JUL-22-2088 15:42 AHCA Jul 22 2008 15:07 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, Vv. CASE NO. 2007-08542 VU DINH NGO, D.M.D., RESPONDENT. ne ADMIN TIVE N COMES NOW, Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Dentistry against Respondent, Vu Dinh Ngo, D.M.D., 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. Respondent is a licensed Dentist within the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN 17402. His license was issued by the Department on or about November 9, 2005. 3. . Respondent's address of record is 2539 Sawyer Terrace, Wellington, Florida 33414. L9-G-A P.ae/2t suee-cere 15142 auca Jul 22 2008 15:07 > owt 4. Prior to obtaining his license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida, the Respondent held a license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 5. On or about February 18, 2005, the Board of Dentistry of the Commonwealth of Virginia sent an official notice to the Respondent that an informal conference would be held on March 25, 2005, to review allegations that the Respondent may have violated certain laws and regulations governing the practice of dentistry in the Commonwealth of Virginia. | 6. The notice advised the Respondent that he had allegedly violated specified sections of the Code of Virginia by allowing a person not licensed as a dentist or a dental hygienist to perform “reversible procedures” such as temporary fillings. In that regard, the notice indicates. that by the Respondent’s own admission, he had trained an unlicensed employee to perform temporary fillings and allowed her to perform prophylaxis and polish patients’ teeth. 7. The notice further advised the Respondent that he had allegedly violated a specified section of the Code of Virginia in that he conducted his practice in a manner likely to cause injury to patients due to his mental and/or physical incompetence. Specifically, the notice alleged that on multiple occasions the Respondent experienced anxiety attacks -2- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc JUL-22-2 1S 242 ana Jul 22 2008 15:07 > aot while treating patients that caused him to leave the operatory until the symptoms subsided. If the symptoms did not subside and the Respondent was unable to complete the procedure, the notice alleged that the aforesaid unlicensed employee would finish the procedure. 8. The notice further alleged that Respondent had allegedly violated a specified section of the Code of Virginia in that he presented to an area hospital emergency room in February 2002, with symptoms of chest pain and difficulty breathing, and was subsequently admitted for treatment; that he left the hospital against medical advice; that he was prescribed Valium for anxiety until he could be seen by his physician; that between February and June 2002, he sought treatment from a psychiatrist who diagnosed the Respondent with a panic disorder and anxiety disorder; that while his psychiatrist ordered him to discontinue taking Valium and prescribed other medications to treat his condition, the Respondent by his own admission did not stop taking Valium for another two years, due to its ~ effects on his memory. 9. The notice further alleged that the Respondent violated a section of the Virginia Code and certain regulations of the Board of Dentistry of the Commonwealth of Virginia by failing to document on -3- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev,2.dac JUL-22-2088 15:43 AHCA TAN 22 2008 19708 P.a5/21 nineteen (19) occasions certain medications prescribed to the aforesaid ~ unlicensed employee and two other patients in their dental records. These prescriptions included eight (8) occasions on which he prescribed Diazepam and one (1) occasion on which he prescribed Percocet. 10. The notice further alleged that the Respondent violated a section of the Virginia Code and certain regulations of the Board of Dentistry of the Commonwealth of Virginia by failing to maintain treatrnent records for two patients, including the aforesaid unlicensed employee. 11. The notice further alleged that the Respondent violated a section of the Virginia Code and certain regulations of the Board of Dentistry of the Commonwealth of Virginia in that, by his own admission, he trained and_allowed unlicensed employees to take patient x-rays. 12. The notice further alleged that the Respondent violated a section of the Virginia Code and certain regulations of the Board of Dentistry of the Commonwealth of Virginia in that laboratory work orders did not always contain the signature of the dentist and were not maintained for three (3) years. 13. The notice further alleged that the Respondent violated a _ section of the Virginia Code and certain regulations of the Board of . . 4 - Ji\PSU\Medical\ Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc SuL-zo-29a 18243 ance Jul 22 2008 15:08 > eo Dentistry of the Commonwealth of Virginia in that four (4) patient records did not have the identification of the dentist rendering the treatment while by his own admission other dentists worked in his practice. 7 14. On or about March 22, 2005, Respondent completed an “Application for Dental Examination” (Florida Form DOH/DN/001) in anticipation of obtaining a Florida license to practice dentistry. 