>1 FILED Lfl?l/ NOV 07 2016 BEFORE THE BOARD OF HEALING ARTS KS State Board 0' Healing Arts OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 1n the Matter of - Docket No.: 17-HA @00/{9 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. Kansas License No. 04-19247 PETITION COMES NOW the Petitioner, the Kansas State Board of Ilealing Arts (?Board?), by and through Susan R. Gering, Associate Litigation Counsel, and Jane E. Weiler, Associate Litigation Counsel, ("Petitioner") and initiates these proceedings pursuant to the provisions 65-2836 and K.S.A. 77-501 et seq. For its cause of action, Petitioner alleges and states: FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS l. K. Dean Reeves, M.D. (?Licensee?) last known mailing address to the Board is: Roeland Park, Kansas 66205. 2. Licensee is or has been entitled to engage in the practice of medicine and surgery in the State of Kansas. having been issued original and permanent license No. 04-19247 on or about July 1, 1981, and having renewed such license on or about May 14. 2016. 3. At all times relevant to the allegations set forth in the Petition, Licensee has held a current and active license to engage in the practice of medicine and surgenr in the State of Kansas. 4. Upon execution of a Consent Order on April 16, 2012, Licensee agreed to all terms contained therein by his signature including agreement that the Board may consider all aspects of the Order of the Board in any future matter regarding Licensee. Petition Page 1 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. 5. The Consent Order placed Licensee?s license on probation, commencing upon the ?ling of the Consent Order. The terms of Licensee?s probation required Licensee in pertinent part to agree to the following: a. Licensee shall frequently use and document image guidance when performing selective injection therapy, such as prolotherapy; b. Licensee shall whenever possible pair prolotherapy with physical therapy, spinal manipulation, or other appropriate treatments when treating back pain and give reasonable consideration to the merit of other current treatment choices along with prolotherapy; c. Licensee shall document what other treatments have been received by the patient; d. Licensee shall maintain adequate medical records including, but not limited to, documenting the particular injectate used and volume given at each therapy session, and adequately documenting the patient?s pain level; e. Licensee shall document the technique used when performing selective injection therapy without image guidance; f. When using experimental forms of therapy that do not conform to the generally accepted criteria or standard protocols, Licensee shall obtain proper informed patient consent, keep detailed legible records, and have periodic analysis of the study and results reviewed by a committee or peers to ensure he is not in violation of K.S.A. g. Licensee shall strictly follow the guidelines for Protection of Human Subjects as clearly listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. 21 C.F.R. 50 (201 Petition Page 2 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. i. The consent form shall foliow all requirements as listed in the Code of Federal Regulations and detail the patient?s role in the study; ii. The consent form for a study shall be separate and distinct [from] any other consent form; Institutional review board (IRB) approval shall be from the United State, not other countries, for any and all patients located in the United States. 6. Since licensure as a medical doctor in the State of Kansas, pursuant to K.S.A. 65? 2836, et seq, Licensee did commit the following acts: 7. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through six (6) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. 8. From on or about January 19, 2012, to on or about May 9, 2014, Licensee provided care and treatment to Patient 1, a forty?two (42) year old femaie, approximately nine (9) different times. 9. On or about January 19, 2012, Patient 1 ?rst presented to Licensee ?for comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain in several areas.? Patient 1 disclosed in her Health History Questionnaire she was there for shoulder and lower back pain. Patient 1 indicated the condition began three (3) months ago and her goal was to see if this was something Licensee could help with. 10. Based on his evaluation, Licensee documented diagnoses of chronic head pain, chronic neck pain, chronic upper back pain, chronic low back pain, and chronic leg/knee Petition Page 3 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. pain. Licensee recommended Patient 1 take 2000 units orally of Vitamin daily, apply 25% dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map, and gave Patient 1 a prescription for Vitamin cream to use in areas where the dextrose 25% was not ?as well tolerated.? Licensee further recommended Patient 1 undergo a two (2) treatment trial of multiple injections. 11. Patient 1 continued to receive similar sets of procedures from Licensee on multiple occasions between on or about January 19, 2012, to May 9, .2014, that included numerous injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by near nerve dextrose injection and hydrodissection, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? 12. On or about May 9, 2014, Patient 1 presented to Licensee for a follow?up for neck, whole back and hip pain. Patient 1 underwent numerous injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? Pre-procedural Vitals documented Patient 1 having a blood pressure of 97/73. In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 1, Patient 1 was documented receiving three (3) 7.5/325mg Lortab pills and two (2) Vistaril pills by mouth at 8:30. The prescription from May 2, 2014, for twenty (20) 7.5/325mg Lortab pills was also noted in Licensee?s procedure note. 13. Patient 1 was subjected to multiple super?cial and deep injections of 4.5% dextrose/ 1.5% mannitol or 12.5% dextrose. The deeper injections were reported to have been guided by ultrasound; however, no ultrasound image documentation is contained within Patient l?s patient record. Patient 1 was subjected to injections to include her Petition Page 4 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. head/face, neck, thorax, back, legs,-and feet. Licensee documents in his ?Procedure ote? that ?[n]ormal saline was administered intravenously to minimize hypotension related to lightheadedness or nausea effect of narcotics.? However, on his USE documentation, it is documented that saline was given and it also documents 1 liter of sterile water was given. No rate of infusion is documented by Licensee; however, 1 liter given over the course of an approximately two (2) to three (3) hour procedure would indicate that the average rate of infusion was 330 to 500 ml/hr. Licensee does not document a clinical rational for such a high infusion rate. 14. Post procedure, Patient 1 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in 4-5 months. Patient 1 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed a diluted or undiluted prescription transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. 15. At approximately 4:00 pm. that same day, Chris Larkin documented a phone call from Patient 1 occurred indicating Patient had ?3 episodes of bloody/almost black urine since her tx th[at] morning[.] Shoulder is doing Chris Larkin further documented at 4:40 pm. Licensee was sending Patient 1 ?to Urgent Care Clinic to get a culture for possible bladder infection.? 16. Patient 1 presented to an urgent care, which noted Patient 1 was suffering from proteinuria and sent Patient 1 to the emergency room. Upon examination at the emergency room, Patient 1 was noted to be jaundiced. Upon laboratory testing, it was identi?ed Patient 1 had leukocytosis, hyperbilirubinemia, elevated creatinine, and an elevated aspartate aminotransferase Initially, Patient 1 was treated empirically for pyelonephritis, then it was felt that her were likely due to hemolysis due to a Petition Page 5 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. hypnotic solution. Patient 1 was admitted to the hospital and treatment included an intravenous infusion of one liter of normal saline. Patient 1 was ultimately discharged from the hospital on or about May 11, 2014. 17. Also on or about May 9, 2016, an Accident/Incident Report was documented by Chris Larkin indicating Patient 1 was hydrated with sterile water instead of saline solution. Also, documented were recommendations for prevention of similar incidents stating: Any changes in protocol must be signed off on by the Doctor and NursintJr Supervisor. 2. Oral ?uid intake will include Gatorade for rehydration.? There is no signature or initials from?Licensee en the Accident/Incident Report. 18. On or about May 20, 2014, the Board received a self?report from Licensee that he used sterile water to hydrate Patient 1 and Patient 1 had suffered hydrolysis. 19. In the treatment of Patient 1, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to properly document within Patient 1?s patient record; b. Licensee failed to understand the potentially serious rami?cations of the intravenous sterile water infusion provided to Patient 1 until after the adverse event had occurred; c. Licensee wrongfully used sterile water for a direct intravenous infusion of Patient 1; d. Licensee wrongfully gave Patient 1 a signi?cant volume of sterile water; e. Licensee wrongfully proceeded with a non?emergent elective procedure where Licensee opined that significant intravenous ?uid hydration was necessary Petition Page 6 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. 20. to be provided at a time when Licensee did not have non-hypotonic intravenous solutions available; f. Licensee failed to treat Patient 1 with conservative, non?invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; g. Licensee provided to Patient 1 that was inappropriate and unnecessary; h. Licensee subjected Patient 1 to unnecessary; invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected benefits; and/or, i. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and'will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations ofthe Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(a)(2); in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(3), in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; Petition Page 7 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(24); in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 1; including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings; examination results and test results; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 Using experimental forms of therapy without proper informed patient consent, without conforming to generally accepted criteria or standard protocols, without keeping detailed legible records or without having periodic analysis of the study and results reviewed by a committee or peers; h. K.S.A. 65?28366), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board; speci?cally; K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 1; and/or; Petition Page 8 of 76 K. Dean Reeves; MD. j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12- HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 2l. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65-2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT II 22. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through twenty?one (21) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. 