The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for violating its order entered May 4, 1995, prohibiting Respondent from performing obstetric or gynecological surgical procedures without appearing before the Board of Medicine (Board) and demonstrating his ability to perform OB/GYN surgery with requisite skill and safety to patients? Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0017399. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes. On or about May 4, 1995, the Board of Medicine issued a Final Order in Case No. 92-05546 imposing discipline on Respondent's license to practice medicine. This discipline was adopted by the Board of Medicine from a stipulated disposition ("consent agreement") voluntarily accepted by Respondent. Respondent does not now challenge the legality or validity of the May 4, 1995, consent agreement. The disciplinary terms of the May 4, 1995, consent agreement include, but are not limited to, the following restriction on Respondent's practice, in pertinent part: Respondent shall refrain from performing obstetric or gynecological surgical procedures until such time as he appears before the Board and Demonstrates that he may perform OB/GYN surgery with the requisite skill and safety to patients. For purposes of this Consent Agreement, OB/GYN surgery shall include, but not be limited to: abortion of a fetus, amniocentesis, dilation and curettage, delivery of a fetus, hysterectomy, PAP smear, cophorectomy, salpingectomy, tubal ligation, and any and all invasive procedures involving any portion of the reproductive organs of the human female, including the vulva, vagina, cervix, uterus, and adnexa of the uterus. Respondent did not appeal or otherwise legally challenge the May 4, 1995, Final Order of the Board of Medicine. At no time through July 1996 did Respondent physically appear before the Board of Medicine or petition the Board of Medicine with respect to the above stated restriction on his license and/or the demonstration [sic] to the Board that he could perform obstetric or gynecological surgical procedures as specified in the Final Order with the requisite skill and safety to patients. Between approximately January 1996 and July 1996, Respondent was employed as a physician at the Gulf County Health Department in Gulf County, Florida. During the period that Respondent was employed at the Gulf County Health Department, he performed PAP smears and gynecological cryosurgery. Irrespective of whether such violation was premeditated, intentional, or willful, Respondent violated the terms of the May 4, 1995, Final Order of the Board of Medicine by performing the gynecological procedures he performed during his practice at the Gulf County Health Department. At the time it was presented to the Board, Respondent received a copy of the Consent Agreement executed by him which formed the basis for the Board of Medicine Final Order. Respondent did not provide a copy of the Consent Agreement and/or the Board of Medicine Final Order to the Gulf County Health Department prior to or at the initiation of his employment there. Additional Facts At the time Petitioner imposed discipline against Respondent in Case No. 92-05546, Respondent appeared before Petitioner and an explanation was given concerning the circumstances involved with the discipline. Respondent signed the consent agreement leading to the discipline. The consent agreement included the statements of restrictions on Respondent's practice, the subject of the present case. Respondent had discussed entry into the consent agreement with counsel who represented his interests in Case No. 92-05546. While employed with the Gulf County Health Department in Gulf County, Florida, between January 26, 1996 and July 18, 1996, Respondent performed 21 PAP smears and two colposcopies/ biopsies in the Port St. Joe, Florida clinic. Respondent performed 29 PAP smears and one colposocopy/biopsy in the Wewahitchka, Florida clinic. In discussing the possibility that Respondent would be employed by the Gulf County Health Department, Respondent did not discuss with that agency the existence of the consent order which restricted his practice. Respondent mentioned a suit and the fact of his appearance before the Board of Medicine in the previous year, at the Board's behest, but not the consent order. Verna Mathes is the Community Health Nursing Director for the Gulf County Health Department. Ms. Mathes was involved with the efforts that lead to Respondent's employment with the Gulf County Health Department. Ms. Mathes spoke with someone at the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation to ascertain whether Respondent's medical license was "in good standing," before Respondent was hired. That unnamed person replied that there were no disciplinary actions against Respondent's medical license. Subsequent to that conversation Respondent was hired. Before Respondent was hired by the Gulf County Health Department he telephoned the Board of Medicine and spoke to a secretary. His stated purpose for the call was to arrange to appear before the Board and "to know what steps I have to take in order to have any license up to date subject to the rules, whatever limitations had been posted." According to Respondent, the response by the secretary he spoke with was that the "register" does not show any limitation imposed upon Respondent's medical license. Assume that the communication from the person at the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation was made to Ms. Mathes and that there was a communication from a secretary at the Board of Medicine made to Respondent. Assume the communications reflected the understanding which those persons had concerning Respondent's license status. This did not modify nor relieve Respondent of his obligation in Case No. 92-05546. That obligation was to abide by the restrictions on his practice in relation to the performance of OB/GYN surgery. Respondent could only engage in that surgical practice after appearing before the Board of Medicine and demonstrating the requisite skill and safety to patients in performing OB/GYN surgery. Any inquiry by Respondent and that by Ms. Mathes did not release Respondent from his obligation to appear. Once hired by the Gulf County Health Department, the OB/GYN surgeries that have been described were outside the expectations in the consent order related to Respondent's opportunities to practice medicine.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, imposes a $5,000.00 fine, and requires twenty (20) hours of Continuing Medical Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 7th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric C. Scott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Office of General Counsel Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Thomas S. Gibson, Esquire Rish, Gibson and Scholz, P.A. 206 East Fourth Street Port St. Joe, Florida 32457 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with the required standard of care, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and failed to keep required written medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician in Florida, having been issued license number ME 0022608. Respondent is board-certified in ophthalmology. He was the principal investigator in the Excimer Laser Research Study. He is a fellow with the American College of Surgeons. He has published extensively in prominent medical and ophthalmologic journals. While still receiving medical training, Respondent gained experience in treating the ophthalmologic conditions of patients who suffer from Down Syndrome. While in practice, Respondent has continued to gain considerable experience in treating the ophthalmologic conditions of patients with Down Syndrome. Respondent has never previously been disciplined. U. V. was born on January 6, 1973. He suffered from Down Syndrome. As a young child, U. V. was diagnosed with inoperable congestive heart failure. Suffering from damage to two chambers of his heart and irreversible lung damage, U. V. had been in “terminal” condition since about the age of seven. Despite his serious medical problems, which are common to Down Syndrome patients, U. V. was a happy young man, who developed and matured as a teenager. He communicated his feelings and interacted with others, especially with his family. His mother adopted him when he was about five years old; previously, she had cared for him after his biological family had abandoned him. In March 1992, U. V. became quite ill. His physician discussed with U. V.’s mother the possibility of a Do Not Resuscitate order, but no order was ever given or entered into his medical records. U. V. rallied from his illness. His cardiologist found, after an office visit on October 13, 1992, that U. V. had made “tremendous progress” and was “doing quite well at this point in time.” This was the last time that U. V. visited his personal physician prior to the cataract surgery nearly a year later. In April of 1993, U. V. received home health care through the Hospices of Palm Beach. During this time, the hospice nurse who visited U. V. at home noted that he was sensitive about his Down Syndrome and social isolation. On July 14, 1993, the hospice nurse noted that she found U. V. to be “alert, ambulatory, cheerful.” U. V.’s mother told the nurse that U. V. wanted an eye surgeon to treat a cataract that had developed in his left eye, and the family would be willing to pay for the operation in installments, if health coverage would not pay for the surgery. Ten days later, during another home visit by the hospice nurse, U. V.’s mother again stated her concern about his cataract. The nurse told her to take U. V. to his primary care physician for a referral. U. V.’s family took U. V. to his family physician, who sent him to an optometrist. The optometrist determined that U. V. had a cataract in his left eye and was starting to develop one in his right eye too. The optometrist told them that surgery could correct the condition and referred U. V. to Respondent. About a month later, in late August, U. V.’s mother informed the hospice nurse that they had an appointment