15. The Application for Dental Examination as completed by the Respondent was received by the State of Florida Department of Health on or about April 4, 2005. 16. Respondent answered “No” to Question 6E of the Application for Dental Examination, “Ig there currently pending against you in any jurisdiction a complaint against your professional conduct or competence as a Dentist or Dental Hygienist?” ) 17. At the time that he completed the Application, as specifically set forth above in paragraphs 5 through 13, there was pending against Respondent in the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia a complaint against his professional conduct or competence as a Dentist. 18. Respondent answered “No” to Question 7A of the Application for Dental Examination, “Do you hold or have you ever held a license to -5- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc JUL-22-2688 15:43 AHCA Jul 22 208 18408 Pl apeet practice Dentistry or Dental Hygiene in any state, U.S. territory of (sic) foreign country?” 19. At the time that he completed the Application, the Respondent held a license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Virginia. - 20. Respondent answered “No” to Question 5C of the Application for Dental Examination, “In the last 5 years, have you been treated for or had a recurrence of a diagnosed mental disorder or impairment? If ...5-C above are answered “YES”, please show on reverse side or on additional sheets on the relevant dates and circumstances of such treatment along with the names and addresses of the medical practitioners who treated you. In addition, it will be necessary for you to direct each of the practitioners or hospitals who treated you to furnish the Board with any information regarding such treatment.” 21. Within the five (5) years preceding the Respondent's application, the Respondent had been treated or had a recurrence of a diagnosed mental disorder or impairment. 22. Respondent failed to provide any information to the Board with his application regarding the treatment or recurrence of a diagnosed -6- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc Jul 22 2008 15:09 JUL-22-2688 15:44 AHCA P.@8/21 mental disorder or impairment which he had received or experienced within the five (5) years preceding his application. 23. Respondent signed the aforesaid Application for Dental Examination. Immediately above his signature is the following provision: I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me herein are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for the denial, suspension, or revocation of any license to practice in the State of Florida the profession for which I am applying. 24. Section 456.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), provides in pertinent part that the form for an application to the Department to take a licensure examination shall be supplemented as needed to reflect any material change in any circumstance or condition stated in the application which takes place between the initial filing of the application and the final grant or denial of the license and which might affect the decision of the department. 25. The directions within the Application for Dental Examination state that “Sections 5 and 6 are in effect until you are licensed. Therefore, should any: future changes occur, please inform this office in writing and = 7 - 3:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schlefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc Jul 22 2008 15:09 JUL-22-2088 15:44 AHCA P.a9/21 provide all documentation. This information is due with your application by the application deadline date.” 26. Respondent answered “No” to Question 6C of the Application, “Have you ever had a license revoked or a certificate of registration to practice dentistry, Dental Hygiene or any other licensed profession, revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against (including probation, fine or reprimand) in a disciplinary proceeding in any state?” 27. On or about July 11, 2005, while his application for dental examination was pending before the Florida Board of Dentistry, the Board of Dentistry of the Commonwealth of Virginia acted against the Respondent's Virginia license to practice dentistry by and through an Order. The Order determined that the Respondent had committed the violations referred to in paragraphs 7 though 13 above. The Virginia Board thereupon issued a reprimand; assessed a $4,000 monetary penalty against Respondent, placed Respondent on probation for a period of eighteen (18) months; ordered the Respondent to undergo a comprehensive psychiatric assessment; imposed continuing education obligations on Respondent; and assessed costs | associated with compliance of the terms and conditions of the Order against Respondent. -R- 3:\PSU\Medical\ Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc quL-ze-tore) igsaa ace Jul 22 2008 15:09 > aot 28. The July 11, 2005, action against the Respondent's Virginia license to practice dentistry was a material change in circumstance which might have affected the decision of the Department. 29. | On or about August 2, 2005, the Respondent applied to the Department for re-examination. 