholly inconsistent with the title, theme, and contents of his own book, and the manner in which he defined his method of diagnosing prostate cancer at the DCD in his book and on his website. It is self-evident that a patient's perceptions regarding the safety and efficacy of needle biopsies for prostate cancer detection are at least, in part, influenced by the discussion with the physician. Respondent's active efforts to dissuade these patients from having the one definitive test for prostate cancer, by dramatically over-inflating the infinitesimally small possibility of needle tracking, were wholly inconsistent with the standard of care. Respondent claims that these four patients insisted they did not want a needle biopsy, therefore, it was appropriate to diagnose them on the basis of "a preponderance of the evidence and concordance of data" and move forward with a treatment plan, including medications and HIFU. The standard of care in Florida during 2008 through 2013, for a situation in which a patient suspected of having prostate cancer refused a needle biopsy, was to prescribe a course of A.S., including regular and frequent PSA testing, and to offer no other treatment.7/ Ultimate Factual Determinations Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed medical malpractice in his treatment of Patients G.P., J.W., K.S., and V.P. by the following violations of the standard of care: failing to obtain and review prostate biopsy results before confirming the patient had, or diagnosing the patient with, prostate cancer (Patients G.P., J.W., K.S., and V.P.); prescribing Bicalutamide/Casodex to a patient without first confirming through a prostate tissue biopsy that the patient has prostate cancer (Patients G.P. and V.P); prescribing, injecting, or authorizing the injection of Trelstar to a patient without first confirming through biopsy results that the patient has prostate cancer (Patient V.P); recommending and/or attempting to facilitate HIFU treatment without first confirming through biopsy results that the patient has prostate cancer (Patients G.P., J.W., K.S., and V.P.); and participating in, and/or assisting with the performance of HIFU treatment for a patient without first confirming through biopsy results that the patient has prostate cancer (Patient G.P.). Accordingly, Respondent is guilty of the offense defined in section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as charged in Amended Administrative Complaints; imposing a fine of $30,000.00; revoking Respondent's medical license; and imposing costs of the investigation and prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 24th day of February, 2017.
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 Whether Petitioner’s request for coverage of proton beam radiation therapy (“proton beam therapy” or “PBRT”) is a covered benefit pursuant to the State Employees’ Health Maintenance Organization (“HMO”) Plan (“Plan”), administered by AvMed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with administering the state employee health insurance program pursuant to section 110.123. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a member of the Plan. AvMed is the third-party administrator for the Plan at issue in this cause. As the third-party administrator, AvMed provides claims processing, utilization, and benefit management services. The applicable benefit document is the State Employees’ HMO Plan, Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document (“Plan Document”), effective January 1, 2019. Petitioner is a 66-year-old male who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in November 2017 and underwent a prostatectomy to remove his prostate on April 12, 2018. Subsequent to his initial surgery and treatment, Petitioner experienced increasing prostate specific antigen (“PSA”) in three follow-up tests. His prostate cancer had returned. Petitioner’s physician sought to treat his condition with PBRT, a form of external beam radiation utilizing protons, rather than traditional intensity modulated radiation therapy (“IMRT”), which is, without question, covered under the Plan. Medicare, a federal healthcare insurance program, agreed to pay 80 percent of Intervenor’s charges for PBRT, leaving Petitioner responsible for the remaining 20 percent being sought to be paid by Petitioner’s Plan. On July 3, 2019, Petitioner, through his healthcare provider, Maria-Amelia Rodrigues, M.D., and Intervenor, Miami Cancer Institute, submitted a request for coverage of PBRT to AvMed. On July 10, 2019, AvMed denied the preservice request for coverage on the basis that the therapy was experimental/investigational and, therefore, not medically necessary treatment for the member’s condition. The request was reviewed by Sri Gorty, M.D., a consultant radiation oncologist at Magellan Healthcare, which is under contract with AvMed. On July 23, 2019, Petitioner submitted a request for a Level I appeal to AvMed. The appeal was reviewed by Dr. Gregg Goldin, M.D., a consultant radiology oncologist at Dane Street, which is under contract with AvMed. He filed a report dated August 19, 2019. On August 20, 2019, AvMed denied the request for Level I appeal on the basis that the therapy was experimental/investigational and, therefore, not a medically necessary treatment. On November 19, 2019, Petitioner submitted a request for an “Expedited” Level II appeal to Respondent. The Level II appeal was reviewed by Dearline Thomas-Brown, a registered nurse and Level II appeal coordinator for Respondent. On November 21, 2019, Respondent denied Petitioner’s Level II appeal on the basis that the therapy is experimental/investigational and, therefore, not medically