Judges: K. N. AYERS
Agency: Department of Health
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 1984
Summary: Petitioner, applicant for dental license, failed to prove that scoring on his licensing examination was erroneous. His failing score is upheld.
84-2285STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DOUGLAS E. KOWALCZYK, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2285
)
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above- styled case on September 13, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner Douglas E. Kowalczyk, pro se
6237 Rockland Drive
Dublin, Ohio 43017
For Respondent: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By letter dated May 7, 1984, Douglas E. Kowalczyk, Petitioner, requested an administrative hearing to contest the failing grade he received on the December, 1983, examination given by the Florida Board of Dentistry. At the hearing only two grounds were contested by Petitioner and these involved procedures No. 01, Amalgam Cavity preparation, and procedure No. 05, Peridontal evaluation.
Thereafter, Petitioner testified in his own behalf, Respondent called two expert witnesses, and seven exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Proposed findings submitted by the Respondent, to the extent incorporated herein, are adopted; otherwise, they are rejected as not supported by the evidence, immaterial, or unnecessary to the conclusions reached.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner was an applicant for licensure by examination to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The practical examination, which is the portion here contested, consisted of 11 procedures, each of which is graded separately by three examiners.
Petitioner took the dental examination in December, 1983, and obtained a total overall grade of 2.93 (Exhibit 3). A grade of 3.0 is required to pass the examination. He is here contesting only procedures No. 01 in which he
received grades from the three examiners of 3, 3, and 0 (Exhibit 1); and procedure No. 05 in which he received grades of 2, 3, and 0 from three different examiners.
Examiners for the dental examination are all currently licensed dentists in the State of Florida who have been extensively trained and standardized by the Department of Professional Regulation. A standardization exercise takes place immediately prior to each examination during which the examiners grade identical procedures and discuss any grade variances to eliminate, as far as possible, any discrepancies in interpretation of the grading criteria.
Examiners are selected based on their experience as examiners and their ability to grade without extremes of harshness or leniency.
Candidates are informed of the grading criteria prior to the examination through the notice to appear (Exhibit 4) and the applicable laws and rules which are sent by the Office of Examiner Services to all candidates prior to the administration of the examination.
In procedure No. 01 (Exhibit 1) one of the examiners found caries not removed in the preparation process, noted on the grade sheet where the caries was located, and gave a mandatory zero for this procedure. Although the other examiners did not see this caries, and gave grades of 3, it was in a difficult place to see and feel with the explorer. The examiner who found the caries submitted a note to the monitor (Exhibit 7) to have all decay removed before the tooth was filled and the monitor's notation on Exhibit 7 indicates this was done.
In procedure No. 05 (Exhibit 2) which involved cleaning a specified number of teeth, one examiner found stain and root roughness and gave a grade of 2; a second examiner found root roughness and gave a grade of 3; while the third examiner found supra-gingival calculus, root roughness and subgingival calculus, and gave a grade of 0. One of the expert witnesses who testified was the examiner who graded Petitioner a failing grade of 2 on this procedure. Since he did not actually see subgingival calculus but saw stain and felt the rough tooth, he did not give a zero mark which he would have given had he also seen the subgingival calculus.
The Notice to Appear (Exhibit 4) and the rules sent to the candidates are clear that all subgingival and supra-gingival foreign particles must be removed and a grade of zero is mandatory if the procedure is not completed, which would include removal of all calculus.
The comments on the grade sheets support the grades awarded. Here, two of the three examiners gave Petitioner a failing grade on procedure No. 05 and the fact that only one of the examiners saw the subgingival calculus does not indicate this grade is erroneous. These grades were not very different but merely reflect different degrees of similar conditions as they were observed by the examiners.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
Petitioner has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the grades he was given on this examination were erroneous, Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), that he actually passed the examination and that the respondent arbitrarily and capriciously failed to give him the grades he earned. State ex rel. Glasser v. Pepper, 155 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). This burden, Petitioner has failed to meet.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the grades he recewived on the practical portion of the December, 1983, dental examination were erroneous and that he should have received a passing grade on this portion of the examination. It is
RECOMMENDED the Petition of Douglas E. Kowalczyk be dismissed. ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida.
K. N. AYERS, 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 October, 1984.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Douglas E. Kowalczyk 6237 Rockland Drive
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Fred M. Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Docket for Case No: 84-002285
Orders for Case No: 84-002285
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Oct. 25, 1984 |
Recommended Order
|
Petitioner, applicant for dental license, failed to prove that scoring on his licensing examination was erroneous. His failing score is upheld.
|
