STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 79-382

) WILLIAM CECIL GRAHAM, D.D.S., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case on 9 May 1979, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire

2516 Gulf Life Tower Building Jacksonville, Florida 32207

For Respondent: Jesse J. McCrary, Esquire

3000 Executive Building

3050 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 300E Miami, Florida 33137

By administrative accusation filed 24 October 1978, the Florida State Board of Dentistry, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of William Cecil Graham, D.D.S., Respondent. As grounds therefor, it is alleged that Respondent performed dental treatment and engaged in the practice of dentistry at the home of a patient, Mrs. Dover Stokes; that, after being paid in full by Mrs. Stokes, Respondent failed to complete the work for which he had been paid; and that Respondent failed to notify the Dental Board of his changed address. At the completion of its case, Petitioner dismissed Count III regarding notification of change of address. These remaining charges are alleged to constitute professional misconduct so as to bring discredit upon the profession of dentistry in violation of Section 466.24(3)(a)(c)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes.

Three witnesses were called by petitioner, Respondent testified in his own behalf and three exhibits were admitted into evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. William Cecil Graham is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry and at all times herein involved was so licensed.

   
   

2. Dr. Graham began treating Mrs. Dover Stokes in August 1977, and during the time Mrs. Stokes was a patient, Respondent performed oral surgery,

   extractions and prepared upper and lower partial plates. All this work was done in Respondent's office located at 16580 Northwest 10th Avenue, Miami. For this work Mrs. Stokes paid Respondent approximately $500.

   
   

3. Mrs. Stokes suffers from glaucoma and is nearly blind. She began going to Respondent for treatment upon the recommendation of one of Mrs. Stokes' roomers who is a cousin of Respondent. This roomer generally provided Mrs. Stokes transportation to and from Respondent's office for treatment. After the impressions for the plates had been taken and close to the time these plates were delivered to Respondent, he suddenly had to leave the Northwest Miami office. He advised Mrs. Stokes, and presumably his other patients, of his imminent departure and that he would contact her when relocated. Since he had by then received the partial dentures, Mrs. Stokes asked him to bring them to her.

   
   

4. Respondent had been to Mrs. Stokes home on previous occasions to collect payments and he agreed to bring the plates to her.

   
   

5. When Respondent took these plates to Mrs. Stokes, he brought along a portable hand grinder to adjust the plates. During this visit, Respondent tried the plates in Mrs. Stokes' mouth and she found them tight. After making some adjustments, Respondent left with the plates for additional adjustment. No instrument was used in Mrs. Stokes' mouth while the plates were being fitted at her home. Respondent returned to Mrs. Stokes' home in early November 1977, inserted the plates and made additional adjustments. Mrs. Stokes was happy with the plates at this time. Upon leaving, Respondent advised Mrs. Stokes that he would contact her as soon as he was relocated in an office.

   
   

6. After not hearing from Respondent and experiencing discomfort with her plates, Mrs. Stokes began searching for Respondent. Mrs. Stokes testified that she called Graham's home and his wife couldn't tell her how to contact Graham. Respondent testified that Mrs. Stokes called his home, spoke to his wife who relayed Mrs. Stokes message to him, and that he called Mrs. Stokes in early January 1978. At this time, Graham was still without an office. During this conversation, Mrs. Stokes expressed her dissatisfaction with Respondent. When he offered to send her to another dentist, Mrs. Stokes said she didn't want another black dentist. At this point Respondent realized further communication with Mrs. Stokes was impossible and he suggested that she select a dentist and he, Graham, would pay for the treatment she needed. Mrs. Stokes doesn't recall this conversation; however, Respondent's testimony in this regard is accepted as the true version of what happened.

   
   

7. Mrs. Stokes next contacted the State Dental Board with her complaint about Respondent. The matter was referred to a Board member in Miami, Marshall

   A. Brothers, who telephoned the number of the office in Northwest Miami where Stokes had previously worked and was advised the whereabouts of Graham was unknown. Dr. Brothers did not speak directly to one of the dentists in the Northwest Miami office when the call was made to locate Graham. No correspondence was sent to the office previously used by Respondent. When Brothers was unable to contact Graham, he did nothing further to investigate the treatment that had been provided Mrs. Stokes by Respondent.