with an eye surgeon and hoped that he would remove the cataract from U. V.’s left eye. At this time, U. V. was still leading an active life, largely due to the support and assistance of his loving family. He was happy and enjoyed dancing at weddings and parties and watching television. The family thought that surgery would help him see better with his left eye. Respondent first examined U. V. on August 31, 1993. He found a hypermature cataract in U. V.’s left eye. U. V.’s eye was totally opacified by the cataract to such an extent that he could see only hand motion. Respondent was immediately concerned with the possibility of phacolytic glaucoma. This is a condition in which the cataract liquifies and may leak through the lens capsule, resulting in an immunological reaction. Phacolytic glaucoma is extremely painful. It is impossible to predict the precise onset of phacolytic glaucoma, but Respondent reasonably determined that the condition could develop in as little time as hours or days, although it was possibly months away. Respondent was also concerned with U. V.’s right eye. Respondent found a cataract in the right eye in the lens where all the light rays pass into the eye. This type of cataract advances rapidly, so much so that it might overtake in seriousness the older cataract in U. V.’s left eye. Respondent performed a comprehensive examination of both eyes. He discussed cataract surgery with U. V.’s mother. Respondent agreed to perform the surgery for the Medicaid payment. He carefully explained the condition of U. V.’s left eye and the risks and benefits of surgery and general anesthesia. To assist in communicating with U. V.’s Spanish-speaking mother, Respondent had someone in the office translate for the mother. After hearing the explanation, U. V.’s mother agreed to the surgery, and Respondent set up the surgery for September 7, 1993. After returning home, U. V. began complaining of problems with his right eye. His sight was deteriorating at this time, heightening his feeling of isolation from the world around him. In the meantime, Respondent had the laboratory work done in preparation for the surgery. His office contacted U. V.’s physicians to get medical information in preparation for the cataract surgery. But they were unable to get such information from the physicians’ offices. On September 7, U. V. and his family returned to Ft. Myers for the surgery. The board-certified anesthesiologist examined U. V. and found that he had wheezing respiration, so the anesthesiologist told Respondent that the surgery had to be postponed. Respondent rescheduled the surgery for September 15, 1993. Respondent and the anesthesiologist then discussed the possibility of using a local anesthetic, which would present fewer risks to U. V. than would be posed by a general anesthetic. But, as is typical with Down patients, U. V. had been fidgety during the August 31 office visit and was a poor candidate for local anesthesia during the extremely delicate cataract surgery that he was about to undergo. Respondent and the anesthesiologist agreed that U. V. would receive general anesthesia for the surgery. After the first surgery was canceled, the anesthesiologist undertook the task of obtaining the medical clearances for general anesthesia. He spoke with U. V.’s primary physician, who practices in the small town where U. V. lived at the south end of Lake Okeechobee between Clewiston and Belle Glade. U. V.’s primary physician appeared as a witness at the hearing. He seemed to suffer from communication problems not entirely attributable to obvious difficulties with the English language. Not surprisingly, the anesthesiologist obtained little useful information from the physician. The anesthesiologist’s nurse called the cardiologist’s office several times on September 15 prior to the surgery. Unable to reach the cardiologist or any of his partners, the anesthesiologist spoke with one of the cardiologist’s office nurses and had her read him U. V.’s chart. Especially interested in U. V.’s cardiac malformations, the anesthesiologist satisfied himself that U. V. could withstand the rigors of general anesthesia and developed a plan, after discussing the case with his partners, to use special drugs and techniques so as to affect V.’s heart and lungs as little as possible. The anesthesiologist also studied either a chest xray taken on September 6, 1993, or a report of the chest xray taken on that date. He examined the xray or report to determine if U. was suffering from any reversible heart problems that might resolve themselves if surgery were postponed. The anesthesiologist found no cardiac problems of this type. Prior to the administration of the general anesthesia, the anesthesiologist spent several hours with U. V. and his family discussing the risks and benefits of general anesthesia. U. V.’s mother accepted the risks and agreed to the use of the general anesthesia. U. V.’s cardiologist testified that, if asked about the surgery and general anesthesia, he would have cautioned Respondent and the anesthesiologist of the risks of surgery, but he would not have offered an opinion on the advisability of using general anesthesia on U. V. The cardiologist would have left the decision on this matter to the anesthesiologist. On September 15, 1993, Respondent removed the cardiac from U. V.’s left eye. The surgery was flawless. During the surgery, U. V. was stable and tolerated the anesthesia. Following the surgery, U. V. awoke in the recovery room, where he was alert and following commands. Once U. V. began to breathe better on his own, the ventilator machine was turned off. U. V. suddenly developed cardiac arrhythmia and died within an hour. Respondent did not deviate from the applicable standard of care in his diagnosis and treatment of U. V. Respondent’s medical records amply memorialize his diagnosis and fully justify the surgery undertaken on September 15, 1993.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 John F. Lauro, Esquire John F. Lauro, P.A. Suite 3950 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0972 Jerome Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 478.52(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ by accepting and performing professional responsibilities that she knew or had reason to know she was not competent to perform; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violations proven.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of electrolysis pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been licensed as an electrologist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number EO2650. Respondent is also licensed by the State of Florida as an acupuncturist, license number AP 1378. Respondent is a certified surgical assistant, having obtained certification through the American Board of Surgical Assistants. Documents in the record indicate that in 1998, Respondent completed medical school at Universidad Libre in Barranquilla, Columbia. However, Respondent is not a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 8210 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent owned and operated Orozco Medical Center (“OMC”), located at 8210 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615. Patient N.M. Patient N.M. is a female born in 1964. She testified that she was familiar with OMC because she had therapy there following a car accident in 2000. N.M. presented to OMC in early 2015 for consultation regarding a liposuction with fat transfer procedure, commonly called a “Brazilian Butt Lift” (“BBL”). Fat is taken from one part of the body and reinjected into the buttocks. N.M. testified that Blanca Cabrera, who performs massages at OMC, recommended a “doctor” at OMC named Marlon Barcelo to perform her BBL. Marlon Barcelo worked at OMC as a surgical assistant but was not a medical doctor. N.M. testified that she believed Mr. Barcelo would perform her BBL procedure and that she never knew that he was not a physician. Ms. Cabrera told her that Mr. Barcelo had been a very good doctor in Columbia. N.M. testified that at her initial consultation at OMC regarding the BBL, she met exclusively with Respondent, who showed her where the fat would be removed and where it would be injected. N.M. testified that she met with Respondent three times before her surgery. N.M. testified that, at the conclusion of the initial consultation, she was given an appointment card directing her to return to OMC on January 13, 2015, for an electrocardiogram, lab work, and the medication she would be expected to take before the procedure. The medical records indicate that N.M. was confused as to the dates. It appears from the records that her initial consultation was on January 13, 2015, that her EKG and lab work were performed on March 2, 2015, and the date of her surgery was March 13, 2015. N.M. testified that each time she visited OMC prior to the surgery, she met only with Respondent, who examined her and explained the procedure to her with no other persons present. N.M. testified that on the date of the surgery, her daughter drove her to OMC. After she checked in at the front desk, N.M. was taken to an exam room and told to change into a hospital gown. Respondent then marked her body to identify the locations where fat was to be removed. Respondent gave N.M. a medication to calm her prior to the procedure. The medical record indicates that N.M.’s pre- operative medications included Keflex (cephalexin, an antibiotic), lorazepam (a sedative and anti-anxiety medication), and Benadryl (diphenhydramine, an antihistamine with sedative properties). N.M. described the medication’s effect as “like a Xanax.” N.M. testified that the medication relaxed her but did not affect her recollection of the procedure. She testified that she was awake throughout the surgery and was allowed to use her cell phone during the procedure. N.M. did not recall meeting Dr. Mark Kantzler and denied ever meeting Dr. Amina Edathodu. She believed that Mr. Barcelo was going to perform the surgery, though up until the morning of the procedure she had not met him. N.M. was taken to the surgical room and placed on a