State Medical Board Seeks Increased Fine in Abortion Case
The Florida Board of Medicine is recommending that physician Harvey Craig Roth pay a $10,000 fine and take additional courses because of performing a surgical abortion on a 35-year-old woman instead of a medication-induced abortion.
June 11, 2019 at 02:05 PM
5 minute read
Alarmed by how a Florida physician handled an abortion, a state licensing board has recommended that the doctor pay a fine that is more than three times what regulators had initially recommended.
The Florida Board of Medicine is recommending that physician Harvey Craig Roth pay a $10,000 fine and take additional courses because of performing a surgical abortion on a 35-year-old woman instead of a medication-induced abortion.
In making the recommendation, the board on Friday more than tripled a $3,000 fine sought by state health attorneys, who said that amount was “in line with board precedent” for the type of error involved. The board decision isn't final. Roth can agree to it or pursue a challenge.
The Board of Medicine, which consists largely of physicians selected by the governor, spent time during a meeting in Miami verbally sparring with Roth over whether he followed rules intended to cut down on mistakes.
One rule requires physicians to pause before surgery to ensure they have the right patient, the right site and are performing the right surgery. The pause must be performed again if physicians leave the room at any time during the procedure or surgery.
But Roth, who acknowledged he did not follow the pause rule, said Friday he didn't think that affected the work he was conducting at the abortion clinic, A Woman's Center of Hollywood. Roth works at the Broward County clinic between three and five hours a week, according to state records.
The board more than tripled the proposed fine after Roth's concession and after board members pressed him for details on how the mistake could have occurred.
According to state documents, the patient, identified by the initials K.N.M., went to the clinic seeking the so-called morning after pill, which first requires women to have a sonogram. After K.N.M. checked into the clinic in December 2017 and had her vital signs taken, a medical assistant walked her to a waiting room to wait her turn for a sonogram.
Roth told board members that before performing the procedure, he had a brief conversation with the woman and several times used the name “Ashley” instead of her actual name. She did not correct him about the name.
Board of Medicine Vice Chairman Hector Vila grilled Roth on details surrounding the procedure, asking Roth whether he followed the proper informed-consent requirements in the law.
“What position was the patient in when you were doing that?” Vila, a physician from Tampa, asked Roth about the informed-consent discussion.
“It was while I was doing the ultrasound,” Roth answered.
“In medical terms, what position was she in?” Vila asked again.
Roth, who is certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, answered, “supine.”
Roth continued, telling the board members he talked to the patient during the sonogram, asking her if she had questions.
“She said, 'no,' ” Roth said. “I told her that I was going to give her some medication. We started on IV. I gave her some sedation.”
Roth acknowledged he never specifically told the woman she was going to have a surgical abortion as opposed to a “medical” termination. Medical terminations can occur in the early stages of the first trimester and can be accomplished by ingesting medicine.
According to documents filed with the state, Roth learned of the mistake when the patient was taken to recovery. Roth's attorneys said the doctor immediately “apologized for the error and twice explained to her what had happened.”
Moreover, Roth's attorneys said he immediately documented the incident in the woman's medical records. His attorneys said that while Roth documented the incident in the patient's records, the clinic allegedly removed the information from her chart.
The records were reinserted into the patient's file, according to Roth's attorneys, after the doctor discovered they were removed. The clinic did not immediately comment.
Roth refused to say that the clinic was “sloppy” and said a similar mistake should never occur again under revised procedures.
Physician Steven Rosenberg, the chairman of the Board of Medicine, asked that the Agency for Health Care Administration be contacted about the facility.
The initial complaint into the incident was filed by the patient. In an interview with the state, she said she had not agreed to have to a surgical abortion but was told she must sign documents before she could leave.
“K.N.M. stated this was traumatic, and she felt a violation of her body,” the complaint said.
Roth told the board he has made changes to his personal practice to prevent such incidents from occurring again. He no longer addresses patients by their first names. His patients are required to identify themselves to him and say out loud the procedures they are having.
Vila, though, was not satisfied with Roth's answers.
“I think he's lacking any sense of responsibility for the true care of the patient in the facility,” Vila said. “Whether you just work in the facility or whatever, the conduct of the care of the patient is your responsibility. You can't just walk in and say, 'I'm just here to do a certain procedure,' ” adding, “That patient is your responsibility.”
Christine Sexton reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readAttorneys, Health Care Officials Face Nearly $80M RICO Suit Over Allegedly Fabricated Spreadsheet
Amid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Georgia Justices Urged to Revive Malpractice Suit Against Retired Barnes & Thornburg Atty
- 2How Gibson Dunn Lawyers Helped Assemble the LA FireAid Benefit Concert in 'Extreme' Time Crunch
- 3Lawyer Wears Funny Ears When Criticizing: Still Sued for Defamation
- 4Medical Student's Error Takes Center Stage in High Court 'Agency' Dispute
- 5'A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250