   
   

8. In July 1978, Respondent opened an office on Northwest 54th Street in Miami. Mrs. Stokes telephoned the office and Respondent returned her call. He offered to examine her teeth, but Mrs. Stokes said she didn't want him to work on her. Respondent then renewed his offer to Mrs. Stokes to select a dentist of her choice, have him do the necessary work, and he, Graham, would pay for it.

9. Mrs. Stokes then visited a dentist close to her home and advised him that Respondent would pay for the treatment. This dentist, Dr. Efrom, called Respondent who confirmed that he would pay for the treatment Mrs. Stokes required. Dr. Efrom found some rough places on the plates which he polished, corrected some sore spots in Mrs. Stokes' mouth, filled a cavity, and his technician cleaned Mrs. Stokes' teeth. Respondent paid for this treatment, although he had not contracted to fill a tooth for Mrs. Stokes or to do the cleaning.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.

    
    

11. Section 466.24(3), Florida Statutes, provides the license of a dentist shall be revoked or suspended when the defendant has been found guilty of:

    
    

    1. Misconduct either in his business or in his personal affairs which would

       bring discredit upon the dental profession;

       * * *

       1. Malpractice;

       2. Willful negligence in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene; or

       * * *

       (j) Practicing dentistry along the streets or highways or any place other than the office where the licensee regularly practices dentistry except as provided by this chapter.

       
       

12. Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    Any person shall be deemed to be practicing dentistry . . . who places such applicances or structure [prosthetic denture, bridge, applicance] in the human mouth or adjusts or

    attempts or professes to adjust the same . . .

    
    

13. When Respondent was required to leave the dental office in October 1977, he notified the complaining witness in this case of this fact and that he would be unable to complete her work until he relocated to the new office. At the insistence of Mrs. Stokes, Respondent brought to her home the plates that had been made for her and attempted to fit them. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that Mrs. Stokes is legally blind and has difficulty transporting herself around the city. Taking partial plates to the home of someone in this category and attempting to adjust them to fit is not quite the same as extracting teeth on the sidewalk. Although no instruments were inserted in the patient's mouth, this fitting of dentures meets the definition of the practice of dentistry as defined in the above quoted statute.

    
    

14. No evidence was submitted from which a determination can be made that the acts of Respondent here under consideration constitute conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the dental profession.

    
    

15. From the foregoing, it is concluded that Respondent engaged in practice of dentistry in violation of Section 466.24(3)(j), Florida Statutes,

when he adjusted and attempted to fit the partial plates in the mouth of Mrs. Grover Stokes and that this occurred in the home of Mrs. Stokes and not in Respondent's dental office. It is further concluded that these acts of Respondent were ill-advised but stemmed more from sympathy for the patient than from financial gain to the Respondent. The evidence will not support a finding that Respondent violated the other provisions of Section 466.24, Florida Statutes, as alleged. It is therefore

RECOMMENDED that William Cecil Graham, D.D.S., be issued a written admonition for violation of Section 466.24(3)(j), Florida Statutes.

ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida.

COPIES FURNISHED:

H. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Building Jacksonville, Florida 32207

Jesse J. McCrary, Esquire 3000 Executive Building

3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 300E

Miami, Florida 33137

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF PROFESSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY

FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 79-382

WILLIAM CECIL GRAHAM, D.D.S.

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this matter came before the Florida State Board of Dentistry at its meeting in Tampa, Florida, July 14, 1979, for consideration of the Recommended Order entered by K. N. Ayers, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The Recommended Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

In consideration thereof, the Board finds as follows:

1. The findings of fact contained in the Recommended order are adopted by the Board as its findings of fact and are incorporated herein as though fully set forth;

   
   

2. The conclusions of law contained in the Recommended Order are adopted by the Board as its conclusions and are incorporated herein as though fully set forth;

   
   

3. Respondent has filed no exceptions to the Recommended Order, and the Board finds the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board hereby adopts the recommendation of the Hearing Officer except to the extent that the Board finds, under the circumstances, that the penalty of a written admonition to Respondent is not warranted. Accordingly, it's ORDERED that this complaint should be, and it is hereby CLOSED.

DONE this 14th day of July, 1979 at Tampa, Florida.

ALVIN H. SAVAGE, D.D.S. CHAIRMAN

STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY

Docket for Case No: 79-000382

Orders for Case No: 79-000382