The Issue The issue in this case is whether Jose Rosado, M.D., (Respondent), violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0068035. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. On March 10, 1997, Patient W.B.C., a 72-year-old man, arrived at the Leesburg Regional Medical Center (LRMC) emergency room. He complained of a sudden onset of weakness in his left hand and arm with numbness and tingling. Respondent was Patient W.B.C.'s primary care physician. Respondent admitted Patient W.B.C. with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome and a history of myocardial infarction. Respondent ordered that Patient W.B.C. undergo a head CT scan, carotid Doppler, 2-D echocardiogram, an electroencephalogram, and a neurological consultation. Based on the test results and the consultation, Respondent diagnosed Patient W.B.C. with right cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome, and history of myocardial infarction. Respondent then discharged the patient with Ticlid, a medication to prevent further cerebrovascular accidents and aspirin. On March 16, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was admitted to LRMC complaining of weakness, dizziness and a fever. His vital signs revealed a temperature of 103.0 F, a pulse of 118, and a blood pressure of 139/75. The emergency room physician ordered a chest x-ray, EKG, and urine and blood cultures. The chest x-ray revealed no acute cardiopulmonary abnormality. Urine tests revealed features consistent with the possibility of urosepsis. Blood work showed a white blood count of 9.15, elevated but within the normal range. Also on March 16, Respondent ordered that antibiotics be given prophylactically until the blood cultures came back from the laboratory. The cultures came back positive for staphylococcus aureus (staph). Staph is a notoriously “bad bug” and Staphylococci aureus bacteremia has a high mortality rate. Staph aureus can originate from several possible sources including infections through the urinary tract system, IV sites, aspiration into the lungs, and pneumonia (although not very common). Staphylococci in the bloodstream is known as bacteremia. Bacteremia can lead to endocarditis which is an infection of the inner lining of the heart and the heart valves. Endocarditis is a life-threatening condition that can quickly damage the heart valves and lead to heart failure or even death. Patients with certain cardiac conditions such as mitral valve regurgitation have a higher risk of developing endocarditis. Patient W.B.C. had such a history. On March 17, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was started on intravenous antibiotics by Respondent. Patient W.B.C. continued to receive the intravenous antibiotics for four days from March 17, 1997, through March 20, 1997. Respondent then switched Patient W.B.C. to oral antibiotics and kept the patient in the hospital one more day prior to discharging him with instruction to continue on the oral antibiotics for another ten days. Patient W.B.C. was discharged on March 21, 1997. He was not referred to an infectious disease specialist nor had Respondent obtained a consultation with any specialist to determine the length of time that the patient's infection should be treated. Respondent felt that he was adequately qualified to treat this patient, and the treatment appeared to work. Respondent thought the bacteria growing in the patient's blood "likely" originated from a lung infection. An infectious disease specialist should have been consulted to give guidance as to how long to treat the infection. The standard of care for treating a staph aureus infection where there is a known source of infection requires 14 days of intravenous antibiotics. Where the source is not known, then four to six weeks of antibiotics is recommended. In this case, the infection, a resistant staph infection found in the patient's blood, could have originated from several sources. While such staph could have sprung from a source in the lung, this is by no means likely and the infection could have originated from another source. The standard of care required that Respondent contact an infectious disease specialist for an evaluation and/or that he treat Patient W.B.C.’s staphylococcus with a minimum of 10 to days of intravenous antibiotics. On or about April 11, 1997, Patient W.B.C., presented to the emergency room at LRMC complaining of congestion, shortness of breath, fever of 100.3° F, and a cough. The emergency room physician performed a physical exam which revealed vital signs of a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104, and a blood pressure of 90/54. A chest x-ray, blood work and a urine culture were ordered. Patient W.B.C. was then admitted on April 11, 1997, with a diagnosis of pneumonia, an old cerebrovascular accident and coronary artery disease. The ER physician started Patient W.B.C. on a plan of treatment which included intravenous antibiotics, Vancomycin, IV fluids, and blood cultures. A physical examination on the patient revealed a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104 and blood pressure of 91/53. The attending physician diagnosed him with probable sepsis with pneumonia. On April 12, 1997, the blood cultures came back positive for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. On April 15, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was afebrile (without fever) and his white blood cell count was 10.23, which is within the normal range of 4.0 to 11.0. The patient continued in this condition through April 18, 1997, despite suffering from sepsis. On April 18, 1997, Respondent approved Patient W.B.C. for transfer to another institution for consideration for urgent mitral valve replacement. On April 19, 1997, Patient W.B.C. arrested and was pronounced dead at 5:53 a.m. Petitioner’s expert, Carlos Sotolongo, M.D., is board- certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease and nuclear cardiology. As established by Dr. Sotolongo's testimony, Respondent practiced below the standard of care by failing to treat Patient W.B.C. with a sufficient number of days of intravenous antibiotics and by failing to consult an infectious disease specialist. According to Dr. Sotolongo, there is a difference in the way that an uncomplicated pneumonia is treated as opposed to a pneumonia complicated by bacteremia. The latter must be treated more aggressively. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), 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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and imposing a penalty which includes a formal reprimand, payment of an Administrative Fine in the amount of $5,000.00 within 180 days, and eight hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) to be completed within the next 12 months dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of infections and/or risk management. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Kim M. Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Shelly O. Wolland, D.O., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint dated February 15, 2005, issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, in DOH Case No. 2004- 50416, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in Florida.7 Respondent, Shelly O. Wolland, D.O., is, and was at the times material to this matter, an osteopathic physician licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in Florida, having been issued, on September 30, 1987, license number OS 5378. During the parts of 2003 and 2004 relevant to this proceeding, Dr. Wolland worked as an osteopathic physician at Advanced Integrated Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as "Advanced"), located at 1655 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She usually worked at Advanced on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Order of Emergency Restriction of License. On or about March 18, 2002, the Secretary of the Department issued an Order of Emergency Restriction of License (hereinafter referred to as the "ERO") in DOH Case No. 2001- 21687.8 The ERO provides the following restrictions on Dr. Wolland's practice of osteopathic medicine: The license of Shelly O. Wolland, D.O., license number OS 005378, is hereby immediately restricted in the following manner: Dr. Wolland's license is hereby restricted and she is prohibited from dispensing, administering, or injecting any medication except for those medicines that may be required to sustain a patient's life in a bona fide medical emergency. [Emphasis added]. . . . . The ERO clearly prohibits Dr. Wolland from "dispensing . . . any medication," "administering . . . any medication" OR "injecting . . . any medication."9 The rationale for issuing the ERO is also explained in some detail in the Order. In summary, the ERO was issued due to concerns about Dr. Wolland's handling of medications which, while including pre-filled syringes, also include other medications which the Department believed were improperly stored. The Department, while concerned about the pre-filled syringes, was also concerned about medications allegedly found on November 29, 2001, at a clinic allegedly owned by Dr. Wolland, which could be dispensed or administered other than by injection. Reading the ERO in its entirety, it is clear that the Department not only prohibited Dr. Wolland from giving injections, but it also prohibited Dr. Wolland from administering or dispensing any medications except in a medical emergency. The ERO goes on to inform Dr. Wolland of the consequences of her failure to comply with the restrictions placed on her practice: Dr. Wolland's failure to comply with the restrictions placed on her license to practice osteopathic medicine shall constitute grounds for a suspension of her license to practice osteopathic medicine. A proceeding seeking appropriate discipline, including, but not limited to, the suspension or revocation of the license to practice as a physician of Shelly O. Wolland, D.O. shall be promptly instituted and acted upon in compliance with Section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes.[10] The ERO also contains the following "NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW": Pursuant to Sections 120.60(6), and 120.68, Florida Statutes, the Department's findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness shall be judicially reviewable. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Petition for Review in accordance with Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Department of Health and a second copy of the petition accompanied by a filing fee prescribed by law with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed. The ERO was personally served on Dr. Wolland on March 26, 2002, by Department Investigative Manager Christie Jackson. Dr. Wolland was, therefore, aware of the ERO during the times relevant to this matter. The ERO has not been vacated or modified by the Secretary of the Department; it has not been superseded by a Final Order of the Board of Osteopathic Medicine; and it has not been overturned by a District Court of Appeal or any other court of competent jurisdiction. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the ERO has been in effect. Dr. Wolland's Treatment of E.K. On or about November 20, 2003, a Thursday, E.K. presented to Advanced for anti-aging treatment by botox11 injections and to obtain information on testosterone supplementation. Dr. Wolland made the following diagnosis of E.K.: Herniation of L2 and L4 dx by MRI Low back pain, chronic Left shoulder Capsular shift for chronic dislocations History of total knee reconstruction Decreased libido and erections less full. Normal again of face, patient wants botox treatment A treatment plan was established by Dr. Wolland which included administering or dispensing the following medications: Depotestosterone,12 a prescription of Viagra, trigger point injections13 on both sides and iliolumbar on both sides, and botox injections. Except for the Viagra, these medications were to be administered or dispensed via injection. As ordered by Dr. Wolland, E.K. received an injection of 200 mg of Depotestosterone intramuscularly; over ten injections containing Lidocaine, dextrose, and Vitamin B12 on both sides in the iliolumbar region; two injections to the low back/sacral region; and botox injections to the glabellar folds and crows’ feet area of the eyes. Dr. Wolland signed the examination notes and she initialed the SOAP notes for E.K.'s treatments of November 20, 2003. While her signature and initials verify that she ordered these medications be given via injection and that they were in fact given, they do not indicate who actually administered the injections. Diagram notes showing where the injections were given to E.K. on November 20, 2003, were made by Bach McComb, D.O., another osteopathic physician who was employed at Advanced during the times relevant to this proceeding. Dr. Wolland, at least on this point, testified credibly and convincingly that it was Dr. McComb who actually gave the injections, which Dr. Wolland had ordered and which she actually witnessed. On December 11, 2003, a Thursday, E.K. presented at Advanced for follow-up treatment. After conducting a physical examination of E.K., Dr. Wolland made the following diagnoses of E.K.: Herniation of L2 and L4 dx by MRI Low back pain, chronic Decrease of normal lumbar lordosis curvature. Left shoulder Capsular shift for chronic dislocations History of total knee reconstruction Decreased libido and erections less full. A treatment plan was established by Dr. Wolland which included the administration or dispensing of the following medications and treatments: Depotestosterone, a testosterone gel, prescription of Viagra, trigger point injections on both sides and iliolumbar on both sides, and injection therapy to the lower back. All of these medications and treatments, except the Viagra and the testosterone gel, were to be administered or dispensed via injection. E.K. was also scheduled by Dr. Wolland to return in three weeks "for follow up of botox and prolotherapy"14 and "[p]lan prolotherapy to shoulder " As ordered by Dr. Wolland, E.K. received an injection of Depotestosterone and trigger point injections on both sides and the iliolumbar area of his back. Dr. Wolland signed the examination notes and she initialed the SOAP notes for E.K.'s treatment of December 11, 2003. While her signature and initials verify that she ordered the medications received by E.K. on December 11, 2003, were to be given via injection and that they were in fact given, they do not indicate who actually administered the injections. Diagram notes showing where the injections were given to E.K. on December 11, 2003, were made by Dr. McComb. Dr. Wolland ordered and actually witnessed the injections. On or about December 30, 2003, a Tuesday, E.K. presented for follow-up treatment scheduled during his December 11, 2003, visit. After conducting a physical examination of E.K., Dr. Wolland made the following diagnoses of E.K.: Herniation of L2 and L4 Low back pain, chronic Decrease of normal lumbar lordosis curvature. Left shoulder Capsular shift for chronic dislocations History of total knee reconstruction Decreased libido and erections less full. Hypercholesterolemia- 218 LDL is 144, HDL 50 PSA - .7 CBC-normal indices A treatment plan was established by Dr. Wolland which included the following medications and treatments: Depotestosterone, intramuscularly, over ten injections containing Lidocaine, dextrose, and Vitamin B12 on both sides in the iliolumbar region and eight injections to the left shoulder; and injections containing Lidocaine, dextrose, and Vitamin B12 to the low back/sacral region. The medications, dextrose, and Vitamin B12 were to be given via injection. All of the injections ordered by Dr. Wolland were received by E.K. on December 30, 2003. Dr. Wolland signed the examination notes and she initialed the SOAP notes for E.K.'s treatment of December 30, 2003. While her signature and initials verify that she ordered the medications received by E.K. on December 30, 2003, were to be given via injection and that they were in fact given, they do not indicate who actually administered the injections. Diagram notes showing where the injections were given