23. From on or about January 28, 2009, to on or about May 9, 2014, Licenseeprovided care and treatment to Patient 2, a fifty?six (56) year old male, approximately twenty-four (24) different times. 24. Throughout that period of time, Patient 2 continued to receive care and treatment from Licensee that included multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by near nerve dextrose injection and hydrodissection, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? 25. On or about May 9, 2014, Patient 2 presented to Licensee -or a follow?up for shoulder pain, back spasms, and knee pain. Patient 2 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? 26. Patient 2?s pre?procedure Vitals were notable for a blood pressure of 160/75. Patient 2 was administered four (4) pills of Lortab 7.5/325mg, one (I) Vistaril 50mg, and one (1) Petition Page 9 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. Zofran 8mg at 11:40 AM. Patient 2 also received 2 pills of Lortab 7.5/325mg at 11:55 AM. Patient 2 was subjected to multiple super?cial and deep injections of 4.5% dextrose/1.5% mannitol or 12.5% dextrose. The deeper injections were reported to have been guided by ultrasound; however, no ultrasound image documentation is included in Patient 2?s patient record. The ?rst injection occurred at 12:35 PM and the last occurred at 1:15 PM. The areas subjected to the injection included the deep nerves around the bilateral biceps tendon, the biceps sheaths bilaterally, the left supraspinatus insertion, the thorax, the back, the bilateral sacroiliac ligaments, and the bilateral knees. No oxirnetry monitoring occurred during the procedure. 27. Patient 2 was given 1 liter of sterile water intravenously during the procedure. Licensee did not have normal saline available so Licensee directed the use of sterile water instead to be provideu to Patient 2 intravenously. 28. Post procedure, Patient 2 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in 2-3 months. Patient 2 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed dilute or undiluted prescription 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. 29.. Later that same day, Patient 2 presented to the emergency room with complaints of tea colored urine, without dysuria. On laboratory testing there was leukocytosis, hyperbilirubinemia, elevated creatinine, and an elevated AST. There was also urine hemoglobin, urine myoglobin, and proteinuria. Patient 2 received intravenous normal saline. Patient 2 declined being admitted to the hospital and was discharged on May 10, 2014. Petition Page 10 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 30. Also on or about May 9, 2014, an Accident/Incident Report was documented by Chris Larkin indicating Patient 2 was hydrated with sterile water instead of saline solution. Also, documented were recommendations for prevention of similar incidents stating Any changes in protocol must be signed off on by the Doctor and Nursing Supervisor. 2. Oral ?uid intake will include Gatorade for rehydration.? The report indicates that Licensee was noti?ed via phone at approximately 9:00 pm. There is no signature or initials from Licensee on the Accident/Incident Report. 31. On or about May 20, 2014, the Board received a self-report from Licensee that reported he used intravenous sterile water instead of intravenous normal saline to hydrate Patient 2, and Patient 2 had suffered hydrolysis. 32. In the treatment of Patient 2, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to properly document within Patient 3 patient record; b. Licensee failed to understand the potentially serious rami?cations of the intravenous sterile water infusion provided to Patient 2 untila?er the adverse event had occurred; 0. Licensee wrongfully used sterile water for a direct intravenous infusion of Patient 2; d. Licensee wrongfully gave Patient 2 a significant volume of sterile water; e. Licensee wrongfully proceeded with a non?emergent elective procedure where Licensee opined that signi?cant intravenous ?uid hydration was necessary Petition Page 11 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. to be provided at a time when Licensee did not have non?hypotonic intravenous solutions available; f. Licensee failed to treat Patient 2 with conservative; non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; g. Licensee provided experimental/investigational treatment to Patient 2 that was inappropriate and unnecessary; h. Licensee subjected Patient 2 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, i. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicabie standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 33. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; Petition Page 12 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 2), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. 65-2836( as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 2, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(27) Using experimental forms of therapy without proper informed patient consent, without conforming to generally accepted criteria or standard protocols, without keeping detailed legible records or without having periodic analysis of the study and results reviewed by a committee or peers; h. K.S.A. in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a law?il regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 2; and/or, Petition Page 13 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board. previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12?7 HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 34. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT 35. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through thirty-four (34) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. 36. On or about May 21, 2015, the Board received a self-report from Licensee that Patient 3, a seventy?five (75) year old female was transported to the emergency room following treatment in his of?ce. 37. On or about November 26, 014, Patient 3 presented to Licensee for lower back and hip pain. Patient 3 disclosed in her HHQ that she first noticed the pain or'functional dif?culty ?years ago? and that it was unknown what made her pain worse. Licensee documented Patient 3 presenting for ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chroniopain in her lower back and hip. The patient was referred by her sister.? Licensee?s diagnoses for Patient 3 included chronic left anterior shoulder pain, inability to kneel on the right knee, lack of con?dence in the right knee, knifelike pain at the sacroiliac level, L5 on $1 spondylolisthesis, and groin pain. 38. Based on Licensee?s evaluation, he recommended Patient 3 undergo multiple injections that included two (2) treatments followed by a taper with a goal to ?address inhibitions of left shoulder, right knee, back and SI and to strengthen ligaments in the low Petition Page 14 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. back.? Patient 3 was also instructed to apply two (2) to four (4) times daily 31% mannitol cream, diluted to 7.5% to areas based on Licensee?s treatment map. 39. On or about May 12, 2015, Patient 3 presented to Licensee for a foliow-up. Prior to the procedure, Patient 3?s blood pressure was 1 18/78. From 3:08 PM to 3:49 PM Patient 3 was administered 8mg of .Zofran and 30mg of morphine that was given by 15mg at 3:08 PM and another 15mg given at6 3:49 PM. Patient 3 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain source by perineural injection/hydrodisseetion with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? Starting at 3:59 PM Patient 3 was subjected to multiple injections until 4:30 PM. While the low back was being injected, Patient 3 had epigastric discomfort and ?some nonspeci?c dif?culty breathing.? Licensee had 81mg of aspirin administered to Patient 3 and supplemental oxygenation was started. Ultimately, emergency medical services were called and Patient 3 was taken to the hospital. It was noted that emergency services initial impression was that Patient 3 was having ?an anxiety reaction.? No emergency medical records or Kansas Medical Center records appear in Licensee?s record for Patient 3. 40. On or about May 18, 2015, a phone message was documented that Patient 3 was returning to Chicago by plane, was ?ne, but was exceedingly nauseous, had had coke, dry toast, 2 "tablespoons of milk of magnesia last night and that morning, but had not had a bowel movement. Patient 3 was documented to be pain free. There is no documentation for who took the message and who advised Patient 3 to take the mi of magnesia. Petition Page 15 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. 41. In the treatment of Patient 3, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: 42. a. Licensee failed to properly document within Patient 3?s patient record; b. Licensee failed to treat Patient 3 with conservative, non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; c. Licensee failed to recognize the 30mg of morphine given to Patient 3 prior to her injection may cause nausea, constipation and anxiety; d. Licensee failed to minimize the possibility of anxiety reactions for Patient 3; e. Licensee failed to document his reason for givingPatientB 81mg of aspirin; f. Licensee failed to properly evaluate Patient 3?s epigastric location of her prior to administering treatments; g. Licensee subjected Patient 3 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, h. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believedand alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; Petition Page 16 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in KSA. 65- 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 3, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. K.S.A. 65?28366), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; h. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100-24-1 by Petition Page 17 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 3; and/or, i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12- by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 43. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65-2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT IV 44. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through forty?three (43) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. 45. On or about February 4, 2014, Patient 4, a ?fteen (15) year old male, presented to Licensee with a knee injury and marked pain associated with his right knee. Patient 4 disclosed he ?rst noticed pain and functional difficulty on January 26, 2014, while running during a soccer game. Licensee noted that two (2) days after the event a MRI was scheduled. Patient 4 further indicated that he had seen a general practitioner for his pain in which a meniscus tear was suspected. Licensee also documented that Patient 4 was ?asked to ice the. knee and avoid sport.? No other practitioners? records are located in Licensee?s record for Patient 4. 46. That same day, Licensee also found Patient 4 suffering from super?cial nerve course pain: ?R[ight] anterior femoral cutaneous lateral and medial branches.? Licensee performed an ultrasound on Patient 4?s right knee and he found degenerative chances in both menisci without any clear differences between the sides. Licensee further found that Petition Page 18 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. Patient 4?s tibiofemoral cartilage was unremarkable, had minor effusion of the right knee. Licensee did note ?that with palpation pain was not imitated over the medial meniscus.? 