necessary for treatment of the member’s condition. Pursuant to the Plan Document, the Plan pays its share of the cost of covered services, if the services are: Ordered by a Network Provider (a provider who is in AvMed’s network); Considered Medically Necessary for the covered person’s treatment because of accident, illness, condition or mental health or nervous disorder; Not specifically limited or excluded under this Plan; and Rendered while this Plan is in effect. Pursuant to the Plan Document, Section I. Introduction: The Plan is not intended to and does not cover or provide any Medical Services or benefits that are not Medically Necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of the Health Plan Member. AvMed determines whether the services are Medically Necessary on the basis of terms, conditions, and criteria established by the Plan as interpreted by the state, and as set forth in medical guidelines. This chart provides a description of services and supplies covered under the Plan. Coverage Access Rules are specified under the Plan as follows: Cancer Services Diagnosis and Treatment Includes both inpatient and outpatient diagnostic tests and treatment (including anti-cancer medications administered by Network providers), including cancer clinical trials as set forth in the Florida Clinical Trial Compact. Does not include Experimental or Investigational Treatment. In order to be a covered benefit, the treatment must be “medically necessary,” not “experimental or investigational,” and it must not be specifically excluded by the Plan. “Medically Necessary” is defined as follows: The use of any appropriate medical treatment, service, equipment and/or supply as provided by a Hospital, skilled nursing facility, physician or other provider which is necessary for the diagnosis, care and/or treatment of a Health Plan Member’s Illness or injury, and which is: Consistent with the symptom, diagnosis and treatment of the Health Plan Member’s condition; The most appropriate level of supply and/or service for the diagnosis and treatment of the Health Plan Member’s condition; In accordance with standards of acceptable medical practice; Not primarily intended for the personal comfort or convenience of the Health Plan Member, the Health Plan Member’s family, the physician or other health care providers; Approved by the appropriate medical body or health care specialty involved as effective, appropriate and essential for the care and treatment of the Health Plan Member’s condition; and Not experimental or investigational. The service must meet all of the above-referenced criteria in order to be medically necessary. Given the above definition, if a service is experimental or investigational, then it cannot be medically necessary. Section VI. Limitations and Exclusions in the Plan Document specifically exclude services that are “experimental/investigational or not medically necessary treatment with the exception of routine care in connection with a clinical trial in cancer, pursuant to the Florida Clinical Trial Compact and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” “Experimental and/or Investigational” is defined as follows: For the purposes of this Plan a medication, treatment, device, surgery or procedure may initially be determined by AvMed to be experimental and/or investigational if any of the following applies: The FDA has not granted the approval for general use; or There are insufficient outcomes data available from controlled clinical trials published in peer- reviewed literature to substantiate its effectiveness for the disease or injury involved; or There is no consensus among practicing physicians that the medication, treatment, therapy, procedure or device is safe or effective for the treatment in question or such medication, treatment, therapy, procedure or device is not the standard treatment, therapy procedure or device utilized by practicing physicians in treating other patients with the same or similar condition; or Such medication, treatment procedure, or device is the subject of an ongoing Phase I or Phase II clinical investigation, or Experimental or research arm of a Phase III clinical investigation, or under study to determine: maximum tolerated dosage(s), toxicity, safety, efficacy, or efficacy as comparted with the standard for treatment or diagnosis of the condition in question. If any one or more of the above-cited criteria are met, then the treatment is experimental and/or investigational and is not a covered service. In making an adverse determination as to coverage in both the Level I and Level II appeals, Edwin Rodriguez, M.D. (note the slightly different spelling of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Maria-Amelia Rodrigues versus Dr. Edwin Rodriguez), and Nurse Thomas-Brown utilized AvMed’s Medical Coverage Guideline on PBRT. This coverage guideline regarding PBRT provides AvMed’s “Exclusion Criteria” explaining “PBRT is not covered, and is considered investigational, as to all other tumors not listed” in the guideline. PBRT is not an approved treatment option for localized prostate cancer under the NIA Magellan criteria. The Medical Technology Assessment Committee at AvMed drafts clinical policy guidelines and is responsible for maintaining or changing them as technology advances. AvMed’s policy on use of PBRT for the treatment of prostate cancer states that it is not medically necessary because studies have not shown clinical outcomes to be superior to conventional radiation therapy (i.e., IMRT). This policy was developed following extensive review of studies in peer-reviewed medical literature, available guidelines, technology assessments, and opinions