16-006149PL
Department Of Health, Board Of Medicine vs.
Ronald Evan Wheeler, M.D.
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, February 24, 2017.
Recommended Order on Friday, February 24, 2017.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF
13MEDICINE,
14Petitioner,
15vs. Case Nos. 16 - 6136PL
2116 - 6148PL
24RONALD EVAN WHEELER, M.D., 16 - 6149PL
3116 - 6150PL
34Respondent.
35_______________________________/
36RECOMMENDED ORDER
38Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was
46conducted before Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy by video
56teleconference with locations in Sarasota and Tallahassee ,
63Florida, on December 8 , 2016.
68APPEARANCES
69For Petitioner: Jack F. Wise, Esquire
75Department of Health
78Bin C - 65
824052 Bald Cypress Way
86Tallahassee, Florida 32399
89For Respondent: Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire
95Weekley Schulte Valdes, LLC
99Suite 100
1011635 North Tampa Street
105Tampa, Florida 33602
108STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S
113Whether Respondent , a licensed physician, violated the
120applicable standard of care by diagnosing prostate cancer in four
130patients , and recommending and participating in a course of
139treatment for these patients , without confirming prostate cancer
147through tissue biopsy results ; and , if so, what is the
157appropriate penalty?
159PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
161On March 21 , 2016, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board
170of Medicine, referred the four above - captioned cases seeking
180disciplinary sanction of the medical license of Respondent,
188Ronald Evan Wheeler , M.D., to the Division of Administrative
197Heari ngs (DOAH). On the next day, DOAH assigned Administrative
207Law Judge J. Lawrence Johnston to conduct the proceeding. These
217four cases were consolidated on March 23, 2016 , and the matter
228was set for hearing for June 15 through 17, 2016.
238This matter was con tinued until August 17 and 18, 2016 , and
250was transferred to the undersigned on August 9 , 2016. On
260August 12, 2016, the parties reached a proposed resolution and
270filed a Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction Without
278Prejudice , which was granted.
282On Octo ber 14 , 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion to Re - Open
295Proce e ding because a final agreement was not reached . The m otion
309was granted and the matter was re - opened and re - set for
323December 8 and 9, 2016.
328The hearing was held as scheduled on December 8 , 2016 .
339Joint Exhibits 1 through 8 were admitted into evidence. At the
350hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Dennis Donahue,
358M.D., its expert witness. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 14
367were admitted into evidence.
371Included in Petitioner 's exhibits were the deposition
379transcripts of P atients G.P., J.W., K.S. , and V.P. , offered in
390lieu of live testimony. Petitioner also provided the transcripts
399of the Patients ' other physicians: Joel Gel man, M.D. (physician
410for Patient G.P.); M. Eric Brewer, M.D. (ph ysician for
420Patient J.W.); Jeffrey Jump, M.D. (physician for Patient K.S);
429and Vip ul Patel, M.D. (physician for Pa tient V.P.). Also
440i ncluded was the deposition transcript of Sarat Sabharwal, M.D.,
450a board - certified urologist , who was identified as an exp ert by
463Respondent.
464Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the
473testimony of Stephen Leslie, M.D., as an expert witness.
482Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 6 and 8 through 20 were admitted
493into evidence.
495A two - volume Transcript of the proceeding was filed on
506January 9 , 2017 . Both parties filed timely proposed orders ,
516which were given due consideration in the preparation of this
526Recommended Order.
528Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida
535Statutes or rules of the Florida Administrati ve Code refer to the
547versions in effect at the time of the alleged violations.
557FINDING S OF FACT
5611. Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and
569prosecution of complaints against medical doctors licensed in the
578state of Florida, who are accused of v iolating chapters 456 and
590458 of the Florida Statutes.
5952. Respondent is licensed as a medical doctor in Florida,
605having been issued license number ME 46625 .
6133. Respondent is not board - certified in any specialty
623recognized by the Florida Board of Medicin e.
6314. Respondent has never had disciplinary action against his
640license to practice medicine.
644Respondent's Practice
6465. Since his residency concluded in 1985 , Respondent has
655practiced urology. For more than 20 years, the focus of his
666practice has been pro state disease , its diagnosis , and treatment .
6776. In 2006, Respondent becam e the lead investigator for a
688General El ectric study regarding its 3 - T esla magnetic resonance
700spectroscopy imaging machine (3T MRI - s ) as part of an
712Institutional Review Board measuri ng the heat generated by the
722machine to ensure the safety of patients.
7297. B etween 2006 and 2010 , 1 , 600 prostates were scanned with
741a 3T MRI - s as part of the study . Respondent reviewed the results
756of each radiology report associated with these scans and c ompared
767them to the clinical data he had for each patient. Respondent
778also completed a double - blind study of 200 of these patients who
791had prostate biopsies during 2008 and 2009 , as well as the
8023T MRI - s , correlated the results of the biopsies and the sca ns,
816and became convinced that the 3T MRI - s technology alone is a
829positive predictor of prostate cancer 95 percent of the time.
8398. According to both parties' experts, as well as
848Respondent, t he standard of care in Florida and throughout the
859United States i s to use a needle tissue biopsy to identify
871prostate cancer. As admitted by Respondent, medical schools
879teach that needle biopsy is "the way" to diagnose prostate
889cancer. Absent a biopsy showing malignant tissue, it is not
899possible for a reasonably prude nt physician to diagnose or treat
910prostate cancer. Biopsies are usually performed to diagnose
918prostate cancer if a man has a combination of risk factors , such
930as family history, an abnormal digital rectal exam , a nd/or
940increasing levels of Prostate Specifi c Antigen (PSA) .
9499. However, needle biopsies for prostate cancer carry a
958fal se negative rate of 20 to 50 percent , which means that a
971standard 12 - point needle biopsy (where 12 samples of tissue from
983different locations in the prostate are sampled) often mi ss es
994cancerous tissue. Prostate needle biopsies are sometimes painful
1002and carry a risk of complications , including common complications
1011such as bleeding and i nfection , and the unlikely complications of
1022septic shock and death.
