STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ) ADMINISTRATION, BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5799
)
ROMEY BUZLEA, D.D.S., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A formal hearing was conducted in this proceeding before Daniel Manry, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 11, 1995, in Orlando, Florida. The parties, the court reporter, and witnesses attended the formal hearing in Orlando. The undersigned conducted the formal hearing by video conference from Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire
Department of Business & Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Thomas E. Gordon, Jr., Esquire
3751 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 150 Post Office Box 1975
Orlando, Florida 32803 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, 1/ by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in the diagnosis and treatment of a patient for whom Respondent provided a crown and fixed bridge.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on March 18, 1993. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing.
At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses and submitted three exhibits for admission in evidence. Respondent testified in his own behalf, presented the testimony of one witness, and submitted no exhibits for admission in evidence.
The identity of the witnesses and exhibits and the rulings concerning each are reported in the transcript of the formal hearing filed with the undersigned on March 15, 1995. Petitioner timely filed its proposed recommended order ("PRO") on May 31, 1995. Respondent timely filed his PRO on May 30, 1995.
An Order granting the Joint Motion For Extension Of Time extended the time for filing a late filed exhibit until July 17, 1995. However, the parties subsequently advised the undersigned that the Joint Motion For Extension Of Time was filed with the wrong case number on it and withdrew the request for extesion of time.
Proposed findings of fact in Petitioner's PRO are accepted in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact in Respondent's PRO are addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice dentistry and for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent practices general dentistry under license number DN 0002494.
Background
Mr. Hubert Anderson is a 70-year-old male (the "patient"). The patient initially saw Respondent in September, 1989, for replacement of a three-unit gold bridge that had been seated many years earlier.
The patient did not experience any pain from the old bridge. However, the old bridge had to be replaced because tooth #8 had abscessed and needed to be removed.
On October 30, 1989, Respondent constructed and installed a porcelain- fused-to-metal bridge. The bridge is a six unit, anterior, fixed bridge for teeth numbers 6-11.
The pontics of the bridge are located in the space formerly occupied by the patient's two anterior teeth, numbers 8 and 9. The two crowned teeth on either side of the pontics, numbers 6,7, and 10,11, form the abutments in the bridge that hold the pontics in place. 2/
Respondent built up tooth number 10 with dissolvable dental cement. A non-dissolvable material should have been used to build up tooth number 10.
The patient experienced generalized pain and soreness in the mouth immediately upon installation of the bridge by Respondent. The patient returned to Respondent's office approximately one month later complaining that everything hurt.
Respondent told the patient that nothing was wrong. However, Respondent offered to replace the bridge if the patient would have root canals done on all four abutments. 3/
Respondent did not confirm his diagnosis with x-rays. Open margins caused by an ill fitting bridge can cause symptoms similar to those associated with the need for root canals including: sensitivity to hot and cold; sensitivity upon chewing or eating sweet, sour, or salty food; and generalized aching.
Open Margins
The pain experienced by the patient was caused by the ill fitting bridge constructed and installed by Respondent. The substructure of the bridge was so ill fitting that the entire bridge needed to be replaced in 1991. 4/ None of the bridge margins fit well around the abutment teeth. 5/
Tooth number 6 has grossly open distal and mesial margins. Tooth numbers 7 and 10 have grossly open distal, mesial, and facial margins. Tooth number 11 is sensitive to percussion and has open margins circumferentially. 6/
The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent jeopardize the patient's health. The open margins present areas where bacteria and food debris can collect and lead to decay or plaque. Open margins also expose nerve endings in dentin and cause discomfort. 7/
Other Causes Excluded
The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by decay. A porcelain-fused-to- metal bridge with properly adapted margins at the time the bridge is seated in the patient's mouth will not exhibit open margins over a short period of time unless there is recurrent decay which erodes the teeth away from the bridge margin. The patient does not exhibit recurrent decay.
The patient's decay resistance is evidenced by his age and lack of fillings or cavities in his teeth. The absence of recurrent decay was documented in two separate dental examinations. 8/
The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by gum recision. The patient has no periodontal problems, including periodontal problems in the area where the bridge is located. 9/
The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by normal wear and tear. The open margins on a porcelain-fused- to-metal bridge do not expand under normal wear and tear. Even if expansion were to occur as a result of normal wear and tear, the expansion would be slight and would occur over a period of 10 to 15 years.
The margins in the bridge installed by Respondent are gross margins that were present when the bridge was installed. They were documented by examination within two years of the date of installation.
