STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, Board of Dentistry, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 80-281

) EDWARD M. STEINBERG, D.D.S., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings by its designated Hearing Officer, Michael Pearce Dodson, held the final hearing in this case on July 28, 1980, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, The following appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bert J. Harris, III, Esquire

BOYD HARRIS AND SMITH

222 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 10369 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Philip S. Shailer, Esquire

SHAILER & PURDY

540 Northeast Fourth Street, Suite B Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

ISSUE PRESENTED

Has Dr. Steinberg been guilty of malpractice; willful negligence; or misconduct in his business affairs which could bring discredit upon the dental profession contrary to the provisions of Section 466.24, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1978).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

These proceedings began on December 12, 1979, when an administrative complaint was served on the Respondent, Dr. Edward Steinberg. The complaint alleged that Dr. Steinberg had been guilty of negligence, malpractice and misconduct as a dentist in his treatment of four patients; Mrs. Elizabeth Betzler, Ms. Mary Jo Holland, Mr. Gary Schiegner and Ms. Joan Barbaro. The complaint further alleged misconduct with respect to Ms. Maxine Iovino.

On February 11, 1980, Respondent requested a formal hearing on the allegations of the administrative complaint. The case was then forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 15, 1980, for the assignment of

a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a final hearing. The final hearing was initially scheduled for April 10-11, 1980, but due to a discovery problem, was rescheduled for July 7, 1980 and then was further rescheduled for July 28, 1980. At the final hearing after Petitioner put on its case, Respondent moved for an involuntary dismissal of paragraphs 21-33 and for a dismissal of Counts II and III of the administrative complaint as they related to paragraphs 21-33. This motion was granted because Petitioner had put on no admissible evidence relating to the foregoing paragraphs.

Petitioner presented as its witnesses, Mrs. Elizabeth Betzler, Ms. Mary Jo Holland and Mr. Carl Betzler. Petitioner offered Exhibits P-10, P-11, P-12, P- 13, P-14, P-17, P-18, and P-19 which were received into evidence. Respondent presented Ms. Sandra Steinberg and himself as his witnesses. He offered no exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given the opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and proposed orders. Both Petitioner and Respondent filed Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are not reflected in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent substantial evidence or as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues for determination here.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Dr. Edward M. Steinberg is licensed by the Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in `he State of Florida. He has been so licensed since February 1973.

   
   

   Mrs. Elizabeth Betzler

   
   

2. Mrs. Betzler was a dental patient of Dr. Steinberg between October 1978 and July 20, 1979. During that time he performed a variety of dental treatments for her including equilibration, two cores, an extraction, periodontal care, and the construction and placement of a 3-unit temporary acrylic bridge. This treatment extended over at least 10 to 12 long office visits.

   
   

3. The 3-unit acrylic bridge was cemented in the patient's mouth on May 14, 1979. Mrs. Betzler was led to believe by Dr. Steinberg that the acrylic bridge was the permanent bridge for which she had paid $800.00. 1/ At the final hearing Dr. Steinberg testified that he never told Mrs. Betzler that tie acrylic bridge was permanent. This testimony is not accepted as credible.

   
   

4. While Dr. Steinberg and Mrs. Betzler had originally agreed that he would construct for her a 5-unit porcelain on on gold bridge, Dr. Steinberg later told her that the acrylic bridge was even stronger and more satisfactory than the gold one.

   
   

5. Subsequent to its installation, Mrs. Betzler's bridge broke numerous times. She had to frequently return to Dr. Steinberg to have it repaired.

   
   

6. Acrylic bridges are not of a permanent nature. They are used to cover teeth previously prepared for the later installation of a permanent bridge. An acrylic bridge is an interim measure until the permanent one is prepared by a laboratory. This preparation usually takes no longer than one month.

   
   

7. Even though Dr. Steinberg installed Mrs. Betzler's temporary bridge in May of 1979, by July, 1979, when she last saw him, he still had not constructed a permanent bridge for her.