102610. Respondent is convinced that there is a significant
1035risk from a prostate needle biopsy to spread prostate cancer
1045cells outside the prostate capsule , which is referred to as
"1055seeding" or "needle tracking . " Respondent's belief is founded
1064upon a one - page 2002 article published in t he American Urological
1077Association , Inc.'s Journal of Urology (Journal) , which refers to
1086two cases in which a tumor was discovered in the rectal wall
1098after prostate biopsies and cryoblation. 1/ T he tumors were
1108suspected of being the result of needle tracki ng from prostate
1119cancer biopsies. Significantly, this article makes clear that
1127needle tracking resulting from prostate biopsies are rare and
" 1136exceedingly uncommon. "
113811. R espondent's concern , regarding prostate bi opsies
1146spreading prostate cancer, is also in part founded upon a
1156o ne - paragraph 1991 Journ al abstract reporting a John s Hopkins
1169University School of Medicine study of 350 patients in which
1179ne edle tracking was suspected in seven patients (two percent). 2/
1190According to Respondent, his belief that pr ostate biopsies spread
1200prostate cancer is "intuitive , " although he acknowledges this is
1209not the prevailing view in Florida. Respondent argues that
1218doctors do not want to believe needle tracking takes place with
1229prostate biopsies and suggests there is a fi nancial motivation
1239for doctors to require a positive bi o psy before definitively
1250diagnosing prostate cancer.
125312. Respondent is so convinced of the dangers of needle
1263biopsies for prostate cancer that he published a book, Men at
1274Risk : the Dirty Little Secret Î Prostate Biopsie s Really Do
1286Spread P rostate Cancer Cells , in 2012 , which he provides to all
1298his patients. In his book, Respondent states:
1305For me, a 3T MRI scan is the best objective
1315marker to a diagnosis of prostate cancer .
1323To summarize, patients must answer one
1329question. Should I agree to a prostate
1336biopsy procedure where it has been proven to
1344spread prostate cancer cells or do I keep my
1353fingers and toes crossed, hoping for the
1360best? In two words, . . . "absolutely not."
1369To me, the decision is easy Î the literature
1378validates avoiding random biopsies and
1383supports imaging with a 3 T magnet.
1390There is no other organ in the human body
1399where diagnosis is dependent on sticking
1405needles randomly and blindly into a delicate
1412organ in an attempt to find cancer . This
1421practice is archaic, patently barbaric,
1426unacceptable and preferentially favored by
1431virtually all urologists.
1434Beyond the obvious benefit to being able to
1442see a cancer and its pattern of invasion with
1451the 3.0 Tesla MRI scan, there is no other
1460exam o r scan that competes in terms of
1469diagnostic accuracy or predictability.
1473The discerning patient will soon recognize
1479that guessing where cancer is located,
1485through random biopsies, is for the less
1492informed. [ 3 ]
149613. Respondent refers to the use of 3T MRI - s as the "truth
1510serum" of prostate cancer diagnosis. During all times material
1519hereto, Respondent held himself out as a urologist who could
1529diagnose and treat prostate c ancer without a needle biopsy. In
1540fact , the four patients at issue in this case found Respond ent
1552through an I nternet search. Respondent defines his office, the
1562Diagnostic Center for Disease (DCD) as, "A comprehensive prostate
1571cancer diagnostic center in Sarasota, Florida specializing in
1579non - invasive diagnostics (MRI/MRIS) without bio psy as an integral
1590part of the diagnostic evaluation of prostate cancer. " 4/
159914. R espondent also advertised himself as "a world expert
1609in High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), having diagnosed and
1618treat ed more patients for prostate c a n cer from mor e countries
1632than any other treating doctor in the world." 5 / HIFU is a
1645treatment alternative to brachytherapy ( the insertion of
1653radioactive seeds into the prostate) , radiation, and
1660prostatectomy (the surgical removal of the prostate gland) for
1669prostate can cer and uses highly focused ultrasound waves i n a
1681small area to create intense heat , which destroys prostate cancer
1691tissue. HIFU was not an approved treatment for prostate cancer
1701in the United States until October 9, 2015 , at which time the
1713F ood and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the
1724Sonablate machine for prostate tissue ablation. Prior to that
1733time, Respondent referred his patients to treatment facilities in
1742Mexico and the Caribbean where he performed HIFU treatments.
175115. The standar d of care in Florida precludes treating
1761prostate cancer with HIFU in the absence of a tissue biopsy
1772confirming the presence of cancer. In order to be eligible for
1783HIFU treatment, in addition to a positive diagnosis, the
1792patient's prostate gland must be le ss than 40 grams. HIFU is not
1805appropriate on patients with multiple calcifications in their
1813prostate because they interfere with the treatment.
182016. Because a smaller prostate gland is easier to work
1830with, p rior to undergoing HIFU treatment, patients are often
1840prescribed Bicalutamide (also known by its brand name , Casodex)
1849and Trelstar. Bicalutamide suppresses the uptake of testosterone
1857and Trelstar suppresses the production of testosterone, with both
1866drugs having the effect of shrinking the prostate gland. Side
1876effects of these drugs include hot flashes, weakness, and a sense
1887of a loss of well - being.
1894Facts Related to Patient G.P.
189917. Patient G.P. , a 69 year - old retir ee , had a prostate
1912biopsy performed in December 2005 after a rise in his PSA l evel.
1925This biopsy was negative for prostate cancer , but Patient G.P.
1935was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate and benign prostate
1944hyperplasty (BPH).
194618. In M ay 2008, Patient G. P. learned through a physical
1958exam for a life insurance policy that his PS A level was elevated.
