The Issue The issues are whether the Respondent, a licensed physician, violated section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by mistakenly injecting a one-percent solution of Xylocaine® into an unintended site on a patient’s left hip in advance of performing a right-side trochanteric bursa steroid injection; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida under section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes (2017). The Respondent is a board-certified anesthesiologist but no longer practices in that specialty, but instead practices pain management medicine in Sarasota. She has been licensed as a physician in Florida since August 15, 2006, and has not been disciplined by any state licensing board. L.S. is one of the Respondent’s pain management patients. In August 2013, she was 50 years old, stood 5’8” tall and weighed 310 pounds. She was considered morbidly obese and suffered from multiple medical issues, including recurring trochanter bursa pain in her right hip. The Respondent proposed a procedure involving the injection of steroidal fluid into the right trochanter bursa sac, guided by fluoroscopy, to reduce inflammation and alleviate the patient’s pain. During this procedure, contrast dye is first injected into the site to enable the physician to use fluoroscopy to visualize and guide the placement of the relatively large-gaged needle into the bursa sac within the hip joint and injection of steroidal fluid into the bursa sac. The patient agreed to the proposed procedure but did not want to be awake while it was being performed. It was agreed and arranged that, instead of being performed at the Respondent’s office, as it normally would have been done, the procedure would be done at the Intercoastal Medical Group Ambulatory Surgery Center under deep sedation administered by Intercoastal’s staff (not by the Respondent). It also was decided and planned that the Respondent would administer a local numbing agent, using a smaller syringe and needle, to reduce post-operative pain from the bursa injection. When used for this purpose, particularly when the patient is going to be sedated for the procedure, the numbing agent can be administered either before or after the bursa injection. In this case, because the patient had a great fear of injections, it was decided to administer the numbing agent before the bursa injection. The procedure was scheduled for August 16, 2013. That morning, the patient met the Respondent in the pre-operative holding area at Intercoastal. The patient’s systems and medical history were reviewed again, and she consented to the right trochanter bursa steroid injection and the anesthesia. An identification band was affixed to the patient, and the injection site was identified and marked by the Respondent. Intravenous (IV) saline was started and oxygen was provided by nasal cannula. Pre-bursa injection medications of Robinul and Versed were given through the IV as a push. The Intercoastal anesthesiologist evaluated the patient and pronounced her capable of safely undergoing the injection under monitored anesthesia care. The patient was then transported to the operating room on a stretcher. The operating team included the Respondent, a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) who would administer the anesthesia under the supervision of the anesthesiologist, a circulating nurse, and a radiology technician. All but the Respondent were on staff at Intercoastal. Anesthesia monitors were placed, and the patient’s identity, injection site, and consents were confirmed. An anesthesia safety check was completed, and the patient was assessed for a difficult airway or aspiration risk. The team reviewed the plan and determined they were ready to proceed. The patient rolled onto the operating table from the stretcher, so that she was in a prone (face-down) position. The Respondent was positioned to the patient’s right side, where the equipment needed for the bursa injection was located. The patient’s identity, consents, and injection site were re-verified. A “time-out” was performed before proceeding with the administration of propofol. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B8-9.007(2)(b). The team verbally re-confirmed the patient’s identity, the intended procedure, and the injection site. After the “time-out,” the CRNA administered the propofol. In very short order, it was noted that the patient’s oxygen saturation had decreased, and she was having difficulty breathing. Immediate action was taken to resuscitate the patient. The propofol was discontinued, the stretcher was repositioned next to the operating table, the patient was rolled back over onto the stretcher in a supine (face-up) position, and oxygen was given. After a short time, the patient’s breathing and oxygen saturation returned to normal. The Respondent explained to the patient what had happened, and it was decided by all, including the patient, to proceed. The team preferred to use the operating table because it would be easier to use the fluoroscope there than on the stretcher. However, because of the apneic event that resulted shortly after the patient was rolled onto the operating table into a prone position the first time, the team decided not to repeat that maneuver. Instead, the team attempted to slide the patient back onto the operating table while remaining in a supine position. Due to the still partially sedated patient’s weight, the team decided it would be too difficult and unsafe to try to slide her onto the operating table. Ultimately, the team decided to leave the patient on the stretcher in a supine position. With the patient still on the stretcher in a supine position, the Respondent cleaned an unintended site on the patient’s left hip, which was then facing her and the injection equipment, draped the unintended site, and began to inject it subcutaneously with Xylocaine® one-percent solution as a local numbing agent. Before more than 0.5 of the 5 milliliters of the intended dose in the syringe was injected, the Respondent realized her mistake and withdrew the needle. She told the patient what happened and asked if the patient wanted her to proceed with the intended right trochanter bursa injection. The patient said yes, and the Respondent moved to the intended right side, injected 5 milliliters of the numbing agent at the intended site, and proceeded with the intended bursa injection. The Respondent documented the procedure accurately. Notwithstanding what happened, the patient still thinks very highly of the Respondent, continues to be the Respondent’s patient, and does not want the Respondent to suffer any license discipline as a result. She does, however, want it noted in her patient records for future reference that she overreacts to propofol and that care should be taken not to overdose her if it ever is used on her again. No license discipline against any of the Intercoastal staff has resulted from this incident. However, both the Respondent and Intercoastal have changed their operative procedures to require a second “time-out” if an emergency intervenes and interrupts an ongoing procedure, as happened in this case. This is the kind of safe practice improvements that can come from “near misses” and “close calls.” The Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Kevin Chaitoff, testified that the incident resulted in a violation of section 456.072(1)(bb). The Respondent called two experts, Dr. Jean- Louis Horn and Albert Wu, who testified that it did not. The Respondent and her experts contend that a trochanter bursa injection is not a surgery or the kind of procedure that must be reported if done, or attempted, on the wrong side or site. They also contend that the Respondent’s injection of some numbing agent at the wrong side or site in this case was not a wrong side/site procedure, or attempted procedure, because all other preparation was done for the procedure planned for and ultimately done on the intended right hip. In their view, what happened in this case should be chalked up as a “close call” or “near miss” that does not have to be reported, and should not result in discipline, because it would have a chilling effect, discourage reporting, and hinder safety improvements. The testimony of the Respondent and her experts also was based, in part, on their position that the subcutaneous injection of numbing agent was not preparation of the patient, but was something they called “pre-preparation.” Their testimony seems to beg the question, if that were just “pre-preparation,” what would qualify as preparation? Their testimony did not answer this question, but it does not have to be answered to resolve this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final finding the Respondent not guilty of violating section 456.072(1)(bb) and dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of November, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a physician should be disciplined for the alleged violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent failed 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, by failing to treat the patient's preoperative coagulopathy and/or failing to use an alternate vein that would have allowed visualization of the shunt placement into the vein thereby reducing the risk of causing a hemorrhage given the patient's preoperative history, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. AS TO CASE NO. 01-4407PL Whether Respondent's license as a physician should be disciplined for the alleged violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing 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 by failing to distally clamp part of the arteries prior to manipulation of the aneurysm and by failing to ensure periodic monitoring of the patient's condition postoperatively for evidence of ischemia or other problems and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: FACTS COMMON TO BOTH CASES Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0036360. Respondent is board-certified in thoracic and general surgery. FACTS RELATED TO CASE NO. 01-4406PL Patient D.J.P. was a 54-year-old female with a history of liver resection for carcinoma. Patient D.J.P. had contracted Hepatitis C in the 1960s from a blood transfusion, after being the victim of a gun shot wound during a robbery at a convenience store. Patient D.J.P. subsequently had developed cirrhosis secondary to the Hepatitis C. Cirrhosis is a scarring process of the liver that results in the displacement of the normally functioning liver tissue. A healthy liver processes lymphatic fluid back into the bloodstream. However, a cirrhotic liver cannot properly process the lymphatic fluid back into the bloodstream. Therefore, lymphatic fluid backs up within the liver and weeps out the covering over the liver and into the abdominal cavity. Patient D.J.P. presented to Respondent on February 1, 1994, after being referred to Respondent by Michael Carey, M.D., the primary care physician, for evaluation for implanting a peritoneal venous shunt. A venous shunt is a conduit designed to take ascitic fluid from the abdomen and put it back in the vascular system. The shunt removes the fluid from the abdominal cavity and transports it to the vascular system where it can be absorbed. The procedure is for the patient's comfort and does not prolong the patient's life. The procedure is for patients with end stage liver disease. After obtaining a medical history and conducting a physical examination, Respondent's assessment of the Patient D.J.P. was massive ascites secondary to cirrhosis and previous liver resection. Respondent believed that Patient D.J.P. was a candidate for a venous shunt procedure due to the fact that she was very symptomatic from her massive ascites and she was on the maximum medical therapy. The mortality rate for this type of procedure is between 5 and 25 percent or at the very least, one-in-twenty patients would die from this procedure. Complications associated with this type of procedure include disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (hereinafter referred to as "DIC") which may lead to the general worsening of the disease or death. The patient was informed of this mortality rate as well as of the complications associated with this procedure. Patient D.J.P. decided to think about the procedure and contact Respondent's office when she wanted the shunt inserted. On February 10, 1994, Patient D.J.P. called Respondent's office and asked to have the shunt inserted as soon as possible. Respondent scheduled the procedure for February 14, 1994, and signed the written surgical consent form. Prior to the surgery, lab tests were performed on Patient D.J.P. The lab report indicated that the patient's prothrombin time was 14.3, with a normal range being 10.7-12.8. Prothrombin time ("PT") is a measurement of one aspect of the blood clotting mechanism. This was considered slightly abnormal and not an indication of a clotting problem or coagulopathy. Respondent decided it was not necessary to address Patient D.J.P.'s abnormal PT prior to the procedure by preoperatively administering Vitamin K or fresh frozen plasma. On February 14, 1994, Patient D.J.P. was transported to the operating room at approximately 12:10 p.m. After Patient D.J.P. was placed under general anesthesia, Respondent began the venous shunt operation at approximately 12:34 p.m. Respondent attempted to access the right jugular vein to insert the shunt. He found this vein to be unusable because it was too scarred from previous surgeries. Respondent then proceeded to access the right subclavian area to insert the shunt. Once the shunt was inserted into the subclavian area, Respondent positioned it in the superior vena cava. The shunt was noted to be in position in the superior vena cava. Respondent then removed eight liters of ascitic fluid from the abdominal