table. She stated that there was a drape that blocked her view of the surgical area, but that it was low enough to allow her to see everyone in the room. She could see two men, Mr. Barcelo and someone identified as “Abel,” and Ms. Cabrera, the massage therapist, who appeared to be assisting. N.M. testified that Mr. Barcelo performed the liposuction. She testified that everyone in the room was wearing surgical gowns and gloves but no surgical masks. N.M. testified that during the liposuction procedure, Respondent told her that she would be performing the fat injections because she was very good at that procedure. N.M. testified that after the liposuction was completed, Mr. Barcelo called on Respondent to perform the fat injections into her buttocks. N.M. stated that she saw Respondent walk into the room carrying a syringe. During this portion of the procedure N.M was positioned on her stomach but stated that she knew from the conversation in the room that it was Respondent who was placing the injections into her buttocks. Upon conclusion of the procedure, Respondent gave N.M. pain medication for post-surgical pain. N.M. returned to OMC for a follow-up visit regarding the lack of drainage from her incision. During this visit, Respondent examined N.M. and gave her medication to reduce the swelling she was experiencing. Dr. Edathodu testified that she has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida for over 25 years. From 2015 through 2017, she worked as a contract physician at OMC and acted as medical director for the facility. Dr. Edathodu developed the protocols for OMC’s tumescent liposuction procedures and ensured they were followed. Dr. Edathodu remembered N.M. as a patient who had undergone previous surgeries and presented for further liposuction and fat transfer. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the liposuction procedure on N.M. Dr. Edathodu’s signature is on the cosmetic surgery consent form that was also signed by N.M. on March 3, 2015. The “Liposuction and Autologous Fat Transfer” consent form signed by N.M. on March 3, 2015, specifically names Dr. Edathodu as the surgeon who will perform the procedure and was signed by Dr. Edathodu. Dr. Edathodu testified that she reviewed the procedure with N.M., discussing the risks and benefits. Dr. Edathodu does not speak Spanish and uses Respondent to translate with Spanish speakers such as N.M. She identified herself to N.M. as a surgeon through Respondent’s translation. Dr. Edathodu spoke to N.M. about having realistic expectations and cautioned her that she may not obtain an optimal result because of her previous procedures. Dr. Edathodu testified that, aside from her, the persons in the surgical theater were three surgical assistants: Respondent, Mr. Barcelo, and Pavel Cabanes. It is found that Mr. Cabanes must have been the “Abel” referred to by N.M. Dr. Edathodu testified that during the surgery, there is a drape between the surgical field and the patient’s face and head, to prevent the patient from being disturbed by the sight of the procedure. The drape is made of disposable paper and is about five feet high. When performing the surgery, Dr. Edathodu is unable to see the patient’s face and the patient is unable to see past the drape. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the entire surgical procedure on N.M. Dr. Edathodu made the site markings on N.M. while Respondent took photographs. Respondent did not perform any part of the surgical procedure. Respondent performed none of the fat transfer on N.M. Respondent did nothing other than what Dr. Edathodu specifically directed her to do. Dr. Edathodu testified that she met with N.M. on four or five occasions after the surgery. Dr. Edathodu’s testimony, as supported by the medical records, is credited. Perhaps because of her inability to speak English, N.M. appeared confused and inconsistent in her testimony, at least as it appeared in the Transcript. N.M.’s credibility was strained by her uncertainty as to dates and medications. She offered improbable details, such as the lack of coverage by the surgical drape and the failure of the surgical team to wear masks. N.M. was certain that Respondent was performing the fat injection, even though N.M. could not see what was happening. Though N.M. testified that she was awake and alert during the procedure, the undersigned cannot disregard that she had been given a medication that she likened to Xanax, most likely the lorazepam. The undersigned hesitates to rely upon N.M.’s disjointed testimony where it conflicts with the straightforward and credible testimony of Dr. Edathodu.3/ Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is found that the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient N.M. Patient R.C. Patient R.C. is a female born in 1988. At the time of the hearing, she worked as a claims specialist. She testified that a friend from her previous job at HealthPlan Services referred her to OMC for a consultation. She first went to OMC on or about June 6, 2016. R.C. testified that this initial consultation was with Respondent. She told Respondent that she wanted liposuction on her back and waist and wanted the fat transferred to her buttocks. They discussed the procedure and pricing. From that point until the day of the surgery, R.C. went to OMC only to drop off periodic payments for the surgery. Her only contact was with the person at the front desk. She testified that she did not see Respondent again until the day of her surgery. R.C.’s surgery was scheduled for August 5, 2016. R.C. testified that she was dropped off at OMC by her children’s father. She went in and met Respondent and a few workers in the front of the facility. When she went to the back to prepare for the procedure, she met a man wearing scrubs whom she had never seen before. Two other staff persons were present, but R.C. stated she only talked with the one staff person who spoke English. R.C. testified that Respondent and the man in scrubs marked her body for the surgery. She believed that Respondent was going to perform the surgery. R.C. stated that she was not familiar with Dr. Edathodu. R.C. stated that she filled out the consent forms on August 5, 2016. An assistant gave her medication, saying it would calm her down. R.C. was not told the name of the medication, but testified that she took a blue pill and half of a white pill. The medical records indicate she was given Ativan (a brand name for lorazepam) and Benadryl. R.C. testified that the medications made her drowsy. R.C. was assisted to the room where the surgery would be performed. R.C. testified that she was placed on her stomach, face down. Everyone in the room was wearing a surgical mask. In the room were Respondent, the man in the scrubs, and two assistants. R.C. stated that she was awake during the procedure, but was drowsy and did not recall much about it. She could hear Respondent’s voice and the noise of the liposuction machine. She could not see who actually performed the procedure. After it was over, one of the assistants phoned R.C.’s driver and helped R.C. get up and walk. Respondent handed her a bag containing pills that R.C. believed were antibiotics. She received post-operative instructions. R.C. testified that she returned to OMC for a follow- up visit about a month after the surgery and met with Respondent. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the surgical procedure, called “tumescent liposuction,” on R.C. on August 5, 2016. On August 2, 2016, R.C. signed a “liposuction & autologous fat transfer consent” form that specifically named Dr. Edathodu as the surgeon who would perform the surgery. Dr. Edathodu ordered, reviewed, and signed R.C.’s lab results. Dr. Edathodu met with R.C. prior to the procedure and completed a “pre-operative clearance” form to document R.C.’s fitness and willingness to go through the surgery. Both R.C. and Dr. Edathodu signed the pre-operative clearance form. Dr. Edathodu testified that she met with R.C. three or four times post-surgery. As in the case of N.M., all of the medical records support the version of events described by Dr. Edathodu.4/ Dr. Edathodu’s testimony, as supported by the medical records, is credited. R.C. frankly conceded that she did not remember much about the surgery and could not see who performed it. Dr. Edathodu clearly and credibly recalled performing the procedure. The greater weight of evidence supports the finding that Dr. Edathodu performed the surgery, assisted by Respondent and Mr. Barcelo. The evidence could not sustain a finding that Respondent performed a surgical procedure on R.C. R.C. was a more credible witness than N.M., and her testimony on some of the details regarding her consultations and pre-operative events was persuasive. However, it must be kept in mind that the only relevant factual question is whether Respondent performed an “invasive/surgical medical procedure” on R.C. The evidence on this question is not persuasive. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is found that the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient R.C. Patient K.H. Patient K.H. is a female born in 1989. She learned of OMC from a friend at work. She first came into OMC for a consultation regarding a liposuction and fat transfer on November 29, 2016. K.H. testified that she met only with Respondent at this initial consultation. On November 29, 2016, K.H. signed an “information certification” form accepting Dr. Mark Kantzler as the physician who would be in charge of her liposuction procedure. K.H. came back to OMC on January 9, 2017, to make a $500 deposit and to schedule the surgery. The procedure was scheduled for February 11, 2017. Again, K.H. testified that she met alone with Respondent, who told her that she would need to come in a couple of days before the surgery to get medication and a list of things she would need for post-operative care. K.H. testified that she believed that Respondent was a physician and that she would be performing the liposuction procedure. The “liposuction and autologous fat transfer consent” form that K.H. signed on February 9, 2017, authorized Dr. Kantzler to perform the liposuction and fat transfer procedure. The “surgery certification” form that K.H. signed on February 9, 2017, indicated that Dr. Kantzler reviewed the entire medical file with her before performing the procedure. On February 11, 2017, K.H. was driven to OMC by her mother. Shortly after arriving, K.H. noted the presence of a tall man with white hair and blue eyes. An OMC assistant escorted K.H. to a room with a bed and a chair. Respondent came in to the room and marked K.H. for surgery. Respondent then called in the tall man with white hair and blue eyes, who looked at the surgical markings and then asked K.H. some questions about her stretch marks. During her direct examination, K.H. testified that she was not given the man’s name. During cross-examination, K.H. was forced to concede that during an August 2017 interview, she told Department investigators that she had been introduced to the tall man with white hair and blue eyes and that his name was Dr. Mark Kantzler. K.H. testified that Respondent gave her a pill to take before surgery. She was taken to the surgical suite and was placed on the table. K.H. testified that the surgical drape prevented her from seeing the surgical area. The only people she had noted in the room were Respondent and “Claudia,” a woman K.H. recognized as a massage therapist at OMC. She could not be certain whether or not Dr. Kantzler was in the room. K.H. testified that she was awake during the surgery. She stated that she was in pain during the surgery and complained, in Spanish, to Respondent. K.H. stated that Respondent told her she had “a little stubborn fat” and continued the procedure without doing anything to alleviate her pain. K.H. testified that all conversation during the procedure was in Spanish. She heard no English being spoken. K.H. confirmed that Dr. Kantzler was the physician who signed the letter requesting that she be excused from work immediately after her surgery. Dr. Kantzler testified that he had no specific recollection of K.H. or of her procedure. He stated that he worked on a contract basis with OMC for about three years. He came in about once a week to perform liposuction procedures, conforming to the protocols established by Dr. Edathodu. He saw the patients only briefly before their procedures, relying on Respondent to perform the patient consultations and Dr. Edathodu to prescribe the pre-operative tests in her role as medical director. He was paid by the procedure. Dr. Kantzler testified that he does not speak Spanish, but that his surgical assistants, Respondent and Mr. Barcelo, would often converse in Spanish during surgery. Dr. Kantzler reviewed the medical records and confirmed that he signed the documents and performed the surgery on K.H.: Q. Is there any doubt in your mind about whether or not you performed these procedures? A. Not when I’m looking at the files, no. Q. And if you had not done the procedures, would you have signed off on the documentation? A. I wouldn’t have had them to sign. No. Dr. Kantzler’s lack of a clear recollection distinguishes this procedure from those involving Dr. Edathodu. However, an offsetting distinguishing factor is that K.H. had a clear recollection of seeing and speaking with Dr. Kantzler at OMC on the morning of her surgery. She did not see him enter the surgical suite or hear him speak during the procedure, but she was unable to say that he was not in the room. The medical record is replete with indications that Dr. Kantzler performed the liposuction and fat transfer procedure on K.H. Dr. Kantzler testified that he voluntarily relinquished his Florida medical license in 2017 “for my own reasons not relevant to this [case].” The Department’s Proposed Recommended Order suggests that this relinquishment was “in response to or in anticipation of disciplinary proceedings.” There is no record evidence to support the Department’s suggestion, and it is disregarded here. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient K.H.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Claudia Patricia Orozco-Fandino, E.O. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of April, 2019.
The Issue Should the Board of Medicine (the Board) discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida, based upon allegations that he violated Sections 456.072(1)(bb), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in the care and treatment of Patient H.J.?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME: 65565. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes. On or about July 21, 2003, the Respondent performed peritoneal dialysis catheter removal on Patient H.J. at Bay Medical Center (Bay Medical). Peritoneal dialysis is a technique that uses the patient's own body tissues inside of the abdominal cavity to act as a filter. On or about August 25, 2003, Patient H.J. presented with erythema (a redness of the skin resulting from inflammation) and induration (localized hardening of soft tissue of the body) in the area where the peritoneal dialysis catheter had been removed. On or about December 3, 2003, the Respondent performed exploratory surgery of Patient H.J.'s wound. Additional Facts Patient H.J. suffers from end-stage kidney failure, diabetes and heart disease. Dr. Ahmad Oussama Refai treated Patient H.J. for his kidney failure. Dr. Refai is a board- certified Nephrologist. Dr. Refai referred Patient H.J. for placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter (catheter) to address the end-stage kidney failure. The catheter, as Dr. Refai describes it, was intended to remove the poisonous material in the blood of Patient H.J. By using the catheter clean fluid is introduced into the abdomen where it remains for a period of about four hours. The fluid introduced contains electrolytes put in the patient's blood stream. After the residence time for the fluid expires, the fluid is withdrawn through the catheter removing the harmful material. The patient, once instructed, is capable of performing the procedures described. The other option in performing this method of dialysis is to use a device that is employed at nighttime called a cycler, used while the patient is asleep and without the need for the patient to conduct the process. The patient's use of the catheter for dialysis is referred to as "home dialysis." Before Dr. Refai referred the patient to Respondent to place the catheter, the patient had been treated for his end- stage renal disease through a forearm AV graph to provide hemodialysis. That technique allows access to the patient's blood through a shunt, with the blood being run through a machine and cleansed and returned back to the patient. This procedure is done several times a week at out-patient centers, whereas the peritoneal dialysis is done daily by the patient or at night. On June 30, 2000, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and determined that the patient was a good candidate for the surgery necessary to place the catheter to perform peritoneal dialysis. On July 19, 2000, Respondent placed the catheter and peritoneal dialysis treatment was commenced. Following the placement the catheter was used by the patient as overseen by the Dr. Refai. As Dr. Refai describes it, the catheter is a silestic tube that has two cuffs. The cuff at the lower level sits on the fascia where it is secured and the other cuff is just under the skin or in the subcutaneous tissue. Dr. Refai describes the cuffs as fuzzy. The cuffs are expected to induce an inflammatory process promoting scarring so that the body forms tissue to hold the catheter in place. Dr. Refai calls this a bond. Dr. Refai explains that the other parts of the catheter are "slippery." It is the fuzzy part that holds the catheter in place. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 is an unused catheter similar in design to that placed in Patient H.J. On July 7, 2003, Respondent, Dr. Refai, and a Dr. Dean discussed Patient H.J. and the plan to remove the catheter that was no longer adequately performing the dialysis. On July 21, 2003, Respondent did surgery to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. On July 17, 2003, before Respondent did the surgery to remove the catheter, an explanation was made to Patient H.J. of the risks associated with the surgery as to bleeding, infection, MI stroke, death, and allergic reaction following removal of the catheter. Following the surgery Dr. Refai as the treating physician was aware that the wound associated with the surgery was not healing well and Dr. Refai sent Patient H.J. back to Respondent. Dr. Refai is familiar with the course of antibiotics prescribed for Patient H.J. to respond to the condition and the surgical exploration done by Respondent where a piece of cuff, as Dr. Refai describes it, was removed and the wound healed. December 3, 2003, was the date of the exploratory surgery. At that time, Patient H.J. was on hemo-dialysis and was being seen by Dr. Refai once a week. In Dr. Refai's opinion Patient H.J. was doing remarkably well, making allowances for his underlying condition (illnesses). At present Dr. Refai is aware that the patient is on the list to receive a kidney transplant. On August 1, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. In his notes Respondent stated: His wounds look good. There is no evidence of infection. No fever or chills. He looks well. He is not taking any pain medicine. I am going to see him back in a month for a final visit. On August 25, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again. The Respondent's notes stated: His p.d. catheter removal site which was removed 4 weeks ago has some erythema and induration around it. I ultrasounded it here in the office and it looked like there was a little fluid. I anesthetized the area and opened it. There was no gross pus. I am going ahead and treat [sic] him with some Keflex and have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday as I am going to be out of town. This may come to a head and become an abscess. It may just be some cellulitis. I am not real sure why he would have cellulites as it certainly did not look like a hernia. I am going to