1971After anoth er check of his PSA level in November 2008, Patient
1983G.P. was advised to undergo another prostate biopsy. Because his
1993fi r st prostate biopsy was painful , Patient G.P. searched t he
2005Internet for alternatives to biopsy and lea rned of Respondent and
2016his use of the 3T MRI - s at the DCD in Sarasota for diagnosing
2031prost at e cancer.
203519. Patient G.P. traveled to Florida from Michigan to meet
2045with Respo nd e n t on January 5, 2009 . Patient G.P. underwent a 3T
2061MRI - s scan at Respondent 's office. Respondent told Patient G.P.
2073that he was unsure of the results because they were consistent
2084with BPH and not prostate cancer. However, Respondent advised
2093Patient G.P. was considered "high risk" because his father died
2103from prostate cancer in 2 002. Rather than undergoing any
2113treatment at that time, Patient G.P. was prescribed Avodart for
2123his BPH and agreed to active surveillance (A.S.) whereby he would
2134receive regular PSA screening .
213920. When Patient G.P.'s December 2009 PSA level went up
2149after being on Avodart for most of the year, he was concerned and
2162telephone d Responde n t's office. Respondent prescribed Casodex
2171based upon his telephone call with Patient G.P. on January 15,
21822010.
218321. By February 2010, G.P.'s PSA level decreased
2191sig nificantly , but not as much as he believed it should have
2203after taking Casodex for several weeks. Patient G.P. also
2212experienc ed urinary frequency problems and pain. He returned to
2222R e sp o ndent's office where Responde n t performed a n ultrasound and
2237digital r ectal exam . R e sponde n t told Patient G.P. it was likely
2253he had prostate cancer , b ut that he could not be sure wi t h ou t a
2271biopsy . However , Respondent's medical records reflect that
2279Respondent diagnosed Patient G.P. as having prostate cancer
2287without a tissue biopsy . 6/ Respondent offered to do a targeted
2299biopsy based on an MRI scan. Respondent also discusse d his
2310concerns regarding needle tracking from biopsies with
2317Patient G.P.
231922. Patient G.P. made it clear he did not want a biopsy ,
2331and he wanted t o proceed to HIFU . Respondent advised Patient
2343G.P. of the risk of erectile dysfunction following HIFU , but did
2354not discuss the possibility of urinary stricture problems.
236223 . In April 2010, Patient G.P. traveled to Mexico where
2373the HIFU procedure was performed by Respondent. In March 2011,
2383Patient G.P. saw a urologist in Michigan about his diminished
2393urinary stream and pain. The urologist used a reamer to open
2404Patient G.P's urethra , but on April 15, 2011, he went to the
2416emergency room because he was completely unable to urinate.
2425Patient G.P. was cath eterized and subsequently underwent
2433electro - vaporization on April 25, 2011, to relieve the urinary
2444stricture. In August 2011, Patient G . P . also underwent hydro -
2457dilating in an attempt to relieve the sym ptoms of his urinary
2469stricture.
247024 . In September 2011, Patient G.P. saw board - certified
2481urologist Dr. Joel Gelman , who specializes in urethral
2489reconstruction . At that time, Patient G.P. was advised that his
2500urinary stricture , caused by the HIFU trea tment , was a
2510significant problem because his urethra was closed off a l m ost to
2523the bladder neck. Dr. Gelman performed a trans urethral resection
2533of the prost ate (TURP) .
253925. As part of the TURP procedure, Dr. Gelman took samples
2550of Patient G.P.'s prost ate tissue and no evidence was found of
2562prostate cancer. Although Patient G.P. had no complaints
2570regarding his course of treatment from Respondent, Dr. Gelman
2579filed a complaint against Respondent because he was concerned
2588that Respondent prescribed medicat ions and performed HIFU on
2597Patient G.P. for prostate cancer without a tissue biopsy.
2606Facts Related to Patient J.W .
26122 6 . Patient J.W. , a 74 year - old retired dentist, had two
2626biopsies performed in 2005 and 2007 ordered by his urologist in
2637Alabama in res ponse to elevated PSA levels. No evidence of
2648malignancy was found.
265127. Patient J.W.'s PSA level was again elevated when tested
2661in March 2012. He was reluctant to have another biopsy because
2672the first two were painful. Patient J.W. was told about
2682R espondent by a friend , and he viewed Respondent's web site.
2693Patient J.W. was interested in consulting with Respondent because
2702Respondent advertised he had an MRI machine that could detect
2712cancer cells , and Respondent believed prostate biopsies spread
2720cance r.
272228. Patient J.W. traveled from Alabama to meet with
2731Respondent at the DCD on May 14 and 15, 2012. After a sonogram
2744and MRI, Respondent diagnosed Patient J.W. with prostate cancer.
2753Respondent discussed a trea tme nt plan which included what
2763Responde nt called "chemical castration" for a period of six
2773months , to be followed with a trip to Mexico for HIFU treatment
2785at the cost of $32,000.00 . Responde n t did not suggest any other
2800treatment options to Patient J.W. or recommend a tissue biopsy.
281029. T he idea of "chemical castration" scared Pat i e nt J.W. ,
2823who sought a second opinion in June 2012 from another urologist ,
2834Dr. M. Eric Brewer . Dr. Brewer told J.W. that HIFU was not an
2848accepted treatment in the United States for prostate can c er .
2860Patient J.W. declined to go forward with treatment by Respondent.
2870Dr. Brewer recommended A . S . and , as recommended by Dr. Brewer,
2883Patient J.W. ha s his PSA level checked every six months. Patient
2895J.W.'s PSA levels have decreased without any treatment.
290330. Dr. Br e wer discussed Patient J.W.'s case with his
2914partners , the tumor board, the president of the Southeastern
2923Urological Association , and the president of the American Board
2932of Urology , who unanimously advised Dr. Brewe r to file a
2943complaint with Petitioner agai nst Re sponde n t for cancer diagnosis
2955and recommending treatment in the absence of a pathologic
2964specimen.