cavity. After removing the ascitic fluid, he then put one liter of saline into the abdominal cavity to dilute any remaining ascitic fluid which allowed any remaining fluid to be more easily absorbed into the vascular system. The Patient's central venous pressure dropped from 8 to 2. Hespan and Albumin were then administered to replace any lost volume and it helped to increase the colloidomotic pressure. At this point, Patient D.J.P.'s central venous pressure (CVP) increased from 2 to 14 or 15. This is a faster than normal rate. Upon finding that the shunt was operating well, Respondent closed the abdominal portion and the patient was extubated. Petitioner claimed that fluoroscopy was not used to ensure that the shunt was positioned in the proper place. A Fluoroscope is like a real-time X-ray. A fluoroscope has two parts to it: a C-arm, which goes above the patient and underneath the bed, and two screens where the doctor can see what is going on. The C-arm is approximately 5-and-a-half feet tall. It is below the standard of care to do a venous shunt procedure without using a fluoroscope. It would enable Respondent to visualize the placement of the shunt. Felicia Whitmer, a scrub technician, and Rene Myers, a circulating nurse, prepared the operating room for Patient D.J.P.'s procedure on February 14, 1994. Both Felicia Whitmer and Rene Myers testified that there was no fluoroscope in the operating room on February 14, 1994. Respondent testified that there was a fluoroscope in the operating room on February 14, 1994, during Patient D.J.P.'s procedure and that he used it to assist him. The evidence is not clear and convincing that the fluoroscope was not used during the course of the operation. It is considered within the accepted standard of care to access the right subclavian vein to insert a shunt of this type because this vein follows a gentle curve or path. With this gentle curve in the vein, there is less risk of damage, i.e. puncture, to the vein. In contrast, the left jugular vein follows a more sharp-angled 70-degree bend-curve in the vein where one risks the danger of the shunt coming out of the bottom of the vein or perforation and, thereby, damaging the vein. Respondent ordered an X-ray to confirm placement of the shunt and catheter. The X-ray revealed that the shunt had good positioning but the right lung was filled with fluid. The patient was re-intubated and Respondent inserted a chest tube into the patient which would expand the patient's lung, oxygenate the patient and allow for fluid removal. Three or four liters of fluid were removed. The fluid was originally serous and pink tinged and shortly thereafter, turned bloody. Respondent noted that there was bruising around the wounds. Additionally, the patient's breathing became shallow and her blood pressure began to deteriorate. Resuscitative efforts were performed and Respondent re- entered the shunt area to clamp the shunt to prevent any ascites from flowing into the venous system and to prevent further coagulation and massive bleeding. Despite heroic resuscitative efforts, the patient's condition continued to deteriorate and the patient died. The cause of death was determined to be DIC and severe coagulopathy from drainage of the ascitic fluid into the venous system. Respondent made the determination that the patient did not have preoperative coagulopathy. Respondent testified that if the patient did have preoperative coagulopathy, he would not have performed the procedure because the patient would not be able to make the clotting factors well enough for problems that would occur after the shunt was inserted. It was Respondent's opinion that the patient did not have a serious clotting problem. Based on her lab report, Patient D.J.P. had a slightly abnormal PT and this was not an indication of a clotting problem. Respondent reviewed the lab reports and determined the PT (the measurement of one aspect of blood clotting mechanism), to be only slightly elevated. It measured 14.3 with a normal range being 10.7-12.8. Moreover, the PT International Normalized Ratio (INR) (which is the standardized measurement of PT) was 1.63 where the therapeutic range was 2-3. Therefore, this was slightly below average. Dr. Yahr testified that an abnormal clotting problem is a clinically evident problem and not an incident of a lab number. If Patient D.J.P. had a clotting abnormality, adverse conditions or symptoms would have been evident with the incisions that were made prior to the shunt being opened. Rather, normal clotting reactions occurred. Coagulation occurred right after the shunt was opened and the ascitic fluid began to flow into the atrium. Dr. Yahr testified that the etiology of the coagulation was the body's reaction to the ascitic fluid after the shunt was opened. Accordingly, it was Dr. Yahr's opinion that Respondent did not fail to treat the preoperative coagulopathy because upon his examination of the patient, he determined that no such preoperative coagulopathy existed prior to the procedure. Dr. Yahr testified that the patient did not have abnormal bleeding. Her liver failure was the result of scarring and abnormal liver function. Therefore, administration of clotting factors such as Vitamin K and fresh frozen plasma was not indicated or medically necessary. Petitioner presented the expert testimony of John W. Kilkenny, III, M.D. Dr. Kilkenny is board-certified in general surgery and has been for 11 years and is currently a professor with the University of Florida College of Medicine, Department of Surgery in Jacksonville, Florida, a position which he has held for the last six years. According to Dr. Kilkenny, Patient D.J.P.'s elevated PT was a cause for concern in that it was an indication that the patient's ability to clot or coagulate was diminished. It is not clear and convincing that the standard of care required that the elevated PT be treated by infusing fresh frozen plasma or Vitamin K. Respondent did not violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to use an alternate vein that would allow visualization of the placement of the shunt. Respondent first attempted to access the right jugular vein to insert the shunt but found it be unusable because it was too scarred. Respondent, acting as a reasonably prudent physician and using sound medical judgment, accessed the right subclavian area to insert the shunt. After the shunt was inserted into he subclavian vein, Respondent claimed he was able to visualize the placement of the shunt by the use of fluoroscopy. Furthermore, the operative notes seemed to indicated that the procedure was performed under fluoroscopic control and the shunt was found to be in position. Therefore, Respondent accessed an appropriate alterative vein-the subclavian vein, which allowed visualization, with the assistance of fluoroscopy, of the placement of the shunt. As to the second issue, Dr. Kilkenny opined that the standard of care requires direct visualization for insertion of the shunt. By not accessing a vein under direct visualization, such as with Respondent's subclavian approach, the surgeon is, in essence, hunting for the vein, and risking damage to the wall of the vein that may not be evident immediately. The rapid rise in CVP from 2 to 14 or 15 was also a concern for Dr. Kilkenny because it was not normal, and did not mean that the shunt was placed correctly of that the shunt was functioning properly. Dr. Kilkenny noted that it was unlikely that the bleeding in the chest cavity was caused by damage to an intercostals vessel when the chest tube was inserted because the chest X-ray that was taken prior to insertion of the chest tube showed a complete opacification of the right side and a shifting of the major vessels within the middle of the chest over to the left side. According to Dr. Kilkenny, the chest X-ray indicated that there had already been some sort of bleeding in the right chest prior to the insertion of the chest tube. Dr. Kilkenny disputed Respondent's theory that Patient D.J.P. died as a result of DIC. Dr. Kilkenny asserted that Respondent fell below the standard lf care in that, given Patient D.J.P.'s rapid decompensation, he failed to consider whether the patient's subclavian vein had been damaged, a condition which could have been addressed surgically. Dr. Yahr opined that Patient D.J.P. died of DIC that occurred within a short period of time after Respondent opened up the shunt and ascitic fluid was introduced into the atrium of the heart. Although Dr. Yahr further admitted that the bleeding in the chest could have occurred as a result of damage to the subclavian vein, and that it was below the standard of care to access the subclavian vein without using fluoroscopy, the evidence is not clear and convincing that either event occurred. It is found that Petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the standard of care required Respondent to use an access site that allowed direct visualization of the placement of the shunt into the vein, or that Respondent failed to use fluoroscopy in order to directly visualize insertion of the shunt into the subclavian vein. AS TO CASE NO. 01-4407PL On August 22, 1997, Patient H.H., a 55-year-old female, was diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm measuring approximately 4.5 cm transverse diameter and beginning approximately 1-2 cm below an enlargement or swelling, of a blood vessel resulting in a weakening or thinning out of the vessel wall. On November 28, 1997, Patient H.H.'s aneurysm had grown to 5 cm within a three-month period and was occluded with partial thrombosis with a true lumen around 2.7 cm and extended down to the bifurcation of the abdominal iliac. This put the patient at risk for rupture of the aneurysm. Thrombosis is a blood clot within a vessel or within the vascular system. It does not embolize (travel) from another part of the body. It starts in a particular vessel and causes its damage from there. It is an acute clot that occurs in the vessel secondary to stasis (non-moving ) or some kind of coagulation or clotting deficiency or abnormality. Thrombotic activity most often begins by occluding the smaller vessels in the vascular system, such as those smaller veins located in the feet. On December 2, 1997, Patient H.H. first met with Respondent, who performed a complete medical history and physical examination and confirmed the presence of a 5 cm abdominal aneurysm. Patient H.H. was a 55-year-old female who smoked 1- and-a-half packs of cigarettes per day, had a blood pressure of 182/104 despite the fact that she was taking 50 mg Atenolol for hypertension (high blood pressure), and had a 30 percent blockage of the coronary artery. Previously, she had a cardiac catheterization, followed by an angioplasty of the femoral vessel in her left leg. Patient H.H. advised Respondent that her legs gave out on her after she walked two blocks, but that she did not have associated chest pain. Respondent confirmed earlier diagnosis of Patient H.H.'s medical condition as single vessel coronary artery disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and claudication with femoral occlusive disease. Respondent also found diminished femoral pulses and palpable Dorsal pedal pulses present in both feet. Patient H.H.'s medical records indicated that this smoker of 30 years suffered from diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, intermittent clottication of the leg, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hypercoagulopathy, anthithrombin III deficiency, high cholesterol, and diminished protein and pH levels. Respondent prescribed prescription medication, Procardia to lower Patient H.H.'s blood pressure and Zyban to help her stop smoking. He recommended that the patient return in a week for follow-up. On December 15, 1997, Respondent continued to prepare Patient H.H for surgery. He again advised her to stop smoking and to purchase and take medication to help her stop smoking. Patient H.H.'s blood pressure was lower, 144/84, and although she had not purchased or taken the medication, she reduced her smoking down to one-half pack of cigarettes per day. Respondent then advised Patient H.H. to make plans to undergo the abdominal aortic aneurysm ("AAA") repair. Patient H.H. informed Respondent that she wanted to wait a little longer while she made financial arrangements to pay for the surgery. Respondent advised Patient H.H. to completely quit smoking before the surgery and advised her to return in one month for additional preoperative evaluation. On January 12, 1998, Respondent continued to prepare Patient H.H. for surgery by ordering a cardiac clearance (thallium evaluation) of the patient's heart to ensure she could tolerate the surgery before attempting the AAA repair. On February 3, 1998, Patient H.H. presented for the thallium evaluation of the heart and, on February 9, 1998, obtained cardiac clearance for repair of the AAA. On February 11, 1998, Respondent continued to prepare Patient H.H. for AAA surgery and suggested she donate two units of blood which would be used during the surgical procedure. Respondent scheduled AAA repair surgery for March 6, 1998. Respondent advised Patient H.H. of the risks associated with AAA surgery and specifically mentioned the risk of a heart attack, bleeding, kidney damage and loss of legs. He also advised that the risks associated with intra-operative AAA repair include spontaneous rupture, embolization of material from the wall distally, myocardial infarction, bleeding, injury to viscera of the small vessels, devascularization of the colon causing ischemic colitis, death, kidney blockage. Patient H.H. indicated she understood the risks and despite the risks associated with this type of surgical procedure, including the risk of death, she agreed to the procedure. Preoperative testing by angiogram was not required for Patient H.H. The aneurysm