21.07.2013 Views

CONSENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN - State Medical Board of Ohio ...

CONSENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN - State Medical Board of Ohio ...

CONSENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN - State Medical Board of Ohio ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Matter <strong>of</strong> Kyle Elliott Hoogendoorn, D.P.M. Page 35<br />

76. Dr. Hoogendoorn testified that, prior to issuing a prescription, he had seen and evaluated the<br />

patient and made recommendations to Dr. Leak or Dr. Griffin. He stated that Dr. Leak or<br />

Dr. Griffin had approved in advance all prescriptions that he issued. In addition,<br />

Dr. Hoogendoorn testified that either Dr. Leak or Dr. Griffin had reviewed each printed<br />

prescription to be sure it was printed correctly prior to the prescription being handed to a<br />

patient. (Tr. at 2508-2509)<br />

Moreover, Dr. Hoogendoorn testified that one can tell from the medical record that either<br />

Dr. Leak or Dr. Griffin had approved a prescription by reviewing the discharge summary<br />

for the patient visit. Dr. Hoogendoorn testified that the discharge summaries had been<br />

countersigned by either Dr. Leak or Dr. Griffin. (Tr. at 2509)<br />

Further Testimony <strong>of</strong> Dr. Chelimsky<br />

77. Dr. Chelimsky testified that the medical records reflect that Dr. Hoogendoorn had prescribed<br />

or changed medications that were utilized for non-podiatric conditions. Dr. Chelimsky<br />

further testified that, although Dr. Hoogendoorn had in many cases dictated progress notes<br />

indicating that he had prescribed these medications under the direct supervision <strong>of</strong> Dr. Leak<br />

or Dr. Griffin, there were no signatures on those progress notes from Dr. Leak or Dr. Griffin<br />

documenting their agreement with the new treatment. Dr. Chelimsky opined that<br />

Dr. Hoogendoorn had thus engaged in practice that was beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> his practice as a<br />

podiatrist. (St. Ex. 28 at 4-5; Tr. at 1632-1643)<br />

Dr. Chelimsky subsequently testified that, in cases where Dr. Leak signed the discharge<br />

summary for a patient visit where Dr. Hoogendoorn had treated a patient, he would not<br />

consider it inappropriate. However, Dr. Chelimsky further testified that, if Dr. Griffin had<br />

signed the note and had also been a fellow at that time, he considers it inappropriate<br />

because the issuance <strong>of</strong> the prescription must be approved by an attending physician in<br />

charge <strong>of</strong> the patient. Dr. Chelimsky testified that one fellow cannot sign another fellow’s<br />

notes. (Tr. at 2001-2003) Dr. Chelimsky further testified:<br />

Either you have a fellowship with clearly defined fellows and clearly defined<br />

attendings and the attendings are teaching the fellows. If you have a<br />

fellowship program and a second-year fellow is signing a first-year fellow’s<br />

note, that’s not appropriate.<br />

(Tr. at 2003)<br />

Testimony <strong>of</strong> Dr. Bressi<br />

78. Dr. Bressi testified that, as a fellow, if Dr. Hoogendoorn had recommended a particular<br />

prescription and gained approval from Dr. Griffin or Dr. Leak, Dr. Hoogendoorn could<br />

have signed the prescription himself because he was a licensed physician with a DEA<br />

registration. Dr. Bressi further testified that he did not find that to be inappropriate.<br />

(Tr. at 2478-2479)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!