to E.K. on December 30, 2003, were made by Dr. McComb. Dr. Wolland ordered and actually witnessed the injections. On or about March 19, 2004, a Thursday, E.K. presented for follow-up treatment.15 After conducting a physical examination of E.K., Dr. Wolland made the following assessment of E.K.: Chronic Low back pain Herniated lumbar discs Ligamentous instability of sacroiliac and lumbar area right knee knee [sic] instability 2ndry to acl reconstruction and repeated injury left shoulder pain hypotestosterone level facial wrinkling A treatment plan was established by Dr. Wolland which included: modified injection therapy to sacroiliac area bilat facet injection paravertebral bilat at lumbosacral level L4-5 and L5 S1 #4 Ligament injection sacroiliac and lumbar bilat iliolumbar and sacroiliac bilat #4 injection sites. Ozone ot sacroiliac joint bilat Modified injection therapy of lumbar area Modified injection therapy of right knee 6 Injection sites to ligamentous attachments . . . . ozone to right knee joint depotestosterone 200 mg IM Pursuant to Dr. Wolland's orders, E.K. received a 200 mg injection of Depotestosterone intramuscularly; over ten injections on both sides in the iliolumbar region; six injections to the sacroiliac region; four injections to the right knee; ozone to the right knee and sacroiliac joint; joint injection to the right knee; and botox injections to the forehead and other facial areas. Dr. Wolland signed the examination notes and she initialed the SOAP notes for E.K.'s treatment of March 19, 2004. While her signature and initials verify that she ordered the medications received by E.K. on March 19, 2004, were to be given via injection and that they were in fact given, they do not indicate who actually administered the injections. Diagram notes showing where the injections were given to E.K. on March 19, 2004, were made by Dr. McComb. Dr. Wolland ordered and actually witnessed the injections. E.K.'s final visit to Advanced alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place on or about September 1, 2004, a Wednesday. The evidence failed to prove who ordered or actually administered the treatment received by E.K. on this date. While Dr. Wolland had signed the examination notes and initialed SOAP notes for prior visits, facts that she readily admitted, her signature and initials do not appear on any of the medical records for the September 1, 2004, visit. No credible evidence was offered that would support a finding that Dr. Wolland saw E.K. on September 1, 2004.16 Dr. Wolland's Treatment of B.K. On or about December 11, 2003, B.K., the wife of E.K., presented to Advanced and, in particular, Dr. Wolland for anti- aging treatment. The following "treatment plan" was established by Dr. Wolland for B.K.: Risks and benefits of botox treatment Consent signed Botox treatment given today to crows feet and glabellar fold area Pursuant to Dr. Wolland's orders, B.K. received injections of botox to the crows feet and glabellar fold area of her face. Dr. Wolland signed the examination notes and she initialed the SOAP notes for B.K.'s treatment of December 11, 2003. While her signature and initials verify that she ordered the medications received by B.K. on December 11, 2003, were to be given via injection and that they were in fact given, they do not indicate who actually administered the injections. Diagram notes showing where the injections were given to B.K. on December 11, 2003, were made by Dr. McComb. Dr. Wolland ordered and actually witnessed the injections. On or about December 30, 2003, B.K. again presented to Advanced and was seen by Dr. Wolland. B.K. made this visit to receive additional botox injections, which she received after Dr. Wolland conducted a physical examination of her. As in the other visit by B.K. and the visits of E.K., Dr. Wolland signed B.K.'s examination notes and she initialed B.K.'s SOAP notes for the medications she received on December 30, 2003. While her signature and initials verify that she ordered the medications received by B.K. on December 30, 2003, were to be given via injection and that they were in fact given, they do not indicate who actually administered the injections. Diagram notes showing where the injections were given to B.K. on December 30, 2003, were made by Dr. McComb. Dr. Wolland ordered and actually witnessed the injections. Dr. Wolland's Violation of the ERO. The evidence clearly and convincingly proved that Dr. Wolland conducted examinations of E.K. and B.K. on several occasions, as discussed, supra, made a diagnosis of their respective conditions, developed and ordered a treatment plan for each, which included administering and dispensing of medications, dextrose, and vitamins via injections, supervised and witnessed the injections, and otherwise ensured that her treatment plan, in particular the administering and dispensing of the prescribed medications, was carried out. While the evidence failed to prove that Dr. Wolland actually gave any injection to E.K. or B.K., she admittedly caused the injections to be given, and, therefore, administered and dispensed the medications. The foregoing activities constitute "administering . . . any medication . . ." an activity prohibited by the ERO except when "required to sustain a patient's life in a bona fide medical emergency." None of the medications administered to E.K. or B.K. were administered to sustain their lives. The common definition of "administer" includes any activity "to manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of . . . ." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1984). With regard to medications, to "administer" means to "give or apply." Wordnet.Princeton.edu/perl/webwn. Dr. Wolland's activities also constitute "dispensing" of medications in violation of the ERO. A physician dispenses medications every time she causes a medication to be given to a patient. Dr. Wolland should have understood that she was dispensing medications whether she physically gave the medications to E.K. or B.K. or, as here, by her action caused someone else to physically deliver the medications via injections. While Dr. Wolland may not have directly given or applied any medications to E.K. or B.K., without her orders, and B.K. would not have received any medications. She did, therefore, by ordering her treatment plans carried out, give, and, therefore, administer and dispense the medications specified in her treatment plans. This finding is supported by Dr. Rose's testimony, which is accepted and credited in this regard, that a reasonably prudent similar physician would understand that the ERO limited not only Dr. Wolland's ability to actually give an injection of medications, but her ability to order or cause anyone else to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Osteopathic Medicine finding that Shelly O. Wolland, D. O., has violated Section 456.072(1)(q), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; requiring that she pay a fine in the amount of $5,000.00; placing her license on probation for a period of three years; and requiring that she complete continuing education in subjects as directed by the Board of Osteopathic Medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S _____ LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the defense of a disciplinary proceeding.
Findings Of Fact On September 2, 1988, an 83-year-old female was admitted to West Orange Memorial Hospital with recurrent rectal bleeding and complaints of pain in the low back and left hip. The patient also reported pain while sitting or lying due to a subcutaneous nodule in the left buttock. As noted in the patient's history dictated by Petitioner on September 12, 1988, the patient had numerous admissions to the hospital for rectal bleeding and previously had been diagnosed as suffering from angiodysplasia. These notes also reflect that the patient had recently undergone a colonoscopy and upper endoscopy, which were negative. The notes of N. Alar, M.D., which were dictated on September 3, 1988, indicate that he had seen the patient in consultation for evaluation of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. The notes disclose that the patient had complained of bloody bowel movements. The notes record a history of diverticulosis and angiodysplasia of the colon. Following a colonoscopy and polypectomy, Petitioner excised the nodule on September 11. The procedure took place at the hospital bed of the patient where her left buttock was prepped and draped in sterile fashion prior to the making of a two-inch incision. Following the removal of the nodule, the area was cleaned, the wound was closed, and sterile dressing was applied. There was no break in technique during the procedureand sterility was maintained. The nodule was later determined to be an area of fat necrosis that had undergone dystrophic calcification. The following day, the patient developed severe respiratory distress and expired. Her final principal diagnoses were anemia secondary to gastrointestinal bleeding, arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and clostridium with septicemia. A Serious Incident Report was filed on November 29, 1988, and Respondent commenced an investigation on January 11, 1989, to determine if Petitioner's practice was below applicable standards. The first time that Petitioner's case appeared at a Probable Cause Panel Meeting of the Board of Medicine was on May 11, 1990. The following Panel members were present: Chair Robert Katims, M.D.; Marilyn Wells, M.D., and Gilbert Rodriguez. Also present were Assistant Attorney General M. Catherine Lannon and Respondent's attorneys, Carlos Ramos and Stephanie Daniel. At the commencement of the meeting, Ms. Lannon explained the respective roles of herself and Respondent's attorneys. In general, she was present to advise the Panel as to its legal duties under applicable statutes and rules. Respondent's attorneys were available to respond to questions involving specific investigations. In response to a question posed by Ms. Lannon, each Panel member indicated that he or she had received the written materials concerning matters to be considered at the meeting insufficient time to review them. Mr. Ramos identified the materials that had been provided to each Panel member prior to the meeting. The materials included the entire investigative file and Respondent's recommendation in the form of a draft administrative complaint or closing order, as appropriate. When Petitioner's case was announced, Mr. Ramos stated that Respondent recommended the Panel find probable cause and direct the filing of an Administrative Complaint. Mr. Ramos explained that the proposed Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner practiced medicine below the acceptable level of care when he excised a nodule from a patient's left buttock while the patient was lying on a hospital bed. Also, Mr. Ramos stated, medical records failed to reflect a rectal examination upon admission. Terming it a "terrible case," Panel member Wells moved to find probable cause and issue the Administrative Complaint. Mr. Ramos stated that Petitioner "wasn't sterile." Transcript of May 11 meeting, page 5. Chair Katims asked if Petitioner had surgical privileges. Ms. Lannon responded by restating Dr. Katims' question whether Petitioner may have performed the procedure in a hospital bed because he lacked surgical privileges. Dr. Wells expressed interest in this point. The motion was then passed without further discussion. The materials available to the Probable Cause Panel on May 11, 1990, included a letter dated March 15, 1989,from Joseph R. Goggin, M.D., who is a board certified surgeon. Retained by Respondent to opine as to the standard of care, Dr. Goggin reviewed the file materials and stated in part: I find it hard to believe that the patient's hospital bed in a usual hospital room would be considered sterile. [Petitioner's] statements throughout both the Discharge Summary and in the chart itself state that the wound infection clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative was self-inflicted by the patient following the surgical procedure. I cannot believe that this is true. Clostridium perfringens is not a normal flora found in the human colon. Neither is staph coagulase negative. I would suspect that if the patient had contaminated the wound with her own stool, we would have seen mixed cultures with numerous other bacteria involved. One must assume that because of the pure cultures of clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative that a break in sterile technique occurred. I think this occurred because the patient underwent the procedure in her hospital bed and not in a sterile operating environment. Dr. Goggin's letter concludes that the hospital changed its policy so that all procedures involving excision be performed in a "completely sterile environment." The letter adds: If this policy was not in place prior to the procedure, I don't believe that the licensee violated the standard of care as it applied to this hospital. However, most of us would believe that any invasive procedure of this nature should probably be performed in a sterile environment. The letter from Dr. Goggin also faults Petitioner for his failure to obtain a rectal examination upon admission of the patient, even though she had been complaining of rectalbleeding. In terms of the timeliness of Petitioner's diagnosis of clostridium, Dr. Goggin concedes, "I don't think that an earlier diagnosis would have changed this patient's final outcome." The records available to the Probable Cause Panel on May 11, 1990, also included a letter from Respondent to Petitioner advising him that he is the subject of a complaint and inviting him to provide a written explanation. In response, and included in the records available on May 11, were a letter dated April 25, 1989, from Petitioner; a statement dated April 25, 1989, from the attending nurse corroborating that sterility was maintained during the excision of the nodule; and a letter dated July 3, 1989, from James J. McClelland, M.D., whose letterhead indicates that he is a member of a group of infectious disease control consultants. Petitioner's letter states that invasive procedures, such as subclavian insertions, chest tube placements, and lumbar punctures for spinal taps, are commonly performed in the hospital bed. The letter restates the procedures followed to maintain sterility and asserts that the contamination had to take place subsequent to the dressing of the wound, such as by the patient inadvertently loosening the dressing through normal movement in the bed. Dr. McClelland's letter states that, following review of the medical records, he finds that Petitioner "followed the normal standard of care in performing this procedure . . .." The letter explains: [C]lostridial infections in sepsis are well reported in the literature to have occurred after many sterile procedures, using standard medical care and that the presence of the clostridial infection does not imply substandard care. It should be noted that clostridial organisms can colonize the skin, often times in higher numbers below the waist, and that this organism entered the wound in the postoperative period. The record showed that [Petitioner] followed the standard care to prevent contamination of the wound by his prep and subsequent dressing of the wound. In regard to the question con- cerning a break in sterile technique and the findings of pure cultures of Clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative, it could also [be] assumed that a break in sterile technique would result in multiple other organisms being present in the wound. It should also be noted that the Clostridium perfringens organism can colonize the gastrointestinal tract, as well as the skin, and in itself does not exclude this as a potential pathophysiologic mechanism for her subsequent sepsis. The potential for the woman to have developed this overwhelming infection, whether the surgical procedure was performed in the office, a hospital bed, or the operating room, all exist and cases have been reported associated with all settings. There is no evidence I can see that [Petitioner] deviated from what would be considered normal procedure in removing this nodule from the patient's buttocks. As a result of the deliberations of the Probable Cause Panel on May 11, 1990, Chair Katims executed a Memorandum of Finding of Probable Cause. In the memorandum, the Panel finds that probable cause was found of a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t) and (m). By Administrative Complaint filed August 24, 1990, commencing DOAH Case No. 90-5298, Respondent alleged that thesurgical wound on the left buttock developed pure cultures of clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative, "indicating a break in sterile technique." The Administrative Complaint alleges that the patient was admitted with rectal bleeding, but the records fail to disclose that a rectal examination was performed upon admission. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the hospital involved has since changed its policy to require all procedures involving excision to be performed in a "completely sterile environment." Based on the foregoing allegations, Count One of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner violated Section 458.331(1)(t) by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician when Petitioner excised the nodule in the "environment of [the] patient's hospital bed, which is not a sterile operating environment." Count Two alleges that Petitioner violated Section 458.331(1)(m) by failing to keep medical records--namely a rectal examination upon admission-- justifying the course of treatment of the patient. On September 26, 1990, Respondent filed a motion to amend the Administrative Complaint to delete the allegation about the change in the hospital procedure as irrelevant. The motion was granted. On October 9, 1990, Respondent also filed responses to interrogatories. In support of the assertion that the hospital bed is not a sterile operating environment,Respondent stated that it would rely upon the following witnesses: Petitioner, the attending nurse, Dr. Goggin, and the medical records custodian. In their entirety, the responses disclose that Respondent had not obtained expert advice other than that set forth above. In response to a letter dated December 28, 1990, requesting an opinion and providing all file materials, Respondent's attorney Randolph Collette received a seven-page letter dated January 3, 1991, from E. Rawson Griffin, III, M.D. Dr. Griffin is Board-certified in family practice. After an extensive recitation of the patient history taken by Petitioner, Dr. Griffin traces the subsequent actions of Petitioner, noting that pathological examination of the biopsied tissue detected "no particular serious abnormalities." Dr. Griffin opines: . . . my first opinion is that overall I find that [Petitioner] followed the basic standard of care in doing a history and physical examination, writing progress notes which justified the treatment, provided a surgical procedure in which he documented proper sterilization, surgical technique and postoperative wound care and that he obtained proper informed consent and signed this informed consent. Based on this review, I feel that the standard of care which is outlined in DeGowan and DeGowan's as well as what any reasonable physician would follow, was pretty much followed. The only criticism that I can find is again that there are no progress notes which may have been made by the covering physician. I also found that it was interesting that [Petitioner] did do progress notes on days that other physicians did not and I felt that this indicated that he was following the patient properly. It should also be emphasized that he did a three page dictation which was a discharge summary which basically outlined the facts of the case and I found this discharge summary to adequately summarize the events as they had occurred. In answering specific questions posed to him by Respondent, Dr. Griffin responds affirmatively to the question whether Petitioner met the applicable standard of care in his examination, diagnosis, and treatment of the patient. Dr. Griffin opines that the bedside location of the procedure did not violate the applicable standard of care. In this regard, Dr. Griffin notes the cost-effectiveness of method of treatment, as well as the documentation of proper anaesthesia, preparation of tissue, proper technique, and proper sterile dressings. As to Petitioner's failure to perform a rectal examination, Dr. Griffin notes that a colonoscopy polypectomy was performed. Again referring to the DeGowan and DeGowan treatise, Dr. Griffin observes that, in some cases, a routine or basic examination is inappropriate. One of the primary purposes of a rectal examination is to detect rectal bleeding, but the patient presented with obvious signs of rectal bleeding. Dr. Griffin concludes that a rectal examination by Petitioner might not have produced any more information, so the trauma associated with repeated rectal examinations was unnecessary. Under the circumstances, Dr. Griffin opines that the records justify Petitioner's failure to perform a rectal examination upon admission of the patient. Dr. Griffin also discredits the findings of a Dr.Khouzan who, based upon what he described as a "very careful review of the chart," found "very severe purulent material." Dr. Griffin notes that this finding was contradictory to multiple other chart entries and concludes that Dr. Khouzan did not in fact examine the patient. Respondent's attorney Randolph Collette received a four-page letter dated January 8, 1991, from Stephen J. Nelson, M.A., M.D., whom Respondent had also retained for an opinion by letter dated December 28, 1990. Dr. Nelson is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Pathology at the University of Miami. He is also an Associate Medical Examiner for Broward County and Attending Neuropathologist. Acknowledging the receipt of relevant file materials, Dr. Nelson states: [The patient's] terminal hospital course is an example of anaerobic Clostridium perfrin- gens cellulitis, and probable myonecrosis, following surgery. The onset is sudden, dramatic, and often fatal with an incubation period of 6-72 hours. There are five types of Clostridium perfringens, A-E, separated according to their production of four major lethal exotoxins. The most important exotoxin is . . . (alpha) toxin, or lecithinase-C, because of its lethal, dermonecrotic, and hemolytic activity. Such wounds classically display no pus because the enzyme lecithinase attacks cell membranes and literally dissolves any and all cells (including inflammatory cells) that are in its path. Other Clostridial exotoxins include collagenase, protease, deoxyribonuclease, hyaluronidase, and a hemolysin. Bacteremia is present in about 15 percent of cases. [The patient's] wound is described in multiple places throughout her medical recordas having a serosanguinous drainage. A "thin blood-stained exudate" is the usual classic textbook description. I'm not sure what Dr. N. Khouzan was referring to . . . when he says that his "careful review of the chart revealed a very severe purulent material . . .." His review couldn't have been that awfully careful as there is no mention of "a very severe purulent material," and he incorrectly identified the species of Clostridium he was hoping to treat as being Clostridium tetany (sic) which causes tetanus, rather than Clostridium perfringens which was one of the organisms cultured from [the patient's] excisional wound (along with coagulase-negative Staphylococcal spp.). I can only hope that Dr. Khouzan is not an infectious disease specialist. . . . Dr. Nelson opines that the presence of Clostridium perfringens was not necessarily evidence of substandard care. To the contrary, Dr. Nelson finds that Petitioner, trained as an orthopedic surgeon, "adequately assessed and documented [the patient's] signs and symptoms." Additionally, Dr. Nelson states that Petitioner properly performed the excisional biopsy himself; although devoting his practice to family/general medicine, Petitioner was trained as a surgeon in orthopedics. The bedside site of the excisional procedure did not bother Dr. Nelson, who states that the operating room is "justifiably reserved for more complex procedures." Dr. Nelson questions whether the procedure was performed at bedside or in a nearby "procedure room," where it was scheduled to be performed according to one of the records provided to Dr. Nelson. Dr. Nelson explains that the procedure rooms can easily be prepared for sterile procedures like excisional biopsies. Dr. Nelson's letter concludes: Clostridial spp. are ubiquitous to the human body. They most often become disease-producing and self-perpetuating when the oxygen tension in tissues is lowered, as with an abscess, decubital ulcers, or other cause of tissue necrosis and/or devitaliza- tion. Debilitated patients are at a higher risk of developing Clostridial infections. Intestinal disorders, most commonly malig- nancies, permit Clostridium perfringens invasion and replication, resulting in severe local or, rarely, septicemic Clostridial disease. The most likely source of Clostridium perfringens in [the patient's] excisional biopsy wound is local fecal contamination, though systemic invasion cannot be absolutely ruled out. [The patient] could have developed the infection from an iatrogenic injury during the colonoscopy on 9/4/88 . . . from which the adenomatous polyp was snared. Or from [the patient's] long-standing diverticulosis with the infection spreading from the abdomen to the wound. These are unlikely scenario, given her medical history and hospital course, but it would have been an easy task to have ruled these out by the performance of an autopsy. On January 11, 1991, Respondent requested that the final hearing set for January 29, 1991, be cancelled and the case abated to allow Respondent to return the case to the Probable Cause Panel for reconsideration. In the absence of objection from Petitioner, the motion was granted and the case was abated until March 10, 1991. At the Probable Cause Panel Meeting of the Board of Medicine conducted on February 22, 1991, the following members of the Panel were present: Chair George P. Vitale; Fuad Ashkar, M.D.; and Margaret Skinner, M.D. Ms. Lannon was present, aswere Mr. Ramos, and Respondent's attorneys Larry McPherson, and Susan Londgard. In response to a question posed by Ms. Lannon, each Panel member indicated that he or she had received the written materials concerning matters to be considered at the meeting in sufficient time to review them. Ms. Lannon then invited the Panel members to ask questions or request material if they encountered a case for which they had not read the materials or were otherwise unfamiliar with. Mr. Ramos identified the materials that had been provided to each Panel member prior to the meeting. The materials included the entire investigative file. When Petitioner's case was announced, Mr. Ramos stated that the case was before the Panel for reconsideration after a previous Panel finding of probable cause and the subsequent filing of an administrative complaint. Mr. Ramos explained: We have brought this case back for your consideration, because discovery revealed that two expert opinions state that the Respondent's excision of the nodule in the bedside of the patient was not below the acceptable standard of care. Furthermore, the information related by the patients--by our expert as to the source of the patient's infection is contradicted by recognized medical treatises and the opinion of an infections disease control specialist, and that has been included in the packet. That came after discovery. And, therefore, the Department has recommended that we close this case without further prosecu- tion. Transcript of February 22 meeting, page 7. Panel member Skinner then indicated that she had noticed that the two expert opinions were from a Broward County assistant medical examiner and a family practitioner. She said that she would like to see an opinion from someone who is "Board certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty of infectious diseases, and I would like to see that . . . before we move to do away with this case. This case is heinous . . .." Id. at page 8. Panel member Skinner complained that the experts did not have any medical records and that her records were incomplete. For instance, she said that she did not know the size of the incision or if a nurse documented erythema or "crud" in the wound. She thus moved that the case be brought back with the medical records with an opinion specifically from somebody Board-certified in internal medicine with a sub-specialty in infectious diseases and be brought back to the Panel, because one of the things that is not in the [Administrative Complaint] is failure to recognize [Clostridium perfringens]. Id. at pages 8-9. Ms. Lannon responded that the standard of care would be a reasonably prudent similar physician, "so unless [Petitioner] was Board-certified in infectious diseases, he wouldn't be held to that standard of care. He would be held to the standard of care of a similar physician." Id. at page 9. Panel member Skinner answered that Petitioner is an "orthopedist practicing family practice." Id. Dr. Skinner then asked if Petitioner had surgical privileges at the hospital at which the incident took place. She suggested that the status of Petitioner's surgical privileges could be an "attributing cause." Id. Panel member Ashkar stated that he agreed with Dr. Skinner. Dr. Ashkar noted that one of the materials in the file indicated that the hospital had since changed its policies, or possibly had done so, in terms of excision procedures being performed in a completely sterile environment. In response to a question posed by Ms. Lannon, Panel members Skinner and Ashkar stated that they would proceed with an administrative complaint if they find "it's a standard-of-care violation." Id. at page 11. Dr. Ashkar added that a previous probable cause panel had good cause when it caused the filing of the Administrative Complaint, and the new panel should proceed with it. Dr. Skinner requested that the Administrative Complaint be expanded to include an allegation that Petitioner failed to recognize the presence or possible presence of a staph infection. Dr. Skinner conceded that she did not have the medical records, so she did not know if Petitioner did a wound culture. She also did not have the nurses' notes, so she did not know if they made if obvious that something was wrong with the wound. At this point, Mr. McPherson reminded the Panel that the case had been before a probable cause panel previously. He added that three expert opinions determined that there was "no standard-of-care violation." Id. at page 12. Ms. Lannon disagreed with Mr. McPherson, and Panel members Skinner and Ashkar agreed with Ms. Lannon. Dr. Ashkar stated that Dr. Goggin opined that there was a standard-of-care violation and that the incident forced the hospital to change their policies. Ms. Lannon cautioned that a change in policy would not establish a violation in the first place. Dr. Ashkar responded by referring to the standard-of-care issue and quoting Dr. Goggin as follows: ". . . the patient probably should have had the surgical procedure performed in a sterile environment under the usual conditions found in an operating room suite where there are sterile instruments, and that the wound infection here is probably due to doing it outside that kind of a setting." Id. at page 13. Ms. Lannon asked the Panel what they thought about Dr. Nelson's opinion that Petitioner could be regarded as overutilizing the operating room by performing the excision procedure there. Dr. Skinner admitted that the Panel's problem was that they did not know the size of the excision. She added that the experts differed as to the appearance of the wound, which went toward the failure to recognize a serious problem. Mr. Ramos suggested that the Panel table the case so that Respondent could provide the Panel with the medical records, which everyone agreed had not been included in thepackage supplied to the Board members prior to the meeting. Concluding their discussion of the case at the February 22 meeting, Panel member Ashkar rejected Dr. Nelson's opinion because, absent an emergency, Dr. Ashkar had "never heard of [performing the subject excision procedure