Judges: STEPHEN F. DEAN
Agency: Department of Health
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 1983
Summary: Board didn't prove dentist didn't meet minimum standards.
82-2807.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-2807
)
PETER KURACHEK, D.D.S., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Final hearing in this cause was held pursuant to notice on February 9, 1983, in Clearwater, Florida, before Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. This case was presented on an Administrative Complaint filed by the Board of Dentistry against the Respondent, Peter Kurachek, alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by rendering dental treatment to Mr. Clarence Nicholson which was below minimum acceptable standards of practice in the community.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Julie Gallagher, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Peter Kurachek, D.D.S., pro se
703 Tropical Circle
Sarasota, Florida 33581
Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent, Peter Kurachek, was a licensed dentist at all times relevant to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, having been issued license number 0005429, and was so licensed at the time of hearing.
On January 19, 1981, Clarence Nicholson consulted the Respondent at the Sheppard Dental Center in Clearwater, Florida, regarding a dental problem. The Respondent performed a root canal treatment on Nicholson's tooth number six, a cuspid, and prepared the tooth to receive a crown. On January 31, 1981, the Respondent installed the permanent crown, which he had had prepared.
In August 1981, the crown fell out, and Nicholson returned to the Sheppard Dental Center. Nicholson did not see the Respondent on this visit, and the crown was recemented by Dr. Christopher Clarke. In November 1981, the crown fell out a second time. Nicholson returned to the Sheppard Dental Center. On this occasion, Nicholson did not see Respondent, and the crown was recemented in place by Dr. Clarke. Dr. Clarke made no gross alterations to the crown on either of the appointments; however, he did clean the crown in preparation for recementing it on both occasions.
Shortly after Dr. Clarke recemented the crown the second time, Nicholson saw Respondent and requested that he correct the crown. The Respondent advised Nicholson that he would be happy to replace the crown and redo the work if the crown became loose again.
Respondent feared that forcefully removing the crown in order to prepare a new one might damage Nicholson's tooth. Because he would be responsible if the tooth were broken while removing the crown, the Respondent elected to deal with Nicholson's problem if the crown became loose again of its own accord.
In April 1982, more than a year after Respondent did the work for Nicholson, and after the crown had been recemented twice by another dentist, Nicholson was examined by Dr. Paul Hounchell, a dental consultant for the Petitioner. As a result of his examination, Dr. Hounchell opined that the treatment provided by the Respondent did not meet the minimal accepted standards of practice in the community. (Tr. 81.) However, Dr. Hounchell indicated that his opinion was based upon the fact that Nicholson was unable to have the crown fixed to his satisfaction. Dr. Hounchell stated, "The only unprofessional thing is that we run this man around, you know, for a half a year, a year or something like that." (Tr. 121.)
The record reflects that Nicholson only saw the Respondent one time after the Respondent installed the crown, and that on that occasion the Respondent told Nicholson that he would replace the crown to Nicholson's satisfaction if the crown became loose again. The record further reflects that Nicholson never tried to see the Respondent thereafter.
The tooth in question was a nonvital tooth as a result of the root canal therapy. Such a tooth is more brittle and may fracture more easily. However, the tooth had a good-sized large root which was adequate to support a longer post. The various dentists disagree concerning whether it would have been appropriate for the Respondent to have removed the crown when he saw Nicholson after Dr. Clarke had recemented the crown in place.
The treatment provided by the Respondent to Nicholson met minimum acceptable standards of practice in the community.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board of Dentistry has authority to discipline its licensees pursuant to Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. The Division of Administrative Hearings has authority to enter this Recommended Order pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, that provides that disciplinary action may be taken against dentists for being guilty of incompetence by failing to
meet 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.
The only evidence that the Respondent has failed to meet minimum standards of performance was the testimony of Dr. Hounchell, who stated at page
121 of the transcript that his opinion was based upon the fact that Nicholson was unable to get satisfaction in a timely fashion on repair of a crown. However, the record clearly shows that the Respondent only saw Nicholson one time after making the crown, and at that time the crown had been recemented in place. The Respondent told Nicholson that he would repair, replace or otherwise correct the problem with the crown if Nicholson would return to him if the crown came out again. Although conflicting testimony was received concerning the propriety of removing the crown at that time, the Respondent's judgment was vindicated when the crown came loose again later that month. However, Nicholson did not return to the Respondent at that time to have the crown replaced. In summary, the Respondent did all that he could do under the circumstances.
Although a dentist has a professional responsibility to his patient, a patient who seeks dental services at a dental clinic also bears some responsibility, to include seeking out the dentist who originally did the work if he is unsatisfied with it. Nicholson did not do this. The Respondent was not responsible for any "run around" that Nicholson may have received. The Board has failed to demonstrate that the Respondent violated Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the charges against the Respondent, Peter Kurachek, D.D.S., be dismissed.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 25th day of April, 1983.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Peter Kurachek, DDS 703 Tropical Circle
Sarasota, Florida 33581
Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
H. Fred Varn, Executive Director
Board of Dentistry
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Docket for Case No: 82-002807
Orders for Case No: 82-002807
