Jan 1? 2008 14:21 JAN-1?-2888 14:52 AHCA P.@2/17 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, VS. CASE NUMBER; 2004-39622 GRACE BAGINSKI, D.D.S., , RESPONDENT. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Dentistry against the Respondent, Grace Baginski, D.D.S., and in support thereof alleges: 1. Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of Dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a licensed dentist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 15365. JAPSU\Medical\wayne mitchel\7-04f. DNTL-AC’s\Bagnski04-39622(m)(x)dntrs.doc Jan 1? 2008 14:22 JAN-17-2888 14:53 AHCA 3. Respondent’s address of record is 800 East Ocean Boulevard, Ste. 1, Stuart, Florida 34994. 4, The Respondent provided dental care and treatment to Patient O.M. from on or about October 12, 2004, through on or about November 2, 2004. | 5. Patient O.M, initially presented to the Respondent on October 12, 2004, complaining of ill-fitting dentures. The Respondent failed to document performing an intra-oral exam, did not. document a diagnosis of Patient O.M.’s occlusal scheme, gum ridge formation, or any other diagnostic procedures including x-rays to determine the condition of Patient O.M.’s mouth and gums. The Respondent's teeth chart of Patient O.M. indicated he presented completely edentulous (without teeth). 6. The Respondent’s treatment note for Patient O.M’s: initial | visit on October 12, 2004, simply stated “splash imps classic” indicating single impressions of Patient O.M.’s mouth were taken for replacement of the full dentures. The Respondent did not note any radiographic or other diagnostic findings to support’ a 2 JAPSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\7-O4f. DNTL-AC's\Bagnski04-39622(m)(xjdnirs.doc Jan 1? 2008 14:23 JAN-17-2888 14:54 AHCA P.B4/17 recommendation for Patient O.M. to undergo immediate replacement of full upper and lower dentures, 7. The Respondent did not document that she explaimed the procedure of fabricating dentures to Patient O.M. and whether any relining would be needed shortly after placement of the dentures. The Respondent failed to provide a comprehensive diagnosis of the 7 general condition of the teeth, gums and mouth of Patient O.M. 8. Patient O.M. also presented with a poor lower mandibular ridge form, which was not recorded or mentioned anywhere in the Respondent’s diagnostic or treatment notes or accounted for in the treatment plan for denture replacements. There is no. documented informed consent for the denture replacement treatment plan for Patient O.M. in the treatment records maintained by the Respondent. 9. Patient O.M. returned to the Respondent's office on or about October 18, 2004, for delivery and seating of the replacement dentures. The Respondent's treatment note for that visit stated simply “del.” indicating final delivery of the dentures, with no try-in or occlusal matching prior to final delivery. 3 . JAPSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\7-04 LDNTL-AC's\Bagnski04-39622(m)(x)dntrs.doc Jan 1? 2008 14:23 JAN-17-2888 14:54 AHCA P.85/17 10. On or about October 21, 2004, through October 28, 2004, the Respondent proceeded with three separate post-denture insertion adjustment appointments. Treatment notes for the ‘first two adjustment appointments indicate simply “adj.” without any diagnostic. statement of what was being adjusted and/or why. On October 28, 2004, there was a notation in the treatment record that a reline of the lower denture was done at no charge. A denture reline is usually performed to correct fit on worn dentures, but is generally not done within two weeks of delivery of a new denture. 11. Patient O.M. continued to complain the new dentures fit poorly and were causing sore spots on his gums. On or about November 2, 2004, Patient O.M. returned to the Respondent's office’ complaining that the dentures did not fit properly, and he was generally unhappy with the appearance and fit of both the dentures, and demanding a refund. The Respondent paid Patient O.M. -half of what he paid, and kept the dentures which have become unavailable according to the Respondent. This complaint was filed in March of 2005. 4 JAPSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\7-04f DNTL-A C's\Bagnski04-39622(m)(xjdntrs.doc Jan 1? 2008 14:24 JAN-17?