47. At that patient visit, Licensee diagnosed Patient 4 with ?chronic knee pain with neurogenic contribution from anterior femoral cutaneous nerve.? Based on Licensee?s evaluation, he recommended Patient 4 apply 11% transdermal mannitol or 41% dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation twice daily. Licensee further recommended administering a perineural subcutaneous injection with 1.8% mannitol/4.5% dextrose or 12.5% dextrose/.045% lidocaine for Patient 4?s left anterior femoral cutaneous nerve, which was performed that same day. Also, Patient 4 was tare?contact Licensee following Monday, February 10, 2014, but there is in documentation or indication of such contact in Licensee?s record. 48. On or about February 21, 2014, Licensee documented another appointment. Licensee?s History of Present Illness documented since Patient 4?s last visit he had a reoccurrence of pain while playing soccer. Licensee recommended and documented Patient 4 underwent ?a perineural subcutaneous injection with 1.8% mannitol/4.5% dextrose or 12.5% dextrose/045% lidocaine for the anterior femoral cutaneous nerve and super?cial peroneal nerve close to its facial penetrator.? Licensee also recommended Patient 4 apply 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate to areas of neurogenic in?ammation twice daily and follow?up as needed in about two (2) weeks. 49. Post procedure, Patient 4 was discharged with follow?up recommended as needed in two (2) weeks. Patient 4 was also documented receiving a prescription for 31% transdermal mannitol cream with instructions to apply the cream two (2) to three (3) times Petition Page 19 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. a day to areas of neurogenic in?ammation. Licensee did not make any recommendations as to Patient 4?s activities. 50. In the treatment of Patient 4, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to, each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to obtain and/or document an appropriate history regarding the?circumstances that caused Patient 4?s knee pain; b. Licensee failed to obtain and/or document the mechanism of injury that would explain Patient 4?s alleged neurogenic pain; c. Licensee failed to appropriately review a MRI report and/or imaging for Patient 4; d. Licensee failed to continue the prior clinician(s) recommendations about sports activities; e. Licensee failed to make and/or document recommendations regarding Patient 4?s activities; f. Licensee failed to treat Patient 4 with conservative, non?invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; g. Licensee subjected Patient 4 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; h. Licensee failed to impact Patient 4?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; i. Licensee inappropriately documented a left knee injection in his office note or he performed the knee injection in the wrong knee; Petition Page 20 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. j. Licensee failed to maintain adequate medical records; and/or, k. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 51. Licensee?s acts and conduct during the course of treating Patient 4 constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as furtherde?ned in KSA. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; C. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(3 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(21), in that Licensee performed unnecessary tests, examinations or services which have no legitimate medical purpose; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts Petition Page 21 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 52. with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 4, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; h. K.S.A. 65-28366), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated theHealing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24?1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patientrecord for Patient 4; and/or, j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board hasgrounds to revoke, suspend, censure, place on probation, ?ne, or otherwise limit Licensee?s license for violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act. 53. COUNT Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through ?fty?two (52) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. Petition Page 22 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 54. On or about November 25, 2013, Patient 5, a seventy?four (74) year old male presented to Dr. Sean A. Cupp, MD. at OrthoKansas with complaints of acute left knee pain. Patient 5 had been experiencing pain since November 13, 2013. X?Rays with multiple views were taken of both knees which showed no obvious signs of acute bony abnormalities, but there was ?moderate to severe degenerative changes at the patellofemoral compartment in both knees, and mild narrowing to the medial compartment at the left knee.? Dr. Cupp started Patient 5 on Naproxen and instructed him that he could ice the knee and to continue to use the knee sleeve. Dr. Cupp discussed conservative and surgical treatmentoptions with Patient 5 and Patient 5 deferred a cortisone injection at that time. Patient 5 was instructed to follow?up in four (4) weeks or sooner for a recheck. 55. There is no documentation in Licensee?s patient record for Patient 5 that indicates Patient 5 returned for care at OrthoKansas as recommended. 56. On or about January 29, 2014, Patient 5 presented to Licensee to ?explore prolotherapy option for osteoarthritis left knee.? Licensee documented Patient 5 presented for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain.? Licensee?s diagnoses for Patient 5 included: ?Grade IV knee osteoarthritis with chronic knee pain. Chronic with neurogenic contribution from saphenous and anterior femoral cutaneous nerves and connective tissue from medial coronary ligament, and an intraartjcular contribution.? 57. As a result of Licensee?s January 29th evaluation, he recommended Patient 5 receive perineural subcutaneous injections; perineural deep injections; entheses injections and joint injections. Also, Patient 5 was instructed to apply twice daily and as needed transdermal Petition Page 23 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 11% mannitol or 41% dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. 58. On or about February 13, 2014, Patient 5 presented to Licensee to receive his ?rst treatment for chronic knee pain. Patient 5 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain source by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? 59. Post procedure, Patient 5 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in two (2) months. Aiso, Licensee directed Patient 5 to topically apply twice daily and as needed 1 1% mannitol cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation as indicated on Licensee?s treatment map. 60. On or about April 8, 2014, Patient 5 presented to Licensee for a follow?up on his chronic knee pain. At that appointment, Licensee?s documented diagnoses included ?Grade IV knee osteoarthristis with chronic knee pain. knee grade IV knee 0A is, as yet, Each knee of Patient 5 was injected with 12 ml of 25% dextrose. A follow?up in four (4) months was recommended and Patient 5 was instructed to apply twice daily and as needed a prescription of diluted or undiluted 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation as indicated on Licensee?s treatment map. 61. In the treatment of Patient 5, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to, each of the following acts or omissions: Petition Page 24 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 62. a. Licensee inappropriately subjected Patient 5 to a series of invasive interventions with unproven substance for an activation or exacerbation of a degenerative arthorpathy; b. Licensee failed to impact Patient 5?s and ?anction by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; c. Licensee failed to utilize conservative non?invasive treatment to initially treat Patient 5?s condition and in the event of a failure of the conservative management to address Patient 5?s condition, Licensee also failed to utilize an accepted invasive treatment; d. Licensee inappropriately subjected Patient 5 to serial injections of Patient 5?s right knee with proliferant solution with no reasonable clinical justi?cation; and/or, e. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. Licensee?s acts and conduct during the course of treating Patient 5 constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; Petition Page 25 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practicethe healing arts; Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated.K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee performed unnecessary tests, examinations or services which have no legitimate medical purpose; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately reflect the services rendered to Patient 5, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; h. 65-28366), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100-24-1 by Petition Page 26 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient and/or, j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12- HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 63. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, censure, place on probation, ?ne, or otherwise limit Licensee?s license for violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act. COUNT VI 64. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) as fully restated and re-alleged herein. 65. On or about December 5, 2013, Patient 6, a twenty?seven (27) year old male presented to Licensee to ?improve various joint pains.? Licensee documented Patient 6 as presenting for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain.? Licensee?s documented diagnoses for Patient 6 that included chronic neck pain; chronic shoulder pain; chronic upper back pain; chronic low back pain; chronic lateral hip pain; chronic knee pain; chronic medial elbow pain; chronic wrist pain; and chronic ankle pain. 66. Based on Licensee?s evaluation, he recommended Patient 6 apply transdermal 11% mannitol or 41% dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation twice daily as needed. Also, Licensee recommended multiple injections for various areas identi?ed during Patient 6?s evaluation. Licensee documented ?risks and potential bene?ts of treatment were discussed. [Patient 6] understands and agrees to proceed.? A prescription for six (6) Xanax and twenty Petition Page 27 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. (20) 7.5/325mg pills of Lortab was given to Patient 6 with no indication for why the prescription was given. 67. On or about December 6, 2013, Patient 6 presented to Licensee for a follow-up for treatment of his chronic pain. Patient 6 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain source by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 6, Patient 6 was documented receiving four (4) 7.5/325mg Lortab and two (2) 50mg Vistaril pills at 8:52; 1/2 7.5/325mg of Lortab by mouth at 9:19; and 1/2 7.5/325mg of?Lortab by mouth at 9:40. 68. Post?procedure, Patient 6 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in two (2) months. Patient 6 was also instructed to apply 1 1% mannitol topically twice daily and as needed to areas shown on an updated body map. 69. On or about May 23, 2014, Patient 6 presented to Licensee for a follow?up for treatment of his chronic pain. Patient 6 once again underwent multiple injections tc ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural inj ection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 6 Patient 6 was documented receiving four (4) 7.5/325mg Lortab and two (2) 50mg Vistaril pills by mouth at 8:35; one (1) 7.5/325mg ofLortab by mouth at 9:35; one (1) 7.5/325mg ofLortab by mouth at 9:54; and one (1) 7.5/325mg of Lortab by mouth at 10:09. 