in a hospital bed] recently ywayay." Id. at page 16. Dr. Skinner restated her concern about Petitioner's failure to recognize the complication. Ms. Lannon suggested that an orthopedic specialist who had examined the specialist possibly could provide needed information as to the size and nature of the nodule on the patient's hip. The motion was clarified to include consideration of amending the Administrative Complaint to include an allegation that Petitioner failed to recognize timely the patient's clostridium infection and to investigate whether Petitioner had surgical privileges. The Panel voted unanimously in favor of the motion and tabled the case. By Status Report filed March 5, 1991, Respondent advised that the Probable Cause Panel had tabled the case at its February, 1991, meeting in order to obtain additional information. At the Probable Cause Panel Meeting of the Board of Medicine conducted on May 4, 1991, Panel members present were Chair Vitale, Dr. Skinner, and Dr. Ashkar. Mr. Ramos and two of Respondent's investigators were present, as was Assistant Attorney General Edwin Bayo substituting for Ms. Lannon. Each of the Panel members indicated that he or she had read the file materials. When Petitioner's case came up, Mr. Ramos noted that the case had been in front of the Panel "a couple of times," most recently February 22, 1991. Transcript of May 4 meeting, page 4. Mr. Ramos added that one of Respondent's attorneys had pursued all the issues identified by the Panel at the last meeting. Mr. Ramos stated: Discovery reveals that the [Respondent's] expert's opinion was incorrect. That was the initial expert on which we depended on to file an Administrative Complaint. Dr. Nelson and Dr. Griffin have opined since then that the procedure performed in this case does not constitute the practice of medicine below the acceptable level of care. And at our last meeting, the Panel was informed on the foregoing, and it requested that an expert on infectious disease be obtained, and to obtain information as to the respondent's hospital privileges. There's two letters that are part of your packet from the hospital that says the subject did have hospital privileges. And as to the infectious disease person, the only person we have is the one on record, which is on the subject side of this case and [Respondent's attorney] tried to find someone. If you guys know someone for future reference, we need to know about it, because . . . Id. at pages 4-5. Panel members Ashkar and Skinner offered to provide Mr. Ramos with some names. Then Dr. Skinner confessed that she was still troubled about several things involving the case. She again raised the question why Petitioner failed to recognize the serious infection, clostridium perfringens. Sherestated the other issue concerning whether Petitioner was wrong to remove the cyst in the hospital bed. Addressing the first issue, Mr. Ramos said that Respondent could not obtain an expert opinion on whether Petitioner was culpable in his failure to recognize the infection. Dr. Skinner again offered to give Respondent the names of possible experts. Mr. Ramos responded that the process would take time, and, in the meantime, "we have this doctor in this position." Id. at page 6. Dr. Ashkar offered to contact the proposed expert and expedite the process, so the Panel could accept the expert's credentials at the next Board meeting at the end of May. Mr. Ramos said they could move fast on the case, so Dr. Skinner moved to table the case again. Dr. Skinner noted that they needed to consider the issue whether Petitioner improperly incised the abscess at the hospital bed. She asked that Respondent's attorneys pose to the expert two questions: was it below the standard of care to incise the abscess in the bed and was there a failure to recognize a potential danger. Dr. Ashkar distinguished between the removal of a nodule that is a simple ganglion, an ingrown hair, or a sebaceous cyst, on the one hand, and the draining of an abscess with a "very deadly bacteria in it in a general ward," on the other hand. Id. at page 8. Mr. Ramos answered that the case would depend entirely on the expert. The first expert was dated andcontradicted by treatises. Dr. Ashkar responded that it would have been more acceptable if a surgeon without access to an operating room performed the excision in a sterile setting other than an operating room. In any event, it was, in Dr. Ashkar's opinion, improper to perform the procedure in a general ward where infectious diseases are a recurring problem. Id. at pages 8-9. Dr. Skinner agreed that the situation was worse because Petitioner had operating privileges. Dr. Skinner then moved to table the case pending acquisition of expert witness, and again, . . . I would ask him all the ques- tions you asked the other expert witness. Noting that he did have operating room privileges. The second corner of the question that wasn't asked, is, is if it was failure to recognize an additional problem with this wound below the standard of care. Id. at page 10. The Panel then voted unanimously to table the case. Respondent filed a second Status Report on May 20, 1991, and advised that the Probable Cause Panel again tabled the case at its April, 1991, meeting in order to obtain an additional expert opinion. Petitioner objected to further abatement and requested that the case be dismissed. At the same time, Petitioner requested attorneys' fees and costs. By Order Setting Case for Hearing entered June 12, 1991, the request to dismiss was denied, the request for attorneys' fees and costs was denied, and the final hearing resetfor July 15, 1991. By Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed June 18, 1991, Respondent dismissed the DOAH Case No. 90-5298 and the Division closed its file by Order entered the following day. On July 10, 1991, Respondent received the opinion of another expert, Stephen M. Kreitzer, M.D., who had been retained by letter dated June 26, 1991. In relevant part, Dr. Kreitzer's letter states: The bacteria [to which the patient succumbed] are present in the skin and certainly the elderly with diminished circulation to the skin are more prone to these types of infec- tions. These types of infections can certainly occur under the sterile conditions surgery or they can occur with any break of the skin on their own. It certainly is within the standard of care to remove the type of nodule removed by [Petitioner] in an outpatient center, hospital in-patient bedside, or in a physician's office. There is no evidence to suggest [Petitioner] violated Surgical Infectious Disease Guidelines. . . . Sepsis was recognized by the Emergency Room physician and the care of the septic patient was begun by the Emergency Room physician. [Petitioner] continued that care in the Intensive Care Unit. Appropriate cultures and the broadened spectrum antibiotics were prescribed. In my opinion, the patient contracted the Clostridium and Staph bacteria from unfortu- nate skin entry. Skin entry can occur from an intravenous site, or wound such as that involved with the nodule removal, joint injection by an Orthopedist which occurred during this hospitalization and finally, colonoscopy and polypectomy with mucosal contamination and septicemia. Bacteria induced septicemia have been documented in all of the above instances and is well recognized. . . . Because of the timing of this patient's sepsis, it is unlikely that the trigger point injection or colonoscopy had anything to do with the patient's subse- quent septicemia and demise. Regardless, there is no evidence in the chart that the patient contracted the infection because of the procedure or treatment falling below the standard of care. [Emphasis added.] The applicable standard of care comes into question with this case because of both record keeping and the admitting orders. The patient did not have a history and physical dictated at the time of admission, but rather that was delayed until the 12th of September. Although rectal exam was not included, since the admitting orders included the consultation with the Gastroenterologist who obviously would per- form the rectal exam and colonoscopy, the patient need not have undergone a rectal exami- nation necessarily upon admission. . . . Petitioner subsequently commenced the present case by filing a Petition for Costs and Attorneys Fees on July 29, 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be awarded a certificate of need authorizing the establishment of cardiac catheterization laboratory services at its facility in Port Charlotte, Florida. As a result of stipulations of the parties presented at hearing, matters for consideration were limited to whether Petitioner meets the criteria of availability of funds for capital expenditures for the project in accordance with Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes; and whether Petitioner has shown the existence of need for additional services by any existing medically underserved groups in the service area.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that Petitioner does not meet the criteria of Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, because there is no numeric need for the program established by any agency rule formula and that no emergency or other not normal circumstances exist, including problems of geographic, financial or programmatic access, justifying the program in the absence of such enumerated need. Petitioner's agreement to this stipulation was conditioned upon an assumption that previous Certificates of Need, formerly granted by final orders of Respondent to other entities in previous batching cycles and now the subject of legal appeals by Petitioner in the appellate court, will eventually be confirmed by that court to have been properly issued. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner, as the result of nonexistence of numeric or nonnumeric need, has not met criteria regarding its ability to provide quality care, a requirement of subparagraph (c) of Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding availability and adequacy of other health care facilities in the applicant's service district, a review component set forth in Section 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding immediate and long term financial feasibility of Petitioner's proposal, a requirement of Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding the impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing such health services, a requirement of Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes; and has not met criteria, as required by Section 381.705(2)(a)-(d), Florida Statutes, regarding alternative services, efficiency of existing services, alternatives to new construction or the likelihood of patients obtaining the proposed service in the absence of Petitioner's proposal. The parties have stipulated that review requirements of subparagraphs (e), (f), (g), (j), and (k) of Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes, are found not to be applicable to this proceeding. Those subparagraphs relate, respectively, to economics of shared services, need for special services, need for research and educational facilities, special needs of health maintenance organizations and needs of entities serving residents outside the service area. The parties have stipulated that the criteria ofSection 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, has not been met because they were not addressed or challenged by Petitioner. However, Petitioner does contest the accessibility by medically underserved groups of existing and approved providers in the service district. With the exception of the availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures related to the project in Petitioner's application and the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district, further stipulation between the parties also establishes that the review criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes, does not apply to this proceeding. Portions of Rule 10-5.011(b), Florida Administrative Code, relating to accessibility of services to residents of the service district are also excepted from consideration in this proceeding by the parties' stipulation. By stipulation of the parties, it is established that the review requirement of Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes, relating to the probable impact of the proposed project on the cost of providing services proposed by Petitioner, is met. The parties' stipulation further establishes that requirements of Section 381.705(1)(m) and Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes, have been met. These statutory subparagraphs relate, respectively, to methods and costs of proposed construction, and Petitioner's past and proposed provision of health care services to medicaid and medically indigent patients. Petitioner is a separate, albeit subsidiary,corporation from its parent, Bon Secours Health Systems, Inc., (Bon Secours) a "not for profit" corporation based in Marriottsville, Maryland. Approximately 80 percent of the total project cost of $1,450,000 cost is expected to come from the parent organization and not Petitioner's corporation. The project has been approved by Petitioner's corporation and management approval has been granted by Bon Secours, subject only to final board approval and reevaluation by the parent corporation on an annual basis until the actual capital expenditure is incurred. Petitioner's parent corporation uses either a line of credit or goes to the tax exempt bond market to meet capital expenditure needs. The bond market is utilized when capital needs exceed $15 million for the year. Whether the funding source for Petitioner's project would come from a line of credit or bond financing would not be known until the actual year in which the expenditure is incurred. Bon Secours includes Petitioner in its obligated group which consists of a system-wide master trust indenture established in 1985. The group consists of eight hospitals and three long term care facilities. Weaker entities in the group have the benefit of the credit strength of the group's entire system. In this regard, Bon Secours enjoys a Standard & Poors and Moodys' bond rating of A+ and A-1, respectively. The corporation is a good credit risk with a strong financial position and good earnings record. Over the next five years, Bon Secours has the ability to raise in excess of $100,000,000 in the bond market for funding purposes, inclusive of the project which is the subject of theseproceedings. Although final approval of Petitioner's project by Bon Secours' board of directors is expected shortly, that approval had not occurred at the time of final hearing. As a result, the proof fails to establish that Bon Secours is committed to provide financing for Petitioner's project. Petitioner presented expert testimony regarding accessibility by medically underserved groups to Petitioner's and other cardiac catheterization programs. Petitioner's expert placed the size of the medically indigent population, a subcategory of the medically underserved group, at six to seven percent of the total population of the service area. Due to the lack of specificity of the methodology used in arriving at the cited percentage figure, no credibility can be ascribed to that population percentage. However, both Respondent and Petitioner concede the existence of this group in the district service area sought to be served by Petitioner's project. Petitioner has not established whether the medically indigent population is denied access to cardiac catheterization programs within the district service area. While Petitioner's hospital is a medicaid provider with a proactive policy of aiding the medically indigent, the availability of cardiac catheterization services exist for this group at Intervenor's medical center facilities, located only five miles from Petitioner's hospital. Intervenor is also a medicaid provider. The proof fails to establish that medicaid patients or medically indigentpatients are presently denied or turned away from Intervenor's facility. Further, the duplication of such services at Petitioner's hospital could effectively reduce the number of cardiac catheterization procedures required for the medical staff of Intervenor's laboratory to maintain proficiency. In point of fact, there is unused cardiac catheterization capacity at Intervenor's facility. As established by Intervenor's exhibit number one, there were 562 cardiac catheterization procedures performed at Intervenor's facility in 1988. The State Health Plan recites a minimum goal of 600 such procedures a year as a proficiency measurement; the Local Health Plan maintains that a minimum of 300 procedures should be performed to insure proficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for approval of a cardiac catheterization Certificate of Need. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance, except that part (l) of proposed finding 3 was met by Petitioner. 4.-5. Addressed in part. To the extent that the last sentence of proposed finding 5 suggests the establishment of final approval by the parent corporation, it is rejected. 6. Accepted with the exception of approval by the parent corporation. The record supports a finding of approval by management of that corporation, but not the board of directors. 7.-8. Adopted in substance. Adopted in part, remainder rejected due to witness's inability to support her calculations as to percentages of the population within the service district classified as medically indigent. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. Addressed in part, remainder rejected on basis of relevancy. Addressed. Rejected on basis of relevancy. Addressed in part, remainder rejected as argumentative and speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected. Treated in preliminary discussion. 3.-21. Adopted in substance. 22.-23. Adopted by reference. 24.-25. Addressed in substance. 26.-30. Adopted by reference. 31.-33. Adopted by reference. Intervenor's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. 5.-9. Adopted in substance. 10. Adopted by reference. 11.-12. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Buchanan, Esq. Suite 900, Sun Bank Building 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esq. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32301 E. G. Boone, Esq. 1001 Avenida del Circo Venice, FL 34284 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Should Respondent be disciplined for practicing beyond the scope of his license or by accepting and performing professional responsibilities which he knows or has reason to know that he is not competent to perform? See Section 460.413(1)(t), Florida Statutes, formerly Section 460.413(1)(u), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, Florida Statutes and Chapters 455 and 460, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida licensed chiropratic physician. His license number is No. CH-0001538. He was issued that license on September 21, 1968. Respondent practices chiropratic at the McCall Chiropractic Clinic located at 811 Grace Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Respondent is not licensed as an osteopathic or allopathic physician as recognized by the Florida Board of Osteopathic Physicians or the Board of Medicine respectively. In 1992 Respondent sent Micheal Smith, D.C., a chiropractic physician practicing in Panama City, Florida, information described as an invitation for Dr. Smith to join Respondent in clinical research "designed to test the effectiveness of Scalar E.M. Technology upon AIDS-CANCER opportunistic organisms falling within the meaning of chapter 460.403(3)(a)(b)(c)(e), and Rule 21D-1702, Florida Statutes." The correspondence went on to describe some details about the research. In particular, Respondent stated that "preliminary field data suggest that Scalar E.M. TENS Technology is effective in 47 pathological conditions including AIDS-Cancer disease." The correspondence also set forth information concerning patients who wished to contribute to the research by making financial contributions to the "Allaganey Occupational Development Foundation, 22 Floor Pacific First Center, 1425th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-2333". Respondent provided Dr. Smith a sheet on the McCall Chiropractic Clinic letterhead related to purported medical research at Stanford University in 1988 studying "the Biological Interactions with the Scalar Energy Cellular Mechanisms of Action" in response to weak ELF ectromagnetic (EM) radiation and the claimed results. That sheet describes how the McCall Chiropractic Clinic would be "conducting private research into the effectiveness of Scalar E.M. Technology upon the following conditions, for a two-year period of time." Arthritis Arm Pains Angina Pectoras Arethemia Asthma Allergies Bacterial Infection of the Lung Carple Tunnel Syndrome Cancer of the: Bone, Brain, Bladder, Bowell, Lungs, Liver, AIDS Colon Polyps Cholitis Candidia Albicans Deafness Diabetes Neuropathy Emphysemia Eckcemia Ear Infection Epstine Barr Infection Exothalmic Goider Feavers Fungus of the skin Fibrosis of the Lung Gout High Blood Pressure Herniated disc Herpes B infection Hemrroids Hardening of the arteries Herpes of the Genitals Hypertrophy of the Prostate Inflimation of the joints Nectniuria Kendidia Albicans Leg Pains Multipleschlerosis Musculardistrohy Neuropathy Nose bleads Premenstral Syndrome Paracititis of digestive track Phlebitis Sinus Infection Tumors of the Eye Varicose Veines Warts Leupus Erethematosis Parkinsons Disease Dr. Smith was also provided with a copy of an advertisement which stated: ATTENTION: Aids - Cancer Patients Dr. Curtis J. McCall, Jr. Chiropractor Research program utilizing scalar tens antineoplastic technology is available through the provisions of Chapter 460.403(3)(a)(b)(c)(e) Rule 21D-1702 Florida Statutes. Patients suffering with Aids - Cancer disease who would like to participate in the research program should call 769-1708 for an appointment or come by the office: 811 Grace Ave., P.C., Fla. 32401 In the 1993 yellow pages for the Panama City, Florida, telephone book, Respondent placed an advertisement to this effect: MCCALL CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC PEOPLE HAVE TRUSTED THE HANDS OF DR. McCALL SINCE 1968 -- TENS AIDS -- CANCER THERAPY -- 811 Grace Av Panama Cy 769-1708 In the July 8, 1993 advertising service in the "Thrifty Nickel" circulated in Panama City, Florida, Respondent placed the following advertisement: NOTICE: The McCall Chiropractic Clinic has on display a 1953 classified federal document that discloses successful treatment for cancer. Patient response indicates this technology is effective in the treatment of 47 conditions. This technology is available through the provisions or Chapter 460- 1403(3), (a), (b), (c), (e). Rule 210-1702 Florida Statutes. Phone 769-1708 for appointment, 811 Grace Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401. F24 On July 19, 1993, Respondent, on stationary from McCall Chiropractic Clinic, wrote to TCRS, Inc., in Tallahassee, Florida, asking that company to place McCall Chiropractic Clinic on its list of AIDS/Cancer Therapeutic Center listings for national referrals. That correspondence gave a brief description of the service that Respondent intended to provide. It indicated that the therapy to be provided would cost the patient $18.00 per 20 minutes. Through Respondent's activities that have been described, Respondent directly held himself out to the public as having the ability to treat persons with AIDS. In furtherance of his intentions, Respondent developed a treatment protocol consisting of approximately 55 weeks of treatment to be monitored initially by Respondent at his chiropractic facility. That protocol required the patient to receive TENS therapy for two hours each day. The TENS device is designed to deliver transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Its principal chiropractic use is for pain control. However, Respondent, in his intended care, contemplated that the device would stimulate "T-Cells" in combatting AIDS. In the protocol, Respondent also required monthly blood tests to monitor the patient's "T-Cell" counts. The protocol required the patient to be free from all other drugs, in particular, the AIDS treatment medication "AZT". Under the protocol, the patient was required to receive a weekly injection of a compound identified as "chondriana", in amounts determined by Respondent. Finally, the patient was to ingest a compound identified by Respondent as "life crystals". On or about February 4, 1994, Respondent began to care for the patient C.L. That care ended on September 29, 1994. In this arrangement Respondent and C.L. had a chiropractic physician-patient relationship. Patient C.L. died on August 18, 1995. Respondent made a diagnosis, proposed a course of treatment and directly treated C.L. for AIDS. In this treatment Respondent maintained a patient record for C.L. In an effort to secure reimbursement for the services provided to C.L., Respondent prepared insurance claim forms, affixing a diagnosis of AIDS to the claim forms and had C.L. assign benefits to the Respondent from the insurance policy. In this connection Respondent had C.L. execute a sworn statement describing the services received from Respondent. It was Respondent's expectation that the claim forms would be honored by the insurance carrier and that Respondent would be paid for the services rendered to C.L. With one exception, Respondent's billings to the insurance carrier for C.L.'s visits to Respondent's office were all for the treatment of AIDS. An investigation was instituted by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation/ Agency for Health Care Administration to ascertain whether Respondent was offering patient treatment for AIDS. James Cooksey, an investigator with the regulator, performed that investigation in conjunction with Tom Willoughby, investigator for the Bay County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. James Cooksey is an insurance fraud/medical malpractice investigator. To conduct the investigation Mr. Cooksey assumed the fictitious name James Stark. The reason for assuming the name was to present James Stark as a patient suffering from AIDS. In furtherance of the investigation Mr. Cooksey went to the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center and obtained a fictitious positive AIDS test in the name James Stark. On May 16, 1994, Mr. Cooksey initiated contact with Respondent. The investigator traveled from Tallahassee to Panama City. When he reached Panama City he called Respondent and told Respondent that he needed to come and talk to him. Respondent invited Mr. Cooksey to come by that afternoon. On May 16, 1994, Mr. Cooksey met with Respondent at Respondent's office. At that meeting Mr. Cooksey told Respondent that the investigator understood that Respondent could possibly cure AIDS. Mr. Cooksey further stated that he had seen something in a newspaper article that Respondent was treating AIDS patients and explained to Respondent that Mr. Cooksey had contracted AIDS and was interested in being cured. Mr. Cooksey provided Respondent with the results of the fictitious blood test. When Mr. Cooksey presented to Respondent he did not complain of any condition other than AIDS. Respondent did not physically examine Mr. Cooksey. Respondent explained to Mr. Cooksey about the nature of Respondent's treatment in which the TENS unit, also known as a Rife machine, chondriana and life crystals would be used. To demonstrate the treatment Respondent took Mr. Cooksey into a room in the back of his office, a treatment room, and had Mr. Cooksey take his shoes and socks off and place his feet on a metal pad associated with the TENS unit. When the unit as turned on Mr. Cooksey could feel tingling inside his feet. On this occasion Respondent told Mr. Cooksey that, he, Mr. Cooksey could get injections of chondriana and then the machine would be turned on and Cooksey would receive stimulation to fight the infection associated with AIDS. Respondent told Mr. Cooksey that the initial treatments for AIDS would have to be done at his office where Respondent would monitor the investigator. Respondent indicated that a nurse would come to the office and give the injections of chondriana and that Mr. Cooksey would be monitored concerning those injections until Mr. Cooksey's "system built up a little". Mr. Cooksey understood that he was to receive those injections and use the TENS unit and was not to take other forms of medication during the treatment. Respondent gave Mr. Cooksey a card with the name of a blood test that would need to be obtained and the results reported to Respondent. Mr. Cooksey was responsible for paying for the blood test. Respondent told Mr. Cooksey that the life crystals were to be taken in orally as a drink and they were described as being part of the AIDS treatment. On this date Respondent gave the investigator an estimate of the costs of this treatment, constituted of $2,000 for the TENS unit and $2,925 for chondriana and life crystals. Subsequent to that date Respondent called Mr. Cooksey and left a message on Cooksey's telephone. Respondent also wrote the investigator on May 23, 1994, providing the investigator more information concerning Respondent's treatment for AIDS. The investigator then went to the state attorney's office in Panama City and informed the state attorney of the nature of the administrative investigation and the belief that the activities by Respondent might constitute a criminal law violation. The state attorney represented to the investigator that he concurred. The state attorney then had Mr. Cooksey contact the Bay County Sheriff's office. Following that contact Mr. Cooksey took up a joint investigation between Mr. Cooksey and Bay County Sheriff's investigator Tom Willoughby. On October 18, 1994, Mr. Cooksey placed a call to Respondent and told the Respondent that he was in Panama City and would like to come by and meet with the Respondent and that he would be accompanied by a friend who might be able to "come up" with the money that was required to purchase the chondriana and life crystals and TENS unit. The part of the friend was to be played by Officer Willoughby. Mr. Cooksey and Officer Willoughby then went to Respondent's office where Respondent again explained the nature of the AIDS treatment. Officer Willoughby asked the Respondent questions concerning the nature of the treatment and how much the treatment would cost. Respondent explained that the treatment involved injections of the chondriana, drinking the life crystals and using the TENS machine for two hours a day to treat James Stark for AIDS. At the October 18, 1994 meeting between the investigators and Respondent, Respondent stated that a nurse practitioner with whom he was friends would administer the chondriana and that activity would be monitored by Respondent in Respondent's office. Officer Willoughby asked Respondent if there would be side affects to the injections. Respondent indicated that there would be sweating and that Respondent would monitor Mr. Cooksey for whatever period of time would be necessary for the side affects to subside. The investigators watched a video tape explaining the treatment for AIDS which Respondent intended to employ. The injections of chondriana would be given monthly. Respondent indicated to the investigators that he would instruct Mr. Cooksey on how many of the life crystals to take. Respondent told the investigators that the cost of the TENS unit was $2,000.00 and that the unit would be used to spread the impulses through out the body. Respondent indicated to the investigators that the nature of the treatment would form new T-cells to replace T-cells containing the AIDS virus or which were cancerous. Respondent had stated in Officer Willoughby's presence that the TENS unit cost $500.00 to produce. Respondent and the two investigators then went to a local health food store, known as the Olive Leaf, to ascertain the amount of money needed to pay for chondriana which the health food store would provide. There, the attendant at the store indicated that he could arrange to provide the chondriana and life crystals for a price approximating $2,800.00. After leaving the health food store the investigators told the Respondent that they would come back with the necessary money on October 21, 1994. The investigators returned to Respondent's office on October 21, 1994, after obtaining