8. Mrs. Betzler ceased going to Dr. Steinberg for treatment in July, 1979, because of what she believed to have been rude treatment of her daughter Ms. Mary Jo Holland by Dr. Steinberg and his receptionist.

   
   

9. For all of her treatment by Dr. Steinberg, Mrs. Betzler paid a total of

   $1,115.00. Three hundred fifteen dollars was for the cores, equilibration, periodontal treatment, etc., and $800.00 was for her permanent bridge. Dr. Steinberg told Mrs. Betzler that he would not install her bridge until she paid him in full for it. She made the last payment on May 14, 1979. Dr. Steinberg's request that a patient pay his full fee in advance before the patient's treatment would be concluded is contrary to the general practice of dentistry in the Fort Lauderdale area where Dr. Steinberg has his office.

   
   

   Mary Jo Holland

   
   

10. Ms. Mary Jo Holland was a patient of Dr. Steinberg's during the same time he treated her mother.

    
    

11. She was initially diagnosed by Dr. Steinberg to need a root canal on tooth number 20 and a crown on tooth number 19. Because the prescribed treatment was more than she could afford to pay at once, she and Dr. Steinberg agreed to treat tooth number 20 first. It was excavated and a temporary filling was installed. An appointment to place a permanent filling in that tooth was made for sometime in July 1979.

    
    

12. Shortly before that scheduled appointment, the temporary filling chipped and Ms. Holland secured a special appointment on July 17, 1979 to have it repaired. This special appointment was scheduled through Dr. Steinberg's mother, who is also his receptionist. Mrs. Steinberg never informed Dr. Steinberg on July 17, 1979, what treatment Ms. Holland wanted, and apparently he never inquired. Upon her being seated in the dental chair Dr. Steinberg began to treat Ms. Holland without inquiring of her what treatment she required. Instead, he assumed that she was there to have the crown placed on tooth number

1. With that aim in mind, Dr. Steinberg excavated tooth number 19 in preparation for its crown. During the course of the appointment Ms. Holland learned that the chipped filling on tooth number 20 was not being repaired. This discovery lead to an argument between her and Dr. Steinberg and Mrs. Steinberg. Because of the argument Ms. Holland fled Dr. Steinberg's office in tears. The chip on tooth number 20 was never repaired by Dr. Steinberg.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

   1. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980): Section 120.65 and Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes (1979).

      
      

   2. At the time of the acts alleged in the administrative complaint, Section 466.24, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978) provided in pertinent part that:

      
      

      The board shall suspend or

      revoke the license of any dentist or dental hygienist when it is established to its satisfaction

      that he: . . . (3) Has been guilty of:

      1. Misconduct either in his

         business or in his personal affairs which would bring discredit upon

         the dental profession; . . . (c) Mal- practice; (d) Willful negligence

         in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene;

         
         

         In order to discipline Dr. Steinberg at the present date, pursuant to the prohibitions of Section 466.24, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978) it must be shown that his alleged actions would also be the subject of discipline under Section 466.028, Florida Statutes (1979), which replaced Section 466.24, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978). Board of Dentistry v. Anthony J. Brown, DMD, Case No.

         80-716 (Division of Administrative Hearings Recommended Order, October 8, 1980). The new grounds for discipline include:

         
         

         (p) Performing professional services which have not been duly authorized by the patient.

         (u) Fraud, deceit or miscon- duct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. . .

         (y) Being guilty of incom- petence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally pre-

         vailing peer performance including, but not limited to, the undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or experience.

         
         

         The foregoing portions of Section 466.028, Florida Statutes (1979) adequately cover the inproper acts of Dr. Steinberg proven here by the Board.

