STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION (BOARD OF DENTISTRY), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) DOAH CASE NO. 86-3538
) (DPR # 0062744)
BRUCE LARRICK, D.D.S., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on May 4 and May 15, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:
For Petitioner: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire, and
Phillip B. Miller, Esquire Robert D. Newell, Jr., P.A.
102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Bill Salmon, Esquire
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1095 Gainesville, Florida 32602
ISSUES AND INTRODUCTION
This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent provided dental treatment which was below minimum acceptable standards of performance.
At the hearing, the Petitioner called Charlene Willoughby and Richard J. Chichetti, D.D.S., as witnesses. The Respondent called Victoria Osborn and Stewart Dropkin, D.D.S., as witnesses and also testified on his own behalf.
Both parties also offered documentary exhibits and transcripts of deposition testimony. A transcript of the hearing was filed on June 16, 1987, and the parties were allowed until July 31, 1987, (subsequently extended) within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders on August 3, 1987, and the despondent filed an amended proposed recommended order on August 4, 1987. On August 3 and 4, 1987, the Respondent also filed separate documents specifically addressed to the issues raised by the Respondent's motion to dismiss.
The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on all
findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent, Bruce Larrick, D. D.S., whose license number is DN0007282, was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida on August 26, 1977, and has been so licensed from that date until the present time.
Respondent provided dental, services to a Mr. Quinton G. Anglin during the time period of February to April of 1985. The Respondent first saw and examined Mr. Anglin on February 20, 1985. Prior to the examination, all of Mr. Anglin's teeth were cleaned. The Respondent's examination of Mr. Anglin included radiographs, visual, and tactile techniques. The Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin consisted of bonding the facial surfaces of Mr. Anglin's six upper front teeth, also known as teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Bonding is a type of restorative dentistry which consists of mechanically bonding a coat of plastic to the tooth surface and then chemically bonding a composite material to that coat of plastic. Bonding is a part of the general practice of dentistry and is not recognized as a specialty in dentistry.
As a result of problems he was experiencing with the bonding and because of an inability to get in touch with the Respondent, Mr. Anglin filed a complaint against the Respondent. The ultimate facts alleged in Mr. Anglin's uniform complaint form included the following:
Dr. Larrick bonded several teeth for me during March and April. The last tooth he bonded was not bonded well and the bonding came off.
Dr. Larrick rebonded the tooth. Bonding came off once again.
The problem I now have is: (1) I have an upper right canine tooth that has been ground down and the bond has come off. Prior to this I only had a small cavity. (2) I have a right upper incisor on which the bond material
was ground down so thin that when something touches the front surface it is quite painful
On January 15, 1986, Richard Chichetti, D.D.S., examined Mr. Anglin to evaluate the six restorations performed by the Respondent. The examination lasted approximately thirty minutes. Dr. Chichetti did not examine tooth number 9, because that tooth had been further restored by another dentist subsequent to the restoration work done by the Respondent.
Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin's upper front teeth consisted of taking x-rays, a physical examination and inspection using a mouth mirror and explorer, photographs of the teeth, and study models of the teeth. Dr. Chichetti looked at each tooth and observed whether any areas on each tooth indicated the presence of decay. He then used the explorer to tactilely examine the surfaces of the teeth where he suspected decay to be and to confirm the presence of decay.
Decay is readily distinguishable from stain when the tip of the explorer comes into contact with the tooth surface. Dr. Chichetti found only a small amount of plaque and materia alba and found no calculus on Mr. Anglin's
teeth. Therefore, it was not necessary to clean Mr. Anglin's six upper front teeth in order to determine if decay was present.
At the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin, teeth numbers 6, 7, S, and 10, each had bonding on the facial side and recurrent decay on the lingual side. Tooth number 8 had a ledge present at the margin of the veneer closest to the gum line. A ledge exists when the veneer is not smooth and confluent with the tooth surface.
At the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin, tooth number
11 no longer had the bonding restoration performed by the Respondent. A large carious lesion was present on the visible portion of the tooth and extended into the enamel and dentin.
There are two broad categories of decay known as acute decay and chronic decay. Chronic decay is decay that has progressed at a very slow rate as compared to acute decay. Chronic decay may take place over a period of several years. A chronic carious lesion is darker in color than acute decay and has a firm and leathery texture as compared to the softer texture of acute decay. It is not possible to determine the exact date on which a chronic carious lesion began, nor is it possible to determine the exact rate of decay of such a lesion. Nevertheless, by observation of a chronic carious lesion it is possible to determine that the lesion has been present and detectable for at least a specific period of time.
The carious lesion on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 had a relatively hard texture and a dark brown color, both of which are consistent with chronic decay. Sclerotic dentin was also present on tooth number 11, which is indicative of the presence of a long-term carious lesion. The decay present on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination was chronic in nature. That decay was present and detectable at the time of the Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin.
The Respondent used Dycal in connection with the bonding performed on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. Dycal is a product used in areas of deep decay to provide insulation between the bonding material and the pulp of the tooth. The use of Dycal by Respondent corroborates the conclusion that decay was present when the Respondent bonded Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. The fact that the bonding came off of Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 shortly after the Respondent's treatment of that tooth also corroborates the conclusion that decay was present when the bonding was performed on that tooth, because a tooth surface of a carious nature precludes long-term retention of the bonding material.
By bonding over a carious lesion present on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance.
The recurrent decay observed by Dr. Chichetti on Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10, also constituted chronic decay. The chronic carious lesions on the lingual sides of those teeth were similar in color and texture to the lesion on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. The chronic carious lesions on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 were present and detectable at the time of the Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin.
