STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2015-09533 WILLIAM GLOVER, III, D.M.D., Respondent. eS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, WILLIAM GLOVER, III, D.M.D., , and alleges: 1. - Petitioner is the agency 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, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbered DN 11757. 3. | Respondent's address of record with the Board of Dentistry is 1507 S. Hiawassee Road, Suite 209, Orlando, Florida 32835. 4. Inpain, Patient GM appointed with Respondent Dr. William Glover, a member of his insurance network, on March 16, 2015; Dr. Glover performed an examination, took two periapical radiographs, and diagnosed deep recurrent decay on teeth #3 and #31. | 5. ° He recommended root canal therapy, pre-fabricated post & cores, crown build-ups, and crowns for both teeth. 6. _ Dr. Glover initiated root canal therapy on tooth #3 the same day, cemented a post in an unidentified canal, and placed a bonded resin core restoration on #3; however, he was unable to complete the root canal therapy, and Patient GM reappointed two days later to have the root canal finished. 7. Meanwhile, Patient GM reported that he was in extreme pain after the initial visit and called Dr. Glover's emergency number; Dr. Glover told him to seek over-the-counter relief until he returned to complete the root canal. | 8. Patient GM returned on March 18, 2015, to have the root canal on tooth #3 completed. Dr. Glover's treatment notes for that day state that he instrumented, cleaned, and shaped the canals, irrigated and dried them, sealed them using RC sealer and gutta percha, performed a bonded resin core restoration, and exposed a periapical radiograph. 9. | When Patient GM appointed on March 26, 2015, for root canal therapy on tooth #31, he again informed Dr. Glover that he was in extreme pain; Dr. Glover told him that the pain would go away and commenced treatment on tooth #31. 10. According to Patient GM, Dr. Glover told him that the root canal therapy was complete and to “come back in one month for the pain to go away,” however, the pain from both root canals increased. 1. Concerned, Patient GM called endodontist Terryl M. Crawford, DM .D. with Trinity Endodontics of Greater Orlando, P.A., and appointed for an examination and second opinion on March 30, 2015. | 12. Following a radiographic and clinical examination, Dr. Crawford diagnosed Patient GM with a “Previously treated/Acute Apical Abscess” on both teeth, noted hypersensitivity to palpitation and percussion, along with throbbing pain, and retreated both teeth #3 and #31. | 13. In accessing tooth #3, Dr. Crawford noted that the mesiolingual canal of the tooth had not previously been negotiated and that there was necrotic nerve tissue within various canals. Furthermore, access of the tooth disclosed a perforation in the pulpal floor of 4 to 6 mm in length and 2 to 4 mm in width, which he repaired with biotene. 14. Perforations of the pulpal floor are a known complication of root canal therapy; however, minimum standards of performance in dental diagnosis and treatment require that the provider identify the perforation, inform the patient, and monitor the complication. 15. Post-operative radiographs exposed by “Respondent and subsequent treaters disclosed the pulpal floor perforation. 16. Respondent Dr. Glover failed to identify and diagnose the perforation on tooth #3, thereby failing to meet minimum standards of performance in dental diagnosis and treatment. . 17. Missing the presence of a fourth canal in an upper first molar tooth does not fall below minimum standards of performance in dental diagnosis and treatment; however, failure to place adequate root canal filling in the remaining canals does not meet minimum standards of dental treatment. 18. The minimum standard of care when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in the State of Florida requires that during a root canal treatment, the dentist fill the obturated canal with appropriate material. 19. Respondent failed to provide adequate or complete endodontic © filling in either the mesiobuccal or the distobuccal canals of tooth #3, leaving the last five millimeters of the root lengths unfilled, thereby failing to meet minimum standards of performance in dental treatment. 20. Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2008-2009), states that “[b]eing 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 malpracticef,]" shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. | | 21. By failing to identify the perforation of the pulpal floor on tooth #3, inform the patient, and monitor the complication, Respondent violated section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes. 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 licensure, or restriction of Respondent's 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. ie SIGNED this PCP: May 6, 2016 PCP Members: JT; JC; LB C\ 5 day of Vve~ 2016. Celeste Philip, MD, MPH Interim State Surgeon General, Gail Scott Hill Assistant General Counsel DOH Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar # 909289 850.245.4444 FAX 850.245.4684 NOTICE OF RIGHTS _ Respondent has the right to request or petition for an administrative hearing to be conducted in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Respondent has the right to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to have subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a formal administrative. hearing is requested. Administrative hearings are also governed by Rule 28-106, Florida Administrative Code. - A request or petition for an administrative hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Department within twenty-one (21) days from the day this Administrative Complaint is served. A request or petition for a hearing must be in conformance with Chapter 28-106.2015(5), Florida Administrative Code and must be sent to the Department at the following address: Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit Attention: Gail S. Hill, Esq. 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin #C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Mediation is not available as an alternative remedy. If your request or petition for a formal administrative hearing is not received by the Department within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this Administrative Compiaint, that failure will constitute a waiver of your right to an administrative hearing. DOH v. WILLIAM GLOVER, ITI, D.M.D., 2015-09533

Docket for Case No: 18-002334PL