was a massive aneurysm presenting a very serious health risk of imminent rupture. The size of Patient H.H.'s aneurysm (5 cm) made AAA repair an emergency in a sense because there was almost a 100 percent chance of rupture with in the next six months. Any findings determined by angiogram would not have changed the outcome of the case because Respondent had to definitively treat the aneurysm first. Additionally, an angiogram is a very expensive test and Patient H.H. expressed a concern about her financial situation with respect to the AAA repair. It is reasonable to not do studies that a physician does not feel are absolutely necessary. The patient's financial concerns are part of the pathology. On March 6, 1998, Patient H.H. was admitted to Winter Haven Hospital and filled out and signed the Special Authorization for Medical and/or Surgical Treatment form indicating her consent to the surgical procedure which Respondent was to perform. She indicated that she understood the risks associated with such surgical procedure. Paragraph two of the informed consent form states in pertinent part: I hereby certify that I have given complete and informed consent for the above named operation and/or procedures, and Dr. L. Thomas has explained to me the reason why the above-named operation and/or procedure are considered appropriate, its advantages and possible complication, if any, as well as possible alternative modes of treatment. I also certify that no guarantee or assurance has been made as to the results that may be obtained. The operative procedure on the consent form was signed by Patient H.H. at 6:10 a.m. on March 6, 1998. Surgery indicated on the consent form was for a resection abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA repair). After Patient H.H. was taken to the operating room and administration of anesthesia began, Respondent performed his routine preoperative check of femoral and pedal pulses. Checking for femoral and pedal pulses is the type of preoperative work-up Respondent routinely performs while he waits for the anesthesia to take its effect on the patient. The operative report indicates that the abdominal aneurysm was "very large" extending quite high within 1-2 cm from the renal vein and down to and involving the common and hypogastric arteries and noted to be "quite saccular" with "impending rupture in the near future at the neck." The common iliacs were noted to be "quite large and aneurysmatic." The external iliacs were soft but extremely small, "approximately 4-5 mm in size, certainly less than half, more like 1/4 the size of a normal iliac" but nevertheless usable vessels to make his anastomosis. As Respondent was bluntly dissecting (separating the tissues using the fingers) the aortic aneurysm from the venous plexus to position his proximal clamp when one of the lumbar veins was encountered and mass bleeding occurred. The venous plexus is a grouping of veins located under the aorta that can best be described as a wagon wheel. The system has a hub and all the veins in the grouping extend outward from the hub. If one of the veins in the grouping is injured, it will bleed heavily, but the bleeding is controllable. The lumbar veins are part of the venous plexus and a tear of the lumbar vein is a known risk during this type of surgery. Patient H.H. suffered the loss of three times the amount of blood as would have been routinely expected. The sudden blood loss caused the patient's condition to rapidly deteriorate. Dr. Wickstrom-Hill, Anesthesiologist, testified that had Respondent not controlled the blood loss, and had not maintained Patient H.H.'s vital signs, she would have died. Using sound medical judgment, Respondent elected to bypass the aneurysmatic common iliacs and make his anastomosis of the graft to the external iliacs in order to not disconnect or separate the aortic or common iliac aneurysms from the iliac vein. This is a very fragile vessel and could have resulted in further massive bleeding and possible death of the patient. A reasonable prudent physician faced with a similar circumstance and situation would not attempt to mobilize the aneurysm further if doing so would cause additional massive blood loss and possible death of the patient. The hypogastric arteries (a/k/a the internal iliacs) serve to provide the pelvic viscera (bladder, rectum, etc.) with blood. During the AAA repair, Respondent performed an embolectomy on both legs following manipulation of the aneurysm. The purpose of this procedure was to remove any debris which may have dislodged from the aneurysm and flowed distally to the legs. The procedure involves running a Fogarty catheter down the femoral arteries as far as the catheter will go, then inflating a balloon located at the end of the catheter. Once the balloon is inflated, the surgeon will extract the catheter, pulling the debris out of the artery. This process is repeated as necessary to remove all debris. Fresh clot was obtained from both legs, indicating a lack of debris. Prior to completing the anastomosis of the bifurcated graft to the aorta and external iliacs respectively, Respondent ran a Fogarty catheter down proximal (back into the graft itself), to remove any debris in the graft itself. Finally, he back-bled the graft (allowed blood to flow out of the graft, to, again, ensure that there existed no debris in the graft). On March 7, 1998, Patient H.H.'s medical condition stabilized such that Respondent felt it safe to return Patient H.H. to the operating room to undergo an additional embolectomy of the legs and an endarterectomy of the right femoral artery. The record demonstrates that Respondent believed he collected embolic debris from the femoral arteries. However, based upon the pathology report and the testimony of Dr. Zeller, the debris removed from Patient H.H. during this procedure was acute blood clots and atherosclerotic plaque. This finding is consistent with thrombotic material and not a result of debris coming from another location as it tends to demonstrate that Patient H.H. had a clotting disorder consistent with her medical history. The record also demonstrates that upon completion of the procedure, Patient H.H. was noted to have excellent pulses in the superficial and profunda femoral arteries distal to the anastomosis with good emptying and filing of the vessels. Before, during, and after the AAA repair, Respondent used Heparin (an anti-clotting drug) in an effort to prevent the formation of clots throughout Patient H.H.'s vascular system. Intraoperatively, on March 3, 1998, Respondent administered 10,000 units of Heparin. Normally a patient will respond to 5,000 units. Despite giving Patient H.H. twice the normal amount of Heparin, Patient H.H. continued to have a lowered clotting time. It is noted in the medical record that Patient H.H. had an Antithrombin III deficiency. Antithrombin III is one of the factors that control how blood in the human body clots. Patient H.H.'s Antithrombin III deficiency is a hereditary defect that contributed significantly to her continued clotting despite the use of pharmacological intervention (substantial amount of Heparin). Respondent testified that in his medical training and experience, Patient H.H.'s Antithrombin III deficiency level was near fatal. Because Patient H.H. was hypercoagulative, thus causing the small vessels to clot off, on March 13, 1998, Patient H.H. underwent bilateral above the knee amputations. Hypercoagulopathy is a tendency to clot without anything being done - the blood just clots. This can be caused by a lower-than- normal blood pressure for a period of time and by having an Antithrombin III deficiency. Respondent observed during the surgery that this patient was hypercoagulative because he could see the blood clotting in the wound despite the fact that Patient H.H. was on twice the normal amount of Heparin. Respondent practiced within the standard of care at all times during the treatment of Patient H.H. Blood-flow going retrograde back into the common and iliac aneurismal sacs did not place Patient H.H. at a risk of rupture. The operative report clearly demonstrates that the aortic aneurysm involved the common iliacs and extended below the hypogastric arteries. The operative report also demonstrates that the external iliacs were extremely small, approximately one-quarter of the normal size. A reasonable and prudent surgeon, faced with a similarly situated patient with a massive sized aneurysm and the extremely small size of the distal external iliacs, would conclude that the pressure gradient now being carried to the graft rather than to the aneurysm would diminish flow to the aneurysms making the possibility of rupture unlikely. Moreover, the aneurysms were filled with calcified atherosclerotic plaque and other thrombotic (non-mobile) material. Dr. Begelman testified that calcified aneurysms do not tend to rupture as much. On direct examination, Dr. Begelman, Petitioner's expert, could not conclusively determine whether Respondent's surgical treatment of Patient H.H. fell below the standard of care and that distal clamping is an intra-operative decision to be made by the surgeon. Dr. Begelman who testified that he accepted Respondent's opinion that the iliacs were too large or too thin walled and could not distally clamp the aneurysm and that such decisions are those made by the surgeon on the case. Drs. Begelman and Seller and Respondent testified that it is usual and customary during this type of surgical procedure to distally clamp the aorta and that it is expected of a reasonable and prudent surgeon to make every attempt to do so. Nevertheless, all three doctors recognized that there are times when you cannot or should not distally clamp if to do so would cause further injury to the patient or death. Patient H.H. presented with very massive aneurysms of both the aorta and common iliacs making distal clamping impossible without sacrificing the hypogastric arteries thus placing Patient H.H. at risk for further injury or death. Petitioner's expert accepted Respondent's assessment of the condition of the iliacs and that Respondent did not want to dissect the iliacs off the iliac vein, which one needs to do in order to tie off distally. Dr. Begelman testified that he could not ascertain whether Respondent fell below the standard of care with respect to Respondent's treatment of Patient H.H. intraoperatively. Respondent acted within the standard of care and, therefore, did not violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, when he did not clamp the distal arteries before manipulation of the aneurysm. Respondent did not violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by sewing the bifurcated graft to the external iliacs and making no attempt to disconnect the aneurysm from the common and internal (a/k/a hypogastric) iliacs. The common and internal iliac tissues were also diseased because of their involvement with the aneurysms coupled with the fact that the aneurysm and surrounding tissue was inflamed. Inflammation causes the tissues of the surrounding viscera to become sticky and by that, stick together making separation difficult and more prone to bleeding on manipulation. Normally, the surgeon must bluntly dissect (lift up) the distal end of the aorta in order to place the distal clamps on the aorta below the aneurysm. However, the inflammation present in Patient H.H.'s aorta made it impossible to mobilize (lift up) the distal aorta for clamping because the tissue was stuck to the iliac vein which could have caused Patient H.H. to suffer a lethal blood loss. Normally, blood loss associated with this type of surgery amounts to 500 ccs for the total surgery. Patient H.H. lost 1500 ccs during the manipulation of the aortic aneurysm to place the proximal clamp and a total of 2400 ccs during the entire surgery which represented a blood loss of nearly 25-40 percent respectively of her estimated total blood volume. Respondent used sound medical judgment by making no attempt to dissect the common iliac from the subordinate tissue because, in his training and experience, the separation of tissues would have caused further, possible lethal bleeding. Drs. Begelman and Zeller, experts for Petitioner and Respondent respectively, testified that a reasonably prudent surgeon would not clamp below the common iliacs if to do so would sacrifice the hypogastric arteries and thereby cause irreparable harm or death to the patient. Dr. Zeller testified that the hypogastric arteries are of such importance that not clamping them, even at the risk of embolization, would nevertheless be within the standard of care. Respondent closely monitored Patient H.H. postoperatively. A reasonable and prudent surgeon is not expected to remain in the recovery room with his post-surgical patient until the patient becomes stable. Rather, the reasonable and prudent surgeon is expected to utilize the nursing staff who are charged with attending to the patient and to keep the physician updated on the patient's medical condition. Petitioner's witness, Doris Gutierrez, was the recovery room nurse on duty on March 6, 1998. Her duties included monitoring and reporting changes in Patient H.H.'s condition to Respondent. The record demonstrates that Respondent closely monitored Patient H.H. postoperatively by being in contact with the nursing staff and thereby giving orders for care and treatment to the nursing staff, either by telephone orders ("TO") or in person by verbal orders ("VO") to stabilize the patient. While in the recovery room, Patient H.H. was intubated, on a respirator. Petitioner's witnesses, Doris Gutierrez, confirmed Respondent's monitoring of Patient H.H. when she testified that she called Respondent several times to provide updates on Patient H.H.'s condition. The record demonstrates that postoperatively on March 6, 1998, Respondent wrote his initial order to the nursing staff at 12:30 p.m. while sitting in post-surgical recovery with Patient H.H. Thereafter, Respondent continued to monitor Patient H.H.'s condition and remained in communication with the nursing staff and wrote orders at 1:30 p.m., 2:30 p.m., 3:25 p.m., 5:00 p.m., 5:15 p.m., 8:15 p.m., and again on March 7, 1998 at 12:24 a.m. Following his TO on March 7, 1998, at 12:24 a.m., Respondent next saw Patient H.H. 7 1/2 hours later, at 8:00 a.m., prior to taking Patient H.H. to the surgery room to perform the endarterectomy and embolectomy. Ms. Gutierrez testified that she does not always note when the doctor comes back into the recovery room to give orders. She could not testify as to events that took place after Patient H.H. was transferred to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit ("SICU"). She also stated she did not know how many times Respondent went to SICU because she did not work in SICU when Patient H.H. was transferred out of the recovery room. Ms. Gutierrez was also unable to testify as to when the last time was that Respondent came to the recovery room. Respondent testified that there is a difference between a TO and a VO, the latter indicating that the physician was present in the room at the time he gave his order to the nurse. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent did not provide appropriate postoperative monitoring of Patient H.H.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine: Enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in DOAH Case No. 01-4406PL, and DOH Case No. 1994-12341. Enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in DOAH Case No. 01-4407PL, and DOH Case No. 1999-57795. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William R. Huseman, Esquire Romualdo C. Marquinez, Esquire Huseman, Marquinez & Schlegal, P.A. 6320 St. Augustine Road, Building 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Kim Kluck, Esquire Richard J. Shoop, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229, Mail Stop 39A Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Dr. John O. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine?
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to the inquiry Petitioner was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician within the state of Florida, having been issued license No. ME0045474, effective December 28, 1984. Respondent's last known address is 1401 Centerville Road, Suite 202, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. Respondent is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. The board certification is by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Respondent is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Respondent received his undergraduate degree from Florida State University and his medical degree from Howard University. His training at Howard University included a four- year residency program from 1982 to 1986. Respondent holds staff privileges at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (TMH) in Tallahassee, Florida. Patient A.G. Patient A.G. began treatment with Respondent in 1998 and continues as Respondent's patient. A.G. is an Hispanic female who is not proficient in English. When seen by Respondent in his office she has been accompanied by an interpreter that would allow Respondent to discuss details of her health care in English for translation into Spanish for the patient's benefit. Respondent's understanding of Spanish is limited to education in high school and a year at the university. He has the ability to describe some matters that are pertinent to gynecologic practice or obstetric practice and in particular as it relates to telling patients, for example "how to push and when not to push." The record does not reveal that Respondent has the ability to discuss A.G.'s overall health care in Spanish, her language. A.G.'s husband, T.Q., who accompanied her at relevant times principally spoke Spanish and not English. He is somewhat proficient in English. On June 16, 1999, A.G. had an office appointment with Respondent. At that time A.G. had undergone gallbladder surgery but her pelvic pain persisted. In consultation on that day it was decided that A.G. would undergo diagnostic laparoscopy to explore the reason for her chronic pelvic pain. Through the discussion the patient was told that biopsies of the pelvic anatomy might be performed during the procedure and that any problems that could be addressed through laparoscopy would be addressed as Respondent felt comfortable in carrying out that correction. Otherwise, Respondent said that he would "take pictures" and "get out of the case" with the decision to offer further treatment left for another time. Patient A.G. had been referred to Respondent for her persistent pelvic pain following an examination on April 27, 1999, that had been made by Margaret Cantor, a Nurse/Mid-Wife and Registered Nurse. She conducted a pelvic examination of the patient that date. The examination included the use of speculum to examine the cervix and vagina in the interest of looking for abnormalities, lesions, growths, and discolorations. No cervical lesions were found in this examination. A pap smear taken at the time revealed normal results with some inflammation. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a surgical procedure involving an incision in the abdominal wall through which a scope is inserted to visualize the abdominal cavity. Typically the workup for performing a diagnostic laparoscopy would include use of ultrasound, pelvic examination, and a pap smear. Possible complications in this procedure include vascular injury, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection, and bleeding. Preliminary to the diagnostic laparoscopy it is the custom and practice in the medical community to perform a vaginal examination with the use of a speculum. On July 1, 1999, patient A.G. was seen by the Respondent in his office for her pre-operative check. On this occasion A.G. was unaccompanied by a translator. Nonetheless, Respondent was able to perform a brief physical and obtain a history with the assistance of A.G.'s husband. Respondent listened to the patient's heart and lungs and performed a bi- manual examination in which one or two fingers were inserted in the vagina and with a hand on the abdomen compression was performed on the pelvic viscera, uterus, tubes, and ovaries and the lower section of the pelvis. Nothing significant was observed in the patient since last seen. On July 1, 1999, an employee in Respondent's office witnessed patient A.G. sign a consent form allowing the diagnostic laparoscopy. The consent form makes no reference to the agreement for Respondent to perform a loop electrocautery excision procedure, referred to by abbreviations as a "LEEP" conization biopsy procedure or a LEEP cone. No evidence of such consent is contained in patient A.G.'s medical records maintained at Respondent's office. The diagnostic laparoscopy was to be performed at TMH. On July 1, 1999, Patricia Charbonneau, a clinical nurse at the hospital, reviewed a consent form with patient A.G. concerning the diagnostic laparoscopy for the purposes of that facility. Nurse Charbonneau was aware of the scheduling of the diagnostic laparoscopy by reference to the history and physical prepared by the Respondent. This conference involved the discussion of potential risks and complications of the laparoscopy. No discussion was conducted concerning possible risks and complications of a LEEP conization biopsy. The consent form from TMH pertaining to patient A.G. and the diagnostic laparoscopy stated "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure, I request and authorize my physician to proceed." Nurse Charbonneau was left with the impression that the patient understood the explanation concerning the upcoming procedure and gave her consent. Ms. Charbonneau was assisted in this communication by A.G.'s husband. No discussion was held concerning the performance of a LEEP cone biopsy, in that the permit from Respondent made no mention of that procedure. Ms. Charbonneau took steps for an interpreter to be available the next morning when the surgery was to be performed given the nature of the surgery, the use of anesthesia and the desire to have "everything" reviewed again. A LEEP conization is a form of biopsy performed either in an office or hospital setting with anesthesia. The cervix is examined with the assistance of a speculum. Lugol solution is placed on the cervix to identify any abnormal cells and an excesion is made by shaving a small piece of the cervix for examination. The workup for LEEP conization includes a pap smear and a colposcopy. The performance of LEEP conization presents potential risks and complications related to infection, endometrious, bleeding, cervical stenosis, and cervical incompetence. On July 2, 1999, patient A.G. came to the TMH outpatient surgery center for her scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy to be performed by Respondent. She was the fourth patient on a schedule of surgeries to be performed by Respondent on that date. Respondent was conversant with the sequence of surgeries to be performed. Patient A.G. was placed in a holding area in the outpatient surgery center to prepare her for her surgery and to await transport to the operating room. Sometime before moving the patient to the operating room Respondent saw the patient in the holding area. Respondent addressed patient A.G. by saying hello and asking her how she was doing. This was not a visit intended to educate the patient and was not involved with any other medical purpose. At the time the patient's husband was with her during this brief encounter which was intended to confirm that the patient was there for the surgery as had been previously arranged. Several hours may have passed between the time Respondent saw patient A.G. in the holding area and when he next encountered the patient in the operating room. Respondent also saw patient N.C. in an adjacent cubicle to where patient A.G. was located while the patients were awaiting their surgery. Patient N.C. was the third patient on the schedule, there for the performance of a LEEP conization biopsy. Respondent followed his surgical schedule for the first two patients in the intended sequence. Some delay was occasioned by a problem experienced in the surgery performed on the second patient. Valerie Anne Lazzell, M.D., is an anesthesiologist licensed to practice in Florida. She is employed by Anesthesiology Associates of Tallahassee, Florida. It was intended that she provide anesthesia during Respondent's performance of the diagnostic laparoscopy for patient A.G. It was anticipated that the patient be subjected to general anesthesia which involves a rapid loss of consciousness and blocks the sensory, mental and motor functions of the patient. A general anesthesia can be provided by using an endotracheal tube, with a mask or with an LMA. This is as distinguished from the use of a neurolept employed in most instances when performing LEEP conization biopsies. In that setting the patient is generally anesic, not really aware, and has analgesia "on board." The use of a neurolept promotes a pain-free state of immobility and an insensitivity to pain and is usually accomplished by use of IV medications. From the record, it appears that Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., with Anesthesiology Associates was scheduled to provide anesthesia by neurolept for the third patient N.C. who was scheduled for LEEP conization biopsy. Patient A.G. at the time in question was 4'9" tall and weighed 103 pounds. Patient N.C., an African-American woman was 5'2" tall and weighed 242 pounds. Their skin tone was similar in color. Dr. Lazzell saw patient A.G. before the patient was taken for surgery. In this examination the doctor filled out the patient's airway, listened to her heart and lungs, and considered the patient's ASA classification which was one of good health. Dr. Lazzell considered the plan for anesthesia with an endotracheal tube. She gained the assistance of a Dr. Becker who was fluent in Spanish in explaining the use of anesthesia to the patient. Dr. Lazzell sought Dr. Becker's assistance when the hospital did not make an interpreter available. Dr. Lazzell discussed the possible risks and complications of use of this form of anesthesia and a consent form was signed and dated. While this assessment was being made A.G.'s husband was in attendance. It was Dr. Lazzell's expectation that the patient A.G. would next be seen as scheduled when the nurse anesthetist called Dr. Lazzell to the operating room to intubate patient A.G. in association with the provision of anesthesia for the diagnostic laparoscopy. Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., when performing her duties in the operating room setting at TMH outpatient surgery center was expected to induce anesthesia, maintain the anesthesia, monitor vital signs, treat untoward events during surgery and maintain fluids in the patient while under the supervision of the physician, in this instance, Dr. Lazzell. Nurse Mauch was principally responsible for providing the anesthesia for the third procedure on patient N.C., the LEEP conization biopsy. This included preparation in the operating room of medications and other related tools and supplies. The third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy for N.C., was referred to on a typed surgical schedule in the preoperative desk in the outpatient surgery center. Having checked the schedule Nurse Mauch obtained the chart for N.C. and went to the cubical, not of N.C. but A.G. When Nurse Mauch arrived at A.G.'s cubical, Jamie Martin, R.N., the pre-op nurse and Dale Dunsmore, R.N., the circulating nurse, were there. Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch arrived at the cubicle where patient A.G. was located at about the same time. When arriving at the cubicle for patient A.G., Nurse Mauch had in mind that the process was one in which she was getting ready for the surgery to be performed on patient N.C. While in the cubical Nurse Mauch introduced herself to the person she believed to be the patient N.C., at which time Nurse Dunsmore said that the patient only speaks Spanish. Nurse Mauch recalls that a translator was not available for assisting in any communication with patient A.G. Realizing that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband for identification, the reference to the fact that the patient only spoke Spanish did not cause Nurse Mauch any concern. Nurse Mauch never heard Nurse Dunsmore orally refer to patient A.G. by name. Nurse Mauch continued with her presentation by commenting that she was the nurse anesthetist who was going to put the patient to sleep. Patient A.G. nodded her head in response to Nurse Mauch's physical gesture that the patient was going to be put to sleep. Beyond that point Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore took patient A.G. to the operating room ostensibly as the third patient on the schedule for provision of a LEEP conization biopsy wherein Nurse Mauch would provide the necessary anesthesia. The chart for N.C. was brought to the operating room. Before the patient was removed from the cubicle Nurse Martin provided pre-op medication to patient A.G., phenergan robinul. The fact that Nurse Martin was giving preoperative medication and that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband on what turned out to be patient A.G. led Nurse Mauch to believe that patient A.G. was patient N.C. the third scheduled patient, according to Nurse Mauch. As Nurse Mauch recalls, when the Respondent entered the operating room where the third scheduled procedure was to be performed he checked the chart for patient N.C. Respondent went out and washed his hands, returned and started the procedure. At the end of the procedure Nurse Mauch recalls Respondent commenting that the next patient speaks only Spanish, to which Nurse Mauch said, "No, this patient," meaning the patient who had been subjected to the procedure is the one who speaks Spanish. Respondent replied "I must be mixed up." Nurse Mauch recalls Dr. Lazzell arriving at the door of the operating room with patient A.G.'s chart. Dr. Lazzell looked surprised to find the circumstances. Nurse Mauch told Dr. Lazzell that this is the neurolept, the case involving the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Lazzell commented that "No it isn't." Nurse Mauch heard Dr. Lazzell ask Respondent, "What procedure did you do?" Respondent replied "LEEP conization." Dr. Lazzell said "No, this was supposed to be the diagnostic laparoscopy." Nurse Mauch observed Respondent leave the room and return. Patient A.G. was re-preped and the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be provided was performed with the patient being intubated by the use of an endotracheal tube. Nurse Martin in her capacity as pre-op nurse was responsible for receiving patients and getting the patients ready for administering medications that were prescribed and getting IVs and things started on the patients prior to the patients being sent to the operating room. She recalls performing pre- operative duties on the patient A.G. Nurse Martin was familiar with the schedule of patients, the sequence. She understood that patient A.G. was the fourth patient in the schedule and provided the pre-anesthetic to patient A.G. in preparation for the operation. This involved the use of phenergan. Nurse Martin made no mistake in identifying patient A.G. when providing care. Nurse Martin heard Nurse Dunsmore identify patient A.G. in Nurse Martin's presence and agreed with that identification. Nurse Martin had seen the patient A.G. before the occasion at which Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore were there with the patient in Nurse Martin's presence and the patient A.G. was taken to the operating room. Nurse Martin had reviewed patient A.G.'s chart earlier in caring forward responsibilities for preparing the patient for the operation. Nurse Dunsmore identified her duties as circulating nurse at TMH outpatient surgery center as being related to setting up rooms for surgeries, transporting patients from pre-op holding areas, identifying patients, verifying surgeries, verifying allergies, and so forth. Ordinarily Nurse Dunsmore in performing her duties would read the chart of the patient scheduled for a procedure to make certain that all permits were signed. She would then go to where the patient was being held, introduce herself to the patient and ask for identification, verifying the surgery that is scheduled for the patient, and perform other related assignments. In performing her duties Nurse Dunsmore would accompany the patient with the anesthesiologist to the operating room. The method of identification in effect at the time in question would be to compare an addressograph card which accompanied the patient's chart with the information on an identification bracelet worn by the patient. Nurse Dunsmore verified that the operating room for the third procedure was set up for a LEEP conization biopsy. After the second procedure on the schedule, Nurse Dunsmore recalls that she went to patient A.G.'s room. However Nurse Dunsmore had handed Nurse Mauch patient N.C.'s chart. Nurse Mauch carried the chart to patient A.G.'s cubicle. The two nurses essentially entered the cubicle together. Nurse Martin and patient A.G.'s husband were already there. Nurse Martin left the cubicle shortly thereafter. Nurse Dunsmore introduced herself to the patient and reached for the patient's identification bracelet and read it out loud. The patient smiled and nodded in response. In turn the patient's husband smiled and nodded in response. Patient A.G. was then taken to the operating room by Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch. The patient was sedated by Nurse Mauch and positioned for provision of the LEEP conization biopsy. Nurse Dunsmore observed the Respondent enter the operating room and look at the chart which was in relation to patient N.C., not patient A.G. Nurse Dunsmore saw Respondent leave the operating room to scrub. Nurse Dunsmore was in attendance when the procedure was performed. Nurse Dunsmore recalls Dr. Lazzell entering the operating room at the end of the procedure with the chart belonging to patient A.G. and the realization by those in attendance that the chart in the operating room was for N.C., whom they understood to be undergoing the procedure when in fact the patient undergoing the procedure was A.G. Diane Jordan was a surgical technician assigned to assist in the third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy. She recalls the patient being put to sleep by Nurse Mauch and the patient being prepared for the procedure. The patient was covered by draping towels across the upper portion of the thighs. A blanket was placed over the patient's torso. The patient was placed in the lithotomy position allowing observation of the patient's buttocks, vulva, vagina and external pelvic organs. The patient had a mask on her face and a surgical hat to cover her hair. All of these arrangements had been made before Respondent entered the operating room. Ms. Jordan recalls that the chart in the room was for N.C., the patient anticipated to undergo the LEEP conization biopsy. Ms. Jordan did not realize that the patient in reality was patient A.G. Ms. Jordan recalls that the Respondent when entering the room asked is this "such and such" in relation to a LEEP conization biopsy and that Nurse Dunsmore replied in the affirmative. Ms. Jordan remembers Respondent looking at the chart for N.C. and signing it. Ms. Jordan was in attendance while the procedure was performed. Ms. Jordan heard Respondent mention something about a lesion before he started. Ms. Jordan provided medication to be injected during the LEEP conization. Ms. Jordan identified the fact that a specimen was obtained which was given to her and provided to the nurse to send to pathology for evaluation. When Respondent entered the room for what he anticipated to be the third procedure what he asked specifically was "Is this Ms. C our case for the LEEP?" referring to the LEEP conization to be performed on patient N.C. That is when Nurse Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. After inquiring about the identification of the patient in association with the nature of the procedure Respondent expected to perform and in receiving an affirmative response, Respondent took no further steps to personally confirm the identity of the patient. Respondent opened the chart that was patient N.C.'s chart. Respondent took a drawing from his pocket that a Dr. Thompson had made of patient N.C.'s cervix when he had treated the patient. The drawing was in association with a colposcopy. Respondent intended to compare that drawing with what was observed in the patient during the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy in locating the suspected pathology. In proceeding with what he considered to be the third scheduled procedure for N.C., Respondent placed the speculum, applied the tenaculum and observed what looked to be a lesion that roughly approximated what he anticipated it would be based upon the drawing from Dr. Thompson. Respondent applied Lugol's solution and proceeded with the LEEP conization biopsy. Having applied the solution there was an indication of some pathology in roughly the position as the drawing had depicted. Respondent obtained the sample from the cervix. The size of the specimen was less than the diameter of a dime with a depth or thickness of about two dimes. The performance of the LEEP conization biopsy took less than five minutes. As Respondent finished Dr. Lazzell came to the operating room and informed Respondent that this was not the patient the he thought he was treating. Having been told by Dr. Lazzell that there was a misidentification, Respondent for the first time while engaged with the patient in the operating room proceeded to the front of the table and looked at the patient while the patient was being unmasked. By doing so Respondent discovered that indeed the patient had been misidentified and that he had actually performed surgery on patient A.G., not patient N.C. Respondent left the operating room and informed patient A.G.'s husband of the problem. Respondent returned to the operating room. The patient was provided anesthesia by Dr. Lazzell and the diagnostic laparoscopy that was scheduled was performed. Notwithstanding that it was never intended that Respondent perform a biopsy on patient A.G. from the cervix, Respondent expresses the opinion that if the physician encounters a visible lesion some form of biopsy is in order. Respondent expresses the opinion that in performing procedures such as a diagnostic laparoscopy greater latitude is afforded in terms of what the physician can do when he or she discovers "What's amiss with the patient." This in Respondent's view is because the patient is going into the procedure with the understanding that there may be an unanticipated problem and if the unexpected problem can be addressed, it should be taken care of. Of course this assumes that the biopsy that was performed on patient A.G. was in association with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy, when in fact the biopsy was the product of happenstance, in that, Respondent when addressing what he considered to be the condition in the patient N.C., by chance observed a similar condition in the patient A.G. Respondent concedes that prior to patient A.G.'s arrival at the outpatient surgical center that LEEP conization was not an indicated procedure for that patient. The biopsy that was performed was with the misapprehension as to the patient whose needs were being addressed, not merely an unanticipated circumstance in a patient whose identity was established when Respondent performed the biopsy. This was not an additional surgical procedure that came about in connection with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy; it was perceived by Respondent as the intended surgery being performed on a different patient when the case began. As a consequence it is the planned- for diagnostic laparoscopy which became the additional procedure. Nonetheless, Respondent tries to explain his result by expressing the opinion that other unexpected and unplanned-for procedures may be undertaken in the instance "Within the realm of the comfort level of the physician and the patient ahead of time; where they know each other, other things can be done as well." Respondent believes that the ability to proceed with the biopsy on patient A.G. while thinking that he was responding to the case involving patient N.C. is implicit and is promoted by "A feeling of trust that we had developed at the point in time." This refers to the point in time at which the other surgery, the diagnostic laparoscopy was being discussed with the patient A.G. The type of pathology that was encountered by Respondent with patient A.G. that led to the biopsy was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. That is what Respondent observed and collected for evaluation. The laboratory confirmation of the specimen was performed by Dr. Woodard Burgert, a board-certified anatomic and clinical pathologist. In his assessment Dr. Burgert observed that the cone biopsy in question was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. There was no significant dysplasia. Expert Opinions Dr. Edward Zelnick is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who practices in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Hollywood Medical Center and Memorial Regional Hospital. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. In the instance where pathology is found in examining the cervix, Dr. Zelnick believes that action should be taken in addressing that pathology, but only in the instance where the pathology has been discussed with the patient and the appropriate alternative treatment has been discussed. Absent an emergency it is necessary to provide the patient the alternative to surgery and identify the risk of surgery. Absent life-threatening circumstances, a biopsy such as that performed on patient A.G. should not be performed without the patient's consent, which had not been given. Dr. Zelnick further describes the instance in which a biopsy in a case such as this would be in order, would be in relation to an instance in which it appeared that the circumstance was an immediate threat to the health of the patient that needed to be addressed. None of the exigent circumstances existed in this case. Therefore, Dr. Zelnick expresses the opinion that the performance of the biopsy by Respondent did not meet the expected standard of care. Based upon his familiarity with the form of consent in this case which states, "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure I request and authorize my physician to proceed," Dr. Zelnick believes that the physician's responsibility there is to respond during the course of the surgery, if medically necessary, to such matters as repairing of a blood vessel that has been cut or damage to an internal organ or bowel. None of those circumstances were associated with the biopsy performed on the patient A.G.. While Dr. Zelnick delegates patient identification to surgical staff or nursing staff, he believes that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification to make certain that the right operation is performed on the proper patient resides with the surgeon. To do less is to practice below the standard of care universally accepted and a matter of common sense. According to Dr. Zelnick, Respondent did not meet that standard when performing the biopsy on patient A.G. who was misidentified. Whatever rules and procedures may be in place setting standards for identification in a hospital, Dr. Zelnick does not believe those standards abrogate the duty of the physician to properly identify the patient. What is expected of a physician is 100 percent certainty as to who the proper patient is and to assure that the proper procedure is carried out on the proper patient. The method of arriving at that determination is not significant, in Dr. Zelnick's view. Dr. Roberto Fojo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Jackson Memorial and North Shore Medical Center in South Florida, and he is affiliated with the University of Miami, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecology. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He does not view a diagnostic laparoscopy as being intended to discover and diagnose cervical lesions, where, as here, the lesion is on the surface of the cervix and vagina. A diagnostic laparoscopy is not intended to promote an examination of the cervix, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo is familiar with the consent form executed by patient A.G., the language previously described. He has seen that language before or something similar to it and considers it part of the standard surgical consent in connection with a diagnostic laparoscopy that was intended in this case. The consent is designed to allow the surgeon to address matters such as puncture of the bowel or a problem with a major artery or veins or scar tissue or adhesions. This consent would not include addressing lesions on the cervix. A LEEP conization procedure is not an accepted procedure to perform in the patient undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy unless the LEEP conization had already been discussed and there was a problem with the cervix that the patient knew about. There, in Dr. Fojo's perception, the patient would be undergoing what he refers to as dual procedure. Dr. Fojo does not believe that surgery should be performed on a patient absent the patient's consent as being part of the original procedure or in an emergency. The LEEP conization biopsy by Respondent was not related to the consent that had been provided nor pertaining to an emergency. In this sense, Dr. Fojo expresses the opinion that Respondent failed to meet the standard for medical practice when performing the LEEP conization biopsy on Patient A.G. Dr. Fojo believes that a surgeon should ascertain without any doubt that the patient in the room is a patient that he or she should be performing surgery on, the appropriate surgical procedure. This need for identification is an independent responsibility of the physician and may not be delegated. It requires 100 percent accuracy, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo holds to the opinion that the physician is responsible for the identification regardless of his or her efforts that may have been compromised by others in attempting to properly identify the patient and perform the indicated procedure. He believes this to be common medical practice. Respondent was not within the standard of care in performing the LEEP conization procedure on patient A.G. under Dr. Fojo's assessment. Dr. Michelle McCallanahan is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida and practices in Jacksonville, Florida. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. The consent form executed by patient A.G. is not unfamiliar to Dr. McCallanahan. Her perception of this consent language is that it relates to complications that occur during the course of the diagnostic laparoscopy that were not foreseen and constitute an emergency requiring an immediate procedure to correct the condition. Examples are vascular injuries to vessels, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection and bleeding. By contrast, lesions on the cervix do not constitute an example of an unforeseen circumstance. Dr. McCallanahan expresses the opinion that an appropriate workup for LEEP conization was not done for the patient A.G. Nonetheless, there are some circumstances in which it would not be violative of the standard of care to perform LEEP conization without conducting a workup. That circumstance would be in the instance where the lesion that was observed was highly suggestive of cervical cancer, according to Dr. McCallanahan. The case that Respondent was presented with did not constitute such a condition. Ordinarily, the standard of care contemplates the discussion of possible risks or complications associated with LEEP conization procedures before performing them. According to Dr. McCallanahan it would be appropriate to perform a surgical procedure without discussion of the risks and possible complications in an emergency when the patient was unconscious and could not give consent in advance. Those are not the facts here. While Dr. McCallanahan relies upon the assistance of other persons within the surgical and nursing staff, she expresses the opinion that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification prior to the performance of surgery resides with the physician. She believes that it is below the standard of care to not correctly identify the patient before the procedure is done and perform an improper procedure or non- consenting procedure on that patient, as was the case here. Dr. Jana Bures-Forstheoefel is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida. She practices in Tallahassee, Florida, and has privileges at TMH and performs surgeries in the outpatient surgery center. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. She believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying patient A.G. before performing surgery on the patient. The method used by Respondent to identify the patient was common to the practice of other physicians who performed surgeries in that setting, according to Dr. Forstheoefel. In the event that Dr. Forstheoefel was performing a diagnostic laparoscopy and observed a cervical lesion she would evaluate the condition to include the performance of a biopsy, the most common method for cervical biopsy being a LEEP conization. Notwithstanding the lack of specific consent by the patient for Respondent to perform the LEEP conization, Dr. Forstheoefel holds to the opinion that it was correct to biopsy, given what was observed in the patient. The prospect that a physician would be 100 percent accurate in identifying a patient undergoing surgery is not humanly possible and is a standard that should not be imposed upon a physician in Dr. Forstheoefel's opinion. She considers that the matter of proper identification preoperatively is a team effort. One person should not be solely responsible for all things in making certain of the patient's safety and assuring that the right thing is done. Dr. Kenneth John McAlpine is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He believes that Respondent met the standard of care in identifying the patient A.G. before performing the surgery and in performing the LEEP conization on that patient. Although Dr. McAlpine has not experienced a situation in which he observed a reason to do a LEEP conization in a diagnostic laparoscopy case, where consent for LEEP conization had not been given ahead of time, he does not question the decision to address the condition observed, such as in the case at issue. From his point of view, it was acceptable to do a LEEP conization biopsy to address the lesion. Although no prior indication existed before the lesion was observed during the procedure Dr. McAlpine would not want to ignore the lesion. Dr. McAlpine believes that the process that Respondent undertook in identifying the patient A.G. before surgery was consistent with practices in effect at the hospital, this included reliance on staff in the operating room. Dr. McAlpine does not believe that it is necessary for a physician to be 100 percent accurate in the identification as a person ultimately in charge. No matter as to the facts, he sees the issue of the identification being a multi-disciplinary approach among health care providers. Dr. David O'Bryan practices obstetrics and gynecology. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. The method employed by Respondent in identifying the patient was consistent with the practice used in the immediate medical community at the time, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the Respondent performed the appropriate surgery on Patient A.G. For Dr. O'Bryan, what is more important in addressing the patient's needs is the apparent pathology, not the consent that may have been provided by the patient in advance of the procedure. It would be negligent not to address the lesion on the cervix in his view. The pathology present determines the response even without a consent for the procedure. Dr. O'Bryan did not consider that the pathology constituted an issue of life or death. The fact that the LEEP conization biopsy was not planned was less significant than the need to address the pathology. It does not matter if the patient were A.G. or N.C. or some other patient, Dr. O'Bryan believes that it was appropriate to perform the biopsy. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the surgeon bears a great deal of responsibility in patient identification, but the ultimate responsibility for identification does not reside with the physician or any other operating room staff member in Dr. O'Bryan's assessment. Dr. O'Bryan does not conceive that there can be any greater comfort in the identification than in the instance where the "operating room crew" tells the physician who it is and the physician has a chart in his hands which indicates that it is the same patient as the operating staff has identified and the pathology that was found is consistent with what had been anticipated according to the patient chart and the staff identification. Nothing in medicine involves the imposition of a 100 percent standard of care to include properly identifying the patient preoperatively, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. Roberto Morales is a board-certified obstetrician in gynecology licensed to practice in Florida. At times relevant, he performed surgery at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in Patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. Dr. Morales believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying the patient A.G. in that hospital and in other places as well. Dr. Morales believes that the patient was correctly identified by Respondent earlier in the day and that the incorrect patient was brought back to the operating room. Under those circumstances, Respondent did what was appropriate to identify the patient in the performance of the LEEP conization on patient A.G. and was within the standard of care, according to Dr. Morales. Assuming the patient was scheduled for a diagnostic laparoscopy, if during the examination, visualization of the cervix, a lesion was observed, a biopsy would be the typical next step, according to Dr. Morales. The caveat to his opinion in the ability to perform that biopsy would depend upon the patient that was being taken care of and the sense that the physician had about the patient's expectations of what should be done and not done. It is assumed that Dr. Morales believed that the level of relationship between Respondent and Patient A.G. would allow the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Morales believes that the attempt to be 100 percent accurate in the identification of patients preoperatively is an aspirational goal, not a requirement. For him all persons concerned have the responsibility for taking care of the patient. Having considered the opinions expressed by the experts, the ultimate facts to be determined must be based upon the realization that Respondent proceeded to perform the LEEP conization biopsy on patient A.G. without advance written consent, that Respondent believed that he was confronting the case of patient N.C., and that the performance of the LEEP conization on Patient A.G. was not in its timing and justification part of the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be performed on Patient A.G. The earlier effort by Respondent to identify his patient in the holding area was sufficient for that stage of the process. Respondent acted in the customary manner in relying upon his knowledge that Patient N.C. was to be the third patient based upon the schedule. It was not unexpected that Respondent would rely upon the surgical staff in orally confirming the patient identity and the procedure to be performed when entering the operating room for the scheduled third procedure. This identification was further confirmed by the presence of the chart for Patient N.C. Respondent's failure to take further steps to physically identify the patient by looking at her arm bracelet, by looking at her face, or in some other manner recognizing the mistake that had been made by others in readying Patient A.G., and not Patient N.C. for surgery could be forgiven if there were no consequences, but there were. Although Respondent should not be the absolute guarantor in the identification of the patient, what he did in the operating room was not enough, when the result is that Respondent performed the LEEP conization that was not consented to in advance, and performed believing that the patient was N.C., the patient for whom the procedure was intended, and was not in response to an emergency regardless of patient identity. As a result, Respondent failed to meet the standard of care for reasonably prudent similar physicians under acceptable similar conditions and circumstances in his actions. In mitigation, the outcome was not harmful to the patient. Moreover, other health care professionals were in great measure responsible for the failure to properly identify the patient.