from experts. The policy is updated on a yearly basis in order to take into consideration any new evidence. A recent review of the policy on PBRT resulted in no change in AvMed’s position on coverage for treatment of prostate cancer. The medical coverage guidelines are meant to be used in conjunction with the Plan Document to determine whether services are medically necessary and a covered benefit. Dr. Gorty, AvMed’s external reviewer from Magellan Healthcare, who was accepted as an expert in the field of radiation oncology, testified that his recommended denial of coverage of PBRT was informed by Petitioner’s medical records, Intervenor’s Letter of Medical Necessity, clinical trials, the model policy from the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology (“ASTRO”), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (“NCCN”) guidelines. PBRT PBRT is a procedure that uses protons to deliver a curative radiation dose to a tumor, while reducing radiation doses to healthy tissues and organs, which results in fewer complications and side effects than IMRT. As stated earlier, Petitioner’s prostate was removed in April 2018. Thereafter, rising PSA levels indicated that he needed further treatment, and Dr. Rodrigues, a board-certified radiation oncologist at Miami Cancer Institute, became his treating physician. Dr. Rodrigues has been treating patients for 23 years, including prostate cancer patients. She was accepted as an expert in her field for these proceedings. Dr. Rodrigues determined PBRT to be the appropriate radiation treatment for Mr. Zolfaghari given his type of prostate cancer—recurrent prostate cancer. Dr. Rodrigues testified that recurrent prostate cancer occurs when a cancer has been treated and then reoccurs. In addition to PBRT, Dr. Rodrigues recommended, and Petitioner received, androgen deprivation therapy, generally referred to as hormone therapy, to be used in conjunction with PBRT. Dr. Rodrigues testified that the androgen deprivation therapy blocks the production of testosterone. She testified that patients with recurrent prostate cancer or certain high-risk patients have better overall survival when the two treatments are used in conjunction. As an additional aggravating factor to Petitioner’s cancer treatment, Petitioner was diagnosed with colon cancer leading to surgery in January 2020. Dr. Rodrigues testified that Petitioner’s colon cancer made his need for PBRT even more necessary, because now Petitioner is at a higher risk for adverse effects from the unwanted spread of toxicity common with IMRT. Dr. Rodrigues, as a Miami Cancer Institute physician, wrote letters requesting treatment and appealing denials of treatment as set forth above, and testified at the March 9, 2020, administrative hearing in support of Petitioner’s efforts to obtain coverage through AvMed for PBRT, which she considers to be a medically necessary treatment modality. Dr. Rodrigues was asked why she had not gone forward and provided Petitioner IMRT in order to prevent any further delay due to the passage of time from unsuccessful appeals of the denial by AvMed for the PBRT treatment of his recurring prostate cancer. She replied that she was attempting to secure a less toxic treatment modality, PBRT, for her patient who was already approved by Medicare for coverage of 80 percent of the cost of the treatment. MEDICAL NECESSITY OF PBRT VERSUS IMRT There is no dispute that IMRT is an accepted treatment modality for Petitioner’s recurrent prostate cancer, even bearing in mind his complicating factor of colon cancer surgery and treatment endured following his 2018 prostatectomy. The remaining dispute here is whether PBRT is both medically necessary and not an experimental and/or investigative form of radiation treatment. IMRT is a recognized form of treatment for Petitioner’s recurrent prostate cancer. Dr. Rodrigues testified that Miami Cancer Institute considered only candidates for PBRT as those who would qualify for IMRT, such as Petitioner. Given the availability of another treatment option, IMRT, which is the most widely recognized standard of care within the medical establishment for the treatment of Petitioner’s condition, Respondent’s experts conclude that PBRT is not medically necessary because it is not the most appropriate level of service in this case. While PBRT has been accepted by AvMed, according to its Plan, for certain types of cancer, the insurer has not yet authorized it for the treatment of prostate cancer. This is where the semantics of the contract come into play. Petitioner and Intervenor argued that Respondent mistakenly based its denial upon a diagnosis of “localized prostate cancer” (Dr. Rodrigues’ reading of the proscription of the use of PBRT for Petitioner) rather than “recurrent prostate cancer” (not specifically proscribed by the Plan according to her reading), combined with the fact that Petitioner’s unique medical condition requires lower toxicity in the specific type of radiation used. PBRT, she testified, offers lower radiation toxicity, which will have less of a harmful effect on Petitioner’s colon and rectum as a survivor of colon cancer surgery. Dr. Rodriguez, the AvMed senior medical director, testified that studies comparing PBRT to 3-D confirming radiation or IMRT are limited. Overall studies have not shown clinical outcomes to be superior to conventional radiation therapy. In addition to the preservice and Level I appeal reviews by AvMed, and Respondent’s Level II appeal review, an Independent Organization Review (“IRO”) was conducted by a licensed radiation oncologist employed by Independent Medical Expert Consulting Services. As a result of this independent