warrants to search the office and arrest the Respondent. Before Respondent was arrested and the search made, the investigators asked Respondent to again explain the nature of the treatment that would be provided to Mr. Cooksey and paid Respondent $1,700.00 for the TENS unit from funds belonging to the Bay County Sheriff's Office. Respondent gave the investigators a receipt for the $1,700.00 payment. Respondent was then arrested for practicing medicine without a license. On one occasion Respondent explained to the investigators that the procedures that were used to treat Mr. Cooksey for AIDS were not condoned by the FDA, but that it was working in other places where it had been tried and that three patients treated in another location had gained remission from the AIDS. Based on the proof, it is found that Respondent diagnosed Mr. Cooksey as having AIDS and developed a course of treatment for that condition. Paul Doering, M.S., is a registered pharmacist in the State of Florida. He is also licensed as a consultant pharmacist in the State of Florida. He is a Distinguished Service Professor of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Florida. He is accepted as an expert pharmacist. Mr. Doering established that the drug AZT is an antiviral drug designed to address the HIV virus associated with AIDS. Mr. Doering established that AIDS is an acronym for acquired immuno- deficiency syndrome, "a disease that affects the immune system caused by a virus or different types of viruses which attack the immune system in the body rendering the body unable to effectively mount an immune response when it comes into contact with certain types of infectious organisms." Mr. Doering established that drugs are divided into two basic groups, one group which is sold without prescription and the other group requiring a doctor's prescription. The latter category of drugs are known as Federal Legend Drugs. Mr. Doering established that there is no reference to a medication known as "chondriana" in any directory of medications which he was familiar with. As he established, chondriana does not constitute a food because foods are not generally injected into the human body. Mr. Doering established that chondriana has not been approved to be used as a drug in the United States, nor is it an experimental drug, based upon his research of sources that list drugs or experimental drugs. Marianne Gengenbach, D.C., is licensed to practice chiropractic in Florida and is an expert in chiropractic practice. She established that chiropractors are limited to using proprietary drugs, and then only where the chiropractor has passed a specific exam and obtains a proprietary drug license. Proprietary drugs are "over the counter drugs" not prescription drugs. Absent such as a license to prescribe proprietary drugs chiropractors may only make recommendations, educate patients and prescribe nutritional supplements. Dr. Gengenbach established that Respondent had diagnosed C.L. for AIDS and had treated C.L. for that condition. The treatment was directly related to the condition AIDS, and Dr. Gengenbach established that the treatment was outside the accepted standard of care for chiropractic and exceeded the scope of authorized practice from the view point of a practitioner. As Dr. Gengenbach established, Respondent also exceeded the proper scope of practice in caring for C.L. by recommending that C.L. discontinue the AZT therapy. Those same perceptions were held for treatment of Mr. Cooksey and are accepted. Dr. Gengenbach established that Respondent proposed a course of treatment for Mr. Cooksey related to the condition AIDS, without reference to any other complaints by the patient. As a consequence the course of treatment which Respondent planned for Mr. Cooksey was directed solely to the HIV infection as established by Dr. Gengenbach. Dr. Gengenbach established that the use of the chondriana and life crystals was intended to treat Mr. Cooksey for AIDS. Dr. Gengenbach established that even should the substances chondriana and life crystals be considered food or nutritional supplements, there proposed use for Mr. Cooksey would not meet the prevailing standard of care for chiropractic, in that they would be employed for the treatment of AIDS. Respondent intended that the chondriana and life crystals be used in the cure, treatment, therapy and prevention of AIDS in C.L. and Mr. Cooksey. Respondent intended that those substances affect the structure and function of the bodies of those patients. In proposing and carrying out the treatment that has been described directed to AIDS, Respondent did so mindful that chiropractic physicians in Florida are prohibited from directly treating the AIDS condition. Respondent's treatment of C.L. and proposed treatment of Mr. Cooksey violated the standards of practice acceptable to a reasonably prudent chiropractic physician under similar conditions and circumstances and exceeded the scope of his chiropractic license. In the past Respondent has been disciplined by the Board of Chiropractic on three separate occasions. Two of those cases involve the receipt of a reprimand and in the third case Respondent's license was suspended and he was required to pay an administrative fine. Respondent was also required to cease and desist the activities described in these facts based upon action taken by the Board of Medicine, which was persuaded that Respondent was engaging in the treatment of AIDS without benefit of a medical license.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, given the severity of the offense and the danger posed to the public, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes Respondent's license to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1995. APPENDIX CASE NO. 95-2881 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 5 and 6 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraphs 7 through 13 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 14 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 15 through 35 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 36 through 40 are conclusions of law. Paragraph 41 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 42 and 43 are conclusions of law. Paragraphs 44 through 51 are subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 5 constitute legal argument as reported at pages 2 through 5. The proposed facts 1-3 found at pages 15 and 16, Paragraph 1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 2 is rejected as a discussion of activities of the Probable Cause Panel, not a proper subject for consideration. Paragraph 3 constitutes a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Medical Quality Assurance-Allied Health Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis J. McCall, D.C. 514 North Bonita Avenue Panama City, FL 32401 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Agency For Health Care Administration Board of Chiropractors 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed as an osteopathic physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 050004170. Respondent practices in the field of general surgery, and at all times material to this action, Respondent was on staff as Chief of Surgery at the University Hospital, Holly Hill, Florida. The incident which gave rise to the charges herein arose on August 5, 1987 when Respondent inserted a chest tube into patient W.T.'s right chest wall so as to relieve a pneumothorax which had actually occurred in W.T.'s left lung. A pneumothorax is a pocket of air in the cavity surrounding the lung which causes the lung to contract upon itself. At all times material, Patient W.T. had a subcutaneous pacemaker on the left side of her chest. However, the evidence from all credible witnesses is consistent that pacemakers are routinely placed on either the right or left side and that there is no reasonable medical presumption that pacemakers are always placed in someone's left chest area. The subcutaneous pacemaker did not enter significantly into W.T.'s case management at University Hospital. It operated on "automatic" and since it did its job, none of the University Hospital physicians involved in W.T.'s care paid much attention to it. W.T. was admitted to University Hospital for treatment of a drug overdose on July 9, 1987. As a part of her treatment, an Ewald tube was inserted into her stomach by a physician other than the Respondent. Patient W.T. was discharged from the hospital on July 18, 1987 with a portion of the tube inadvertently left in her stomach and her esophagus. On July 21, 1987, W.T. was readmitted to University Hospital. She was suffering from septicemia and bilateral pneumonia. X-rays revealed that a portion of the tubing had not been removed. This tubing was removed by the Respondent via successful gastroesophagoscopy on July 23, 1987. At Respondent's order, W.T. was placed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) following the removal of the tube. Dr. Desai was called in as a pulmonologist. When W.T. had been admitted to University Hospital on July 21, 1987, she already had been in a "guarded" condition. Despite successful removal of the Ewald tube, W.T.'s overall condition continued to deteriorate. Prior to the night of August 4, 1987, W.T. had developed adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) which involves a breakdown in the capillary barriers within the lung itself, resulting in a diffuse leakage of fluid throughout all of the air space of the patient's lung. Because of the patient's serious lung condition, Dr. Desai placed her on a volume respirator, and the respirator pressure (PEEP) was progressively increased during her admission until it was set at 20 PEEP at the time of the incident. Twenty PEEP is an unusually high level of respirator pressure which was necessary in this case because of the patient's severe lung problem. The volume respirator essentially breathed for the patient and involved a tube being secured in her mouth. Often, between her admission to the ICU and the date of the incident, W.T. had torn the respirator tube out of her mouth, so she had been continuously restrained and sedated to keep this from happening again. Each time W.T. had extubated herself she had been "blue coded," meaning she had suffered either cardiac arrest or shock. Whether or not W.T. weighed between 225 and 250 pounds or weighed 350- plus pounds cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of accuracy since there is equally credible evidence over the entire foregoing range of poundage. It is material, however, that by all accounts of all witnesses, W.T. was markedly and grossly obese to the extent that her size, shape, and weight contributed to her several health problems and rendered her a patient more difficult to diagnose, more difficult to x-ray, more difficult to move, and more difficult to nurse and medically attend than she would have been otherwise. The evidence as to whether W.T.'s obesity impeded medical personnel from correctly interpreting her breath sounds on August 5, 1987, the date of the incident, is divided, as is the evidence as to whether or not on that date W.T.'s pacemaker was visible to the naked eye, but upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole, it is found that on August 5, 1987, W.T.'s obesity, generally deteriorated condition, and left pneumothorax rendered the presence, volume, and location of breath in each lung subject to interpretation and "judgment call," and that unless one were specifically looking and feeling for a pacemaker, one would not necessarily have been able to detect the pacemaker in W.T.'s left chest due to the extraordinarily heavy pad of fat and the absence of scarring in that location. The foregoing finding of fact has been reached because with the exception of the complaining witness, Nurse Counihan, all factual witnesses either testified that they did not notice a pacemaker scar or they specifically noticed there was no scarring on W.T.'s chest. Also, with regard to breath sounds, both Mr. Starr and Respondent listened for W.T.'s breath sounds on the morning of the incident and within a very few minutes of each other. Mr. Starr described W.T.'s breath sounds when he entered her room as decreased on the right and absent on the left. His findings were consistent with a left pneumothorax but he never informed Respondent what he had found. Respondent arrived only a few minutes later and could not get any breath sounds from either side. Dr. O'Leary, accepted as an expert in pulmonology and the insertion of chest tubes, opined persuasively that one could not rely on breath sounds to locate which side the pneumothorax was on in the face of a recent x-ray. Also, the use of the respirator could have been misleading to either or both Mr. Starr or Respondent. X-rays taken of W.T.'s chest at least ten times between July 23, 1987 and July 31, 1987 clearly depict that the pacemaker was on the left side of W.T.'s chest. These x-rays were reviewed by Respondent with a radiologist the day before the events which are the focus of these charges took place. The radiology reports of W.T.'s chest x-rays dated July 25, 1987, July 28, 1987, and July 31, 1987 specifically mention the pacemaker but only the report dated July 28, 1987 states that the pacemaker overlies the left thorax. Respondent did not review any narrative reports when he and the radiologist were reviewing the actual x-rays together. There is no evidence that this procedure was outside the appropriate standard of care. Dr. Dworkin, expert in radiology and quality assurance and review, Dr. O'Leary, and Dr. Rosin, Petitioner's internal medicine expert, all testified that it is not below the professional standard of care for a treating physician to forget within a day after such an x-ray review which side a pacemaker is on unless the pacemaker enters significantly into his treatment of the patient, which in this case it did not. By the early morning hours of August 5, 1987, W.T. had become even more critically ill with multiple system failures, including a failure in the cardiopulmonary systems, a neurological deficit, and failure of her renal functions. The mortality rate of a patient suffering from ARDS, without considering the other conditions from which W.T. was suffering, exceeds 50%, and responsible medical retrospective estimates made at formal hearing of W.T.'s specific survival chances in the early morning hours of August 5, 1987 fall in the 10-50% range. During the early morning hours of August 5, 1987, the nurses on duty in ICU were having trouble maintaining W.T.'s blood pressure. They began telephoning Dr. Desai and Respondent at approximately 4:00 a.m. One of those doctors, most probably Dr. Desai, ordered a portable chest x-ray of W.T., which was accomplished at 6:30 a.m. by Josephine Christnagel, R.T., who is a registered x-ray technologist. At the time this x-ray was performed, W.T. was already in critical condition and could not speak or respond. W.T.'s condition was such that she probably was not salvageable when Respondent arrived on the scene at 7:00 a.m. on August 5, 1987. Unbeknownst to anyone at this point in time, the 6:30 a.m. x-ray had been inadvertently mislabeled by Ms. Christnagel so that the left side of the patient's chest appeared on the x-ray with a lead marker, "R" (for "right") , on it. This chest x-ray revealed that W.T. had a pneumothorax, and because it was mislabeled, the pneumothorax appeared to be on the right side. If a chest tube is properly inserted from the outside chest wall on the side of the pneumothorax, into the chest cavity, the air can be released and the lung can re-expand, delivering oxygen to the patient and raising blood pressure to normal. At all times material on August 4-5, 1987, the ranking ICU nurse on W.T.'s case was Carey Beninger ne' Counihan, R.N. The ICU nurses notified Dr. Desai by phone of the pneumothorax and he, in turn, notified Respondent. Because Respondent was more nearly ready to go to the hospital, Respondent rushed to the hospital to insert a chest tube into W.T., treatment which he and Dr. Desai, the attending pulmonologist, had agreed was the appropriate treatment for W.T.'s pneumothorax. For the reasons given infra with regard to the time the nurses' notes were compiled and Nurse