UMDNJ ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL
- 1/31/2020—SURRENDER OF CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE.
- 5/29/2019—ACCUSATION FILED.
- 6/15/2018— ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION ISSUED
- CITATION NUMBER: 8002018044664
- CAUSE FOR CITATION: You violated the terms and conditions contained in the Decision placing you on probation by failing to maintain a current and renewed California physician's and surgeon's license, failing to submit to quarterly declarations, and failing to report a change of address to the Board.
- FINE AMOUNT: $700.00
- DATE RESOLVED: N/A
- 7/03/2017— ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION ISSUED
- CITATION NUMBER: 8002017034286
- CAUSE FOR CITATION: You violated Conditions #2, #3 and #4 contained in the Decision placing you on probation by failing to enroll in a Medical Record Keeping Course, Professionalism Program (Ethics Course), and Clinical Competence Assessment Program.
- FINE AMOUNT: $350.00
- DATE RESOLVED: NOVEMBER 30, 2018
- 4/27/2017—THIRTY-FIVE (35) MONTHS PROBATION WITH VARIOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. RESTRICTIONS: PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN THE SOLO PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SUPERVISING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AND ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSES.
- 8/28/2015—TEXAS MEDICAL LICENSE IS MONITORED, ASSESSED A MONETARY PENALTY, REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ADDITIONAL CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION (CME), AND SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED AN EXAMINATION.
Excerpt from Accusation dated 12/30/2015:
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Discipline, Restriction, or Limitation Imposed by Another State)
4. On August 28, 2015, the Texas Medical Board issued an Agreed Order regarding Respondent's license to practice in Texas. The Agreed Order contains findings that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care in his treatment of three patients. Specifically, Respondent failed to meet the standard of care performing an abdominoplasty as to one patient; failed to obtain informed consent from a patient for the use of transcutaneous sutures during the first revision surgery following a breast augmentation; and performed a trans-umbilical breast augmentation on a third patient which was contra-indicated and required revision surgeries that were unsuccessful. In addition, the Board found that Respondent failed to follow Board rules for office-based anesthesia and failed to keep adequate medical records. Pursuant to the Order, Respondent is subject to terms and conditions, including but not limited to the following: 1) monitoring by another physician for eight consecutive monitoring cycles; 2) pass the Medical Jurisprudence Exam within one year and three attempts; 3) provide documentation within 30 days which demonstrates that personnel involved with surgical procedures have the proper certification; 4) complete 44 hours of in-person continuing medical education courses within one year; and 5) pay an administrative fine in the amount of$3,000.00. A copy of the Agreed Order issued by the Texas Medical Board is attached as Exhibit A.
5. Respondent's conduct and the action of the Texas Medical Board as set forth in paragraph 4, above, constitute unprofessional conduct within the meaning of section 2305 and conduct subject to discipline within the meaning of section 141 (a).
Excerpt from Accusation dated 5/29/2019:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Patient 11 was initially seen by Respondent at Boris Cosmetic Center on June 17, 2016, for a cosmetic surgery consult for a "Mommy-Makeover." Respondent recommended a breast augmentation, abdominoplasty and fat transfer to the buttocks. Following the consultation, the patient elected to undergo a breast augmentation, liposuction and abdominoplasty procedure. During this initial visit, the patient arranged financing for the surgery. A fee ticket dated June 17, 2016 indicates a charge of $10,000 for "TT" and "BAM", common abbreviations for tummy tuck and breast augmentation procedures. Surgery was scheduled for June 24, 2016.
9. On the morning of June 24, 2016, Patient 1 presented to West LA Venice Surgery Center (in the same building as the Boris Cosmetic Center) for the surgery. The patient was seen by Respondent pre-operatively at which time she was informed that her Care Credit financing was arranged for breast augmentation, abdominoplasty and fat transfer to the buttocks (BBL). Patient 1 indicated that Respondent informed her that credit could not be applied to other procedures and to proceed with the planned operation she must undergo a fat transfer to the buttocks and pay an additional amount for the necessary liposuction. After a discussion with Respondent, Patient 1 agreed to proceed with the BBL and liposuction. She made an additional payment of $5,000 as reflected on a Care Credit financing receipt dated June 24, 2016.
10. Respondent documented a pre-operative physical on June 24, 2016. No breast asymmetry is noted. Respondent notes that the volume of the breasts are equal with the questionable possibility of the left being greater than the right. Preoperative photos were taken Consent documents were signed that do not demonstrate a significant asymmetry of breast size by the patient.
11. Respondent's operative note dated June 24, 2016 reflects that he performed a bilateral saline breast augmentation, full abdominoplasty, liposuction of the abdomen flank and back, and fat transfer to the gluteal areas at West LA Venice Surgery Center. In his operative report, Respondent sets forth that "the real Allergan HP 390-420 implant was placed in the left pocket and filled with saline to 400 cc, and an Allergan 450-420 implant was placed in the right pocket and filled to 500 cc." Full abdominoplasty, liposuction and fat transfer to the buttocks were also performed. No complications were noted.