30. At no time prior to issuance of his Florida dentistry license, did the Respondent inform the Department of the July 11, 2005, disciplinary action against his Virginia dentistry license. 31. On or about November 9, 2005, the Department issued Respondent a Florida license to practice dentistry. 32. On or about March 31, 2006, the Respondent's license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Virginia expired 33. On or about February 14, 2007, the Virginia Board of Dentistry informed the Florida Board of Dentistry regarding the aforesaid July 11, 2005, disciplinary action taken against the Respondent's Virginia dentistry license. An investigation was opened to evaluate this information. 34. On or about March 28, 2007, the Department first attempted to notify the Respondent of the pendency of the instant investigation, indicating “Subject has not reported his out-of-state discipline to the -9- J;\PSU\Medical\ Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac. rev.2.doc juL-co-2078 sta auca Jul 22 2008 15:09 oot Department.” Said notification was sent to the Respondent’s address of . record by certified mail and was returned to the Department unclaimed. 35. Onor about May 30, 2007, the Department attempted to notify the Respondent of the pendency of the instant complaint and investigation. The second notification attempt was sent to the Respondent’s address of record by certified mail and was returned to the Department unclaimed. 36. On or about August 9, 2007, the Department again attempted to notify the Respondent of the pendency of the instant complaint and investigation. The third notification was sent to the Respondent's address of récord by certified mail and was duly received by the Respondent. 37. By letter dated August 23, 2007, the Respondent advised the Department that the two preceding notifications “were never delivered.” Further, the Respondent furnished the Department with a partial copy of the July 11, 2005, Order of the Virginia Board of Dentistry, and a seventeen (17) page document entitled “Forensic Professional Fitness for Duty Evaluation” dated July 5, 2006, 38. The July 5, 2006, “Forensic Professional Fitness for Duty Evaluation” appears to be the comprehensive psychiatric assessment required by the Virginia Board of Dentistry pursuant to its July 11, 2005 order. -10- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc Jul 22 2008 15:10 JUL-22-2888 15:45 AHCA P.ile/2t 39. Section 456.072(2), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), provides in pertinent part that when the Board finds any person guilty of the grounds get forth in any grounds set forth in the applicable practice act, including conduct constituting a substantial violation of the applicable practice act which occurred prior to obtaining a license, it may enter an order imposing one or more of the penalties prescribed in Sec. 456.072(2)(a) through (j), including (b) suspension or permanent revocation of a license, and (d) imposition of an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each count or separate offense. If the violation is for fraud or making a false or fraudulent representation, the board must impose a fine of $10,000 per count or offense. COUNT ONE 40. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39) as if fully set forth herein. 41. Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), provides that having a license to practice dentistry or dental hygiene revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against, including the denial of licensure, by the licensing authority of another state, territory, or country, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. -11- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev,2,d0c Jul 22 2008 15:10 JUL-22-2888 15:45 AHCA P.13/21 42. Respondent was reprimanded by the Virginia Board of Dentistry, was ordered to pay a $4,000 administrative fine, and was required to undergo a comprehensive psychiatric assessment. Respondent's license was also put on probation for a period of eighteen (18) months. 43. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), by having his license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state. | COUNT TWO 44. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39) as if fully set forth herein. 45. Section 466.028(1)(ii), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), provides that failing to report to the board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one’s license to practice dentistry in another state, territory, or country, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board - of Dentistry. , 46. Respondent failed to notify the Board in writing of Virginia’s disciplinary action until on or about August 30, 2007, more than two years after the Virginia Board of Dentistry issued a Final Order imposing administrative discipline against his license to practice dentistry. -12- ):\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc Jul 22 2008 15:10 JUL-22-2888 15:45 AHCA Pii4-2t 47. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(ii), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), by failing to report to the board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one’s license to practice dentistry in another state, territory, or country. COUNT THREE | 48. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39) as if fully set forth herein. ) 49. Section 466.028(1)(II), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), provides that violating any provision of Chapter 466, Chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 50. Section 456.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), provides in pertinent part that the form for an application to the Department to take a licensure examination shall be supplemented as needed to reflect any material change in any circumstance or condition stated in the application _ which takes place between the initial filing of the application and the final grant or denial of the license which might affect the decision of the Department. . -13- J:\PSU\Medical\ Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.do¢ ju-zo-sene 1S146 ance Jul 22 2008 15:11 > aso 51. The July 11, 2005, action against the Respondent’s Virginia license to practice dentistry was a material change in circumstance which might have affected the decision of the Department on that application. 52. At no time prior to issuance of his Florida dentistry license, did the Respondent inform the Department of the July 11, 2005, action against his Virginia dentistry license. 53. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(II), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), by violating Section 456.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), in failing to supplement his application for dental examination with information needed to reflect the | material change regarding disciplinary action taken by the Virginia Board of Dentistry against his dentistry license. COUNT EQUR 54. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39) as if fully set forth herein. 55. Section 466.028(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), provides that attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license under this chapter by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of -14- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schlefelbain\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc Jul 22 2008 15:11 JUL-22-2888 15:46 AHCA P.16/21 the department or the board, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 56. Respondent completed an “Application for Dental Examination” on or about March 22, 2005, in anticipation of obtaining a Florida license to practice dentistry. Respondent answered “No” to Question 6E, “Is there currently pending against you in any jurisdiction a complaint against your professional conduct or competence as a Dentist or Dental Hygienist?”; Question 7A, “Do you hold or have you ever held a license to practice Dentistry or Dental Hygiene in any state, U.S. territory of (sic) foreign country?”; Question 5C, “In the last five years, have you been treated for or had a recurrence of a diagnosed mental disorder or impairment?” 57. At the time Respondent completed his application, he knew or should have known that there was a complaint pending against his professional conduct in Virginia; that he held a license to practice dentistry in Virginia; and that he had been treated for or had a recurrence of a diagnosed mental disorder or impairment within the preceding five (5) years. 58. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004-2005), by attempting to obtain, -15- 4:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.d0¢ Jul 22 2008 15:11 JUL-22-2888 15:46 AHCA P.lv/et obtaining, or renewing a license under Chapter 466 by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of the department or the board. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Dentistry enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of 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. SIGNED this jst day of O-sbbee , 2007. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, M.D., M.P.H. State Surgeon General yeu La gitke ics ] PARTMENT OF GEALTR OE EPLITY CLERIQ,_( CLERIC ut <2 DATE i. DOH Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3265 Florida Bar No. 265047 Phone: (850) 245-4640, Ext. 8226 Fax: (850) 245-4683 WLS PCP: 9/29/07 PCP Members: CM, 77, FG DOH v Vu Dinh Ngo, DMD; Case # 2007-08542 . - 16 - J!\PSU\Medical\ Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev,2,doc Jul 22 2008 15:12 JUL-22-2088 15:47 AHCA P.16/21 NOTICE OF RIGHTS Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section 120,569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to present evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a hearing is requested. NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS Respondent is placed on notice that Petitioner has incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant to Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes, the Board shall assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of a disciplinary matter, which may include attorney hours and costs, on the Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed. DOH v Vu Dinh Ngo, DMD; Case # 2007-08542 -17- J:\PSU\Medical\Dentistry\Schiefelbein\Dental Cases\NGO\ngo.ac.rev.2.doc

Docket for Case No: 08-003615PL