Counihan's confusion over the x-ray itself, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was ever told by Dr. Desai or by the nurses by phone that the pneumothorax was on W.T.'s left side (the correct side). Even if Respondent had been so informed by Dr. Desai, since Dr. Desai had never seen the x-ray, it still would have been appropriate for Respondent to rely on the x-ray itself once he got to the hospital, unless at the hospital, something or someone clearly alerted him to the fact that the pneumothorax was actually on the left side. At approximately 7:00 a.m., just prior to the arrival of Respondent, Dr. Michael Danzig, D.O., who was the day-shift emergency room doctor, and Wesley Starr, R.P.T., a respiratory therapist, arrived at ICU and entered W.T.'s room. At approximately the time they arrived, the night-shift emergency room doctor, Dr. Haas, left the room. By all accounts, there was a continuing "commotion," a "ruckus," or "an emergency situation" in progress with at least two nurses, including Nurse Counihan, and other personnel providing various therapies to W.T. who had no palpable blood pressure and was in shock. This atmosphere continued after Respondent arrived shortly thereafter, with the nurses' and Mr. Starr's attention directed to care of the patient. When Respondent arrived, Dr. Danzig became, essentially, an observer. Upon arrival at W.T.'s room, Respondent examined the 6:30 a.m. x-ray against a window with daylight showing through. The x-ray, as it was mismarked, showed a massive tension pneumothorax on W.T.'s right side and a pacemaker on the same side, the right. After review of the x-ray, Respondent examined W.T., including listening for breath sounds. He heard nothing significant from either lung. Dr. O'Leary's opinion that such a finding was not unusual and that Respondent could not rely on either his own examination of breath sounds or that of Mr. Starr (had he even known of Mr. Starr's hearing breath sounds on the right but not the left) at that point is persuasive. Under these circumstances, breath sounds would not have alerted Respondent to a mislabeled x-ray. Respondent relied on the mislabeled x-ray and began to prep the right side of the patient for the chest tube. As Respondent began to prep W.T.'s right side, a dispute arose between himself and Nurse Counihan. Having weighed and evaluated all the testimony and the documentary evidence and exhibits, having reconciled that evidence which can be reconciled, and having eliminated that evidence which is not credible, it is found that the most credible version of this dispute is that Nurse Counihan asked Respondent why he was prepping the right side if W.T. had a left pneumothorax, and Respondent replied, "No, it isn't. Look at the x-ray." To this, Nurse Counihan said, "Yes, it is. I'm sure of it," and pointed to the lung on the x-ray which did not show a pneumothorax (the side next to the nameplate and the side without either a pacemaker or a pneumothorax). Respondent said, "No, it isn't. Look at the damn x-ray!" Respondent then proceeded to intubate on the right side while referring frequently to the mislabeled x-ray. In making the foregoing finding, it is noted that there were significant differences between the testimony of Nurse Counihan and all other witnesses, both factual and expert. Nurse Counihan deposed/testified that both she and another nurse had pointed out to Respondent that the patient's pacemaker was on the patient's left side and so was the pneumothorax. The other three factual witnesses, Starr, Danzig, and Respondent, all testified that they have no recollection whatsoever of anyone mentioning a pacemaker. Even Wesley Starr, called by the Petitioner, and who was present in W.T.'s room at the head of the patient's bed throughout the time of these discussions, testified that, to the best of his recollection, no one mentioned a pacemaker and that he did not recall anyone except Nurse Counihan challenging the Respondent's prepping W.T.'s right side. Also, Dr. Danzig, who was present in the room during the argument, and who testified that he had placed over 200 chest tubes during the course of his medical residency training, testified that if Nurse Counihan had, indeed, mentioned a pacemaker, he would have intervened in order to assist Respondent in determining the correct side of the pneumothorax. Although Petitioner asserted that Dr. Danzig is not credible due to his friendship with Respondent, that argument is not persuasive both due to the remoteness and degree of the friendship and Dr. Danzig's insistence that if Respondent should say that Nurse Counihan pointed to the side of the x-ray showing the pacemaker, then Respondent would be wrong. Respondent apparently did not review W.T.'s records either before or after the dispute with Nurse Counihan. These records were either in her room or elsewhere in the ICU unit, but since, at that point, the nurses' notes had not been compiled from their scratch pads to the patient's chart since before 4:00 a.m., there was nothing in W.T.'s chart/records to alert Respondent that the x- ray was mislabeled or that the patient had a pneumothorax on the left side even if he had reviewed the record. Also, he would have had to go back to the July 31 x-ray or the July 28 radiology narrative before he could have discovered that the pacemaker was on the left. This would have been very time consuming. Also, Dr. Danzig, who actually had made a cursory review of the patient's records when he first arrived in the room, was not alerted by Nurse Counihan's words or her pointing to the x-ray to any reason to search the records for information about the pacemaker. In further assessing Nurse Counihan's testimony, the undersigned has weighed in her favor the consistency of her recent deposition testimony with her notes and the incident report which she completed within five hours after the intubation incident on August 5, 1987. However, weighing against her credibility with regard to her statements then and now that she told Respondent that the pacemaker was on W.T.'s left side is the fact that even her August 5, 1987 report and notes were prepared in the glow of a hindsight favorable to her position and that her deposition shows that she is confused about how a pneumothorax appears on an x-ray. Reconciling all the testimony one can, it is remotely possible that Nurse Counihan said, "It is a left pneumothorax," while pointing to the lung shown on the x-ray as not having a pneumothorax and which, due to the "R" marker on the other lung could be inferred to be the left lung. It is even remotely possible (although not probable or persuasive given the three other factual witnesses' testimony that she had never mentioned a pacemaker) that Nurse Counihan could have told the Respondent, "The pneumothorax is on the same side as the pacemaker," which also was consistent with the x-ray as mislabeled. However, upon the credible evidence as a whole, the only reasonable conclusion is that if Nurse Counihan did mention a pacemaker at the time of her dispute with Respondent, she was ineffective in clearly conveying to Respondent or to anyone else in the room that the pacemaker and the pneumothorax were on the patient's left side or that there was any reason to further search the records or the patient's body to resolve the dispute. It is uncontroverted that, prior to the insertion of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side, absolutely no one, including Nurse Counihan, was aware that the x-ray was reversed, and that Ms. Counihan never informed the Respondent that the x-ray was reversed. Respondent's testimony is accepted that upon placement of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side (the side without the pneumothorax) he heard an immediate audible gush of air. That others in the room did not hear this rush of air is understandable due to the noise and confusion in the room, particularly the respirator sounds. Also, it is uncontroverted that upon placement of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side, the patient's blood pressure, which had been zero, immediately rose into normal range. A dramatic and rapid reestablishment of the patient's blood pressure is the expected result of a proper placement of a chest tube with a tension pneumothorax. All health care personnel present seem to have regarded the blood pressure stabilization as proof that the Respondent had placed the chest tube on the correct side of the patient, because no one, including Nurse Counihan, thereafter protested that a misplacement had occurred. Release of pressure and a return in blood pressure is not normally associated with placement of a chest tube in the wrong side of a patient and there is no definitive medical explanation of why it occurred in this instance, despite Dr. O'Leary's speculation that the gush of air could have been a leak of air across the Mediastrum. After placement of the chest tube in the patient's right side, Respondent ordered an immediate repeat chest x-ray to be certain the tube was placed in the correct lung and was placed correctly. After the patient's blood pressure had been reestablished, Dr. Danzig left the intensive care unit because he believed that the pneumothorax had been relieved completely and because the patient was now stable. If W.T. had not been stable, Dr. Danzig would have remained in the room since he was the day- shift emergency room doctor and he did not know if any physicians other than Respondent and himself were even in the hospital yet. After securing the chest tube and dressing the chest, Respondent left the floor and went to the operating room (OR) to notify the OR staff that there would be a delay before he could begin previously scheduled surgery. Thereafter, on his way to check the new x-ray he had just ordered, Respondent met Ms. Christnagel, who was bringing it to him. Ms. Christnagel then informed Respondent that she had mislabeled the 6:30 a.m. preintubation x-ray. Respondent simultaneously reviewed the new, postintubation x-ray and discovered that he had placed the chest tube in the wrong side of W.T.'s chest. At approximately the same time, W.T.'s blood pressure again dropped and a "code blue" was called. Dr. Gloria Mikula, M.D., who happened to be in the ICU at the time W.T. coded, "ran the code" to attempt to reestablish the patient's blood pressure. Throughout the time in which Dr. Mikula was running the code on this patient, no one, including Nurse Counihan, said anything to the effect that W.T. may have had a chest tube placed in the wrong side. In fact, the nursing staff did not even inform Dr. Mikula that this patient had had a pneumothorax and chest tube insertion prior to the code being called. Such information would have been important from a medical standpoint because it would have allowed Dr. Mikula to act immediately to relieve the tension in the patient's chest. Immediately upon reviewing the repeat chest x-ray and upon hearing the announcement of the code blue at the same time, Respondent rushed back to W.T.'s room, placed a chest tube in the patient's left side, and the patient's blood pressure was again reestablished. However, some time later in her hospitalization, W.T. expired. Nurse Counihan's failure to say anything to Dr. Mikula about the pneumothorax is further indicative of her immediate satisfaction that Respondent's intubation on the right side had been acceptable and that it was only after he discovered his error through the new x-ray and correctly intubated W.T. on the left side that Nurse Counihan completed her notes and incident report describing his error for the chart. The notes were transposed from her scratch pad and memory at approximately noon, August 5, 1987. Dr. Rosin, Petitioner's expert in internal medicine, criticized Respondent's performance as below the professional standard of care because he felt that once Respondent was made aware in the patient's room by Nurse Counihan that the pneumothorax could be on the patient's left side, Respondent had an obligation to make further inquiry or investigation before inserting the chest tube in the patient's right side. In Dr. Rosin's opinion, Respondent's investigation could have taken several routes: review of earlier x-rays and the patient's record, further conversation with the nurse, further hands-on examination of the patient for signs of the pacemaker, and/or ordering a new x- ray. Although Dr. Rosin testified that Respondent should have ordered a repeat x-ray so as to resolve the dispute with Nurse Counihan before inserting the chest tube on W.T.'s right side, he also conceded that the only possible adverse effect of the decision Respondent made was the delay in relieving W.T.'s condition. The chest intubation involved is not a benign or casual procedure, but no actual harm occasioned by misplacement of the chest tube was demonstrated in this case, and the maximum amount of time which would have been saved, under Dr. Rosin's approach, would have been that short period of time it took for the Respondent to place the chest tube and dress the wound. Under the circumstances, if Respondent had delayed intubation, W.T. would probably have "coded blue" before the correctly labelled chest x-ray could have been performed anyway. In light of the confused state of the patient's breath sounds, obesity, and lack of scarring, the fact that no nurses' notes had been codified since before 4:00 a.m., Nurse Counihan's own confusion about the mismarked x-ray, and how far back in the patient's chart Respondent would have had to look before he would have been able to locate anything useful about the pacemaker, it is found that Respondent behaved reasonably in an emergency situation, and Dr. O'Leary's and Dr. Dworkin's expert opinions that he did not violate the professional standard of care in the first insertion of the chest tube are accepted. It is also found that the Respondent's procedure in ordering the new chest x-ray and leaving the room after the first intubation without further search of the records or further conversation in the room was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Osteopathic Physicians enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 478.52(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ by accepting and performing professional responsibilities that she knew or had reason to know she was not competent to perform; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violations proven.