STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SHREEKANT B. MAUSKAR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2287

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, BOARD OF )

DENTISTRY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Miami, Florida, on October 10 and November 13, 1984, before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R. T. Carpenter. The appearances were as follows:

For Petitioner: Shreekant B. Mausar, D.D.S.

1325 Northeast 142nd Street North Miami, Florida 32301

For Respondent: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

This case arose on Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the dental mannequin examination administered in December, 1983. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes (F.S.). A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly herein, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a graduate of a dental college in India, which is not accredited by the American Dental Association, and has had postgraduate training in New York and Ireland.

   
   

2. Petitioner was a candidate for licensure by examination to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The dental mannequin examination, which is at issue here, consists of nine (9) procedures, each of which is graded separately.

   
   

3. Petitioner took the dental mannequin examination at the December, 1983, administration, which was his second attempt, and obtained a total overall grade for the dental mannequin examination of 2.06. An overall grade average of 3.0 is required to pass the mannequin examination.

4. The grading scale as established by Rule 21G-2.13, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) is as follow:

   
   

   O - Complete failure

   1. - Unacceptable dental procedure

   2. - Below minimal acceptable dental procedure

   3. - Minimal acceptable dental procedure

   4. - Better than minimally acceptable dental procedure

   5. - Outstanding dental procedure

      
      

5. Examiners for the dental examination are currently licensed dentists in the State of Florida who have been trained and standardized by Respondent, with training sessions taking place prior to each administration of the examination. During the standardization exercise, the examiners grade identical procedures and then discuss any grade variance and attempt to eliminate any discrepancies and interpretations of the grading criteria.

   
   

6. Each examination is graded on the above scale by three separate examiners. They are identified only by examiner number on the grade sheet and do not confer with each other or the candidate regarding the score given on any of the graded procedures.

   
   

7. Petitioner has challenged the overall examination which he believes was unfairly graded. In support of his argument, he relies mainly on differences in the scores assigned by the three examiners as well as their varying comments on the grade sheets. Specifically, Petitioner challenged procedures 02 through 08.

   
   

8. In addition to the grades assigned by the three examiners who are licensed Florida dentists, Respondent presented the testimony of its consultant, Dr. Simkin, who is also a licensed Florida dentist and an experienced examiner. Petitioner presented his own testimony on each procedure and that of Dr. Lee and Dr. Rosen, who are both experienced dentists. Dr. Lee is licensed in Florida, but Dr. Rosen is not.

   
   

9. The testimony of Doctors Simkin and Lee supported the evaluations given by the examiners, with the exception of the one high grade given on procedure 02 (discussed below) which was an error in Petitioner's favor. Dr. Muskar and Dr. Rosen generally conceded the deficiencies noted by the examiners and the other witnesses, but felt these deficiencies were not sufficiently serious to warrant the failing or minimum passing scores assigned.

   
   

10. Procedure 02 is the distal occlusal amalgam preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid. The prepared was found to have the sides drilled too deeply, the top was too shallow, and the break in contact between the teeth was too wide, so that there was some doubt as to whether the filling would be retained. The examiners gave the candidate a 3, 3, and 2, and correctly determined that there were problems with the outline form, the depth, retention and a failure to cut the preparation into the dentin.

    
    

11. On procedure 03, which is the distal class III preparation for a complete restoration on a maxillary central incisor, the evaluation of two of the examiners that there was no contact made between the teeth involved was correct. This is required of the candidate in the preparation of the denture form for this procedure. The examiner who assigned a grade of 5 was mistaken, but this grade was included in Respondent's overall score.

12. On procedure 04, which is the class III composite restoration of the distal of a maxillary lateral incisor, the examiners awarded 2, 2, and 1 (all failing grades). The restorative material did not duplicate the anatomy of the natural tooth, there not being a flush finish of all margins with the natural tooth structure and the final finish not showing high polish and correct anatomical contour.

    
    

13. On procedure 05, completed endodontic therapy using gutta percha in a maxillary lateral incisor, the x-ray (Respondent's Exhibit #3) revealed that the apex of the tooth root was not sealed against fluids in the bone and that there was approximately a one millimeter over-extension of the filling material. The examiners awarded failing grades of 2, 1, and 1, and found there was not proper apical extension in all canals, the gutta percha was not well condensed and adequate filling was not demonstrated by canal width.

    
    

14. On procedure 06, distal occlusal restoration on a tooth previously prepared and provided by Respondent, the examiners awarded grades of 1, 2, and 3, noting that there were problems with the functional anatomy, the proximal contour contact and the margin flush with cavo-surface margin.

    
    

15. On procedure 07, 3/4 crown preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid, grades of 3, 3, and 4 were awarded which are consistent, and the written comments supported the passing grades awarded.

    
    

16. On procedure 08, full crown preparation on a maxillary second molar, failing grades of 1, 1, and 1, were awarded with problems noted in the occlusal reduction, the axial reduction, and the ability of the crown to draw from the gingival margin. The grades awarded for this procedure were identical, the comments supported those grades and inspection of the exhibits confirmed comments and the grades.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

17. Section 466.006, Florida Statutes (1983) provides in part:

    
    

    (3) If an applicant is a graduate of a dental college or school not accredited in accordance with paragraph (2)(b) or a dental college or school not approved by the board he shall not be entitled

    to take the examinations required in this section to practice dentistry until he:

    * * *

    (c) Exhibits manual skills on a laboratory model pursuant to rules of the board. . . .

    If the applicant fails to exhibit competent clinical skills in two attempts, he shall not be entitled to take the examination authorized in subsection (4). . .

    
    

18. The challenged examination was Petitioner's second attempt to demonstrate the required clinical skills. Since he is not a graduate of an accredited dental school, he is precluded from further effort to become a licensed dentist in Florida unless he can demonstrate that Respondent did not give him the grade he earned. See State v. Pepper, 155 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).

19. Respondent's evidence established that its selection and training of examiners was in compliance with its rules 1/ and that the test was fairly and accurately graded by trained examiners in accordance with rule standards. 2/ There were no significant variances in the grades assigned by the examiners except on Procedure 03 where one examiner erred in Petitioner's favor. Further, the comments of the examiners supported the grades given and there was reasonable consistency among examiners as to the comments made.

    
    

20. The expert witnesses who testified in this proceeding generally supported the grades given by the examiners. Only Doctors Mauskar and Dr. Rosen, neither of whom are licensed Florida dentists, believed the procedures deserved higher grades. It is particularly significant that Dr. Lee, who was called by Petitioner, independently identified virtually the same deficiencies noted by the examiners and by Respondent's consultant, Dr. Simkin.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is

RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.

R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1984.

ENDNOTES

1/ Rule 21G-2.20, F.A.C.

2/ Rules 21G-2.13, 2.17 and 2.19.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Shreekant B. Mauskar, D.D.S. 1325 Northeast 142nd Street North Miami, Florida 32301

Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 84-002287

Orders for Case No: 84-002287