70. Post procedure, Patient 6 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in 3?4 months. Licensee gave Patient 6 a prescription for 31% mannitol cream to apply twice daily and as needed to areas of neurogenic in?ammation as indicated on Licensee?s Petition Page 28 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. treatment map. Licensee further documented Patient 6 was instructed to contact Licensee if he experienced any side effects due to taking Lortab. Licensee recommended Patient 6 to follow?up in 3?4 months. 71. In the treatment of Patient 6, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to, each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee inappropriately subjected Patient 6 to a series of invasive interventions with unproven substance for an activation or exacerbation of a degenerative arthorpathy, subjective joint laxity, or attributed to perineural or neurogenic pathology; b. Licensee failed to impact Patient 6?s and function by his inte ventions beyond a placebo effect; c. Licensee failed to treat Patient 6 with conservative, non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; (1. Licensee subjected Patient 6 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, e. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to air-legree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 72. Licensee?s acts and conduct during the course of treating Patient 6 constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; Petition Page 29 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(a)(3), in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d; Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 634 283 in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to hami the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(21), in that Licensee performed unnecessary tests, examinations or services which have no legitimate medical purpose; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 6, including patient histories; pertinent ?ndings; examination results and test results; Petition Page 30 of 76 K. Dean Reeves; MD. h. K.S.A. 65?28360), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 6; and/or, j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12- HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 73. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65~2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, censure, place on probation, ?ne, or otherwise limit Licensee?s license for violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act. 74. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through seventy? three (73) as fully restated and re-alleged herein. 75. On or about December 5, 2013, Patient 7, a forty?three (43) year old male, presented to Licensee for pain management and bicep pain. Patient 7?s HHQ indicated Patient 7 had an X-ray performed on or about November 27, 2013. Licensee documented Patient 7 presented for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options forchronic pain about the anterior shoulder region.? Licensee further documented that Patient 7 had previously seen Dr. Vandeberg via Carondolet Ortho whose impression was that Patient 7 was suffering from a subscapularis tendon insertion issue. Licensee also documents that Dr. Vandeberg had an MRI performed and gave Patient 7 a steroid injection into the Petition Page 31 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. shoulder which made no clear difference in Patient 7?s pain. There are no patient records or studies from Dr. Vandeberg present in Licensee?s patient record for Patient 7. 76. Based on Licensee?s evaluation, he recommended Patient 7 apply transdermal 11% mannitol or 41% dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation twice daily as needed. In addition, Lice see recommended Patient 7 undergo multiple injections. Licensee documented that risks and potential bene?ts of treatment were discussed with Patient 7 and he agreed to proceed. 77. On or about December 11, 2013, Patient 7 presented to Licensee for a follow?up appointment. Licensee documented Patient 7 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain source by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? Post procedure, Patient 7 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in two (2) months. Further, Licensee directed Patient 7 to apply topically 11% mannitol cream to areas of neurogenio inflammation identified as indicated by Licensee?s treatment map twice daily and as needed. Licensee further prescribed twenty (20) 5/325mgpills of Lortab to Patient 7; however, Licensee did not document why the prescription was given. 78. On or about February 10, 2014, Patient 7 presented to Licensee for follow?up for right shoulder and right knee pain. Licensee documented Patient 7 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain source by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insufficiency sources by enthesis infiltration with dextrose solution.? Petition Page 32 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 79. Post procedure, Patient 7 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in two (2) months. Licensee further directed Patient 7 to apply topically 1 1% mannitol cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation identified on Licensee?s treatment map twice daily and as needed. Licensee also prescribed twenty (20) 7.5/325mg pills of Lortab to Patient 7; however, Licensee did not document the reason for the prescription. 80. On or about June 17, 2014, Patient 7 presented to Licensee for a ?new issue of left sided knee pain.? Patient 7?s.previous complaints were documentedas completely resolved by Licensee. For Patient 7?s new left sided knee pain, Licensee?s diagnosis was ?acute knee pain and dysfunction with neurogenic contribution form the saphenous nerve at sartorial level and connective tissue contribution from the medial coronary ligament.? 81. Based on Licensee?s evaluation, Patient 7 then underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain source by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? Licensee also directed Patient 7 to apply topically 31% mannitol cream to areas of neurogenic inflammation as indicated on Licensee?s treatment map twice daily, which included the right shoulder, right knee, and left knee. Licensee also recommended Patient 7 to follow?up as needed. 82. In the treatment of Patient 7, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to, each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee wrongly utilized inappropriate interventions on Patient 7?s that were without a clear etiology, which were not impacted by the interventions that were provided in this practice beyond a placebo effect; Petition Page 33 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. b. Licensee failed to treat Patient 7 with conservative, non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; c. Licensee subjected Patient 7 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, d. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 83. Licensee?s acts and conduct during the course of treating Patient 7 constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in 7K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(3), in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; (1. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(l2), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts Petition Page 34 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. 84. with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 7, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. K.S.A. 65 ?2836( in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; h. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 7; and/or, i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. Pursuant to 65-2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, censure, place on probation, ?ne, or otherwise limit Licensee?s license for Violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act. 85. COUNT Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through eighty-four (84) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. Petition Page 35 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 86. On or about May 14, 2014, Patient 8 a seventy?four (74) year old female presented to Licensee with complaints that ?both shoulders do not work properly.? Licensee documented that Patient 8 was there for ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain in shoulders and upper back, radiating to her elbows.? Patient 8 in her HHQ indicated that she had previously seen General, Orthopedic, and Chiropractor practitioners for her pain. During Licensee?s evaluation of Patient 8, he noted she had various steroid injections and a cardiology appointment. No other practitioners? treatment records for Patient 8 are found in Licensee?s records. 87. Based on Licensee?s evaluation, Licensee administered low dose dexamethasone in ?each AC joint to limit steroid load and treat speci?cally? under ultrasound guidance. Licensee also administered biceps sheath dextrose/mannitol injection on the left side and axillary and radial nerve hydrodissection bilaterally performed on both sides. Licensee recommended Patient 8 follow?up in two (2) weeks for a similar hydrodissection of axillary and radial nerves. Licensee also noted that the goal for Patient 8 was ?not shoulders that lift up but better rest at night and ability to lift one arm up with the other more easily.? 88. On or about May 30, 2014, Patient 8 presented to Licensee with complaints of ?chronic pain in shoulders radiating to the elbow with evidence of complete cuff tear on each side.? Licensee documented Patient 8 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis infiltration with proliferant solution.? 89. Post procedure, Licensee gave Patient 8 a prescription to apply t0pically 31% mannitol cream twice daily and as needed. Licensee further documented that a follow-up Petition Page 36 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. should occur in two (2) weeks. Licensee also documented that Patient 8?s blood pressure was elevated at 195/95 and that he asked her ?to contact her primary doctor for followup[sic] recommendation right away.? No record of whether Patient 8 contacted her primary doctor is found in Licensee?s patient record for Patient 8. 90. On or about June 20, 2014, Patient 8 presented to Licensee with complaints of chronic pain in shoulders radiating to elbows with evidence of complete cuff tear on both sides, with self-care and rest substantially impaired on presentation. Licensee documented Patient 8 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural inj ection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? 91. Post procedure, Licensee recommended Patient 8 to follow?up in three (3) weeks, that Patient 8 apply topically 31% mannitol concentrate cream or 41% transdermal dextrose cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation twice daily and as needed. 