WwW we) ees aaa o STATE OF FLORIDA Po ad DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 00 FEB -8 ayy): LQ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Diep a ADMINIST Rg ye PETITIONER, HES NGS vs. : CASE NUMBER: 99-55259 FARDIN ZARE, D.D.S., 09~Olololo RESPONDENT. ee / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Petitioner, Department of Health, hereinafter refered to as "Petitioner", and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Dentistry against FARDIN ZARE, D.D.S., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent", and alleges: 1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. 2. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43 (3) (g), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as the “Agency,” to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils or board, as appropriate, including the issuance of emergency orders of suspension or restriction. 3. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0014694. Respondent's last known address is 940 Fenton Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33809. WV Ne 4. From in or around September 1997, through in or around June 1998, Patient M.F. presented to the Respondent for dental treatment including, but not limited to, evaluation and placement of crowns on teeth #14 and #30 and a bridge for teeth #8 - #11. 5. Patient MF. required six (6) subsequent office visits to complete the necessary dental work. 6. An agency expert opined that the Respondent acted below the standard of care when he perforated the distal root of tooth #30 because of poor post placement. | 7. An agency expert opined that the Respondent acted below the standard of care when he constructed a maxillary anterior fixed bridge for teeth #8, #9, #10, & #11 which had multiple deficiencies, including, but not limited to, open margins, poor occlusion, and bulky contours. 8. As a direct result of these deviations in the standard of care, Patient M.F. had tooth #30 extracted. 9. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent’s license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida is subject to discipline pursuant to Section 466.028 (1) (x), Florida Statutes, for being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, including, but not limited to, the undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or experience or being guilty of dental malpractice. YU U WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Dentistry enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: revocation or suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of the Respondent's practice, imposition of an administrative fine and costs, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED hig ISL day of COUNSEL FOR AGENCY osanna M. Catalano Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Practitioner Regulation P. O. Box 14229, mail stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32317- 4229 (850) 487-9670 RMC