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine and costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2002, 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 this 8th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Kim Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 David W. Moye, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 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
Findings Of Fact § 57.111(3)(f) Fla. Stat. (2005) "state agency" The Department of Health meets the definition found within Section 120.52(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2005), as an "agency." § 57.111(3)(b)2. and 3., Fla. Stat. (2005) "initiated by a state agency." On June 21, 2005, an Administrative Complaint in Department of Health, Petitioner, v. Donna M. Cameron Connolly, R.N., C.R.N.A, Respondent, DOH Case No. 2004-34970 was signed and served on Nurse Connolly. It accused the Respondent of violating Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2002), in the treatment and care of Patient M.M. Nurse Connolly elected to contest material facts within the Administrative Complaint. On September 9, 2005, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) to conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2005). It became DOAH Case No. 05-3268PL. The hearing was held, and, on December 8, 2005, a Recommended Order was entered with a recommendation that the case be dismissed. § 57.111(3)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2005) "prevailing small business party" On February 27, 2006, the Department of Health entered a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Nurse Connolly. § 57.111(3)(d)1a., Fla. Stat. (2005) "small business party" The incident involving Patient M.M. that related to the Administrative Complaint took place on March 13, 2003. On the date Nurse Connolly cared for Patient M.M. She did so at Endosurg Outpatient Center (Endosurg) in Lady Lake, Florida, a gastroenterologist practice. She was providing anesthesia to the patient during a colonoscopy. She was acting as an independent contractor for a limited period of time in her engagement with Endosurg. It is her routine to take temporary positions in providing her services. Nurse Connolly works through placement agencies who serve clients who have the need for anesthesia coverage by a C.R.N.A. The placement agency, Nature Coast Anesthesia Providers (Nature Coast), had contacted Respondent to determine her interest in working for two weeks at Endosurg. For the services provided at Endosurg, Nurse Connolly had a verbal agreement with Nature Coast that formed the basis for her pay. The equipment and materials necessary to perform her duties at Endosurg were to be provided by that entity. In addition to the equipment provided by Endosurg, Petitioner Connolly had certain equipment of her own, including a stethoscope and an ambu-bag. At the time that the incident involving Patient M.M. occurred, Nurse Connolly had worked for Endosurg in two separate facilities for seven days. After the incident involving Patient M.M., Petitioner worked for Endosurg for an additional three days. For the year 2003, Petitioner Connolly and Joseph F. Connolly filed a Joint Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, with a Schedule C, representing profit or loss from a business naming Donna C. Connolly as a proprietor, "anesthesia provider," reflecting income and expenses with a net profit of $34,506.00. In 2003, Nurse Connolly's proprietorship carried business insurance through Bloom Insurance Services with a policy written by Evanston Insurance Company. Nature Coast paid Nurse Connolly for services provided at Endosurg. No insurance coverage was provided to Nurse Connolly from Nature Coast for the work done at Endosurg, nor was she entitled to any form of benefits from Nature Coast for that work. Nurse Connolly gave Nature Coast an invoice reflecting the services provided at Endosurg for which she requested payment and was paid. Nurse Connolly had other arrangements with agencies in 2003 to place her. Those agencies were Nation Wide Anesthesia Services and MDA Associates. Arrangements with the latter two agencies were under terms set forth in written contacts. At all times relevant Nurse Connolly did not advertise her services as a sole proprietor. She did provide business cards that set forth her address, telephone number, and e-mail. When performing her duties as an anesthesia provider in outlying locations, Nurse Connolly deducts meals, hotel expenses and her malpractice insurance for purposes of her income tax return. During the relevant period in time, Nurse Connolly had no other employees working for her. Her net worth was not more than two million dollars. § 57.111(4)(b)1., Fla. Stat. 2005 "itemized affidavit" To support Nurse Connolly's application for attorney's fees and costs, an affidavit has been provided by her counsel setting forth a claim for 105.1 hours of work performed by the law firm at a charge of $350.00 per hour for legal services, with an additional $45.08 in costs for federal express expenses in relation to her defense against the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05-3268PL/DOH Case No. 2004-34970. The affidavit was prepared on May 23, 2006. Counsel for Petitioner Connolly also provided an itemized statement of work done between June 7, 2005, and February 5, 2006, as to the dates and nature of the services and time necessary to perform the incremental services totaling 105.2 hours, a discrepancy compared to the affidavit of .1 hours. In further support of the request for attorney's fees and costs, the application is accompanied by an affidavit provided by Paul C. Perkins, Jr., Esquire, as to the reasonableness of the fees requested for 105.1 hours of time expended. He comments, that recognizing the complexity and novelty of the issues in the case, an hourly rate for attorney work performed would range from $250 to $400 an hour. Attorney Perkins, like Petitioner Connolly's counsel, practices law in Florida. The affidavit by attorney Perkins refers to his admission to the Florida Bar and license to practice in the State of Florida for a period of 14 years. The affidavit was executed before a notary in Seminole County, Florida. In particular, he speaks to the complexity of the underlying case involving the administrative prosecution of Nurse Connolly, as a matter where expert testimony in the areas of pharmacology, anesthesiology, and cardio-pulmonary health were considered. In addition, the underlying case involved medical ethics and extensive research, according to attorney Perkins. On September 20, 2006, Nurse Connolly's attorney in this case, Damon A. Chase, Esquire, filed a supplemental affidavit as to attorney's fees and costs in the matter, asking that he be reimbursed for his fees at a rate of $350.00 per hour. Attached to the affidavit was a rendition of the services provided in the present case from July 12, 2006, through September 5, 2006, totaling 24.4 hours. A second affidavit by attorney Perkins has not been filed to support the additional 24.4 hours. § 57.111(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005) "opposition affidavit" Respondent in this cause filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to Petitioner's attorney's affidavit for fees and costs. The counter-affidavit was provided by Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire, who practices in Leon County, Florida, where he has practiced for the last 22 years. The majority of his practice was in the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida. Attorney Bayo served as Board counsel for professional regulatory boards to include the Boards of Pharmacy, Dentistry, Osteopathic medicine, Chiropractic medicine, Veterinary medicine and Professional Engineers. His law practice has involved significant administrative law litigation. In response to the original request for reimbursement of attorney's fees in relation to the 105.1 hours, his opinion is that the appropriate hourly rate for the type of work performed in the case, as reviewed by Attorney Bayo, would be from $200 to $325 an hour, with the higher rate of charge being associated with counsel who has had more experience in administrative litigation, that is to say in excess of 15 years. Attorney Bayo contrasts that number of years with the amount of time that counsel for Nurse Connolly has been in practice in Florida, which attorney Bayo represents as being three years. Ultimately attorney Bayo offers the opinion that the rate of reimbursement for Attorney Chase should not exceed $225 per hour. § 57.111(4)(d)1., Fla. Stat. (2005) "nominal party" When the Department of Health undertook its prosecution directed to Donna M. Cameron Connolly, R.N., C.R.N.A., it was not acting as a nominal party. § 57.11(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005) "substantially justified" Exhibit "B" to Respondent's Notice of Filing of Additional Documents in the present case, as filed August 25, 2006, is constituted of the investigative report by the Department of Health, with exhibits. It includes patient records and expert opinions in DOH Case No. 2004-34970, all the material being mailed to the Probable Cause Panel which decided in favor of Probable Cause to bring the Administrative Complaint in the case. Exhibit "B" also contains the written response to the investigation provided by Nurse Connolly. The information available to the Probable Cause Panel continues in this discussion. On April 8, 2003, a confidential code 15 report was received by the Health Facility Regulation Hospital and Outpatient Services, within the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration. In content, it pertained to Patient M.M. The report was made in compliance with Section 395.0197(8), Florida Statutes (2002). The report concerned the incident on March 13, 2003, which forms the basis of the administrative prosecution that underlies the present case. The Code 15 report was acknowledged by an Investigation Specialist with the Department of Health in a letter to the reporter dated July 1, 2003. Beyond that date, the Department of Health undertook its investigation into the matter concerning Patient M.M. and her treatment on March 13, 2003. After the investigation commenced, a Uniform Complaint Form was executed by the Investigation Specialist for the Department of Health, in a setting were Donna Connolly was named as the Respondent in relation to the March 13, 2003, incident. Generally, it summarized the events of that day and the withdrawal of life support from Patient M.M. on March 16, 2003, followed by the patient's death on March 17, 2003. The focus of the investigation was on a possible violation of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005(2)(i). In pursuing the investigation, the Department of Health made contact through its investigator with an official at Endosurg in Lady Lake, Florida. The investigation was facilitated by a subpoena issued October 8, 2003, calling for the release from Endosurg of medical information about Patient M.M. and the care received at Endosurg. The subpoena duces tecum that was sent to Endosurg on October 8, 2003, asked for the outpatient center to provide a copy of the medical records for the March 13, 2003, admission in relation to Patient M.M. Among the items that Endosurg gave the Department of Health concerning the care received by Patient M.M. on March 13, 2003, were the nursing assessments, pre-op and post-op information, the endoscopy report for the procedure being performed on the patient, the anesthesia record, the endoscopy procedure record, the past medical history of the patient, information concerning the provision of anesthesia in advance of its provision, a pre-operative evaluation questionnaire including the