92. In the treatment of Patient 8, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to, each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to treat Patient 8 with conservative, non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; b. Licensee utilized an inappropriate intervention in the treatment of and shoulder dysfunction that was primarily due to a complete rotator cuff tears; c. Licensee subjected Patient 8 to unnecessary and inappropriate, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; Petition Page 37 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 93. d. Licensee failed to impact Patient 8?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; and/or, e. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed. upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. Licensee?s acts and conduct during the course of treating Patient 8 constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65? 283 7( in that .Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably Petition Page 38 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately reflect the services rendered to Patient 8, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; 0. K.S.A. 65-283 in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; h. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100924?1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 8; and/or, i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 94. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT IX 95. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through ninety?four (94) as fully restated and re-alleged herein. 96. On or about October 30, 2013, Patient 9, a ?fty?two (52) year old female, presented to Licensee with a goal to run a half?marathon again. Patient 9 disclosed in her HHQ that Petition Page 39 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. she ?rst noticed the pain or functional dif?culty one (1) year prior to her ?rst appointment and that the pain is worse when running or after intense cardio workouts. Patient 9 also disclosed that she had Multiple Sclerosis Licensee documented that Patient 9 was there for ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain.? 97. Licensee?s October 30th notes indicate that Patient 9 saw Dr. Cris Bamthouse, who obtained an MRI of the right. knee on May 2, 2013. Licensee documented that Dr. Bamthouse identi?ed an old lesion involving lateral patella with some reactive edema, soft tissue in?ammation involving retropatellar soft tissues and grade 2?3 chondromalacia patella, and a large Baker?s approximately 5.5 4 cm in size. Licensee documented diagnoses for Patient 9 that included chronic lateral hip pain, chronic knee pain, chronic arch pain, chronic forefoot pain, and recent left elbow pain. 98. Based on Licensee?s evaluation, Licensee recommended applying twice daily and as needed 1 1% transdermal mannitol to areas of neurogenic inflammation per Licensee?s treatment map. Licensee also recommended a perineural subcutaneous injection with 1.8% or 12.5% dextrose/.045% lidocaine in the left leg, perineural deep injection with 12.5% lidocaine, entheses injections with 12.5% dextrose/045% lidocaine and joint injections with 25% dextrose to both knees. Licensee further recommended that Patient 9 have testing to distinguish and identify MS related issues. 99. On or about January 1, 2014, Licensee documented an appointment for Patient 9 occurred. Licensee documented diagnoses for Patient 9 that included chronic lateral hip pain, chronic knee pain, chronic arch pain, chronic forefoot pain, and recent elbow pain. Patient 9 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively, reduce neurogenic pain Petition Page 40 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 9, Patient 9 was documented receiving two (2) 7.5/3 25mg Lortab pills, two (2) 50mg Vistaril pills, and half a .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 11:54; and one (1) 7.5/325mg Lortab pill and half a .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 12:29. 100. Post?procedure, Patient 9 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in two (2) months. Patient 9 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed 11% transdermal mannitol to areas of neurogenic in?ammation in accordance with Licensee?s treatment map. Licensee further prescribed six (6) .Smg pills of Xanax and twenty (20) 7.5/325mg pills of Lortab to Patient 9 with no indication for why the prescriptions were given. 101. On or about January 15, 2014, a phone message for ?Dr. regarding Patient 9?s complaint that her elbow was still bothering her and asking if she could go to the chiropractorwas documented. There is no documentation on who took the message or who advised Patient 9 to see the chiropractor and to make another appointment if her complaint persisted. 102. On or about February 27, 2014, Patient 9 presented to Licensee for a follow?up on her chronic pain. Patient 9 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively, reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural inj ection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 9, Patient 9 was documented receiving two (2) 7.5/325mg Lortab pills, two (2) 50mg Vistaril pills, and half a .5mg Xanax pill by Petition Page 41 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. mouth at 11:09; and one (1) 7.5/325mg Lortab pill and halfC/z) a .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 11:53. 103. Post-procedure, Patient 9 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in two (2) to three (3) months. Patient 9 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation in accordance with Licensee?s treatment map. 104. On or about March 7, 2014, Licensee documented a note that was sent to Patient 9 regarding a Testing Report stating that there were some memory issues and evidence of depression and anxiety. In that note, Licensee advised Patient 9 that a prescription of an antidepressant with anxiety reducing qualities from a family doctor would be best in the long run for continuity. 105. In the treatment of Patient 9, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, specifically including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to obtain a sufficient history for Patient 9; b. Licensee failed to obtain an appropriate basic assessment for Patient 9?s speci?c complaints or goals focusing on elucidating the biomechanical and pathophysiological etiology of Patient 9?s running-related c. Licensee failed to focus his treatment on addressing/correcting the speci?c biomechanical problems causing Patient 9?s other general biomechanics, proper training techniques, weight loss, cross-training (including aquatherapy and swimming), and appropriate conservative palliative measures; Petition Page 42 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. d. Licensee failed to treat Patient 9 with conservative, non?invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; e. Licensee subjected Patient 9 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, f. Licensee faiied to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery inthe course of these proceedings. 106. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. 65283603), as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as ?thher de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(l2), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts Petition Page 43 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 107. with that level of care, skill and. treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 9, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. K.S.A. 65?28366), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; h. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100-24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 9; and/or, i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. 108. COUNT Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through one hundred seven (107) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. Petition Page 44 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 109. On or about April 8, 2014, Patient 10, a seventy-four (74) year old female, presented to Licensee with goals for relief of bilateral pain in her knees and the ?ability to walk normal again.? Patient 10 disclosed in her HHQ that she ?rst noticed the pain or functional dif?culty in her knees in 2008 or 2009 and the pain was worsened by twisting or walking too much ?on unlevel ground.? Patient 10 identi?ed that she had previously been to a chiropractor for her pain. Licensee?s patient record for Patient 10 does not contain any treatment notes for April 8, 2014. 110. On or about April 17, 2014, Patient 10 presented to Licensee for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain about her knees and both feet.? Licensee?s diagnoses for Patient 10 included: Chronic low back pain, with neurogenic contribution from lower thoracic and lumbar posterior rami; Chronic knee pain with neurogenic contribution from saphenous, anterior femoral cutaneous and common peroneal nerves, connective tissue from medical and potentially lateral coronary ligaments, and an intraarticular contribution; Chronic arch pain with neurogenic contribution from the tibial nerve at the gastroc roof and at the distal malleolar fascia level and connective tissue contribution from the. deep plantar fascia central aponeurosis; and Chronic forefoot pain with neurogenic contribution from interdigital nerves in rays 3 and 4 on the L. 111. Based on Licensee?s evaluation, he recommended Patient 10 apply transdermal 7.5% or 31% mannitol to areas indicated on a treatment map. Also, Licensee recommended multiple injections for various areas identi?ed during Patient 10?s evaluation. 112. On or about April 18, 2014, Licensee documented an appointment for Patient 10 occurred. Licensee documented Patient 10 was there for her ?rst treatment. Licensee documented Patient 10 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural inj ection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant Petition Page 45 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 10, Patient 10 was documented receiving half a 7.5/325mg Lortab pill and half a .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 12:19; and 1/2 7.5/325mg Lortab pill and half .5mg Xanax pill at 12:29. 113. Post procedure, Patient 10 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in two (2) months. Licensee instructed Patient 10 to apply twice daily and as needed diluted or undiluted 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate to areas per Licensee?s treatment map. Licensee further documented Patient 10 was asked to call if any side effects of oral medications given for sedation were noted. 174. On or about June 19, 2014, Patient 10 presented to Licensee for a follow?up for her chronic knee and bilateral foot pain. Licensee documented diagnoses of chronic low back pain, chronic knee pain, chronic right arch pain, chronic forefoot pain and TMC effusion. Patient 10 underwent several injections ?to comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural inj ection/hydrodissection with" dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insufficiency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 10, Patient 10 was documented receiving half a 7.5/325mg of Lortab and half (V2) a .Smg of Xanax by mouth once at 11:26 and then again at 11 :42. Licensee documented using Patient 10?s Lortab. 