review, the Plan’s denial was upheld. Dr. Rodrigues presented studies in her testimony and a letter of medical necessity which cited the potential for favorable outcomes with PBRT. Dr. Gorty, Respondent’s expert in radiation oncology, contradicted her testimony in that many of the studies she cited noted a need for further study regarding the safety and efficacy of PBRT for treatment, and all of these studies were based upon “localized prostate cancer,” rather than “recurrent prostate cancer.” Dr. Gorty also testified that Petitioner's records indicated that his cancer was localized, although it could also be "recurrent." Dr. Gorty testified that clinical studies show no significant difference in the toxicity between IMRT and PBRT. Further, Dr. Rodriguez explained that localized cancer can be recurrent. “Localized” refers to where the cancer may be found, while “recurrent” refers to a repeat or re-occurrence of a cancer, which might return to the same location or reappear in a different location. Paragraph 15 lists the criteria to determine whether a treatment or procedure is “medically necessary” under the AvMed policy. PBRT does not meet the third criterion of the definition of “medically necessary,” as PBRT treatment of prostate cancer is not in accordance with standards of acceptable community practice. Dr. Gorty testified that AvMed medical guidelines utilize IMRT as the “next generation” treatment, rather than PBRT. Further, Dr. Gorty testified that he was aware of several recent clinical trials concerning PBRT and IMRT, and these studies do not reach a conclusion that PBRT is preferable to IMRT. PBRT does not meet the fifth criterion of the definition of “medically necessary,” as PBRT has not been approved by the appropriate medical body or healthcare specialty involved as effective, appropriate, and essential for the care and treatment of prostate cancer. PBRT is not essential for the treatment of prostate cancer. There are several treatment modalities that are generally available for the treatment of prostate cancer and, as discussed above, several of those treatment options were reasonable treatment options for Petitioner. While Dr. Rodrigues believes PBRT to be preferable for Petitioner in this case due to, in her opinion, fewer adverse side effects of the treatment, she admitted that Petitioner is a suitable candidate for IMRT. Therefore, PBRT does not meet the sixth criterion of the definition of “medically necessary,” as it meets the definition of “experimental and/or investigational.” Specifically, criteria 2, 3, and 4 of the definition of “experimental and/or investigational” are met, which lead to the ultimate conclusion that PBRT is not medically necessary in this case. EXPERIMENTAL AND/OR INVESTIGATIONAL TREATMENT Paragraph 18 sets forth the criteria for determining whether a treatment or procedure is “experimental and/or investigational.” The second criterion from the definition of experimental and/or investigational treatment is met in this case. Insufficient outcomes data are not available from controlled clinical trials published in peer-reviewed literature to substantiate PBRT’s safety and effectiveness for treatment of prostate cancer. Dr. Rodriguez testified that there is a lack of peer-reviewed, published, randomized studies regarding proton beam therapy. Further, PBRT treatment is not the generally accepted standard of care. Dr. Rodrigues testified that only a handful of medical centers in the United States are using PBRT to treat cancer malignancies. Only two such programs are located in Florida—the University of Florida and Intervenor. Outside of Florida, only Massachusetts General and Loma Linda offer the treatment. Prior to Intervenor offering the treatment, Dr. Rodrigues referred her patients to one of these other facilities for PBRT when she deemed it appropriate to do so. Current randomized trials are on-going and being published in peer- reviewed medical literature. PBRT treatment for prostate cancer is considered investigational and not a standard of care option and, therefore, not medically necessary. Nurse Thomas-Brown testified that a treatment considered experimental or investigational is, automatically, not medically necessary. NIA Magellan Clinical Guideline Number NIA_CG_124, which was developed in July 2018 for implementation in January 2019 to assist physicians in the application of treatment, states that both surgery and radiation therapy should be used to treat organ confined prostate cancer, as well as prostate cancers extended into adjacent tissues. This guideline finds that PBRT is not an approved treatment option for localized prostate cancer as studies comparing it to 3-D conformal radiation or IMRT are limited. Leading organizations, such as NCCN and ASTRO, have noted insufficient data outcomes and a need for more study of proton beam therapy, which these organizations have not yet accepted as the standard of care. PBRT also meets the third criterion of the definition of “experimental and/or investigational.” There is no consensus among practicing physicians that PBRT is safe or effective for the treatment of prostate cancer or that PBRT is the standard treatment utilized by practicing physicians in treating other patients with the same or similar conditions. Both Dr. Gorty and Dr. Rodriguez testified that proton beam therapy is experimental and investigational and, therefore, not medically necessary for all forms of prostate cancer; two additional radiation oncologists reviewed the appeal and reached the conclusion that PBRT is not medically necessary. Additionally, there was uncontroverted evidence that IMRT, not PBRT, is the standard form of treatment utilized