have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday and make sure it is improving. On August 29, 2003, a note was made by Dr. Beaver concerning his visit with Patient H.J. In that note Dr. Beaver said: Patient of Dr. Kinsey. He was seen back for re-check. Apparently he was having some questionable cellulites around his p.d. cath today. He states that he is feeling much better. On examination, I see no redness at all and per the office assistance it has much improved. There is really not tender [sic]. It looks to me like it is improving. We will plan for him to see Dr. Kinsey back next week. On September 12, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and in the office note stated: The area in his left lower quadrant is completely healed. He is doing well. I am going to see him back in one month for a final visit. On September 16, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note stated: He had some drainage from his previous p.d. catheter site. It does not appear to be infected. I am going to follow this area and see him in the office in a month. On September 30, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note it states: He still has some drainage from the p.d. catheter exit site [sic] it was done about eight weeks ago. I told him that I would like to leave that along [sic] for at least three months and follow that. If it does not improve after three to four months then we may need to explore the wound but it may be a piece of suture that it [sic] trying to spit. We will see him back in the office in about 6 to 8 weeks. On November 11, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and noted: He is still draining from his p.d. catheter exit site. This has been 5 months. It is time to explore the wound. We will proceed to the operating room for exploration in the sinus tract. I suspect that there will be a piece of the catheter in the bottom of the wound. On December 1, 2003 Respondent saw Patient H.J. for the pre-operative visit. At that time he noted: He is here for a pre-op for a wound exploration for his p.d. catheter removal site. He still has some granulation tissue there. I am going to plan to probe the area and evaluate where the sinus goes. On December 3, 2003, the surgery was conducted on Patient H.J. and Respondent noted: He underwent a left lower quadrant wound exploration. The p.d. catheter cuff was within the subcutaneous tissue and that is why his wound [sic] not close. This was removed and then the would [sic] was closed. He tolerated the procedure well. The various surgeries that have been discussed which were performed by Respondent took place at Bay Medical in Panama City, Florida. In the operative procedure report at the hospital related to the December 3, 2003 exploratory operation Respondent described a pre-operative diagnosis as: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. The post-operative diagnosis stated: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. Foreign body (peritoneal dialysis catheter cuff), left lower quadrant abdominal wound. The procedure performed was described as: Wound exploration and foreign body removal. The intra-operative findings related to the operation were: He was found to have a cuff of the catheter within the tissue. He had a small piece of p.d. catheter attached to it. The cuff had obviously broken. The catheter was broken with a cuff remaining in the subcu tissue. There was no intra-abdominal portion. In comparison, on July 21, 2003, in the operative/procedure report at Bay Medical through the description of the procedure to remove the catheter Respondent stated: . . . The previous incision in the left hypogastric area was anesthetized with local anesthetic and sharply incised. This was carried into the subcutaneous tissue and p.d.-catheter dissected and divided. The catheter was then pulled from the subcutaneous tissue at the exit site. The catheter was then delivered into the wound and abdominal wall cuff sharply incised and the catheter removed. The fascial edges were then reapproximated with 2 figure-of-eight0- vicryl sutures. On July 21, 2003, when Respondent removed the catheter from Patient H.J. no pathology was ordered. On December 3, 2003, following the exploratory surgery and retrieval of the catheter pathology was ordered. Daniel G. Dena was the pathologist at Bay Medical who addressed the specimen which was described by the pathologist as: "Tissue-p.d. catheter cuff" The anatomic diagnosis referred stated: "p.d. catheter cuff: plastic catheter, with attached fibro-fatty tissue at one end, showing acute and chronic inflammation." The macroscopic examination in the pathology report stated: "The specimen is labeled 'pd catheter cuff'. Received is a portion of plastic tubing measuring approximately 5 cm in length and up to 0.5 cm in diameter, with a cuff of soft tissue at one end measuring 2.5 cm in length and 1.2 cm in diameter." On July 26, 2004, in responding to the investigation that led to this prosecution Respondent stated in writing in relation to Patient H.J.: The original peritoneal dialysis catheter removal had gone uneventfully and I felt that both cuffs of the catheter had been removed in their entirety. But this was found not to be the case. I have placed a number of these catheters and removed a number as well and have not had this type of problem before. Visual inspection of the catheter on removal is routinely undertaken to ensure that the cuffs are removed and I felt that this had been completely removed but I was obviously mistaken. I am not sure if this was a defect in the catheter. Evaluation of the catheter and assurance of complete cuff removal would have probably prevented this process. I am certainly more cognizant of this being a problem in subsequent catheters that I have removed. At the original time of catheter removal the operative site appeared appropriate. At hearing Respondent offered additional explanation concerning the July 21, 2003 operation to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. and the exploratory surgery on December 3, 2003. As Respondent explained, in the July 21, 2003 surgery Respondent made a 3-to-4 cm incision about the belly button towards the middle of the abdomen through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, the fascial layer and muscle and peritoneal layer. The peritoneal layer is a semi-permeable membrane that waste products removed in the dialysis will cross. The catheter is placed into the abdomen. The catheter is 12 to 14 inches in length with a curlicue tail and holes in the end of the catheter that allows the fluids to be introduced and withdrawn from the abdomen. As Respondent explained the catheter has two cuffs, the smaller of which is designed for placement in the rectus muscle located along the inset part of the abdomen. The smaller cuff sits inside that muscle. Tissue attaches to that cuff to keep fluid from leaking out, to keep the catheter in place and to prevent bacteria from going down the outside of the catheter. There is a segment of the catheter between that cuff and a larger cuff which sits underneath the skin in the subcutaneous tissue. The tissue in that area attaches to the cuff and serves to hold the catheter in place. When removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, Respondent used an incision of about 3 cm and encountered the mid-portion of the catheter located between the two cuffs which was dissected down through the fascia and taken out with the portion in the abdomen being removed first. Before making the incision to remove the catheter, Respondent cut the portion of the catheter outside the body of Patient H.J. off, including the metal and plastic valves and other paraphernalia hanging out of the patient. The purpose of removing the catheter outside the patient's body was in the interest of protecting the surgical field from contamination to avoid wound infection. The part removed inside the patient initially was the intra-abdominal portion. The intra-abdominal portion of the catheter, including the cuff in that area was sharply removed. The cuff was 2 or 3 times the size that it would have been when first placed and the part around the cuff was cut to allow the catheter to be extracted. The area of the fascia was closed. Next Respondent addressed the subcutaneous portion of the catheter by following it out and sharply cutting the tissue around the catheter and the subcutaneous cuff with scissors to remove that portion which also had an ingrowth of scar and fibroblastic tissue. Once the portions of the catheter with the cuffs, had been removed Respondent looked to determine if he had both cuffs which appeared at that time as a wad of scar and tissue. Respondent then closed the wound. Respondent believed that he had removed the whole catheter, to include the cuffs. In fact the subcutaneous cuff was not entirely removed and another portion of the catheter remained in the patient following the July 21, 2003 surgery. Respondent's estimate of what had been left in the patient and removed on December 3, 2003, was about 2 cm of the subcutaneous cuff and then a portion of the balance of the catheter. In commenting on the difference between the pathology report and his visual assessment on December 3, 2003, Respondent remarked about "all the stuff" grown onto the cuff and catheter. He also said it had a lot of specimen, taken to mean the "stuff" attached to the cuff and catheter. Although in the operative notes from December 3, 2003, Respondent says the catheter broke, at hearing he stated that he did not know whether the catheter had been cut or broke during the July 21, 2003 procedure to remove the catheter. No independent tests were conducted to determine whether the catheter broke during the July 21, 2003 surgery or was cut by Respondent. Respondent does not precisely remember the appearance of the catheter, to include the cuffs, when examining it on July 21, 2003. But he believed that he had successfully removed the entire catheter. In his testimony Respondent describes the office visits subsequent to the July 21, 2003 surgery. When he saw Patient H.J. he observed cellulitis around the