Disciplinary Action against Paula Davey, M.D.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
In 1995, Paula Davey, M.D. signed a consent agreement under which Michigan's Board of Medicine reprimanded and placed her on probation for 18 months. The agreement settled charges (shown below) that she had improperly treated patients by (a) using inappropriate tests for allergies, adrenal dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction and (b) inappropriately diagnosing chemical sensitivities and Candida (yeast) overgrowth.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
BOARD OF MEDICINE
In the Matter of
PAULA G. DAVEY. M.D..
The people of the state of Michigan, by Attorney General Frank J. Kelley, by Assistant Attorney General Phillip I. Frame, file this complaint against Paula G. Davey, M.D, (Respondent), alleging upon information and belief as follows:
1. The Board of Medicine (Board), an administrative agency established by the Public Health Code, 1978 PA 360, as amended; MCL 333.110.1 et seq; MSA 14.15(1101) et seq, is empowered to discipline licensees thereunder.
2. Respondent is currently licensed to practice medicine pursuant to the Public Health Code, supra.
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent's practice was located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
4. Respondent was board certified in internal medicine on March 19, 1955, and in "environmental medicine" on August 21, 1988.
5. As a result of allegations filed with the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Occupational & Professional Regulation, medical records were obtained detailing Respondent's treatment of Patient KS (initials will be used to protect patients' privacy) between June 8, 1991 and January 2, 1993.
6. As a result of allegations filed with the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Occupational & Professional Regulation, medical records were obtained detailing Respondent's treatment of Patient SS between February 19, 1991 and November 6, 1992.
7. As a result of allegations filed with the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Occupational & Professional Regulation, medical records were obtained detailing Respondent's treatment of Patient ES between January B, 1991 and October 3, 1992.
8. Respondent has made various diagnoses of Patient KS during the treatment period noted in paragraph 5 above, including but not limited to the following:
- Fatigue secondary to diesel fumes
- Chemical sensitivity due to strippers, polishes, paints, diesel fumes, retail stores
- Food sensitivity to chocolate, wheat, beet
- sugar, corn
- Inhalant sensitivity
- Candida related complex
- Maldigestion, malabsorption, hypochlorhydria
- Adrenal and pituitary gland deficiency
- Insect sensitivity. Hypoglycemia
- Poor memory
9. Respondent has made various diagnoses of Patient SS during the treatment period noted in paragraph 6 above, including but not limited to the following:
- Candida related complex
- Multiple chemical sensitivities due to floor wax, art supplies, perfumes, turpentine, cleaning solutions, tobacco smoke, car exhaust
- Food and inhalant sensitivities
- Maldigestlon, malabsorption, hypochlorhydria
- Hay fever
- Hirschsprung's disease
- Adrenal deficiency
- Sensitivity to molds, xerox machines, cigarette smoke, cooking
- Possible psoriasis
10. Respondent has made various diagnoses of Patient ES during the treatment period noted in paragraph 7 above, including
- Fatigue secondary to multiple chemical and food sensitivities
- Allergic rhinitis c. Candida overgrowth
- Maldigestlon, malabsorption, hypochlorhydria
- Viremia due to depletion state
- Possible adrenal deficiency
- Possible hypothyroidism
- Hypersensitivity to dust, molds, pollens, fresh paint, carpets, chemical cleaning solutions, floor wax, art supplies, hair spray, pesticides, and many other environmental odors
11. Respondent's care and treatment of KS, SS and ES was negligent and incompetent in the following respects:
A. Respondent failed to refer these patients for a psychiatric; evaluation when it was clear from their patient histories that multiple somatic complaints could have been attributable to a psychiatric illness;
B. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivities based upon complaints of headache, chest pain and fatigue is a deviation from the standard of care required of a physician specializing in internal medicine;
C. The diagnoses of allergies and hay fever were made without adequate history, clinical presentation or laboratory testing;
D. Respondent's emphasis in her diagnoses on subjective complaints such as headache, fatigue and nausea, which are not attributable to a recognized allergic disorder;
E. Respondent' s insistence on certain chemical testing for allergic diagnoses such as candida titer, skin testing, RAST and IGG was inappropriate and a deviation from the standard of care required of a physician specializing in internal medicine;
F. Respondent's attributing diagnosis of Candida overgrowth to petrochemical exposure is a deviation from the standard of care required of a physician specializing in internal medicine;
G. Respondent's diagnoses of Candida related complex and multiple chemical sensitivities are deviations from the standard of care required of a physician specializing in internal medicine;
H. Respondent's reliance on RAST testing to support a diagnosis of hay fever was inappropriate and a deviation from the standard of care required of a physician specializing in internal medicine;
I. The results of Respondent's laboratory testing for thyroid and adrenal function on February 21, 1991 and January 17, 1991 for Patients SS and ES were both within normal limits; therefore Respondent's diagnoses of hypothyroidism and adrenal insufficiency were inappropriate and prolonged the administration of thyroid and cortisone drugs which were inappropriate, unnecessary, and medically contraindicated.
Respondent's care and treatment of Patients KS, SS and ES constitutes a violation of general duty, consisting of negligence or failure to exercise due care, including negligent delegation to or supervision of employees or other individuals, whether or not injury results, and/or a conduct, practice, or condition which impairs, or may impair, the ability to safely and skillfully practice the health profession, in violation of section 16221(a) of the Public Health Code, supra.
Respondent's care and treatment of Patients KS, S8 and ES constitutes incompetence [defined at section 16106(1) of the Public Health Code, supra, as "a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession, whether or not actual injury to an individual occurs"], in violation of section 16221(b)(i) of the Public Health Code.
THEREFORE, the people request that this complaint be served upon Respondent and that. Respondent be offered an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for retention of her license. If compliance is not shown, the People further request that formal proceedings be commenced pursuant to the Public Health Code, supra, rules promulgated pursuant to it, and the Administrative procedures Act of 1969 I 1969 PA 306, as amended; MCL 24.201 et seq; MSA 3.560(101) et seq.
FRANK J. KELLEY
Phillip I. Frame (P38737)
Assistant Attorney General
Health Professionals Division
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Telephone: (S17) 373-1146
DATED: March 7, 1994
This page was posted on June 26, 2015.