115. Post procedure, Patient 10 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in 2-4 months. Licensee also instructed Patient 10 to apply twice daily and as needed 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. Licensee further documented Patient 10 was asked to call if any side effects of oral medications given for sedation were noted. Petition Page 46 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 1 16. In the treatment of Patient 10, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to perform an adequate examination of Patient 10; b. Licensee failed to treat Patient lOwith conservative, non?invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; c. Licensee subjected Patient 10 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; Licensee failed to impact Patient 10?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; and/or, e. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 1 l7. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated. K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(3 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior Petition Page 47 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. 65-2836tb), as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately reflect the services rendered to Patient 10, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. K.S.A. in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; h. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 190?24?1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 10; and/or, i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. Petition Page 48 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 118. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his Violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT XI 1 19. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through on hundred eighteen (118) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. 120. On or about February 25, 2014, Patient 11, a sixty-four (64) year old male, presented to Licensee with goals to ?get out of some pain? and ?be more functional.? Patient 11 disclosed in his HHQ that he ?rst noticed the pain or functional dif?culty in 2001 and that the pain was worse with activity. Patient 11 further indicated that he had seen a chiropractor and general practitioner for the pain. Licensee documented that Patient 1 was there for ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain.? 121. Based on Licensee?s examination, he documented diagnoses of chronic head pain; chronic neck pain; chronic shoulder pain; chronic upper back pain; chronic left knee pain; chronic left thumb pain; and complaint of intermittent shortness of breath. Licensee recommended multiple injections to various areas. Licensee further recommended Patient 1 1 apply 7.5% or 31% mannitol or non-prescription 41% dextrose cream. 122. A prescription for 31% transderrnal mannitol cream and a prescription for twenty (20) 10mg tablets of Oxycodone immediate release were also provided to Patient 11 that same day. 123. On or about February 27, 2014, Patient 11 presented to Licensee for his ?rst treatment. Patient 11. underwent multiple injections ?to comprehensively reduce Petition Page 49 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. neurogenic pain sources by perineura] inj ection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 11, Patient 11 was documented receiving three (3) 10mg Oxycodone pills, one (1) 50mg Vistril pill, and two (2) 1000mg Tums by mouth at 12:26. 124. Post procedure, Patient 1 1 was discharged with a recommendation to follow-up in two (2) months. Patient 11 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdemial dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. 125. On or about June 12, 2014, Patient 11 presented to for a follow-up for chronic head, neck, upper back, shoulder, left knee, and left thumb pain. Patient 11 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose. or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 11, Patient 11 was documented receiving three (3) 10mg Oxycodone IR pills and one (1) 50mg Vistaril pill by mouth at 10:43 and one (1) 10mg Oxycodone IR pill by mouth at 12:05. 126. Post procedure, Patient 1 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in 3?5 months. Patient 11 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed diluted or undiluted 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. A prescription for twenty (20) 10mg Oxycodone IR and for 31% mannitol cream were also given to Patient 11 that same day. Petition Page 50 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 127. On or about June 13, 2014, a phone message for ?Dr. indicating Patient 11 ?felt like this treatment was very productive. Thank You. Can he go to the Chiropractor? was documented. A note initialed by RC states ?Chiropractic is ok. Not forceful would be best. Wait at least 3 days.? There is no documentation for who took the message nor if Licensee reviewed the message. Instead, it appears RC advised Patient 11. 128. In the treatment of Patient 1 1, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, Specifically including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to treat Patient 11 with conservative, non?invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; b. Licensee subjected Patient 11 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected benefits; c. Licensee failed to impact Patient 11?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; and/or, d. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disciosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 129. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute vio'iations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65- 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure Petition Page 51 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. to adhere to the applicable standard of care. to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 11, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. K.S.A. in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; h. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100-24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 1 1; and/or, Petition Page 52 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12- HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 130. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT XII 131. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through one hundred thirty (130) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. 132. On or about January 29, 2013, Patient 12, a twenty (20) year old. female, presented to Licensee for ?chronic necn/back pain and migraines.? Patient 12 disclosed in her HHQ that she first noticed the pain or functional dif?culty when she was 13 years old and that the pain was worse when sitting or being still. Patient 12 further indicated that she had seen a chiropractor, general practitioner, and neurologist for the pain. Licensee documented that Patient 12 was there for ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain in neck and back and migraine headaches.? No other documentation from other providers is found in Licensee?s record for Patient 12. 133. Based on Licensee?s examination, he documented diagnoses of chronic head pain, chronic neck pain, and intermittent numbness in arm and shoulder area discomfort. Licensee recommended multiple injections to various areas. Licensee further recommended Patient 12 apply transdermal 11% mannitol to areas of neurogenic inflammation per Licensee?s treatment map provided. Petition Page 53 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 134. On or about December 26, 2013, Patient 12 presented to Licensee for an initial treatment of perineural and dextrose proliferant injection to treat chronic pain in neck and back and migraine headaches. Licensee documented Patient 12 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 12, Patient 12 was documented receiving three (3) 7.5/325mg Lortab pills, two (2) 50mg Vistaril pills, and half a .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 8:38; one and a half (1 1/2) of7.57325mg Lortab pills by mouth at 9:07; one and a half(1 of 7.5/325mg Lortab pills, a .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 9:27; and two (2) Lortab pills by mouth at 9:30. Licensee further prescribed twenty (20) pills of 7.5/325mg of Lortab and six (6) pills of .Smg of Xanax to Patient 12 that same day. 135. Post procedure, Patient 12 was discharged with a follow-up in two (2) months recommended. Patient 12 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed topically 11% mannitol cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s updated body map. 136.. On or about February 28, 2014, Patient 12 presented to Licensee for a follow?up appointment. Licensee?s HPI documented that Patient 12?s ?headache frequency of both constant and migraine headache[s]? had not changed and she had right knee pain when she ran. Licensee documented multiple injections ?to comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 12, Patient 12 was documented receiving three (3) 5mg Petition Page 54 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. Oxycodone IR pills, half(%) a .5mg Xanax pill, one (1) 50mg Vistaril pill at 2:02; one (1) 5mg Oxycodone IR pill and half .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 2:36; one (1) 5mg Oxycodone IR pill by mouth at 2:52: three (3) 5mg Oxycodone IR pills by mouth at 3:05; and two (2) milliliters of Zofran intravenously at 4:08. 137. Post procedure, Patient 12 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in 3-4 months. Patient 12 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. A prescription for 31% mannitol cream was also ?lled that same day. 138. On or about June 6, 2014, Patient 12 presented to Licensee for a follow-up appointment for chronic pain in the neck, back, and head. Licensee?s HPI documented Patient 12 noted pain improvement in severity and frequency and her concentration had improved. Licensee documented multiple injections ?to comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural inj ection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 12, Patient 12 was documented receiving six (6) 5mg Oxycodone IR pills, half (IA) a .5mg Xanax pill, two (2) 50mg Vistaril pills, one (1) 8mg Zofran pill by mouth at 11:44; and two (2) 5mg Oxycodone IR and half a .5mg Xanax pill by mouth at 12:20. 139. Post procedure, Patient 12 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in three (3) months. Patient 12 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. Petition Page 55 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 140. In the treatment of Patient 12, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to treat Patient 12 with conservative, non?invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; b. Licensee failed to impact Patient 12?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; c. Licensee subjected Patient 12 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, d. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 141. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior Petition Page 56 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 12, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. K.S.A. 65-28366), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; h. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 12; and/or, i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12- HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. Petition Page 5 7 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 142. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT 143. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through one hundred forty?two (142) as fully restated and re-alleged herein. 