Rpr 14 2011 17:25

APR-14-2011 17:45 P.02

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

PETITIONER,

v. CASE NO. 2008-11256

Randall Weisel, 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 Respondent, Randall Weisel, 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 ON 10195.

3. Respondent's address of record is 14180 Mark Drive, Largo,

   ,, FL 33774.

   Rpr 14 2011 17:25

   APR-14-2011 17:45 P.03

   
   

4. Respondent provided dental treatment to Patient K.H. from on or about April 5, 2007, through on or about October 23, 2007.

5. On or about April 5, 2007, Patient K.H. presented to the

   
   

   
   

   ,,1,

   Respondent for a consultation to improve her smile.

   
   

6. On or about May 17, 2007, the Respondent presented a treatment plan to Patient K.H, The treatment plan included a bridge from teeth numbers 23-25, individual crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 12, 13, 22, 26; 27 and 28 and an upper and lower partial denture. The Respondent planned to begin treatment on the lower arch and then the Respondent would proceed to the upper arch.

7. On or about May 24, 2007, the Respondent took upper and lower

   
   

   alginate impressions and prepared teeth numbers 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27 for crowns. The Respondent fabricated a temporary three-unit bridge for teeth numbers 23-25.

8. On or about June 28, 2007, the Respondent prepared tooth number 28 for a crown and took final impressions for the crown and bridge work on teeth numbers 22-28.

9. On or about August 14, 2007, the Respondent took impressions and prepared teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and 13 for crowns.

   Rpr 14 2011 17:25

   APR-14-2011 17:45 P.04

   
   

10. On or about August 14, 2007, the Respondent seated individual crowns for teeth numbers 22, 26, 27, and 28 and seated the bridge from tooth 23-25 with IRM.

11. On or about August 14, 2007, the Respondent took alginate

impressions for the mandibular (lower) partial denture.

13.

Tooth #25 probed 3-2-3

1. On or about September 25, 2007, the Respondent seated crowns for teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and 13.

2. The Respondent seated crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and

   
   

   ,!,·

   1.· · 13 with overhanging crown margins.

   
   

3. Neither Patient K.H. nor the Respondent was happy with the crowns the Respondent seated on teeth numbers 3 and 4 on or about September 25, 2007.

4. The Respondent noted that he needed to remake the crowns for teeth numbers 3 and 4 to improve the occlusion, esthetics and function of the teeth.

   Rpr 14 2011 17:26

   APR-14-2011 17:45 P.05

   
   

5. The Respondent did not replace the crowns right away to establish proper occlusion but instead postponed replacing the crowns.

6. On or about October 2, 2007, Patient K.H. presented for the delivery of the mandibular (lower) partial denture and the try-in of the maxillary (upper) partial denture. Patient K.H. expressed concern that teeth numbers 28 and 29 were too high.

7. The Respondent again noted on or about October 2, 2007, that the crowns on teeth numbers 3 and 4 were too short. The Respondent noted that he would replace crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 28 and 29 after the maxillary partial was delivered.

8. The Respondent failed to restore vertical occlusion and function to Patient K.H. because the posterior teeth on the lower side of Patient K.H.'s mouth were too long and the right side did not occlude in the posterior because the teeth on the partial denture were too short.

9. The Respondent failed to replace the ill-fitting crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and 13 prior to proceeding with the construction of the mandibular (lower) partial denture.

10. Instead of replacing the crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and 13, the Respondent had a lower partial denture constructed to accommodate the mal-formed maxillary (upper) crowns.

    Rpr 14 2011 17:26

    APR-14-2011 17:45 P.06

    
    

11. On or about October 4, 2007, Patient K.H. presented to the

1,..· Respondent for a wax try-in of the maxillary partial.

25; On or about October 11, October 16, and October 23, 2007, Patient K.H. presented to the Respondent to retry the maxillary (upper) temporary partial denture.

1. On or about November 20, 2007, Patient K.H. presented to a

   
   

   i subsequent treater for a second opinion.

   
   

2. The subsequent treater examined Patient K.H. and took a full

   
   

   i ' mouth x-ray and dental photos.

   
   

3. The subsequent treater noted that the examiner was unable to floss between teeth numbers 3 and 4 and the crowns were snagging the floss on teeth numbers 22 and 28.

4. The November 20, 2007, x-ray of tooth number 22 taken by a subsequent treater shows an overhanging crown.

5. The overhanging crown margins would catch dental floss and

serve as a repository for food, which would lead to decay under the crowns. All crowns with overhanging margins would therefore need to be replaced.

!"; ' 31. Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2006-2007), provides

Rpr 14 2011 17:26

APR-14-2011 17:45 P.07

that being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when

I· 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 constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry.

1. The minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and

   
   

   treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance requires that a dentist properly seat crowns in the patient's mouth with no open or overhanging margins.

2. The minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and

   
   

   treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance requires that a dentist fabricating a bridge choose abutment teeth that are stable and are not periodontally compromised.

3. The minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and

   
   

   treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance requires that a dentist performing restorative dentistry establish proper occlusion and vertical dimension.

4. Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of

   Rpr 14 2011 17:27

   APR-14-2011 17:47 P.08

   
   

   - performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in one or more of the following ways:

   
   

   ,,,

   1. On or about August 14, 2007, the Respondent seated crowns on teeth numbers 23 and 28 with open margins;

   2. The Respondent seated crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and 13 with overhanging crown margins;

   3. The November 20, 2007, x-ray of tooth number 22 taken by a subsequent treater shows an overhanging crown;

   4. The Respondent chose tooth number 25 as a bridge abutment although the tooth presented with severe bone loss and was not a good choice for a bridge abutment due to its instability;

   5. The Respondent failed to restore vertical occlusion and function to Patient K.H. because the posterior teeth on the lower side of Patient K.H.'s mouth were too long and the right side did not occlude in the posterior because the teeth on the partial denture were too short;

   6. The Respondent· failed to replace the ill-fitting crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and 13 prior to proceeding with the construction of the mandibular (lower) partial denture, and/or;

   7. Instead of replacing the crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, 12 and 13, the Respondent had a lower partial denture constructed to accommodate the mal­ formed maxillary (upper) crowns.

5. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2006-2007), by being guilty of

Rpr 14 2011 17:27

APR-14-2011 17:47 P.09

, 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, 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

, .i practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of 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 6;0µ,i day of [Y)OJ\Q ,, , 2009.

Ana M. Viamonte Ros, M.D., M.P.H. State Surgeon General

FILED DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

DEPUTY CLERK

CLERK 'R/NChe1.,"8roo¼

DATE :3,·2..? 'OC\

PCP: 3/.;J. "/ c 'f

PCP Members: C/11, T .A1,

Patricia D. Smith Assistant General Counsel

r (;

DOH Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar No. 728160 850.245.4640 850.245.4683 FAX

Rpr 14 2011 17:27

APR-14-2011 17:47 P.10

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 Randall Weisel, DDS; Case# 2008-11256

Docket for Case No: 11-001871PL