-2888 14:55 AHCA P6717 12. When Patient O.M. presented to the Respondent in October of 2004 the Respondent apparently conducted a general exam, but did not perform or document a comprehensive: exam including the results of any x-rays or other diagnostic procedures to - ald in diagnosis and treatment planning. The Respondent's initial visit treatment notes indicate simply that single impressions of Patient O.M.'s mouth were taken for replacement of the full dentures. - i3. The prevailing standard. of dental care in providing placement of dentures requires a dentist to perform. adequate diagnosis to determine the necessity of denture replacement and: then to discuss the optimal design and appearance of any proposed dentures with the patient. A dentist should properly diagnose mouth, gum ridge formation, occlusal scheme and/or bone conditions to plan for optimal prosthetic fittings required for placement of a denture which fits properly and securely. The patient should then be provided with explanation of any alternate treatment plans and be given the chance to provide informed consent for the treatment plan, The dentist should then properly make, place, and fit a denture accordingly, 5 . FAPSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\7-04f. DNTL-AC's\B agnski04-39622(m)(x dntrs.doc Jan 1? 2008 14:25 JAN-17-2888 14:56 AHCA Pari? COUNT I-Recordkeeping 14. Petitioner realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) as if fully incorporated herein. bee 15. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2004), as implemented by Rule 64B85-17.002, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), states that failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, and x-rays if taken, shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 16. Respondent’s dental records for Patient O.M. failed to justify the course of Patient O.M.’s treatment in that the Respondent did not document diagnosis from x-rays prior to performing dental treatment procedures oan the patient. The Respondent also failed to record an overall comprehensive written diagnosis, treatment prognosis, and failed to formulate a written treatment plan for Patient O.M, The Respondent also had inadequate documentation of any 6 JAPSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\7-O4, DNTL- A C's\B agnski04-39622(m)(x)dntrs.doc Jan 1? 2008 14:25 JAN-17-2888 14:56 AHCA P.a8/17 individualized diagnosis of Patient O.M.’s gum ridge ‘formation or occlusal scheme to aid in proper fitting of new dentures covering any of the visits. 17. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2004), by failing to keep written dental and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. COUNT IIl—Standard of Care 18. The Petitioner re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) as if fully. incorporated herein. 19. Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2004), states that 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, shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 7 JAPSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\7-04f. DNTL-AC's\B agnski04-39622(m)(x)dntrs.doe Jan 1? 2008 14:26 JAN-17?-2888 14:57 AHCA P.@o717 20. The Respondent was negligent and failed to meet minimum standards of dental performance in diagnosing and treating Patient O.M. in one or more of the following ways: a) By failing to document a comprehensive diagnosis with interpretation of radiographs and a comprehensive treatment plan to support replacement of upper and lower dentures in Patient O.M.’s mouth; b) By failing to properly diagnose, document and account for the unique gum ridge formation and occlusal scheme in planning for replacement of full dentures in Patient O.M.'s mouth; c) By failing to adequately document any clinical or examination findings for Patient O.M.; thereby failing to establish a basis supporting the treatments provided to Patient O.M.; 4) By proposing and performing major denture refabrication without presenting a comprehensive treatment plan to Patient O.M. outlining all the proposed therapy and explaining any possible options to include benefits and risks for the patient’s acknowledgement and informed consent; e) By preparing and replacing dentures without adequate molds or impressions being taken, with inadequate preliminary try-ins, and which did not fit Patient: O.M.'s mouth properly. 21. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent. has violated section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2004), by being guilty of 8 TAPS U\Medical\wayne mitchell\7-04 TDNTL-AC's\Bagnski04-39622(m)(x)dnus.dac Jan 1? 2008 14:27 JAN-17?-2888 14:58 AHCA 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. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that 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 practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, corrective action, refund of fees billed or collected, remedial education and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. . 9 JAPSU\Medical\wayne mutehell\7-04F, DNTL-AC's\Bagnski04-39622(m)(x)dnws.doc

Docket for Case No: 08-000341PL