by practicing physicians for treatment of prostate cancer. Dr. Gorty testified that AvMed approved the NIA Magellan clinical guidelines for prostate cancer, which are based on the peer-reviewed studies; and he explained three such studies. His testimony noted that the second study from the University of Pennsylvania at Baltimore, Maryland, specifically matched Petitioner’s medical condition. This study compared 307 men and their comparative toxicity outcomes of PBRT verses IMRT for post-operative sites. It concluded that future prospective investigation and ongoing follow-up will determine whether dosimetric differences between treatment with IMRT and proton beam therapy convert to meaningful differences in long-term outcomes. As part of the appeal process on behalf of Petitioner, Intervenor also requested a review by an IRO. The review was completed by a board-certified radiation oncologist, and a report was generated on January 9, 2020. The “List of Materials Reviewed” is extensive and includes Petitioner’s medical records and Intervenor’s supporting documentation. The independent reviewer upheld the denial and noted that medical necessity has not been established. The IRO states that “until the current randomized trials ongoing are published in peer reviewed medical literature, proton beam treatment for prostate cancer is considered investigational and not a standard of care treatment option.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for coverage for proton beam therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 4th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Erica D. Moore, Esquire Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Abolghasem Zolfaghari 10910 Southwest 140th Avenue Miami, Florida 33186 Frank A. Florio, Esquire Maria D. Garcia, Esquire Latasha Gethers Hines, Esquire Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Ninth Floor Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) William Chorba, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's Exception to the first and third sentences contained in paragraph 55 of the Recommended Order is accepted. Respondent's Exception to paragraph 56 of the Recommended Order is accepted. Respondent's Exception to paragraph 67 of the Recommended Order is accepted. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings of Fact, as amended, are approved and adopted and incorporated herein. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's finding herein.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that Janet A. Marley, M.D. has violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, reprimanding the Respondent, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of three years and imposing an administrative fine of $3,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1605 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 12. Rejected, cumulative. 22, 28-29. Rejected, unnecessary. 33-35. Rejected, subordinate, cumulative. 39. Rejected, evidence does not establish a July 1986 office visit. 40-41. Rejected, subordinate. 44-45. Rejected, subordinate, cumulative. 57. Rejected as to training obtained after the cryocautery performed in this case, irrelevant. 60. Rejected, subordinate. 61-62. Rejected. The theory that "good" cells grow over the "bad" cells is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 70-71. Rejected, cumulative. 90. Rejected, unnecessary. 92-93. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13. Rejected. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence establishes that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent to perform cryocautery without making a definitive diagnosis of Patient #1's condition by either biopsy or colposcopy. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected. There was a small white area on the cervix which the Respondent presumed to be a yeast infection. No confirmatory testing was performed. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The repeat Pap smear (performed on May 20, 1986) was not performed within six weeks of the April 4. 1986 test. 19. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no evidence that during the time care was provided to Patient #1 any lab other than Accutech was utilized by the Respondent. 22. Rejected, irrelevant. 24. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. A Class II report indicates only that atypical cells are present, that other factors make it impossible to determine whether dysplastic cells are present, and that the test should be redone. It does not establish that there are no dysplastic cells present in the sample. 27, 32. Rejected, subordinate. 33. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. It should be noted that the Respondent apparently chose not to rely on the representations of the laboratory after the second Class II report. Although the report suggested re-testing, the Respondent performed cryocautery without confirming a diagnosis. Rejected. The greater weight of the evidence establishes only that the procedure was performed to address the persistent Class II Pap smear. 41. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Given the two Class II Pap smear reports , and the fact that dysplasia could not be ruled out, it was not reasonable to perform cryocautery without further investigation of the underlying situation. 44. Rejected, cumulative. 49. Rejected. Not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 51. Rejected. Not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 53. Rejected, unnecessary. 56. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Arthur Skafidas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601