The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by expansion of the metal in the porcelain-fused-to-metal bridge. If the bridge margins were closed at the time the bridge was initially seated, and then later opened due to expansion of the underlying metal, the porcelain veneer on all of the abutments would have fractured. The porcelain on the patient's abutments is intact. 10/
Negligence And Incompetence
Respondent is incompetent and negligent within the meaning of Section 466.028(1)(y). Open margins in the patient's bridge are the result of Respondent's failure to meet the minimum standards of performance in installing the patient's bridge. 11/
Prior to permanently cementing a bridge to a patient's mouth, a dentist should "try-in" the bridge, checking all margins, contacts, and occlusion by clinical examination and x- ray. Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists by failing to detect the open margins at the time of the try-in and by failing to remake the bridge by retaking the impression and sending it back to the laboratory for re-fabrication.
The patient complained of pain on at least two separate occasions. Respondent's failure to use x-rays to determine the cause of the patient's complaints of pain failed to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists.
All crown and bridge margins should end on sound tooth structure. The bridge installed by Respondent is short and does not finish on sound tooth structure. The failure to finish on sound tooth structure fails to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists.
The margin on tooth number 10 ends on the build-up of cement and not on sound tooth structure. The failure to finish the bridge on non-dissolvable material fails to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists.
Respondent failed to detect open margins when initially fitting the bridge on the patient and upon two subsequent examinations. Respondent diagnosed the patient as needing root canals without verifying the diagnosis with x-rays. Respondent failed to determine the cause of the patient's pain on two separate examinations including the failure to use x-rays for diagnostic purposes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto. The parties were duly noticed for the formal hearing.
Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the reasonableness of any penalty to be imposed. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Petitioner satisfied its burden of proof. For the reasons stated in the Findings Of Fact, Respondent is guilty of incompetence and negligence within the meaning of Section 466.028(1)(y).
Florida Administrative Code Rule 21G-13.005(5) authorizes imposition of a written reprimand, probation, a fine not to exceed $3,000, suspension, and revocation. Neither revocation nor suspension are requested by Petitioner. Neither is appropriate considering the absence of prior violations by Respondent and the degree of harm caused by Respondent's incompetence or negligence.
Petitioner requests a fine of $3,000, a written reprimand, and probation in this proceeding. The proposed penalty is appropriate considering the harm to the patient, the opportunity for Respondent to correct the harm, and the failure of Respondent to do so.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty
of violating Section 466.028(1)(y), reprimanding Respondent, imposing a fine of
$3,000, and placing Respondent on probation for one year pursuant to the terms of probation prescribed in Petitioner's PRO.
RECOMMENDED this 18th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL S. MANRY
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July 1995.
ENDNOTES
1/ All section references are to Florida Statutes (1993) unless otherwise stated.
2/ A fixed bridge is a dental prosthesis used to fill in spaces where teeth are missing by attaching crowns to teeth on either side of the space. The crowned teeth are abutments. The portions of the bridge that replace the missing teeth and fill the space formerly occupied by the missing teeth are pontics. The abutments hold the pontics in place.
3/ The patient returned to Respondent's office on September 27, 1991, and demanded a refund. Respondent examined the patient and restated that he would replace the bridge only if the patient had root canals done on this teeth.
Respondent did not take x-rays to confirm his diagnosis.
4/ A properly constructed and installed bridge has a reasonable life expectancy of 10 years or more. The bridge constructed and installed by Respondent needed to be replaced within two years.
5/ A margin is the point at which the bridge comes into contact with the reduced tooth. A margin is open when the bridge does not fit flush against the surface of the reduced tooth.
6/ The patient was examined on September 5, 1991, by Jonathan Preble, D.D.S., and in December, 1992, by Ernest Riggs, D.D.S. The two examinations reached substantially similar findings.
7/ Dentin is the softer portion of the tooth under the enamel. It is highly susceptible to tooth decay.
8/ Dr. Preble's examination revealed some decay on three teeth unrelated to the bridge area. No decay was noted on the bridge abutments. Dr. Ernest Riggs examination found no recurrent decay.
9/ Dr. Preble's examination revealed no periodontal problems. Dr. Riggs' examination found no noticeable gingival recession.
10/ Porcelain is baked into a rigid metal substructure that supports the porcelain and gives it a tooth-like appearance. The porcelain is glass. It is very brittle and non-ductile. The metal used in an anterior bridge must be extremely rigid to support the porcelain without movement. Otherwise, the porcelain will fracture. Dr. Preble's examination in 1991 revealed no chipped or broken porcelain.