144. On or about November 27, 2013, Patient 13, a sixty-?ve 65) year old male, disclosed in his HHQ he wanted to repair his right knee and leg. Patient 13 further disclosed that he ?rst noticed the pain or "?inctional difficulty ten (10) years ago and that the pain was worse when he was twisting, lifting and jumping. Patient 13 also indicated that he had seen a general practitioner and an orthopedic specialist for the pain. 145. On or about December 18, 2013, Patient 13 presented to Licensee for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain knee pain.? Based on his evaluation, Licensee documented a diagnosis of Grade IV osteoarthritis, neurogenic in?ammation, and connective tissue pain contribution from the coronary ligaments. Licensee recommended multiple injections to various areas. Licensee further recommended Patientl3 apply twice daily and as needed transdermal 11% mannitol or 41% dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map provided. A prescription for twenty (20) 7.5/325mg of Lortab pills was filled that same day; however, there is an indication in Licensee?s documentation that no prescriptions were provided. 146. On or about December 19, 2013, Patient 13 presented to Licensee ?for a first treatment for chronic and severe more than knee pain.? Licensee documented Patient 13 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by Petition Page 58 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 13, Patient 13 was documented receiving two (2) '715/325mg Lortab pills by mouth at 12:00 pm. from Licensee?s prescription for Patient 13 written on December 18, 2013. 147. Post procedure, Patient 13 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in two (2) months. Patient 13 was also instructed to apply topically twice daily and as needed 11% mannitol cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. 148. On or about March 3, 2014, Patient 13 presented to Licensee for a follow?up after treatment ?for chronic and severe more than knee pain.? Licensee documented Patient 13 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with dextrose solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 13, Patient 13 was documented receiving two (2) 7.5/325mg Lortab pills by mouth at 12:26. 149. Post procedure, Patient 13 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in 2?3 months. Patient 13 was also instructed to apply topically twice daily and as needed 31% transdermal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. 150. In the treatment of Patient 13, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: Petition Page 5 9 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. a. Licensee failed to treat Patient 13 with conservative, non?invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; b. Licensee failed to impact Patient 13?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; c. Licensee subjected Patient 13 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; d. Licensee utilized an intervention in which there is no role in the treatment of meniscal pathology, degenerative arthopathy of the knee, or any condition affecting the knee or other parts of the lower limb; and/or e. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 151. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated as further defined in KSA. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence; as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further defined in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(3); in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior Petition Page 60 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 13, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings; examination results and test results; g. K.S.A. 65?28366), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing tomeet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 13; and/or; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. Petition Page 61 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 152. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT XIV 153. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through one hundred ?fty?two (152) as fully restated and re-alleged herein. 154. On or about June 6, 2014, Patient 14, a sixty-nine (69) year old male, disclosed in his HHQ he wanted to ?relieve pain in hips and regain ranage[sic] of motion.? He further documented he ?rst noticed the pain or ?lnctional difficulty" several vears ago and that the pain was worse when he was active. Patient 14 further advised that he had seen an orthopedic for the pain. 155. On or about June 10, 2014, Licensee documented an appointment for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain the hip region.? Based on his evaluation, Licensee documented a diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis with range of motion limits nearing functional impact level and no neurogenic contribution to pain except small nerves in the joint itself. Licensee documented Patient 14 was a candidate for total hip arthroplasty however, instead he planned to treat Patient 14 with injections? based on Patient 14?s request and the fact that in Licensee?s experience in joints has been favorable for reduction . . . Licensee further found no need for topical cream as there were no superficial nerve involvement meriting such use. 156. On or about June 19, 2014, Patient 14 presented to Licensee for follow?up for ?chronic pain in the hip region.? Licensee documented Patient 14 underwent an injection of 12mg of acellular platelet rich plasma in each hip. Petition Page 62 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 157. Post procedure, Patient 14 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in two (2) months, unless Patient 14 was ?virtually A prescription for twenty (20) 7.5/325mg Lortab was given to Patient 14 with no documentation in Licensee?s procedure note or appointment note for why the prescription was given. 158. Licensee did not have Patient 14 sign an informed consent form for experimental treatment of hip arthropathy 159. In the treatment of Patient 14, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of- care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to treat Patient 14 with conservative, non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; b. Licensee provided experimental/investigational treatment to Patient 14 that was inappropriate and unnecessary; c. Licensee wrongly treated Patient 14 with a treatment that had not been proven to be an effective treatment for chondrai. injury, chondral pathology, arthropathy, tendinopathy or bursitis affecting any body region, including the hips; d. Licensee subjected Patient. 14 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, e. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 160. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: Petition Page 63 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetenceto practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned'in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(24), in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately reflect the services rendered to Patient 14, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(27) Using experimental forms of therapy without proper informed patient Petition Page 64 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. consent, without conforming to generally accepted criteria or standard protocols, without keeping detailed legible records or without having periodic analysis of the study and results reviewed by a committee or peers. h. K.S.A. in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 14; and/or, j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 161. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65-2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT XV 162. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through one hundred sixty?one (161) as fully restated and re-alleged herein. 163. On or about January 16, 2014, Patient 15, a fifty?two (52) year old male, faxed two (2) separate notes with test results to Licensee?s office. One note indicated that Patient 15 had called the of?ce and was told. to fax in readings from MRIs he had done on his hips so Licensee could determine whether he was a good candidate for prolotherapy. A handwritten note appears on Patient 15?s faxed note stating ?candidate for eval. Prefer eval Petition Page 65 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. [and] treat separate by a week or more if he is close enough otherwise if no back pain 75 min next day.? There is no signature or indication for who was the author of the handwritten note or when the note was written. 164. On that same day, Patient 15 provided a copy of his MRI performed on February 25, 2013, and another performed on November 4, 2013. 165. On or about January 16, 2014, Licensee forwarded an email he sent to Patient 15 stating ?hip effusion, degenerative cartilage and spur and subchondral formation appear to be secondary to nerve in?uences on the balance of degenerative and reparative proteins. The hip nerves have now been identified and are treatable. . . The key is simple treatment of all the nerve and treatment in the joint with localization by ultrasound. What to inject in the joint is subject to discussion as comparative studies have not been done yet. Are you close enough to be evaluated?? 166. On or about March 31, 2014, Patient 15 disclosed in his HHQ he was there for ?hip and groin pain.? He further documented he ?rst noticed the pain or functional dif?culty in January 2013 and that the pain was worse when he was walking or running. Patient 15 further indicated that he had seen a chiropractor and orthopedic specialist for the pain. 167. On or about April 2, 2014, Patient 15 presented to Licensee for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic hip pain.? Based on his evaluation, Licensee documented diagnoses of chronic lateral hip pain, chronic groin/anterior pain, previous cuff tear, and. mild to moderate osteoarthritis. Licensee recommended multiple injections to various areas included acellular platelet rich plasma Further, Licensee recommended Patient 15 apply twice daily and as needed 7.5% or 31% prescription mannitol or non?prescription 41% dextrose and hydrocodone was Petition Page 66 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. recommended as oral medication sedation if required at follow?up. Licensee did not have Patient 15 sign an informed consent for experimental treatment of hip arthropathy and acetabular labral 168. On or about April 25, 2014, Licensee documented that an appointment for Patient 15?s ?rst treatment occurred. Licensee documented Patient 15 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 15, Patient 15 was documented receiving three (3) 5/325mg Oxycodone pills, one (1) 5mg Xanax pill, and one (1) 50mg Vistaril pill by mouth at 8:38; and two (2) 5/325mg Oxycodone pills by mouth at 8:58. 169. Post procedure, Patient 15 was discharged with a follow-up in two (2) months recommended. Patient 15 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed diluted or undiluted prescription 31% transdennal mannitol concentrate or 41% transderrnal dextrose cream to areas of neurogenic in?ammation per Licensee?s treatment map. 170. On or about May 21, 2014, a documented phone message from Patient 15 indicated he had called to make a payment and give a report. The message stated ?1 mon past inj. The improvement he sees is decrease in a need for pain med. Once every 3 days instead of daily. Still has pain and hoping for more improvement.? There is no indication whether Licensee reviewed or saw the phone message. 