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of electrolysis pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been licensed as an electrologist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number EO2650. Respondent is also licensed by the State of Florida as an acupuncturist, license number AP 1378. Respondent is a certified surgical assistant, having obtained certification through the American Board of Surgical Assistants. Documents in the record indicate that in 1998, Respondent completed medical school at Universidad Libre in Barranquilla, Columbia. However, Respondent is not a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 8210 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent owned and operated Orozco Medical Center (“OMC”), located at 8210 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615. Patient N.M. Patient N.M. is a female born in 1964. She testified that she was familiar with OMC because she had therapy there following a car accident in 2000. N.M. presented to OMC in early 2015 for consultation regarding a liposuction with fat transfer procedure, commonly called a “Brazilian Butt Lift” (“BBL”). Fat is taken from one part of the body and reinjected into the buttocks. N.M. testified that Blanca Cabrera, who performs massages at OMC, recommended a “doctor” at OMC named Marlon Barcelo to perform her BBL. Marlon Barcelo worked at OMC as a surgical assistant but was not a medical doctor. N.M. testified that she believed Mr. Barcelo would perform her BBL procedure and that she never knew that he was not a physician. Ms. Cabrera told her that Mr. Barcelo had been a very good doctor in Columbia. N.M. testified that at her initial consultation at OMC regarding the BBL, she met exclusively with Respondent, who showed her where the fat would be removed and where it would be injected. N.M. testified that she met with Respondent three times before her surgery. N.M. testified that, at the conclusion of the initial consultation, she was given an appointment card directing her to return to OMC on January 13, 2015, for an electrocardiogram, lab work, and the medication she would be expected to take before the procedure. The medical records indicate that N.M. was confused as to the dates. It appears from the records that her initial consultation was on January 13, 2015, that her EKG and lab work were performed on March 2, 2015, and the date of her surgery was March 13, 2015. N.M. testified that each time she visited OMC prior to the surgery, she met only with Respondent, who examined her and explained the procedure to her with no other persons present. N.M. testified that on the date of the surgery, her daughter drove her to OMC. After she checked in at the front desk, N.M. was taken to an exam room and told to change into a hospital gown. Respondent then marked her body to identify the locations where fat was to be removed. Respondent gave N.M. a medication to calm her prior to the procedure. The medical record indicates that N.M.’s pre- operative medications included Keflex (cephalexin, an antibiotic), lorazepam (a sedative and anti-anxiety medication), and Benadryl (diphenhydramine, an antihistamine with sedative properties). N.M. described the medication’s effect as “like a Xanax.” N.M. testified that the medication relaxed her but did not affect her recollection of the procedure. She testified that she was awake throughout the surgery and was allowed to use her cell phone during the procedure. N.M. did not recall meeting Dr. Mark Kantzler and denied ever meeting Dr. Amina Edathodu. She believed that Mr. Barcelo was going to perform the surgery, though up until the morning of the procedure she had not met him. N.M. was taken to the surgical room and placed on a table. She stated that there was a drape that blocked her view of the surgical area, but that it was low enough to allow her to see everyone in the room. She could see two men, Mr. Barcelo and someone identified as “Abel,” and Ms. Cabrera, the massage therapist, who appeared to be assisting. N.M. testified that Mr. Barcelo performed the liposuction. She testified that everyone in the room was wearing surgical gowns and gloves but no surgical masks. N.M. testified that during the liposuction procedure, Respondent told her that she would be performing the fat injections because she was very good at that procedure. N.M. testified that after the liposuction was completed, Mr. Barcelo called on Respondent to perform the fat injections into her buttocks. N.M. stated that she saw Respondent walk into the room carrying a syringe. During this portion of the procedure N.M was positioned on her stomach but stated that she knew from the conversation in the room that it was Respondent who was placing the injections into her buttocks. Upon conclusion of the procedure, Respondent gave N.M. pain medication for post-surgical pain. N.M. returned to OMC for a follow-up visit regarding the lack of drainage from her incision. During this visit, Respondent examined N.M. and gave her medication to reduce the swelling she was experiencing. Dr. Edathodu testified that she has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida for over 25 years. From 2015 through 2017, she worked as a contract physician at OMC and acted as medical director for the facility. Dr. Edathodu developed the protocols for OMC’s tumescent liposuction procedures and ensured they were followed. Dr. Edathodu remembered N.M. as a patient who had undergone previous surgeries and presented for further liposuction and fat transfer. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the liposuction procedure on N.M. Dr. Edathodu’s signature is on the cosmetic surgery consent form that was also signed by N.M. on March 3, 2015. The “Liposuction and Autologous Fat Transfer” consent form signed by N.M. on March 3, 2015, specifically names Dr. Edathodu as the surgeon who will perform the procedure and was signed by Dr. Edathodu. Dr. Edathodu testified that she reviewed the procedure with N.M., discussing the risks and benefits. Dr. Edathodu does not speak Spanish and uses Respondent to translate with Spanish speakers such as N.M. She identified herself to N.M. as a surgeon through Respondent’s translation. Dr. Edathodu spoke to N.M. about having realistic expectations and cautioned her that she may not obtain an optimal result because of her previous procedures. Dr. Edathodu testified that, aside from her, the persons in the surgical theater were three surgical assistants: Respondent, Mr. Barcelo, and Pavel Cabanes. It is found that Mr. Cabanes must have been the “Abel” referred to by N.M. Dr. Edathodu testified that during the surgery, there is a drape between the surgical field and the patient’s face and head, to prevent the patient from being disturbed by the sight of the procedure. The drape is made of disposable paper and is about five feet high. When performing the surgery, Dr. Edathodu is unable to see the patient’s face and the patient is unable to see past the drape. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the entire surgical procedure on N.M. Dr. Edathodu made the site markings on N.M. while Respondent took photographs. Respondent did not perform any part of the surgical procedure. Respondent performed none of the fat transfer on N.M. Respondent did nothing other than what Dr. Edathodu specifically directed her to do. Dr. Edathodu testified that she met with N.M. on four or five occasions after the surgery. Dr. Edathodu’s testimony, as supported by the medical records, is credited. Perhaps because of her inability to speak English, N.M. appeared confused and inconsistent in her testimony, at least as it appeared in the Transcript. N.M.’s credibility was strained by her uncertainty as to dates and medications. She offered improbable details, such as the lack of coverage by the surgical drape and the failure of the surgical team to wear masks. N.M. was certain that Respondent was performing the fat injection, even though N.M. could not see what was happening. Though N.M. testified that she was awake and alert during the procedure, the undersigned cannot disregard that she had been given a medication that she likened to Xanax, most likely the lorazepam. The undersigned hesitates to rely upon N.M.’s disjointed testimony where it conflicts with the straightforward and credible testimony of Dr. Edathodu.3/ Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is found that the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient N.M. Patient R.C. Patient R.C. is a female born in 1988. At the time of the hearing, she worked as a claims specialist. She testified that a friend from her previous job at HealthPlan Services referred her to OMC for a consultation. She first went to OMC on or about June 6, 2016. R.C. testified that this initial consultation was with Respondent. She told Respondent that she wanted liposuction on her back and waist and wanted the fat transferred to her buttocks. They discussed the procedure and pricing. From that point until the day of the surgery, R.C. went to OMC only to drop off periodic payments for the surgery. Her only contact was with the person at the front desk. She testified that she did not see Respondent again until the day of her surgery. R.C.’s surgery was scheduled for August 5, 2016. R.C. testified that she was dropped off at OMC by her children’s father. She went in and met Respondent and a few workers in the front of the facility. When she went to the back to prepare for the procedure, she met a man wearing scrubs whom she had never seen before. Two other staff persons were present, but R.C. stated she only talked with the one staff person who spoke English. R.C. testified that Respondent and the man in scrubs marked her body for the surgery. She believed that Respondent was going to perform the surgery. R.C. stated that she was not familiar with Dr. Edathodu. R.C. stated that she filled out the consent forms on August 5, 2016. An assistant gave her medication, saying it would calm her down. R.C. was not told the name of the medication, but testified that she took a blue pill and half of a white pill. The medical records indicate she was given Ativan (a brand name for lorazepam) and Benadryl. R.C. testified that the medications made her drowsy. R.C. was assisted to the room where the surgery would be performed. R.C. testified that she was placed on her stomach, face down. Everyone in the room was wearing a surgical mask. In the room were Respondent, the man in the scrubs, and two assistants. R.C. stated that she was awake during the procedure, but was drowsy and did not recall much about it. She could hear Respondent’s voice and the noise of the liposuction machine. She could not see who actually performed the procedure. After it was over, one of the assistants phoned R.C.’s driver and helped R.C. get up and walk. Respondent handed her a bag containing pills that R.C. believed were antibiotics. She received post-operative instructions. R.C. testified that she returned to OMC for a follow- up visit about a month after the surgery and met with Respondent. Dr. Edathodu testified that she performed the surgical procedure, called “tumescent liposuction,” on R.C. on August 5, 2016. On August 2, 2016, R.C. signed a “liposuction & autologous fat transfer consent” form that specifically named Dr. Edathodu as the surgeon who would perform the surgery. Dr. Edathodu ordered, reviewed, and signed R.C.’s lab results. Dr. Edathodu met with R.C. prior to the procedure and completed a “pre-operative clearance” form to document R.C.’s fitness and willingness to go through the surgery. Both R.C. and Dr. Edathodu signed the pre-operative clearance form. Dr. Edathodu testified that she met with R.C. three or four times post-surgery. As in the case of N.M., all of the medical records support the version of events described by Dr. Edathodu.4/ Dr. Edathodu’s testimony, as supported by the medical records, is credited. R.C. frankly conceded that she did not remember much about the surgery and could not see who performed it. Dr. Edathodu clearly and credibly recalled performing the procedure. The greater weight of evidence supports the finding that Dr. Edathodu performed the surgery, assisted by Respondent and Mr. Barcelo. The evidence could not sustain a finding that Respondent performed a surgical procedure on R.C. R.C. was a more credible witness than N.M., and her testimony on some of the details regarding her consultations and pre-operative events was persuasive. However, it must be kept in mind that the only relevant factual question is whether Respondent performed an “invasive/surgical medical procedure” on R.C. The evidence on this question is not persuasive. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is found that the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient R.C. Patient K.H. Patient K.H. is a female born in 1989. She learned of OMC from a friend at work. She first came into OMC for a consultation regarding a liposuction and fat transfer on November 29, 2016. K.H. testified that she met only with Respondent at this initial consultation. On November 29, 2016, K.H. signed an “information certification” form accepting Dr. Mark Kantzler as the physician who would be in charge of her liposuction procedure. K.H. came back to OMC on January 9, 2017, to make a $500 deposit and to schedule the surgery. The procedure was scheduled for February 11, 2017. Again, K.H. testified that she met alone with Respondent, who told her that she would need to come in a couple of days before the surgery to get medication and a list of things she would need for post-operative care. K.H. testified that she believed that Respondent was a physician and that she would be performing the liposuction procedure. The “liposuction and autologous fat transfer consent” form that K.H. signed on February 9, 2017, authorized Dr. Kantzler to perform the liposuction and fat transfer procedure. The “surgery certification” form that K.H. signed on February 9, 2017, indicated that Dr. Kantzler reviewed the entire medical file with her before performing the procedure. On February 11, 2017, K.H. was driven to OMC by her mother. Shortly after arriving, K.H. noted the presence of a tall man with white hair and blue eyes. An OMC assistant escorted K.H. to a room with a bed and a chair. Respondent came in to the room and marked K.H. for surgery. Respondent then called in the tall man with white hair and blue eyes, who looked at the surgical markings and then asked K.H. some questions about her stretch marks. During her direct examination, K.H. testified that she was not given the man’s name. During cross-examination, K.H. was forced to concede that during an August 2017 interview, she told Department investigators that she had been introduced to the tall man with white hair and blue eyes and that his name was Dr. Mark Kantzler. K.H. testified that Respondent gave her a pill to take before surgery. She was taken to the surgical suite and was placed on the table. K.H. testified that the surgical drape prevented her from seeing the surgical area. The only people she had noted in the room were Respondent and “Claudia,” a woman K.H. recognized as a massage therapist at OMC. She could not be certain whether or not Dr. Kantzler was in the room. K.H. testified that she was awake during the surgery. She stated that she was in pain during the surgery and complained, in Spanish, to Respondent. K.H. stated that Respondent told her she had “a little stubborn fat” and continued the procedure without doing anything to alleviate her pain. K.H. testified that all conversation during the procedure was in Spanish. She heard no English being spoken. K.H. confirmed that Dr. Kantzler was the physician who signed the letter requesting that she be excused from work immediately after her surgery. Dr. Kantzler testified that he had no specific recollection of K.H. or of her procedure. He stated that he worked on a contract basis with OMC for about three years. He came in about once a week to perform liposuction procedures, conforming to the protocols established by Dr. Edathodu. He saw the patients only briefly before their procedures, relying on Respondent to perform the patient consultations and Dr. Edathodu to prescribe the pre-operative tests in her role as medical director. He was paid by the procedure. Dr. Kantzler testified that he does not speak Spanish, but that his surgical assistants, Respondent and Mr. Barcelo, would often converse in Spanish during surgery. Dr. Kantzler reviewed the medical records and confirmed that he signed the documents and performed the surgery on K.H.: Q. Is there any doubt in your mind about whether or not you performed these procedures? A. Not when I’m looking at the files, no. Q. And if you had not done the procedures, would you have signed off on the documentation? A. I wouldn’t have had them to sign. No. Dr. Kantzler’s lack of a clear recollection distinguishes this procedure from those involving Dr. Edathodu. However, an offsetting distinguishing factor is that K.H. had a clear recollection of seeing and speaking with Dr. Kantzler at OMC on the morning of her surgery. She did not see him enter the surgical suite or hear him speak during the procedure, but she was unable to say that he was not in the room. The medical record is replete with indications that Dr. Kantzler performed the liposuction and fat transfer procedure on K.H. Dr. Kantzler testified that he voluntarily relinquished his Florida medical license in 2017 “for my own reasons not relevant to this [case].” The Department’s Proposed Recommended Order suggests that this relinquishment was “in response to or in anticipation of disciplinary proceedings.” There is no record evidence to support the Department’s suggestion, and it is disregarded here. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Department has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed an invasive/surgical medical procedure on Patient K.H.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Claudia Patricia Orozco-Fandino, E.O. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2019.