11/ Negligence or incompetence is not measured by the failure of the bridge or the failure of the bridge to be in active service. A bridge may be in active service even if it is inadequate. When a bridge fails, there may be discomfort, tooth sensitivity, tenderness, palpation, and inadequate margins. A poorly fitted bridge may fail or the teeth that support the bridge may fail before the bridge fails. By the time a bridge falls out, the abutments can be so decayed that the area can not be restored. A bridge may fail over a period of time, and neither the patient nor the dentist may be aware of the deterioration in health. The only way to detect decay under the bridge is if the decay extends beyond the margin and travels down the root so that it's visible upon clinical inspection. Alternatively, the decay may be so extensive that the prepared tooth separates from the crown and there is a visible gap between the crown and the remaining tooth. X-ray of the tooth underneath the crown is impossible since x-rays do not pass through metal crowns.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5799
Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact.
Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted in this Recommended Order.
Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact.
1.-7. | Accepted | in | substance | ||
8. | Rejected | as | recited testimony | ||
9. | Accepted | in | substance | ||
10.-12. | Rejected | as | recited testimony | ||
13.-14. | Accepted | in | substance | ||
15. | Rejected | as | not supported by credible | and | persuasive |
evidence | |||||
16. | Rejected | as | recited testimony | ||
17. | Accepted | in | substance | ||
18. | Rejected | as | recited testimony | ||
19. | Rejected | as | irrelevant and immaterial | ||
20. | Rejected | as | not supported by credible | and | persuasive |
evidence | |||||
21.-22. | Rejected | as | recited testimony | ||
23.-24. | Rejected | as | not supported by credible | and | persuasive |
evidence | |||||
24.-26. | Rejected | as | recited testimony | ||
27. | Rejected | as | irrelevant and immaterial | ||
COPIES FURNISHED:
Douglas M. Cook, Director
Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florid 32308
William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry
Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Medical Quality Assurance 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765
Jerome Hoffman, General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301
325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303
Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business & Professional
Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Thomas E. Gordon, Jr., Esquire 3751 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 150 Post Office Box 1975
Orlando, Florida 32803
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF DENTISTRY
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,
Petitioner,
DOAH CASE NO.: 94-5799
vs. CASE NO.: 91-13918
LICENSE NO.: DN 0002494
ROMEY BUZLEA, D.D.S.,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Dentistry pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on September 16, 1995, in Orlando, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration v. Romey Buzlea, D.D.S., DOAH Case No. 94-5799. At e hearing, Petitioner was represented by Nancy M. Snurkowski, Chief Attorney. Respondent appeared before the Board with Thomas E. Gordon, Jr., Esquire. Upon consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, after review of the entire record and having been otherwise fully advised in its premises, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTION
Respondent's first exception is accepted and the term "dissolvable" in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order is replaced with the term "dental" as suggested by Respondent.
Respondent's second exception is rejected because the Hearing Officer's finding of fact set forth in paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's third exception is rejected because the Hearing Officer's finding of fact set forth in paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's fourth exception is rejected because the Hearing Officer's finding of fact set forth in paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's fifth exception is accepted to the extent that it suggests that paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order should be clarified. Therefore, the
Board modifies paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order to add the words "on the bridge abuttments" to the end of the final sentence of paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order.
Respondent's sixth exception is accepted to the extent that it suggests that paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order is too broad. Therefore, the Board modifies paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order to replace the word "recision" with the word "recession" and deletes the words "including periodontal problems" in the second sentence of paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order. The result of these changes is to make clear that the patient had no periodontal problems in the area where the bridge was located.
Respondent's seventh exception is rejected because the Hearing Officer's finding of fact set forth in paragraph 16 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's eighth exception is rejected because the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 17 of the Recommended Order is an appropriate inference to be drawn from the evidence and testimony presented in the hearing. However, the Board sua sponte amends paragraph 17 of the Recommended Order by inserting the word "open" between the words "gross" and "margins" on the second line of paragraph 17. This is the correct terminology to describe the condition supported by the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing.
Respondent's ninth exception is rejected because the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 18 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's tenth exception is rejected because the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 19 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's eleventh exception is rejected because to the extent that the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 20 of the Recommended Order is an issue of the credibility of the witnesses, it is solely within the purview of the Hearing Officer to make such determinations, and to the extent that the finding of fact is based on evidence and testimony, it is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's twelfth exception is rejected because to the extent that the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 21 of the Recommended Order is an issue of the credibility of the witnesses, it is solely within the purview of the Hearing Officer to make such determinations, and to the extent that the finding of fact is based on evidence and testimony, it is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's thirteenth exception is rejected because the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 22 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's fourteenth exception is rejected because the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 23 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's fifteenth exception is rejected because the finding of fact of the Hearing Officer set forth in paragraph 24 of the Recommended Order is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Respondent's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law set forth in paragraphs 27-29 of the Recommended Order are rejected by the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact as amended above, are approved and adopted and are incorporated herein by reference.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's findings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to Section 120.57 and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes.