area of the incision which was treated with oral antibiotics and resolved. Respondent used ultrasound to determine whether fluid had collected in the area where he observed the cellulitis. No fluid collection was seen. Drainage was noticed around the exit site where the catheter came out of the skin, which ordinarily takes a month to six weeks to heal. Concerning the drainage around this exit site, Respondent expected the drainage to resolve within around five weeks unless there were a piece of suture or other kind of event keeping the site opened and draining. The wound site where the incision was made healed without incident. The exit site continued to drain. After a time Respondent concluded that the reason for the drainage was either an epithelilized sinus tract, a piece of suture, a piece of catheter, a piece of cuff, or a piece of dressing for the wound. Respondent waited a time before doing the exploratory surgery in view of the use of an absorbable suture in the July 21, 2003 surgery which would have dissolved over time, precluding the need to do the exploration. Respondent, given the problem with the drainage from Patient H.J. following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter, does not believe that the failure to remove this fragment would have killed the patient or have caused a lot of problems, but it was bothersome enough that it was worth the effort to try and find it and get the patient healed. Respondent in dictating his post-operative note on December 3, 2003, thinks that the catheter had broken and continues to hold to that belief, although he recognizes that it may have been cut in the prior surgery. Concerning his practice at Bay Medical, Respondent did not routinely have an X-ray done for patients undergoing surgery without a more specific reason for ordering it. Nor did he order a pathology examination following surgery absent the need for specific information. Patient H.J. in his testimony described the level of pain following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter as "a little pain." Expert Opinion Dr. Stanley P. Kococki is a general surgeon licensed in Florida. He is board-certified in general surgery. He has had experience placing and removing peritoneal dialysis catheters. He was qualified to offer expert opinion testimony concerning Respondent's treatment of Patient H.J., in particular, the surgery performed July 21, 2003. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that the Respondent fell below the standard of care in treating Patient H.J., in that Respondent failed to recognize that he had left a portion of the catheter in the patient, which Dr. Kococki describes as a retained foreign body and that this caused the patient to undergo a second unnecessary procedure, meaning that the second procedure would not have been necessary if the catheter had been removed completely in the first surgery. The failure to remove could possibly have caused serious problems for the patient, to include septicemia and death, according to Dr. Kococki. Dr. Kococki refers to the Respondent's obligation in removing the catheter, to make certain that the whole catheter was removed and that the wound properly healed beyond that point so that the patient would not experience problems. While recognizing that there are different techniques for removing the catheter from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki took issue with the method employed by the Respondent. Dr. Kococki believes that there are other methods for avoiding the problem with infection than to cut the catheter outside the body. There was no description of the use of a hemostat or clamps to hold the retained part of the catheter once the outside segment had been cut, so that the remaining portion of the catheter would not be lost under the skin. In addition, by cutting the catheter in two places there was a chance of leaving a piece of the catheter in the patient. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that when you cut the catheter in several places you have to remember where the pieces of the catheter are left in the patient. Given other circumstances during the surgery that occupy the surgeon's mind, it can lead to leaving a piece of catheter behind. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that leaving the catheter behind was not in the best interest of the patient because it led to subsequent surgery and had the sinus tract closed over the foreign body would have caused a localized infection and abscess formation around that area and possibly allowed for the bacteria from the abscess to enter the patient's bloodstream causing sepsis, and abscess formation in other organs, possibly the abdominal cavity, with a possible rupture intra-abdominally causing the patient to have generalized peritonitis. That can be life threatening and ultimately lethal. It is more of a problem with the person that has end-stage renal failure, in that the patient has a weakened immune system and lessened prospects to fight off infection. Dr. Kococki relied upon the pathology report made after the December 3, 2003 surgery to accurately describe the size of the segment that was left in the patient. In order to ascertain what actually happened with the catheter Dr. Kococki believes that the company or an independent examining body would have to determine if the catheter was defective. Even in the instance where the catheter may have broken in the initial surgery to remove it on July 21, 2003, the onus is still on the surgeon removing the catheter to examine it to make certain it was removed intact. Dr. Kococki characterizes the catheter as commonly present and utilized in surgical procedures to place and remove peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Kococki describes the catheter as a medical device, unlike a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle. Dr. Kococki recognizes that the purpose of the catheter is to perform dialysis but the retained portion left after the initial surgery to remove the catheter does not have a medical purpose, in his judgment. Dr. Kococki describes the cuff in the field related to the abdominal wall as providing a seal to avoid bacteria. The cuff as he understands it has an antibiotic coating that will help fight off infection. The cuff reacts with the patient's body tissue to act as a sealant. To have avoided the problem of failing to account for a portion of the catheter during the initial surgery to remove it from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki believes that the easiest thing to have done was while the patient was in the operating room send the catheter to a pathologist and have it measured for comparison against the known size of the catheter when first placed. A second safe-guard would be to use a portable X-ray of the abdominal cavity to make sure that there was no radiopaque material in the abdomen or subcutaneous tissue. The catheter has radiopaque material allowing this identification in Dr. Kococki's understanding. Dr. Kococki was not familiar with the procedures at Bay Medical where the catheter removal from Patient H.J. was performed. The bylaws of the institution do not require that the catheter be sent to pathology following removal. Dr. Thomas A. Gadacz testified in the interest of Respondent. He is licensed in several states. He is not licensed in Florida. He is an expert in the field of general surgery. He has placed and removed peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Gadacz describes the catheter as a medical device. It has nothing in common with a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle, in his opinion. As a surgeon Dr. Gadacz refers to sponges, forceps, clamps and surgical needles as items whose sole purpose is to assist during an operation, not intended to be left in the body. They are to facilitate an operation to provide exposure, to conduct the operation but they are not a therapeutic modality. By contrast the peritoneal dialysis catheter is used primarily for therapy by remaining in the patient for specified periods of time to treat the patient. Other aids in performing an operation are cotton balls called kitners, metal retractors and cannulas. Dr. Gadacz explains that the purpose of the cuffs related to the catheter is to react to the body so that tissue grows around them. The other part of the catheter made of Teflon is designed to be non-reactive. Dr. Gadacz is aware that catheters of the type under discussion have fractured or broken. Dr. Gadacz explained that the fracture of a cuff is not common. In his experience, in the instance where a segment broke in a catheter, Dr. Gadacz removed it. On the other hand the failure to remove the piece is not necessarily below the standard of care as Dr. Gadacz explains, "because some times this happens, and its, you don't know that that has happened." The possibility of knowing that the segment broke off is difficult. As Dr. Gadacz describes, it was impossible given the tract involved with the surgery here. The gross inspection of the catheter once removed from the patient is a process in which it is difficult to make certain that both cuffs are there because of the encrusting fibrous tissue found after removing the cuffs, causing the cuffs to no longer have the same appearance as when first placed. The visual inspection made of the catheter after removal would not necessarily reveal whether it was removed in its entirety, according to Dr. Gadacz. Dr. Gadacz is unfamiliar with surgeons who would use an X-ray after removal of the catheter to confirm that the entire catheter had been removed. Instead he defers to Respondent's operative note on December 3, 2003, where the Respondent says that the catheter had obviously broken to explain the failure to retrieve the catheter. Dr. Gadacz does not believe sending the catheter to pathology after it was removed on July 21, 2003, would necessarily have been useful because it would take familiarity on the part of the pathologist with that form of catheter to recognize that a part was missing. Dr. Gadacz recognizes that the fragment from the catheter left in Patient H.J. at the end