2965Facts Related to Patient K . S.
297231. Patient K.S. is a 62 - year - old video producer and editor
2986from Tennessee. He has no family history of prostate ca ncer.
2997Patient K.S. had his PSA level tested in 2005 and 2009 , at which
3010time it was considered elevated.
301532. Patient K.S. was referred to a urologist by his primary
3026care physician. After again showing elevated PSA levels,
3034Patient K.S. underwent a p rostate biopsy in 2011 and 2012.
3045Neither biopsy was positive for prostate cancer. However,
3053Patient K.S. and his wife were concerned about his rising PSA
3064level and sought a second opinion.
307033. Patient K.S.' wife was concerned that if her husband
3080had prostate cancer, his local urologist would recommend removal
3089of the prostate. She researched alternative treatments on th e
3099Internet and found Responde n t's website.
310634. On Octobe r 15, 2012, Patient K.S. and his wif e traveled
3119to the DCD in Sarasota t o meet with Respondent. Respondent
3130initially performed an ultrasound on Patient K.S. and then told
3140Patient K.S. he was "concerned" Patient K.S. had prostate cancer.
3150He recommended HIFU treatment to Patient K.S.
315735. Respondent made it clear to Patie nt K.S. that
3167Responde n t would not perform a needle biopsy because it push es
3180cancer further into the prostate . Respondent told Patient K.S.
3190that the MRI would make it clear whether Patient K.S. had
3201prostate cancer. Later that same day, Patient K.S . had an MRI
3213performed at the D C D .
322036. Approximately a week later, Patient K.S. r eceived a
3230telephone call from Re sponde n t with the MRI results who told
3243Patient K.S. that based on the MRI, he had Gleason 7 prostate
3255cancer, a fairly aggressive form of prostate cancer that c ould be
3267treated with HIFU in Mexico the following month. This was
3277followed up with an e - mail from the DCD to Patient K.S. demanding
3291a payment of $32,000.00 within three days to schedule the HIFU
3303procedure in Mexico . Patient K.S.' wife immed iately secured a
3314bank loan for the $32,000.00
332037. Due to the seriousness of the diagnosis and the rush
3331for payment for HIFU, Patient K.S. visited his primary care
3341doctor for another opinion. Patient K.S' prima r y care doctor ,
3352Dr. Jeffrey Jump, told h im that no one can diagnose prostate
3364cancer as a Gleason 7 without a tissue biopsy. Further, it was a
" 3377red flag " to Dr. Jump that a cash payment of $32,000.00 was
3390expected in such a short time frame to schedule treatment.
340038. After speaking to Dr. Ju mp, Patient K.S. decided not to
3412have HIFU and instead opted for A . S. Subsequent PSA level tests
3425for Patient K.S. have shown a decrease in his PSA level . Patient
3438K.S.' wife filed a complaint with the Petitioner against
3447Respondent .
3449Facts Related to Patient V.P.
345439. Patient V.P. is a 63 - year - old construction worker and
3467guide from Alaska. He has no family history of prostate cancer.
347840. In August 2013, at age 60, Patient V.P. had his first
3490physical examination. As part of the exam, he took a PSA test ,
3502which showed an elevated PSA level of 6.3. As a result,
3513Patient V.P. was referred to a urologist who recommended a
3523biopsy .
352541. Patient V.P. heard from friends that prostate biopsies
3534are painful , so he looked on the I nternet for alternatives .
3546Patient V.P. found Respondent's website , which claimed Respondent
3554could diagnose prostate cancer without a biopsy by using new MRI
3565technology.
356642. Patient V.P. traveled to Sarasota to meet Respondent on
3576September 11, 2013. Respondent performed a d igital rectal exam
3586and told Patient V.P. that his prostate was much enlarged.
359643. Respondent next performed a prostate ultrasound on
3604Patient V.P. Immediately after the ultrasound, Responde n t told
3614Patient V.P., "I'm telling you right now you have pro state
3625cancer." Respondent provided Patient V.P. with a prescription
3633for Bicalutamide and T relstar , which Respondent said would wipe
3643out Patient V.P.'s testosterone and slow the growth of the
3653cancer.
365444. Respondent told P atient V.P. that prostate bio psies are
3665dangerous and metas t asize cancer c ells. Respondent said that
3676even though he knew Patient V.P. had cancer, he wanted an MRI to
3689see the amount of cancer. Respondent also offered Patient V.P.
3699the opportunity to participate in a private placement o ffering
3709for a HIFU company he was forming for a minimum investment of
3721$50,000.00.
372345. The following day, Patient V.P. had an MRI and then met
3735with Respondent to review the results. Respondent showed Patient
3744V.P. his MRI images and pointed to areas o f concern. Respondent
3756told Patient V.P. he had extensive prostate cancer and that
3766Patient V.P. did not have much time to decide whether to have
3778HIFU because the cancer was about to metastasize.
378646. Re sponde n t told Patient V.P. to take the B icalutami de
3800for ten days and then return for an injection of Trelstar to
3812atrophy his prostate and make him ready for HIFU in 90 days.
382447. At Respondent's direction, Patient V.P. began the
3832Bical utamide and then returned to the DCD on September 20 , 2013,
3844for a three - month injection of Trelstar. During this visit,
3855Patient V.P. questioned the cost if the HIFU was not successful
3866in getting all the cancer and he needed further treatment.
3876Respondent told Patient V.P. that he "doesn't miss , " but an
3886additional treatm ent of HIFU would cost another $10,000.00 to
3897$12,000.00, in addition to the $32,000.00 for the initial
3908treatment.
390948. C oncerned about these costs, Patient V.P. asked about
3919going to Loma Linda , California , for proton therapy as an
3929alternative. Respon dent told Patient V.P. that proton therapy
3938would cause bladder cancer and any alternative to HIFU would
3948require a needle biopsy first. Respondent actively discouraged
3956Patient V.P . from any non - HIFU treatment for prostate cancer.
