STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROBERT L. CHACONA, D.M.D., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 80-412

)

BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

An administrative hearing was held on the above matter by H. E. Smithers on October 24, 1980 at Orlando, Florida.

Kenneth M. Meer represented the Petitioner and John E. Griffin and Deborah

1. Miller, the Respondent.

   
   

   This action commenced by the filing of a hearing request on May 29, 1980 by Robert L. Chacona (Petitioner or Chacona) against the Florida State Board of Dentistry (Respondent or Board). Petitioner alleged that he should have received a passing grade on the Board's June 1979 examination; more particularly, Chacona alleges that the zero grade he received on the gold cast laboratory portion of the examination was unjust and unfairly given. The issue, as finally presented in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, is whether the grade of zero received on the laboratory portion of Petitioner's dentist exam should be revised to a higher grade, or whether Petitioner should be allowed to retake only the laboratory portion of the dentist exam relating to cast gold restorations.

   
   

   The Petitioner testified and presented Dr. Savage as an expert dental witness. Respondent presented two Board members that were also graders in the June 1979 exam (Drs. Bliss and Dannahower). The record consists of 193 pages of transcript, Petitioner's Exhibits PI and 2, and Respondent's Exhibits R1-8.

   Proposed findings of fact of the parties are included to the extent they were relevant and material, and not conclusions of law.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Petitioner has been a dentist for five years, licensed to practice in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.

      
      

   2. Petitioner took Florida's dentist exam in June, 1979. As the result of scoring a zero on the cast gold laboratory part oil the exam, he received a failing grade of 74 percent (75 percent was passing) on the clinical or practical portion of the exam. Petitioner reviewed the exam with the Board, who refused to change the grade for lack of jurisdiction.

      
      

   3. The involved laboratory exam dealt with the Examinee's ability to do laboratory procedures and is graded independently of other aspects of the

      clinical portion of the exam. The procedure required the taking an impression of the patient's mouth, the mounting of that cast on a semi-adjustable articulator, the preparation of a die model of the tooth being restored, the preparation of a wax pattern on the die, the investing of the wax pattern in a stove, and the injection of molten gold into the area from which the wax has been burned out. The gold inlay may be pickled and cleaned but not otherwise made to fit the die. Prior to the exam, Petitioner had received a copy of the instructions and basis for grading.

      
      

   4. Petitioner took two impressions of the cavity. From the accurate portions of the two impressions, two dies were made. Petitioner undercut the deficient area of the first die so it would reflect the accurate portion of the second die. From this procedure an acceptable cast gold inlay was produced.

      
      

   5. The Board's graders were given instruction, standardized and tested for consistency prior to the exam. Petitioner's two graders received an inter-rater reliability of 95 percent for the June 1979 exam. Each grader rated Petitioner's work independently and concluded his work was completely unacceptable in every category listed on the grade sheet. Petitioner's witness contended the zero grade was unwarranted as a gold inlay had been produced that did fit the patient's tooth; however, he could not grade all of the Petitioner's lab work as it was not before him.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

   6. The Petitioner has the burden of proving the grade he received was unjust and unfairly given. The most Chacona established was that reasonable men may differ and that there was no written policy or standard regarding the basis for giving a zero on laboratory work. This does not overcome the presumption of the validity of the grade. State ex. rel. I. H. Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners for Jacksonville Beach, Florida, 101 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). However, absent a rule to the contrary, Petitioner should be permitted to retake only the laboratory procedures that were failed.

RECOMMENDATION

From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request to revise the laboratory portion of

his June 1979 dentist exam to a higher grade be DENIED; however, Petitioner

should be permitted to retake only that portion of the exam in which he received a zero.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida.

H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

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

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1980.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Kenneth Meer, Esquire Post Office Drawer B

Winter Park, Florida 32790

John Griffin, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room 1604 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Deborah Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 80-000412

Orders for Case No: 80-000412