of the initial surgery to remove the catheter is medically considered a foreign body because it was not part of the human body. Dr. Gadacz found nothing in the care provided by Respondent by to Patient H.J. after the July 21, 2003 surgery that was questionable. Dr. Gadacz did not find the technique Respondent used in removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, from the Patient H.J. to be below the standard of care. Generally Dr. Gadacz did not express the opinion that Respondent practiced below the standard of care. Dr. Gadacz explained that had the segment continued to be present in the patient there would have been a major risk of continuing infection and ultimately the patient could have developed a serious abscess in the subcutaneous tissue that could become life-threatening or nothing may have happened, and the segment may have been walled off by the patient's body. In determining the comparability of what is described in Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003), as "other paraphernalia," to those items listed within that section, "such as a sponge, clamp, forceps, surgical needle," that are "used in surgical examination, or other diagnostic procedures," reliance is made upon testimony from Dr. Gadacz. As a surgeon, the opinion by Dr. Kococki is rejected for reasons that will be explained in the conclusions of law. When considering whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as envisioned by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), with the specificity called for in that provision, Dr. Kococki is more compelling in his opinion that the fragment left in Patient H.J. should have been removed in the earlier operation whether it broke or was cut by Respondent. The notion that there are times when some portion of the catheter may have been left in the patient, as was the case here, with no consequences to the practitioner, as expressed by Dr. Gadacz is not persuasive. Disciplinary History The Respondent has no prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the guidance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 8.001, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent did not violate Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003); that Respondent did violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003); placing Respondent on probation for two years; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; requiring Respondent to perform 50 hours of community service; requiring the completion of 5 hours of continuing medical education on "risk management" and requiring him to present a one-hour lecture to a group of peers discussing retention of foreign bodies in surgeries and techniques to avoid the retention. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller Ephraim D. Livingston Assistants General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Albert Peacock, Esquire 8554 Congressional Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for authorization for the autologous chondrocyte implantation procedure should be approved pursuant to worker's compensation laws and rules.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Injury At all times, the Petitioner has been employed as a Ladies Wear Department Manager for K-Mart Corporation. On July 21, 1998, Petitioner, while in the course and scope of her employment, was injured when she fell on a metal ladder as she attempted to hang clothes on a rail. Her left knee struck a metal bar on the second step of the ladder, causing immediate pain. On August 26, 1998, Petitioner consulted Dr. Jeffery Friedman, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, who specializes in knee and shoulder surgery. Dr. Friedman was recognized as an expert in the field of orthopedic surgery. On or about September 4, 1998, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery performed by Dr. Friedman to remove a loose body from the knee. Dr. Friedman found grade III chondromalacia and debrided the area using an arthroscopic shaver. He also found loose articular cartilage at the patella. Dr. Friedman's records describe the area of grade III chondromalacia as "fairly large" and involving " the apex of the patella." However, neither the size nor the shape of the injury is disclosed. Dr. Friedman also debrided flake of articular cartilage from the tibial plateau and removed a calcific loose body from the posteromedial compartment. His post-operative diagnosis was left knee loose body, chrondromalacia, and intracruciate ligament strain. Petitioner returned to work with K-Mart after the arthroscopic surgery, and was placed on light duty. While performing her duties, Petitioner is required to stand most of the time, and is unable to sit. Prior to her injury, Petitioner worked 40 hours per week. After her injury, due to her physical limitations resulting from the accident, Petitioner is only able to work 24 hours per week. Petitioner's pain limits her ability to work 40 hours per week. Petitioner cannot put her full weight down on the left knee while going up steps or a ladder or it causes sharp shooting pains. In addition, continuous walking results in continuous aching pain. The reduction in Petitioner's work hours was due to her injury. Petitioner is now unable to perform all of the duties that were required of her before the injury. Dr. Friedman found Petitioner to have reached maximum medical improvement in December 1998. In early 1999, Petitioner sought treatment for continued pain. An MRI was performed on or about March 5, 1999, which suggested a small defect in the articular cartilage, thinning of the patellar cartilage, and narrowing of the medical femoral tibial joint consistent with the early stages of osteoarthritis. In June, 1999, Petitioner underwent steroid injections for continued pain. In September, 1999, Petitioner returned to Dr, Friedman because of continued pain. Dr. Friedman reviewed a video tape that he had made of the arthroscopic surgery and fount that the Petitioner had a fairly large chondral defect of the patella. Dr. Friedman determined that Petitioner was a candidate for ACI, also known as the Genzyme Carticel Procedure (Genzyme Procedure). Dr. Friedman believed that the ACI procedure would benefit Petitioner by providing long-term symptomatic relief with joint pain and mechanical disturbances and improved joint motion function, eliminating the complaints of grinding and catching, and furthering the goal of returning the patient to regular and even strenuous activity. Petitioner then requested authorization for the ACI procedure. The Employer/Carrier denied the request and referred it to the Agency for Health Care Administration for review in accordance with Florida law. The Agency consulted with the University of Florida Faculty Practice Group, and Dr. B. Hudson Berrey, Chair of the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, rendered an opinion that the procedure is investigative within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. Dr. Berrey further opined that there was not reliable evidence that ACI would provide significant benefit to the recovery and well-being of the injured employee within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.004(3), Florida Administrative Code. The documents and information forwarded to Dr. Berrey by Respondent included Petitioner's medical records provided by Intervenor, K-Mart carrier. Dr. Berrey did not review any actual MRI films, did not review any films taken at the time of the arthroscopic procedure, and in fact only reviewed certain documentation that was supplied to him by the agency. Petitioner was denied her right to present information to Dr. Berrey prior to his forming his opinion for the agency. This was a violation of Rule 59B-11.003, Florida Administrative Code. The agency rendered a decision based upon Dr. Berrey's opinion, declining to order the Employer/Carrier to provide ACI to Petitioner. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation The ACI procedure was initially developed in Sweden by Dr. Lars Peterson. ACI is a surgical procedure whereby a sample of cartilage is harvested from another area of the joint. The harvesting of the cartilage is performed during an arthroscopic surgical operation. The sample is sent to Boston to the laboratory of Genzyme Tissue Repair, Inc. ("Genzyme"), the owner of the process. Genzyme uses its proprietary process to culture the cells into an estimated 12 million chondrocytes over a period of approximately two months. Genzyme then returns the cultured chondrocytes to the surgeon. The surgeon then performs an open surgical operation. The surgeon creates a periosteal flap. In addition, the injury is debrided and the chondrocytes are implanted on the wounded cartilage and covered with the periosteal flap. The ACI procedure thus requires two surgical operations, one arthroscopic procedure and one open procedure. The claimed benefit of ACI is that the cartilage that is generated and implanted onto the knee will be hyaline cartilage or hyaline-like cartilage rather than fibrocartilage. Hyaline cartilage is composed both of the cartilage cells of an extra-cellular matrix. It has greater ability than fibrocartilage to withstand compression and shearing forces. ACI has been shown to produce "hyaline-like" cartilage in some patients. However, it does not reproduce the extra- cellular matrix in which the chondrocytes are found in naturally occurring hyaline cartilage. Alternative Treatments Other available treatments for a defect in articular cartilage of the knees include abrasion chondroplasty, arthroscopic microfracture, and arthroscopic drilling. Many patients get relief with one or more of these alternative procedures and do not need another operation. In addition, a surgical procedure to elevate the tibial tubercle and remove some of the weight from the patella might also alleviate the Petitioner's pain and improve her functioning. Dr. Friedman performed an abrasion chondroplasty during the arthroscopic surgery of September 4, 1998. Dr. Friedman did not offer Petitioner either the microfracture or the drilling procedures. Dr. Friedman