396849. As soon as Patie nt V.P. questioned Respondent about
3978alternatives to HIFU, he was suddenly fast - tracked for HIFU
3989scheduled October 24 through 26, 2013. He was told he needed to
4001make a $10,000.00 deposit to hold the date and the total cost was
4015$32,000.00.
401750. Despite his concerns regarding the expedited scheduling
4025of his procedure and the cost of the HIFU treatment, Patient V.P.
4037returned to the office with a check for $10,000.00 to cover the
4050cost of the deposit to hold the October treatment d ate. While
4062w aiting to han d the check to Respondent's receptionist,
4072Patient V.P. overheard Respondent on a speakerphone arguing with
4081a radiologist concerning an MRI report. Respondent was insisting
4090the radiologist include the word "cancer" on MRI report s and the
4102radiologist insis ted it was not possible for him to make such a
4115diagnosis. After hearing this conversation, Patient V.P.
4122immediately left Respondent's office with his check.
412951. Patient V.P. subsequently discussed his experience with
4137a trusted friend who practiced a s a nurse in a cancer clinic.
4150She , too , expressed concerns about diagnosing and treating
4158prostate cancer without a biopsy. Patient V.P. was referred by
4168this friend to Dr. Vipul Patel, a physician specializing in
4178urologic cancer in Orlando.
418252. Pati ent V.P. met with Dr. Patel on October 18, 2013.
4194Dr. Patel advised Patient V.P. that it was not possible to
4205diagnose prostate cancer without a biopsy. Dr. Patel also
4214disputed that prostate biopsies can spread prostate cancer.
422253. Dr. Patel perfor med a digital rectal exam and found
4233Patient V.P.'s prostate to be slightly enlarged ( which is not
4244abnormal for a man of Patient V.P.'s age ) , normal , and smooth.
4256Dr. Patel told Patient V.P. that he doubted he had prostate
4267cancer. Patient V.P. then underw ent a prostate biopsy by
4277Dr. Patel , which was negative for prostate cancer. This was
4287surprising to Patient V.P. because Respondent led him to believe,
4297based on the MRI, that his prostate was full of cancer.
430854. Patient V.P. experienced significant side effects as a
4317result of taking the medications ordered by Respondent. The
4326Bicalutamide caused Patient V.P. to experience overwhelming
4333depression, shakes, hot flashes, tunnel vision , and headaches.
4341The Trelstar cause d erectile dy sfunction, increased f requency o f
4353hot flashes, night sweats , and made Patient V.P. so weak he was
4365unable to work for eight months.
4371Standard of Care
437455. As discussed above, t he experts who provided
4383deposition s o r live testimony in this case were unanimous in
4395their conclusi ons that the standard of care in Florida from 2008
4407through 2013 precluded diagnosis or treatment of prostate cancer
4416in the absence of a tissue biopsy. A reasonably prudent
4426physician would not tell a patient he had prostate cancer based
4437upon an ultrasound and/ or MRI. A reasonably prudent physician
4447would not prescribe medication, suggest treatment, or participate
4455in treating a patient for prostate cancer , based upon an
4465ultrasound or MRI.
446856. Respondent claims that in each of these cases, he
4478advised th e patient that a needle biopsy was the definitive test
4490for prostate cancer , but it was a method he did not favor due to
4504the pos sibility of needle tracking. Respondent's testimony in
4513this regard is not credible in light of the credible testimony of
4525the thr ee patients that Respondent made clear he would not
4536perform a needle biopsy and actively discouraged them from
4545anything other than diagnosis by MRI and subsequent HIFU
4554treatment. Respondent's suggestion, that he offered needle
4561biopsy as an option, is whol ly inconsistent with the title,
4572theme , and contents of his own book , an d the manner in which he
4586defined his method of diagnosing prostate cancer at the DCD in
4597his book and on his website .
460457 . It is self - evident that a patient ' s perceptions
4617regarding the safety and efficacy of needle biopsies for prostate
4627cancer detection are at least , in part , influenced by the
4637discussion with the physician. Respondent's active efforts to
4645dissuade these patients from having the one definitive test for
4655prostate cancer , by dramatically over - inflating the
4663infinitesimally small possibility of needle tracking, were wholly
4671inconsistent with the standard of care.
467758 . Respondent claims that these four patients insiste d
4687they did not want a needle biopsy, theref or e , it wa s appropriate
4701to diagnos e them on the basis of " a preponderance of the evidence
4714a nd concordance of data " and move forward with a treatment plan ,
4726including medications and HIFU.
473059 . The standard of care in Florida during 2008 through
47412013 , for a situa tion in which a patient suspected of having
4753prostate cancer refused a needle biopsy , was to prescribe a
4763course of A . S . , including regular and frequent PSA testing, and
4776to offer no other treatment. 7/
4782Ultimate Factual Determinations
478560. Petitioner esta blished by clear and convincing evidence
4794that Respondent commit t ed medical malpractice in his treatment of
4805Patients G.P., J.W., K.S., and V.P. by the following violations
4815of the standard of care:
4820a. f ailing to obtain and review prostate
4828biopsy results bef ore confirming the patient
4835had, or diagnosing the patient with , prostate
4842cancer ( Patients G.P., J.W., K.S., and V.P. );
4851b. p rescribing Bicalutamide/Casodex to a
4857patient without first confirming through a
4863prostate tissue biopsy that the patient has
4870prostat e cancer ( Pat i e nts G.P. and V.P);
4881c. p rescri b ing, injecting, or authorizing
4889the in j ection of Trelstar to a patient
4898without first confirming through biops y
4904results that the patient has pr ostate cancer
4912(Patient V.P);
4914d. r ecommending and/or attempting to
4920facilitate HIFU treatment without first
4925confirming through biops y results that the
4932patient has prostate cancer (Patients G.P.,
4938J.W., K.S., and V.P.); and
4943e. p articipating in, and/or assi s ting with
4952the performance of HIFU treatment for a
4959patient without f irst confirming through
4965biopsy results that the patient has prostate
4972cancer (Patient G.P.).