The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are approved and adopted and are incorporated herein by reference.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusions.
The Board approves and adopts the Hearing Officer's recommendation that Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 466. 028 (1)(y), Florida Statutes, and imposing a REPRIMAND of Respondent's license to practice dentistry, imposing an administrative fine of $3000.00, and placing Respondent's license to practice dentistry on PROBATION for a period of one year with terms and conditions set by the Board.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Respondent violated Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, and Respondent's license to practice dentistry shall receive a REPRIMAND; Respondent SHALL pay an ADMINISTRATIVE FINE of
$3,000.00 with said fine to be paid within 60 days to the Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry; and Respondent's license to practice dentistry shall be placed on PROBATION for a period of one year during which time Respondent shall complete 30 continuing education credits in crown and bridge, all such continuing education shall comply with Rule 59Q-12, Florida Administrative Code, shall be completed through personal attendance at live presentations and shall be in addition to any continuing education required for Respondent to renew his dental license. Upon completion of said continuing education credits, the Respondent shall request that the provider submit verification of completeness to the Board of Dentistry.
This Final Order becomes effective upon its filing with the Clerk for the Agency for Health Care Administration.
The parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Agency for Health Care Administration and by filing a filing fee and one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is filed.
DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1995.
BOARD OF DENTISTRY
CAROL E. WILLIAMSON, D.M.D. CHAIRPERSON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been forwarded by United States Mail this 2nd day of November 1995, to Dr. Romey D. Buzlea 1549 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789-2205, and to Thomas E. Gordon, Jr., Esquire, 3751 Maquire Boulevard, Suite 150, Post Office Box 1975, Orlando, Florida, and by interoffice delivery to Daniel Manry, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, and by hand delivery to Nancy M. Snurkowski, Chief Attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750.
William H. Buckhalt, C.P.M. Executive Director
Board of Dentistry
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 18, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 04/11/95. |
| Jul. 18, 1995 | Letter to Parties from Lew Petzold (RE: brief overview of Human Crisis Council) filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1995 | Order Granting Enlargement of Time sent out. |
| Jun. 06, 1995 | (Petitioner) Joint Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| May 31, 1995 | Order Granting Extension of Time sent out. (Motion granted) |
| May 31, 1995 | (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| May 30, 1995 | (Respondent) Recommended Finds of Fact; (Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order; (Respondent) Closing Argument filed. |
| May 12, 1995 | (Petitioner) Joint Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| May 01, 1995 | Transcript of Proceeding ; Exhibits filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Apr. 10, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Respondent`s Answers to Petitioner`s Request for Admissions filed. |
| Apr. 10, 1995 | Motion for continuance (Respondent) filed. |
| Apr. 10, 1995 | Motion for continuance (Respondent) filed. |
| Apr. 07, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Apr. 05, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Summary Judgment filed. |
| Mar. 29, 1995 | Petitioner`s Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion for Summary Disposition filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions; Petitioner`s First Request for Interrogatories; Petitioner`s First Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Ernest Riggs, D.D.S.; Deposition of Jonathan W. Preble, D.D.S.; Affidavit of Oscar Sistrunk, D.D.S.; Affidavit of Romey Buzlea, D.D.S. filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Deposition of Ernest John Riggs, D.D.S. filed. |
| Mar. 07, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Scheduling Independent Examination filed. |
| Feb. 20, 1995 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Request for Admissions; Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Request for Interrogatories; Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Jan. 19, 1995 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1995 | (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum; Sheriff's Return of Service; Affidavit of Service; Subpoena Ad Testificandum Tagged filed. |
| Dec. 27, 1994 | (Respondent) (3) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1994 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (Video Hearing set for 4/11/95; 1:30pm; Orlando) |
| Dec. 12, 1994 | Order Denying Motion to Hold In Abeyance The Response to Initial Order sent out. (Motion denied) |
| Nov. 04, 1994 | Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Oct. 26, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Oct. 13, 1994 | Agency referral letter; (Respondent) Notice of Appearance; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights; Notice of Substitution of Parties filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 01, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 18, 1995 | Recommended Order | Dentist who improperly fitted bridge and failed to correct it is guilty of negligent and incompetence and subject to $3000.00 fine, reprimand and probation. |