171. On or about June 26, 2014, Patient 15 presented to Licensee for a ?follow?up for lateral hip pain interfering with walking, groin pain interfering with hip external rotation, and need to change position frequently? occurred. Licensee further indicated that Patient Petition Page 67 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 15 still had constant pain located laterally over the trochanter area that varied from a 1?5 and had not had ?an arthritis batter.? Patient 15 underwent multiple injections to ?comprehensively reduce neurogenic pain sources by perineural injection/hydrodissection with dextrose or mannitol, and connective tissue insuf?ciency sources by enthesis in?ltration with proliferant solution.? In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 15, Patient 15 was documented receiving three (3) 5/325mg Oxycodone pills, one (1) 50mg Vistaril pill, and one (1) .5mgXanax pill by mouth at 8:52; and two (2) 5/325mg Oxycodone pills at 9:14. Patient 15 was documented to have brought in his own Oxycodone medication. Licensee did not have Patient 15 Sign an informed consent for experimental treatment of hip arthropathy and acetabular labral 172. Post procedure, Patient 15 was discharged with a recommendation to follow?up in three (3) months. Patient 15 was also instructed to apply twice daily and as needed diluted or undiluted prescription 31% transderrnal mannitol concentrate or 41% transdermal dextrose cream to areas of neurogenic inflammation per Licensee?s treatment map. Licensee further recommended ?an arthritis battery for his baseline records? since diclofenac was still helping Patient 15, but Patient 15 would be given the option of waiting until he became before doing so. Patient 15 was also given a prescription for sixty (60) 75mg pills of Diclofenac. 173. On or about July 1, 2014, Licensee received an email from Patient 15 indicating that post procedure he was ?pretty uncomfortable? but each day Patient 15 was doing ?a little bit better.? Patient 15 also indicated that he took a Diclofenac on Sunday afternoon and was going to see how long he could go without taking anymore. Petition Page 68 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 174. In the treatment of Patient 15, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, speci?cally including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to treat Patient 15 with conservative, non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; b. Licensee failed to impact Patient 15?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; c. Licensee provided experimental/investigational treatment to Patient 15 that was inappropriate and unnecessary; d. Licensee wrongly treated Patient 15 with a treatment that had not been proven to be an effective treatment for chondral injury, chondral pathology, arthropathy, tendinopathy or bursitis affecting any body region, including the hips; e. Licensee subjected Patient 15 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, f. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 175. Licensee?s acts and conduct constitute violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(2), in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure Petition Page 69 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(a)(3), in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; (1. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 283 in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 15, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65- 2837(b)(27) Using experimental forms of therapy without proper informed patient consent, without conforming to generally accepted criteria or standard protocols, without keeping detailed legible records or without having periodic analysis of the study and results reviewed by a committee or peers; Petition Page 70 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. h. K.S.A. in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K.A.R. 100?24-1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 15; and/or, j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12? HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. 176. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65?2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. COUNT XVI 177. Petitioner incorporates herein, by reference, paragraphs one (1) through one hundred seventy?six (176) as fully restated and re?alleged herein. 178. On or about June 26, 2014, Patient 16, a nineteen (19) year old female, disclosed in her HHQ she was there for ?left foot pain.? She further documented she was referred by Dr. Jalazar and Aimee Miyazawa. Patient 16 indicated she ?rst noticed the pain or functional difficulty September 2010 and that the pain was worse when she was running, jumping or changing directions. Patient 16 further indicated that she had seen a general practitioner, chiropractor, and orthopedic specialist for the pain. 179. On or about June 27, 2014, Patient 16 presented to Licensee for a ?comprehensive evaluation for potential treatment options for chronic pain.? Patient 16 was accompanied Petition Page 71 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. by her trainer, Aimee Miyazawa. Based on his evaluation, Licensee documented diagnoses of lateral midfoot, neurogenic inflammation, intermittent toe numbness and some stiffness, mild lateral sural nerve sensitization, lateral ankle ligament dysfunction mild, cubometatarsal dysfunction, and low back pain. Licensee documented Patient 16 underwent multiple injections that included platelet rich plasma of the acellular type. In Licensee?s procedure note for Patient 16, Patient 16 was documented receiving two (2) 500mg Tylenol pills by mouth at 3:26. Licensee did not have Patient 16 sign an informed consent for experimental treatment of a musculoskeletal condition affecting the foot and ar?ncle. 180. Post procedure, Patient 16 was discharged with the recommendation that Patient 16 contact Licensee in 2?4 weeks for timing of follow~up and to follow?up in one (1) month for a second treatment before volleyball season started. Patient 16 was also instructed to apply topical mannitol 4 inches above and 4 inches below the iliac crest. Patient 16 was also given Lidocaine Lot #32?3s2. 181. In the treatment of Patient l6, Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care constituting ordinary negligence, specifically including, but not limited to each of the following acts or omissions: a. Licensee failed to treat Patient 16 with conservative, non-invasive treatment or other proven accepted invasive treatments; b. Licensee failed to impact Patient 16?s and function by his interventions beyond a placebo effect; c. Licensee provided experimental/investigational treatment to Patient 16 that was inappropriate and unnecessary; Petition Page 72 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. d. Licensee wrongly treated Patient 16 with a treatment that had not been proven to be an effective treatment for any musculoskeletal condition affecting any body region, including the foot and ankle; e. Licensee subjected Patient 16 to unnecessary, invasive interventions without proven or reasonably expected bene?ts; and/or, f. Licensee failed to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree constituting ordinary negligence which is believed and alleged and will be disclosed upon proper discovery in the course of these proceedings. 182. Licensee?s acts and conduct constituteeviolations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act as follows: a. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has committed an act or acts of unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct; b. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee has committed repeated instances involving a failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the Board; c. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A: 65? 2837(a)(3), in that Licensee has committed a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts; d. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(12), in that Licensee?s conduct is likely to harm the public; Petition Page 73 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. e. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 283 in that Licensee has had a repeated failure to practice the healing arts with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar practitioner as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; f. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65? 2837(b)(25), in that Licensee failed to keep written medical records that accurately re?ect the services rendered to Patient 16, including patient histories, pertinent ?ndings, examination results and test results; g. Licensee has violated K.S.A. as further de?ned in K.S.A. 65~ 2837(b)( 27) Using experimental forms of therapy without proper informed patient consent, without conforming to generally accepted criteria or standard protocols, without keeping detailed legible records or without having periodic analysis of the study and results reviewed by a committee or peers; h. K.S.A. 65 28360), in that Licensee has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the Healing Arts Act; i. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful regulation promulgated by the Board, speci?cally, K..A.R. 100?24?1 by failing to meet the minimum requirements for an adequate patient record for Patient 16; and/or, j. Licensee has violated K.S.A. in that Licensee has violated a lawful order of the Board previously entered into by the Board in Docket No. 12- HA00072 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. Petition Page 74 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, MD. 183. Pursuant to K.S.A. 65-2836, the Board has grounds to revoke, suspend, place on probation, censure, or otherwise limit the Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Kansas for his violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Acts. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Board make ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law that Licensee committed these acts in violation of the Kansas Healing Arts Act, that Licensee?s license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Kansas be revoked, suspended, placed on probation, censured, or otherwise limited, and that the Board assess such administrative ?nes and impose such costs against Licensee as it shall deem just and proper and as authorized by law. WHEREF ORE, Petitioner further requests this matter to have a Presiding Of?cer be appointed and be set for a Formal Hearing pursuant to K.S.A. 77-513. Respectfully submitted, Susan R. Gering, #25582 Associate Litigation Counsel Jane E. Weiler, #25276 Associate Litigation Counsel 800 SW Jackson Street Lower Level Suite A Topeka, KS 66606 (785) 368?8212 (785) 368-8210 facsimile susan.gering@ks.gov iane.weiler@ks.gov Petition Page 75 of 76 K. Dean Reeves, M.D. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1? Ju an the certify thatlserveda true and correct copy of the PETITION by United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 1' \day of November. 2016 to the following: K. Dean Reeves Licensee Roeland Park, Kansas 66205 Thomas W. Harris A Itorneyfbr Licensee 4900 Johnson Dr. Roeland Park? Kansas 66205 And the original was hand-?led with: Kathleen Selzler Lippert Executive Director Kansas Board of Healing Arts 800 SW Jackson. Lower Level-Suite A Topeka. Kansas 66612 ?7 a . Stafi?Member Petition Page 76 of 76 K. Dean Reeves. MD.