         
         

   3. Dr. Steinberg agreed at the conclusion of Mrs. Betzler's treatment to construct a 5-unit porcelain on gold bridge at a price of $800.00. When he installed a 3-unit acrylic bridge in her mouth on May 14, 1979 (after she had paid him the requisite $800.00) he represented to her that she had her permanent bridge. Dr. Steinberg's representations concerning her bridge are violations of Section 466.24(3)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978) and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1979)

      
      

   4. Dr. Steinberg's treatment of Ms. Holland on July 17, 1979, was a violation of Section 466.24(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978) and Section 466.028(1)(p) and (y), Florida Statutes (1979). Ms. Holland went to the July 17, 1979 appointment to have the chip on the filling in tooth number 20 repaired. She was not there to have the restoration work on tooth number 19 begun. With no inquiry of the patient about what treatment she desired, and with no information from his receptionist, Dr. Steinberg on his own assumption began to treat tooth number 19. Such conduct is clearly unacceptable dental practice and constitutes incompetence.

      
      

      DISCIPLINE

      
      

   5. For a violation of the foregoing statutes the Board has a variety of disciplines. Included among them are revocation or suspension of a license and

placement of a licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the Board may specify including requiring the licensee to attend continuing education courses. Section 466.028(2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes (1979).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the Board of Dentistry find the Respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct as set forth above and enter a final order suspending his license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida for a period of two (2) years; provided however; that the last year and 11 months of the suspension be stayed under the following conditions:

1. that Dr. Steinberg return the $800.00 fee to Mrs. Betzler which she paid him for a 5-unit porcelain on gold bridge,

   
   

2. that Respondent during the next two (2) years from the date of the final order complete at least 48 hours of continuing dental education. The Respondent shall propose a schedule of courses to the Board in order to obtain its prior approval for such courses,

   
   

3. that Dr. Steinberg appear before the Board at its meeting immediately prior to the conclusion of his probationary period to certify that he has complied with the terms of the Board's final order.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1981.

ENDNOTE

1/ The cost of the bridge was calculated at the rate of $160.00 per tooth.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bert J. Harris, III, Esquire BOYD HARRIS AND SMITH

222 South Monroe Street

Post Office Box 10369 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Philip S. Shailer, Esquire SHAILER & PURDY

540 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite B Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY

In Re: EDWARD STEINBERG, D.D.S.

License No 6157 CASE NO. 80-281

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

THIS MATTER came before the Board pursuant to section 120.57(1)(b)9, Florida Statutes, on Saturday, June 13, 1981, in Gainesville, Florida, and on Saturday, July 25, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order in the case of Department of Professional Regulation, board of Dentistry v. Edward Steinberg, D.D.S., Case No. 80-281, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Upon consideration of the Recommended Order and after a review of the entire record in this matter, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The hearing officer's findings of fact are hereby approved and adopted in toto.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The hearing officer's conclusions of law are hereby approved and adopted in toto.

   
   

2. After a review of the total record in this matter, the Board concludes that the hearing officer's findings and conclusions reveal a lack of concern on the Respondent's part over the quality of care he provided patients Betzler and Holland. Accordingly, the hearing officer's recommended penalty is rejected on the ground that it is not commensurate with his finding that Respondent was guilty of fraud, misconduct, negligence and incompetence.

WHEREFORE, the Florida dental license of Respondent, Edward Steinberg, D.D.S., is suspended for a period of three (3) years. However, the last two and one-half (2 1/2) years of the suspension is stayed and Respondent is placed on

probaton for this two and one-half year period. During the period of probation the Respondent may practice dentistry only under the ongoing supervision of a Florida licensed dentist. Further, Respondent must take a minimum of forty (40) hours of continuing dental education per year during the next three (3) years.

At least one-half (20 hours) of the forty (40) hours of continuing dental education obtained each year must be in the areas of restorative dentistry which is deemed to encompass operative dentistry and/or crown and bridge dentistry.

Respondent shall submit evidence of his satisfaction of this continuing dental education requirement on an annual basis.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August 1981.

Richard Wiess, D.D.S. Chairman

Board of Dentistry

Docket for Case No: 80-000281

Orders for Case No: 80-000281