4975Accordingly, Respondent is guilty of the offense d efined in
4985section 458.331(1)(t) , Florida Statutes .
4990CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
499361 . DOAH has personal and subject matter j urisdiction in
5004this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),
5012Florida Statutes .
501562. A proceeding to suspend, revoke, or impose other
5024discipline upon a license is penal in nature. State ex rel.
5035Vining v. Fla. Real Estate Comm'n , 281 So. 2d 487, 491 (Fla.
50471973). Petitioner must theref ore prove the charges against
5056Respondent by clear and convincing evidence. Fox v. Dep't of
5066Health , 994 So. 2d 416, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)(citing Dep't of
5078Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 ( Fla.
50921996)).
509363. The clear and convincing standard of proof has been
5103described by the Florida Supreme Court:
5109Clear and convincing evidence requires that
5115the evidence must be found to be credible;
5123the facts to which the witnesses testify must
5131be distinctl y remembered; the testimony must
5138be precise and explicit and the witnesses
5145must be lacking in confusion as to the facts
5154in issue. The evidence must be of such
5162weight that it produces in the mind of the
5171trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,
5179without he sitancy, as to the truth of the
5188allegations sought to be established.
5193In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting Slomowitz v.
5205Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).
521564. Disciplinary statutes and rules "must always be
5223construed s trictly in favor of the one against whom the penalty
5235would be imposed and are never to be extended by construction."
5246Griffis v. Fish & Wildlife Conserv. Comm'n , 57 So. 3d 929, 931
5258(Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Munch v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., Div. of Real
5271Estate, 592 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
528065. The grounds proving Petitioner's assertion that
5287Respondent's license should be disciplined must be those
5295spe cifically alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
5303See e.g. , Trevisani v. Dep't of Health , 908 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st
5316DCA 2005); Kinney v. Dep't of State , 501 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA
53301987); and Hunter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg. , 458 So. 2d 842 (Fla.
53432d DCA 1984).
5346Medical Malpractice
534866. Section 458.331(1)(t) provides that it is a violation
5357for a medical doctor to commit medical malpractice, as defined in
5368section 456.50. Section 456.50(1)(g) defines "medical
5374malpractice" as the failure to practice medicine in accordance
5383with the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in
5393general law related to health care licensure.
540067. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that
5409Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t) by falling below the
5417standard of care for doctors in the state of Florida and by
5429failing to obtain a tissue biopsy positi ve for prostate cancer
5440before : diagnosing prostate cancer; recommending treatment for
5448prostate cancer; commencing treatment to shrink prostates with
5456medications; recommending HIFU ; and performing HIFU.
546268. Respondent does not dispute that the existin g standard
5472of care is a tissue biopsy for the diagnosis and treatment of
5484prostate cancer. 8/ However, Respondent asserts that he is on the
5495cutting edge of medicine by diagnosi ng prostate can cer using
55063T MRI - s and treating prostate cancer with HIFU , and it is time
5520that the standard of care be modified in accordance with his
5531practice .
553369. In support of this contention, Respondent points to
5542several recent articles which support the efficacy of this
5551diagnosis and treatment protocol . 9 / Respondent also cites to
5562section 456.41 which permits physicians to offer complementary
5570and alternative health care treatments to patients .
557870. Significantly, the articles relied upon by Respondent
5586were published after the diagnosis and treatment of the patients
5596at issue in this action. Further, these articles do not advocate
5607for the use of MRI technology to diagnos e prostate cancer.
5618Rather, they suggest MRI has a developing role in guided prostate
5629biopsy procedures for diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer
5638a nd emphasize that further study is needed. 10 /
564871. While section 456.41 a uthorizes a health care
5657practitioner to "recommend any mode of treatment that is, in his
5668or her judgment, in the best interests of the patient, including
5679complimentary or alterna tive health care treatments, in
5687accordance with the p rovisions of his or her license, " the
5698practitioner must inform the patient of the benefits and risks
5708associated with the treatment for the patient to make an informed
5719and prudent decision rega rding the t reatment option.
5728§ 456.41(3)(c) , Fla. Stat . This section does not " alter, in any
5740way the provis i ons of the individual practice acts for those
5752licensees, which require licensees to practice within their
5760respective standards of care. " § 456.41(5), Fla. S tat.
576972. Respondent gross ly exaggerated the risks of prostate
5778biopsy while shamelessly promoting MRI technology as the premier
5787diagnostic tool for prostate cancer. Respondent lured patients
5795from around the country to Florida with the false promise o f a
5808pain - free , accurate diagnostic procedure , and promoted an
5817unapproved, expensive treatment outside the United States.
582473. Respondent built his entire business model and
5832advertised his services of prostate cancer diagnosis and
5840treatment without a n eedle biopsy knowing this violated the
5850standard of care. At a minimum, the conversation between the
5860radiologi st and Respondent overheard by P atient V.P. demonstrates
5870that Respondent knew or should have known that prostate cancer
5880diagnosis is not possible w ith a 3T MRI - s. Respondent is well
5894aware that no other licensed physician in the United States is
5905purporting to diagnose and treat prostate cancer without a tissue
5915biopsy, other than in exceptional circumstances, which did not
5924exist for these four patien ts.
593074 . Whether Respondent was motivated by his sincere, but
5940misguided , belief that prostate biopsies spread cancer, or by
5949greed, is irrelevant to the determination of a violation .
5959Respondent violated the standard of care by telling patients they
5969ha d prostate cancer without a confirmatory prostate tissue
5978biopsy. Respondent not only failed to disclose to these patients
5988that 3T MRI - s technology cannot defini tively diagnose prostate
5999cancer but actively discouraged these patients from obtaining
6007biopsies that we now know would likely show no cancer.