history of present illnesses, physical examination and a cardio-pulmonary resuscitation report form in relation to the CPR team who responded to the patient's arrest, which the report form refers to as occurring around 7:45 a.m. on March 13, 2003. It describes the CPR team responding to the incident as Nurse Connolly; Nurse Mayhew, who was a registered nurse; and the attending physician, who performed the colonoscopy. The Department of Health also issued a subpoena duces tecum to Lake Sumter Emergency Medical Services of Mt. Dora, Florida, who responded to the incident, providing care and transport for Patient M.M. on March 13, 2003. In response the Medical Services Agency provided transport information in relation to Patient M.M., who had suffered the cardiac arrest and was taken to the Villages Regional Hospital (Villages Hospital). A copy of a report reflecting the intubation and treatment provided by the agency to the patient was also given to the Department of Health, with a code summary critical event record. The patient was taken to the Villages Hospital for emergency treatment. The Department of Health issued a subpoena duces tecum to the hospital. The response to the subpoena included a written record of the diagnosis, including cardiac arrest, anoxic brain damage. Information from the Villages Hospital included physicians' orders, history and physical, laboratory studies, diagnostic studies, etc. The clinical indication at the time the patient was cared for in the Villages Regional Hospital was that the status was post-cardiac arrest, altered mental status. On that same date, March 13, 2003, the patient was transferred from the Villages Hospital to Lake Regional Medical Center (LRMC) in Leesburg, Florida. LRMC also provided records related to Patient M.M. The information received from LRMC was pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. The death summary provided by LRMC, where Patient M.M. expired on March 17, 2003, referred to a discharge diagnosis as, severe anoxic encephalopathy following cardio- respiratory seizure, and cardiac arrest secondary to ventricular fibrillation. The patient expired when life support was withdrawn. LRMC patient information included physician's orders, patient progress notes, medication administration record, etc. On March 21, 2003, an associate medical examiner for the District Five Medical Examiner's office located in Leesburg, Florida, determined that the cause of Patient M.M.'s death was hypertensive and arteriosclerotic heart disease. On October 20, 2004, a medical malpractice investigator for the Department of Health wrote to Donna Connolly, A.R.N.P., advising her of Complaint No. 2004-3490. That correspondence referred to an enclosed document that had been determined sufficient for investigation pursuant to Section 456.073, Florida Statutes (2004), and extended an invitation to Nurse Connolly to file a written response or to call in and schedule an interview within 20 days of receiving the letter. Nurse Connolly was reminded that any response "will be made a part of the file and will be considered by the Department and the Probable Cause Panel in determining whether a formal Administrative Complaint should be filed in the matter." Nurse Connolly was also advised that she was not required to answer any questions or give statements and that she could be represented by counsel. On November 12, 2004, as received by the Department of Health on November 15, 2004, Nurse Connolly responded in writing to the ongoing investigation addressing the documents involved in the investigation. She provided an explanation of her recollection of the events on March 13, 2003, related to the care she provided Patient M.M., disavowing any unprofessional conduct on her part. On June 1, 2005, an Order of Emergency Restriction of the license of Donna M. Cameron Connolly, A.R.N.P., C.R.N.A, was entered by the Secretary of the Department of Health. The significance here, is that C. Erwin Velbis, C.R.N.A., A.R.N.P., performed a review of what was referred to at that time as Case No. 2004-3490. On February 4, 2005, utilizing an outline provided by the Department of Health, he performed the medical review related to the overview of the March 13, 2003, case involving Patient M.M., the colonoscopy and the eventual death of the patient on March 17, 2003. In response to the question in the form, Question 3, which says: The applicable standard of care, step by step in this case is He replied: Preanesthesia Care, Basic Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring, Standards for Safe use of Propofol Appropriate level of sedation (Monitored Anesthesia Care vs. Conscious Sedation vs. Deep Sedation/Analgesia vs. General Anesthesia Postanesthesia Care, Basic Standards for Documentation of Anesthesia Care Nurse Velbis indicated that Nurse Connolly, in providing care to Patient M.M. on March 13, 2003, failed to meet the standard of care set out in the questionnaire by: Subject's PACU arrival vital signs do not reflect what was first documented by nursing staff which revealed hypotension and bradycardia that was treated with romazicon and trendelenburg positioning. Subject left an unstable patient upon arrival to PACU no documented ECG rhythm strips support what dysrhythmia patient was having that required ACLS. Under the response to question number 6 in the form, Nurse Velbis opines that Nurse Connolly should have done the following: Stayed with patient upon arrival in the PACU after a bp 74/42 and p40 was assessed Initiated defibrillation more quickly once the airway was secured (10 minutes had expired before the Fire and Rescue Paramedics defibrillated the patient). Provided clear ECG documentation. In this review, Nurse Velbis indicated items that might increase or lessen Nurse Connolly's culpability to the effect: gastroenterologist assumed "captain of the ship" regarding responsibility and accountability in the anesthesia care team model no supplemental oxygen was applied to the patient at PACU nor were [sic] there documentation of the SpO2 dose of Romazicon given by PACU nursing staff is unknown from the records. Was the dosage appropriate for the level of sedation? Nursing staff should have called the subject if Ramazicon was necessary to awaken a previously conversant patient What is the patient to staff ratio in the combined holding area in PACU? Depositions illustrate providers physically too far away from the patient in this case (this is an obese patient with a BMI of 35, no supplemental oxygen, and in trendelenburg position). Patients can resedate and become apneic without continual stimulation. Nurse Velbis was also asked to comment on the Emergency Restriction Order in draft form, which took into account his expert opinion that had been rendered in his written review as a means to make certain that the Emergency Restriction Order accurately reflected his expert opinion. There was also a reference in April 4, 2005, correspondence to Nurse Velbis concerning the addition of a paragraph 19 to the Emergency Restriction Order describing Nurse Connolly's failure to utilize the bag-valve mask immediately as a failure to meet applicable standards of care. This correspondence also describes some discrepancy between the author and Nurse Velbis concerning information that he had reflected in his written review about vital signs associated with Patient M.M. when the patient first arrived at the PACU at Endosurg. On April 21, 2005, Nurse Velbis responded in writing to the April 4, 2005, correspondence, giving advice to omit paragraph 19c to the Emergency Restriction Order for reasons stated in the written response noting in the end that Nurse Connolly "remains justfully [sic] culpable for the underlying cause, primarily hypoxia, of M.M.'s PEA rhythm." Nurse Velbis, who had been called upon to review materials associated with the investigation into Nurse Connolly's conduct on March 13, 2003, in treating Patient M.M., had access to the Department of Health's investigative report that included medical records. Nurse Velbis' assessment of the circumstances in relation to care of Patient M.M. received on March 13, 2003, at Endosurg, contrasts with the January 11, 2005, memorandum from Kay Frank, R.N., B.S.N., a nurse consultant whose recommendation was "close complaint against D.C. (Donna Connolly) no violation. Consider further investigation of recovery and resuscitation of this client." The investigative report form by the Department of Health that addressed the complaint that was made October 15, 2004, was completed when approved on December 30, 2004. By its table of contents, it refers to written records received from the various sources under subpoena duces tecum to Endosurg, Lake Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Villages Hospital, and LRMC, with a summary of the impression gained from a review of these materials. The investigative report also includes summaries of interviews conducted with the Endosurg Risk Manager Consultant; the Nurse Administrator at Endosurg; the Risk Manager of the Villages Hospital; Maureen Mayhew, R.N. at Endosurg, who was in the PACU when Patient M.M. was transferred to that unit from the procedure room; and the Risk Manager for LRMC, as well as a summary of Nurse Connolly's response to the investigation. On June 20, 2005, a Probable Cause meeting was convened in which panel members Maria Seitz and Jeanne Stark participated. As the transcript of that meeting establishes, the panel members confirmed that they had had sufficient time to review the materials that have been described in aid of their deliberations. Among the cases on the agenda was the subject case involving Donna Connelly. Attorney Judy Law from the Department of Health, who participated in the panel discussion, noted that the panel members had been provided with complete case files including the investigative reports, attached exhibits, all patient medical records, and any expert opinion, as well as any material provided by a licensee to respond to the Department investigation. It was indicated that the panel members had been provided a draft of the Recommended Administrative Complaint in the Connolly case. Attorney LeeAnn Gustafson for the Board of Nursing, who participated in the meeting for probable cause, explained to the Probable Cause Panel members, that if they had questions concerning interpretation or the application of any provision within Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes, they should direct them to her, as well as any of the specifics concerning the cases that were on the agenda at that time, to include the case involving Nurse Connolly. There is a reference in the probable cause transcript to a scrivener's error that needed clarification in the Administrative Complaint related to Nurse Connolly and a need to correct numbers in the paragraphs to the Administrative Complaint without changing the underlying facts. The panel members agreed to these corrections. During the Probable Cause Panel meeting, a Mr. Monte gave a case overview involving the March 13, 2003, incident related to Patient M.M. and commented that the basis for the case was a failure to meet minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice: by leaving an unstable patient; by failing to verify the patient's vital signs upon admission; by failing to stay with the patient long enough to ensure that the patient was stable; by disregarding the patient's unstable vital signs; by failing to provide oxygen via bag, valve or mask, or through incubation (intubation) immediately; by failing to ensure the proper equipment for incubation (intubation) was readily available; by failing to utilize incubation (intubation) equipment in a timely fashion, as necessary to restore breathing in an emergency; and by choosing to use mouth to mouth resuscitation as a first intervention. With this explanation, Ms. Sietz moved to find probable cause, which was seconded by Ms. Starke. There ensued subsequent discussion about the case between the panel members and a possible disposition of the case by way of discipline imposed on Nurse Connolly. § 57.111(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) "special circumstances" No evidence was presented by Respondent in this case to show that special circumstances exist which would make the award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Gans is a chiropractor licensed in Florida on the basis of examination. Dr. Gans prepared and filed an application for examination and licensure with the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Do you have a chiropractic license in any state?" by stating: "Ohio - Mechanotherapy." The Ohio authorities recognized several professions whose functions would be included under the practice of chiropractic in Florida. Mechanotherapy generally would be limited to the practice of manipulation only. Dr. Gans was licensed in Ohio as a mechanotherapist. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Have you ever been refused licensure in any state?" by stating, "No." Dr. Gans had applied for, taken, and failed the Ohio chiropractic examination whereupon he was not issued a license as a chiropractor by the State of Ohio. Dr. Gans was eligible to reapply to take the Ohio examination. At the time of his application to Florida, Dr. Gans had appealed the determination by the Ohio authorities that he had failed the Ohio examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners revoke the license of Ray E. Gans. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Sutton, Esquire 250 Bird Road, Suite 310 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Paul Lambert, Esquire 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. A. Hartley, Director Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners Suite 202, Building B 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211