had considered performing a tibial tubercle elevation but has not recommended that the Petitioner undergo that procedure either before the ACI is approved or independently of the ACI. Dr. Friedman views the primary purpose of this procedure as assuring the best possible results from the ACI. Dr. Friedman indicated there were no appropriate alternative medical procedures, other then the ACI procedure, available for Petitioner's injury. Dr. Friedman opined that the only viable option of putting back normal articular cartilage underneath the kneecap would be with the ACI procedure. In this opinion, the alternative procedures are not appropriate for and would not benefit Petitioner, as they were merely temporary procedures. Moreover, he emphatically stated that the ACI procedure is the procedure which is appropriate for an would benefit Petitioner. The Evidence That ACI Remains Investigative The Agency for Health Care Administration has not promulgated, endorsed, or approved any particular treatment for injuries to the articular cartilage of the knee in accordance with Sections 440.13(15) or 408.02, Florida Statutes; therefore, there was no Agency-approved protocol for Dr. Berrey to consider in rendering his opinion. Dr. Berrey testified that he could find no articles or publications describing controlled studies in which the effectiveness of ACI compared to any other procedure. Dr. Berrey further testified that he could find no articles about the ACI procedure in peer-reviewed journals in which the authors used objective measures of outcome which compared the patients' condition before and after treatment. The use of blinded or controlled studies is important so that possible confounding factors or variables can be controlled or accounted for and the results measured objectively. Dr. Berrey found that the publications cited by the proponents of the procedure discussed research which was funded by Genzyme, the owner of the process by which the chondrocytes were cultured. The funding of the research by the owner of the process was an additional factor in his determination that the evidence supporting the efficacy of the procedure was not reliable. The Cartilage Repair Registry and the results reported therein do not constitute reliable evidence of the benefits of ACI when compared to other available procedures for two reasons. First, the potentially confounding variables are neither controlled nor accounted for. Second, each surgeon evaluates his or her own work, so that there is no objective, independent measurement or assessment of the condition of each patient before and after surgery. Although the premise on which ACI is based is that the patient's implant will consist of hyaline cartilage rather than fibrocartilage, the available data does not indicate that the results are comprised only, or even primarily, of genuine hyaline cartilage. Rather, the evidence is that some patients develop "hyaline-like" cartilage, or cartilage composed partly of hyaline tissue. It cannot be determined whether hyaline or hyaline- like cartilage has filled a patient's defect without performing a biopsy and a histological evaluation of the tissue. The published reports described in the testimony contain discussions of post-surgical histological performed on very small numbers of patients. The published reports concerning the use of ACI to treat defects of the patella show that the results are not as favorable as those claimed for treatment of the femoral condyle. After the proponents of the procedure began to perform other procedures with the ACI to assure that any defects in the alignment of the patella are repaired, improved results were reported. Dr, Friedman testified about the published results of histological evaluations of 37 patients. Of those, seven underwent ACI to treat defects of the patella. Only one of the seven showed the development of hyaline-like tissue. Further, only two of the seven patella patients reported surgical results classified as good or better. Dr. Friedman opined that the histological data resulting from treatment of defects of the patella had improved since the study described in the preceding paragraph. However, he could not give any reference to the basis for his opinion. Dr. Friedman further testified that the more recent articles discussed the results of patients who had been followed from nine to 15 years. However, the articles and presentations from 1997 to 2000 report on follow-up of the first hundred patients between two and nine years after their surgery. Dr. Billings testified that Dr. Peterson's presentation discussed follow-ups of ACI patients occurring as long as 15 years after surgery. Yet, the March 2000 presentation to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons focused on 40 patients who had been evaluated three or more years after their surgery. The FDA granted an accelerated approval of the Carticel product in 1997. The original accelerated FDA approval was granted for defects of the femoral condyle, the trochlear groove, and the patella. The terms of the approval require that controlled studies be conducted which compare the procedure to other procedures available for the treatment of focal chondral defects, specifically, microfracture and the creation of a periosteal flap without the injection of the cultured chondrocytes. None of the expert witnesses had found in their literature search any published reports of the progress of the controlled studies required under the terms of the accelerated FDA approval. In February, 2000, the FDA approval was modified. Genzyme is no longer permitted to market the ACI procedure or its Carticel product for treatment of defects to the patella. The requirements of Rule 59B-11.004, Florida Administrative Code, differ significantly from those of the accelerated FDA approval process, so that the granting of accelerated approval does not determine the answer to the question whether a treatment is investigative under that rule. The FDA's inquiry addresses the issues of safety and efficacy. However, the accelerated FDA approval process does not address the issues of whether a particular product is more effective than currently existing treatments or is equally cost-effective. Based upon all the evidence, the performance of the ACI procedure on the defects located in the patella is investigative within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. The Probability That ACI Would be of Significant Benefit in Returning Petitioner to Work Both of Petitioner's expert witnesses testified that if she does not undergo ACI, it is likely that she will need a total knee replacement. However, neither witness testified that Petitioner currently requires a total knee replacement. No testimony was presented as to when Petitioner might require a total knee replacement. Despite the testimony that ACI has been studied for 20 years, the published reports follow patients only for nine years after surgery. From the current state of the research, it is not possible to conclude that patients who undergo ACI avoid the need for subsequent surgery in ten or more years. The published studies of the results of ACI going out nine years from the date of surgery do not state the number of procedures performed on the patella. No witnesses testified regarding any published studies of the effectiveness of ACI that addressed the extent to which patients had been able to return to work as a result of the procedure. There is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that the ACI is more likely to enable the Petitioner to return to her duties that other available procedures. The Likelihood That the Benefits of ACI Would Outweigh the Risks and the Costs The testimony compared the cost and benefit of ACI with chondroplasty, microfracture or drilling, and, to some extent, a Macquet procedure or tibial tubercle elevation. Each of the other procedures requires only one surgical operation. ACI requires an arthroscopic surgical procedure to harvest cartilage, culturing of the chondrocytes at the Genzyme laboratory in Boston, and followed by an open surgical procedure to create a periosteal flap and to implant the chondrocytes. Petitioner's expert testified that the cost of culturing the chondrocytes alone was between $8,000 and $10,000, in addition to the two surgical procedures. Petitioner's expert compared the cost of ACI to that of a total knee replacement. However, that comparison is not appropriate under the rule because there is no evidence that Petitioner currently needs a knee replacement or that a knee replacement is the treatment generally used to treat her current condition. The cost of the abrasion chondroplasty, the microfracture or drilling procedure would approximate the cost of the first stage of ACI, approximately $2,300. Dr. Billings testified that the cost of the second stage of ACI was greater than that of the first stage. The second stage is an open surgical operation rather than an arthroscopic one. The total cost of the ACI procedure, including therapy, is probably close to the $30,000 required for a total knee replacement, including the therapy required for the total knee replacement. Dr. Berrey testified that published reports of the cost of ACI are as high as $37,000. The ACI requires extensive physical therapy; Petitioner presented no evidence as to the extent to which the cost of this aspect of treatment was included in the total cost of ACI. ACI has been established to be safe, so that the benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks. However, there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that the benefits of ACI outweigh the additional costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying approval of the autologous chondrocyte implantation for Petitioner Rebecca Crane. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey J. Bordulis, Esquire 570 Crown Oak Centre Drive Longwood, Florida 32750 Lisa J. Hurley, Esquire Pyle, Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A. 1069 West Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michelle L. Oxman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