12. Patient 1 followed up with Respondent post-operatively and complained of size asymmetry in her breasts. The progress notes in the patient's chart reflect that she was seen post-operatively on July 1, 2016, July 8, 2016, July 18, 2016, August 2, 2016 and September 2, 2016. The only progress note written and signed by Respondent is the note dated September 2, 2016. He recalls seeing the patient on July 8, 2016 but did not co-sign the progress note.
13. On September 2, 2016, Respondent's progress note reflects that the patient's left breast implant should be bigger. He recommended a revision of the left side and instructed the patient to return in 3 1/2 months. Photographs taken post-operatively appear to demonstrate moderate asymmetry with a smaller left versus right breast.
14. On December 21, 2016, the patient was scheduled to undergo a revision of the left breast implant surgery by Respondent at no charge. The chart notes of that date are incomplete. Respondent did not show up to the scheduled surgery and the patient left the facility without undergoing the surgery. Respondent did not reschedule and perform the revision surgery nor did he refer the patient to another surgeon.
STANDARD OF CARE
15. The standard of care for a cosmetic surgeon requires that when performing breast augmentation procedures, the cosmetic surgeon assess the patient's breast symmetry and size as part of the pre-operative evaluation and document any significant asymmetry. Further, the standard of care requires the surgeon to have implants available to accommodate any adjustments to size in order to achieve the best symmetry and to use good judgment in selecting the type of implant and final fill volumes.
16. The standard of care for a cosmetic surgeon requires that the surgeon also provide for a transfer of care to another similarly qualified surgeon for treatment of a post-operative complication if the surgeon does not provide the treatment himself.
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Repeated Negligent Acts)
17. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code in that he engaged in repeated acts of negligence in the care and treatment of Patient l. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 8 through 16, above, as though fully set forth herein. The circumstances are as follows:
18. Respondent used different size breast implants on Patient 1 which resulted in moderate size asymmetry. Respondent failed to either document an existing asymmetry or appreciate the asymmetry pre-operatively and discuss the need for different size implants with the patient pre-operatively. The sequelae of Respondent's error in clinical examination or documentation resulted in the patient needing an additional revision surgery to correct the cosmetic issue of size asymmetry.
19. Respondent did not correct the patient's post-operative complication and failed to transfer the patient's care to another provider for continued care.
20. Respondent's acts and/or omissions as set forth in paragraphs 8 through 19, above, whether proven individually, jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitute repeated negligent acts pursuant to section 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code. Therefore, cause for discipline exists.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Failure to Maintain Adequate Records)
21. Respondent's license is subject to disciplinary action under section 2266 of the Code in that he failed to maintain adequate records relating to his care and treatment of Patient 1. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 8 through 14, above, as though fully set forth herein.
DISCIPLINARY CONSIDERATIONS
22. To determine the degree of discipline, if any, to be imposed on Respondent, Complainant alleges that, in a prior disciplinary action entitled In the Matter of the Accusation Against Peter Vail Driscoll, MD. before the Medical Board of California, in Case Number 800-2015-016792, Respondent's license was revoked for discipline, restriction, or limitation imposed by another state in the failure to meet the standard of care in his care and treatment of three patients in Texas. However, the revocation of Respondent's license was stayed and Respondent was placed on thirty-five months of probation, effective April 27, 2017, with the requirement that he complete a Clinical Training Program, maintain a practice monitor and other standard terms and conditions. That decision is now final and is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
23. To determine the degree of discipline, if any, to be imposed on Respondent, Complainant alleges that on August 28, 2015, the Texas Medical Board issued an Agreed Order regarding Respondent's license to practice medicine in. Texas. The Agreed Order contains findings that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care in his treatment of three patients. Specifically, Respondent failed to meet the standard of care performing an abdominoplasty as to one patient; failed to obtain informed consent from a patient for the use of transcutaneous sutures during the first revision surgery following a breast augmentation; and performed a trans-umbilical breast augmentation on a third patient which was contra-indicated and required revision surgeries that were unsuccessful. In addition, the Board found that Respondent failed to follow Board rules for office-based anesthesia and failed to keep adequate medical records. Pursuant to the Order, Respondent was subject to various terms and conditions. On August 17, 2016, the Texas Medical Board filed a formal complaint against Respondent's license to practice medicine in Texas. That complaint was amended on April 5, 2017 and again on May 31, 2018. On October 4, 2018, Respondent's license to practice medicine in Texas was no longer active. On March 1, 2019, the formal complaint of the Texas Medical Board against Respondent's medical license number M0059 was dismissed secondary to his license no longer being active.
#35 Months |