6017Recommending a course of "chemical castration" and HIFU in the
6027absence of a positive tissue biopsy violates the standard of
6037care, constitutes malpractice , and is nothing less than barbaric .
6047Penalty Assessment
604975 . Respondent has no prior discipline against his medical
6059license.
606076 . Petitioner imposes penalties upon licensees consistent
6068with disciplinary guidelines prescribed by rule. See Parrot
6076Heads, Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. , 741 So. 2d 1231,
60891233 - 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
609677 . Penalties in a licensure discipline case may not exceed
6107those in effect at the time the violations were committed.
6117Willner v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., Bd. of Med. , 563 So. 2d 805, 806
6131(Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. deni ed , 576 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1991).
6144Id.
614578 . At the time of the incidents, Florida Administrative
6155Code Rule 64B8 - 8.001(2)(t) provided that for a first - time
6167offender committing medical malpractice, as described in section
6175458.331(1)(t), the prescribed pen alty range was from one year
6185probation to revocation or denial and an administrative fine from
6195$1,000.00 to $10,000.00. The recommended penalty for a second
6206violation of section 458.331(1)(t) ranged from two years of
6215probation to revocation and an adminis trative fine from $5,000.00
6226to $10,000.00.
622979 . Rule 64B8 - 8.001(3) provided that, in applying the
6240penalty guidelines, the following aggravating and mitigating
6247circumstances should also be taken into account:
6254(3) Aggravating and Mitigating
6258Circumstan ces. Based upon consideration of
6264aggravating and mitigating factors present in
6270an individual case, the Board may deviate
6277from the penalties recommended above. The
6283Board shall consider as aggravating or
6289mitigating factors the following:
6293(a) Exposure of patient or public to injury
6301or potential injury, physical or otherwise:
6307none, slight, severe, or death;
6312(b) Legal status at the time of the offense:
6321no restraints, or legal constraints;
6326(c) The number of counts or separate
6333offenses established;
6335(d ) The number of times the same offense or
6345offenses have previously been committed by
6351the licensee or applicant;
6355(e) The disciplinary history of the
6361applicant or licensee in any jurisdiction and
6368the length of practice;
6372(f) Pecuniary benefit or self - g ain inuring
6381to the applicant or licensee;
6386(g) The involvement in any violation of
6393Section 458.331, F.S., of the provision of
6400controlled substances for trade, barter or
6406sale, by a licensee. In such cases, the
6414Board will deviate from the penalties
6420recomm ended above and impose suspension or
6427revocation of licensure.
6430(h) Where a licensee has been charged with
6438violating the standard of care pursuant to
6445Section 458.331(1)(t), F.S., but the
6450licensee, who is also the records owner
6457pursuant to Section 456.057( 1), F.S., fails
6464to keep and/or produce the medical records.
6471(i) Any other relevant mitigating factors.
647780 . A significant aggravating factor is that Respondent's
6486actions exposed the public , and Pa tients J.W. and K.S. , to
6497potential severe physical injury , and treated Patients G.P. and
6506V.P. resulting in severe injury . Aggravating factor (c) applies
6516because Petitioner established four separate offenses commi tted
6524by Respondent.
652681. T his is mitigated by Respondent's prior discipline - free
6537history.
6538RECOMMENDATION
6539Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
6549Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final
6561order finding that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t),
6568Florida Statutes, as charged in Amended Administrativ e
6576Complaint s ; imposing a fine of $ 30,000.00 ; revoking Respondent's
6587medical license ; and imposing costs of the investigation and
6596prosecution of this case.
6600DONE AND ENTERED this 2 4th day of February , 2017 , in
6611Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
6615S
6616MARY LI CREASY
6619Administrative Law Judge
6622Division of Administrative Hearings
6626The DeSoto Building
66291230 Apalachee Parkway
6632Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
6637(850) 488 - 9675
6641Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
6647www.doah.state.fl.us
6648Filed with the C lerk of the
6655Division of Administrative Hearings
6659this 24th day of February , 2017 .
6666ENDNOTE S
66681/ Responde n t's Exhibit 18, Theresa M. Koppie, Brian P. Grady,
6680and Katsuto Shinohara, Rectal Wall Recurrence of Prostate
6688Adenocarcinoma , 168 J. of Urology 2120 (N ov. 2002).
66972/ Respondent's Exhibit 19, S.S. Bastacky, P.C. Walsh, and
6706J.I. Epstein , Needle Biopsy Associated Tumor Tracking of
6714Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate , 145 J. of Urology 1003 ( May
67251991).
67263/ Ronald E. Wheeler, Men at Risk: the Dirty Little Secre t Î
6739Prostate Bio psies Really Do Spread P rostate Cancer Cells ,
6749pp. 50, 128, 145, 148, 149 (2012).
67564/ Id. at 269.
67605/ Id. at back cover.
67656/ Joint Exhibit 1, page 51, "HIFU Î Procedure Report f o r
6778Prostate Cancer."
67807/ Respondent's expert, Sarat Sabharw al, M.D., suggested that if
6790a patient has a particularly unique medical basis for refusing a
6801needle biopsy, it might be appropriate to trea t for suspected
6812prostate cancer. H owever, Dr. Sabharwal admitted that based upon
6822his review of the medical records o f each of these patients, none
6835of them had such a condition that would warrant treatment in the
6847absence of a confirmatory tissue biopsy . Further, Dr. Sabharwal
6857confirmed that "in the time period between 2008 and 2013, any
6868patient that he [Respondent] atte mpted to treat for prostate
6878cancer without a confirmatory biopsy would have resulted in a
6888deviation from the standard of care." Petitioner's Exhibit 10,
689754/25 - 55/9.
69008/ See Transcript of the final hearing, Vol. 2, 233/12 - 15 ;
6912241/6 - 22 ; 248/9 - 249/8 .
69199 / Respondent's Ex. 8, Thomas P, Frye, Amichai Kilchevsky, Arvin
6930K. George, and Peter Pinto, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance
6938Imaging for Prostate Cancer , 35 AUA Update Series Lesson 14,
6948pp. 137 - 152 ( 2016); Respondent's Ex. 9, Baris Turkbey, Anna M.
6961Brown , Sandeep Sankineni, Bradford J. Wood, Peter Pinto, and
6970Peter Choyke, Mul t iparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging
6979in the Evaluation of Prostate Cancer , 66 CA: A Cancer Journal for
6991Clinicians Issue 4, pp, 326 - 336 (July/Au g. 2016); Respondent's
7002Ex. 1 0, Robert K. Nam, Christopher J.D. Wallis, Jessica Stojcic -
7014Bendavid, Laurent Millot, Christopher Sherman, Linda Sugar, and
7022Ma so om A. Haider , A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Role of Magnetic
7036Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Screening in the General
7045Popul ation , 196 J. of Urology Issue 2, pp. 361 - 366 (Aug. 2016).
705910 / Frye et al., supra note 9 , at 147 ( " The potential future use
7074of mpMRI is as a screening test in conjunction with PSA or novel
7087biomarkers to provide a filter to identify patients who may
7097benef it most from undergoing prostate biopsy. Of course,
7106determining the appropriate screening population will require
7113careful investigation until widespread adoption of this approach
7121can be implemented . ") ; Turkeby et al., supra note 9 , at 336
7134( " There are seve ral challenges facing prostate mpMRI. First, the
7145existing clinical data, although very compelling, cannot be
7153categorized as "Level 1" evidence, as it is largely derived from
7164single - institution studies. Larger, multi - ins t itutional studies
7175are needed befor e mpMRI becomes the standard of care. " ) ; Nam et
7188al., supra note 9 , at 364 (" This preliminary study suggests that
7200it may be reasonable to consider prostate MRI for prostate cancer
7211screening, although larger studies are required before
7218implementation . . . In this pilot study, we found that prostate
7230cancer screening using multiparametric prostate MRI is feasible
7238for use in the general population. We propose that prostate MRI
7249should be further evaluated in a prostate screening study . ").
7260COPIES FURNISHED:
7262Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire
7266Weekley Schulte Valdes, LLC
7270Suite 100
72721635 North Tampa Street
7276Tampa, Florida 33602
7279(eServed)
7280Jack F. Wise, Esquire
7284Department of Health
7287Bin C - 65
72914052 Bald Cypress Way
7295Tallahassee, Florida 32399
7298(eServed)
7299Nichole C. Gear y, General Counsel
7305Department of Health
73084052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02
7314Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1701
7319(eServed)
7320Claudia Kemp, JD, Executive Director
7325Board of Medicine
7328Department of Health
73314052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C03
7337Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3253
7342( eServed)
7344NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
7350All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
736015 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
7371to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
7382will issue the F inal Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 04/24/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Exceptions to Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/24/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent's Exceptions to Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/13/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent's Exceptions to Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/24/2017
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/03/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
- Date: 01/09/2017
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volumes 1-2 (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 01/09/2017
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volumes 1-2 (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 12/08/2016
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/01/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Re-Filing Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/23/2016
- Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Hearing Scheduling and Unavailability filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/25/2016
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Unopposed Motion to Incorporate/Consolidate Filings filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/24/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for December 8 and 9, 2016; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota and Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/21/2016
- Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 16-6136PL, 16-6148PL, 16-6149PL, 16-6150PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/14/2016
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Re-open Proceeding filed. (FORMERLY DOAH CASE NO. 16-1630PL) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/08/2016
- Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the Department's Proposed Exhibits to the agency filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/15/2016
- Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the Department's Proposed Exhibits to the agency filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/15/2016
- Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the Department's four-volume Proposed Exhibits to the agency filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/12/2016
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/10/2016
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for August 17 and 18, 2016; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to dates and location).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/19/2016
- Proceedings: Cross Notice of Taking Deposition by Skype (Dr. Stephen Leslie) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/14/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Dr. Sarat Sabharwal) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Dr. Stephen Leslie) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/09/2016
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Dennis Donahue) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/26/2016
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for August 17 through 19, 2016; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/16/2016
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Dr. Vipul Patel) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/05/2016
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Patient G.P.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and First St of Requests for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/29/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Dr. Dennis Donahue) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/29/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Respondent, Ronald Evan Wheeler, M.D.'s Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/29/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Respondent, Ronald Evan Wheeler, M.D.'s Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/29/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Respondent, Ronald Evan Wheeler, M.D.'s Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Request for Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/26/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Patient J.W.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/26/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Dr. Eric Brewer) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2016
- Proceedings: Joint Motion for Amended Order on Request to Take Judicial Notice filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Dr. Joel Gelman) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Patient V.P.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/19/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Patient K.S.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/19/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Patient G.P.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/19/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Dr. Jeffrey Jump) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/18/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony (Dr. Vipul Patel) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/05/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Respondent, Ronald Wheeler, M.D.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/31/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Request for Poduction filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/30/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 15 through 17, 2016; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/29/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's First Set of Requests for Admission, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- MARY LI CREASY
- Date Filed:
- 10/20/2016
- Date Assignment:
- 10/20/2016
- Last Docket Entry:
- 04/24/2017
- Location:
- Sarasota, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
- Suffix:
- PL
Counsels
-
Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire
Department of Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65
Tallahassee, FL 323993265
(850) 245-4640 -
Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire
Weekley Schulte Valdes, LLC
Suite 100
1635 North Tampa Street
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 221-1154 -
Jack F. Wise, Esquire
Department of Health
Bin C-65
4052 Bald Cypress Way
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 245-4444 -
Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire
Address of Record -
Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire
Address of Record -
Jack F. Wise, Esquire
Address of Record