By leaving carious lesions untreated on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10, while placing bonding restorations on
the facial surfaces of those teeth, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. This failure to treat the lesions on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 would be consistent with acceptable practice, if the patient refused treatment after full disclosure, and if the diagnosis, disclosure, and refusal of treatment were all documented in the patient's record. There was no such disclosure and refusal, nor is any such disclosure and refusal contained in the Respondent's records of his treatment of Mr. Anglin.
Dr. Chichetti detected a ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 by using the tip of an explorer. Due to its location, the ledge was not readily visible and it did not appear on the x-rays or on the study model. The ledge was the result of a failure to properly feather or smooth the edge of the bonding material so as to cause it to meet the existing tooth structure in a smooth and confluent manner. The ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 resulted from the application of bonding material by the Respondent.
The ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 was not causing any significant problem at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination. Specifically, there was no plaque or inflammation in the area of the ledge at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination. Nevertheless, it had the potential of becoming a significant problem with the passage of time. The presence of a ledge can lead to an accumulation of plaque which can invoke an inflammatory response in the gingival tissue and lead to periodontal disease. By leaving the ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Sec. 120.57, Fla. Stat.
The Respondent asserts that the Administrative Complaint in this case should be dismissed as insufficient for several reasons. It is first argued that the uniform complaint form filed by Mr. Anglin is a legally insufficient basis for investigation and prosecution. In this regard, attention must be directed to Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part:
The department shall cause to be investigated any complaint which is filed before it if the complaint is in writing, signed by the complainant, and legally sufficient. A com- plaint is legally sufficient if it contains ultimate facts which show that a violation of this chapter, of any of the practice acts relating to the professions regulated by the department, or of any rule promulgated by the department or a regulatory board in the department has occurred.
Section 466.028(1)(y) , Florida Statutes (1985) provides that the following constitutes grounds for disciplinary action:
Being guilty of incompetence 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 under- taking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or experience.
The uniform complaint form filed by Mr. Anglin was in writing, was signed by Mr. Anglin, and alleged several ultimate facts which, if true, would show a violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1985). (See paragraph 4 of the findings of fact, above.) Accordingly, the uniform complaint form in this case was legally sufficient.
The Respondent also sought dismissal of the Administrative Complaint based on a release agreement signed by Mr. Anglin which includes an expression of a desire to withdraw his complaint against the Respondent. The release agreement does not provide grounds for dismissal of the Administrative Complaint, because Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, also provides that:
the department may investigate or continue to investigate, and the department and the appropriate regulatory board may take approp- riate final action on, a complaint even though the original complainant withdraws his complaint or otherwise indicates his desire not to cause it to be investigated or prose- cuted to completion.
The Respondent also urges dismissal of the Administrative Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The basis for this contention is that Paragraph 6 of the Administrative Complaint refers to "Ms." Anglin, rather than to "Mr." Anglin. This obvious misreference is a harmless typographical error and does not constitute grounds for dismissing the Administrative Complaint. See Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Royce S. McCall, 7 FALR 4308, 4314 (1985). As noted in Renbur Drugs, Inc. v. Fla. Bd. of Pharmacy, 249 So.2d 698, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971):
Technical niceties based upon obvious mistakes and misreferences which do not mislead or result in manifest unfairness are not grounds under our authorities for over- turning administrative determinations.
It is clear from the Administrative Complaint that the basis for the complaint consists of treatment provided to Quinton Anglin and there is no evidence which shows that the reference to "Ms." Anglin caused the Respondent to be misled or confused as to the meaning of the Administrative Complaint. Accordingly, the reference in the Administrative Complaint to "Ms." Anglin is not grounds for dismissal.
There is a great deal of conflicting testimony in this case, including conflicts in the opinions' of the experts and conflicts in the testimony regarding the so-called "ordinary" facts. However, once the conflicts in the testimony are resolved, there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent, in his treatment of Mr. Quinton Anglin, failed to meet the minimum
standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment within the meaning of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1985), (quoted above) by:
Bonding over decay which was present on
the facial surface of Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11;
Failing to treat carious lesions on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 while performing bonding on the facial surfaces of those teeth; and,
Leaving a ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8, which was created by the bonding material on that tooth.
The Petitioner has argued that the penalty in this case should include a fine in the amount of $3,000.00. In support of this recommendation, the Petitioner cites the disciplinary guidelines contained in Rule 21G-13.005, Florida Administrative Code. That rule appears to be an implementation of the 1986 version of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, which includes, at Section 466.028(2)(c), authorization for imposing an administrative fine" . . . not to exceed $3,000 for each count or separate offense." However, the 1985 version of the statutes, which was in effect at the time of the treatment in this case, provides for an administrative fine ". . . not to exceed $1,000 for each count or separate offense." See Sec. 466.028(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1985). In view of the language of the 1985 version of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, the fine in this case should not exceed $1,000.00.
Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order finding the Respondent to be in violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1985), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is also recommended that the following penalties be imposed on the Respondent:
That the Respondent's license to practice dentistry be reprimanded;
That an administrative fine of $1,000.00 be imposed; and,
That the Respondent's license to practice dentistry be placed on probation for a period of 12 months under such conditions as the Board may specify
DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida.
Michael M. Parrish, Hearing Office Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January 1988.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-3538
The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. The references to paragraph numbers are to the numbers of the paragraphs in the parties' proposed findings of fact.
Findings submitted by Petitioner:
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted.
Paragraph 4: First two sentences accepted. Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.
Paragraph 5: Accepted.
Paragraph 6: First sentence rejected as constituting a comment on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted.
Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted.
Paragraph 11: First sentence. is accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as constituting argument about the evidence rather than proposed findings of fact. (This rejection does not purport to pass upon the merits of the argument; it merely excludes the text of the argument from the findings of fact.)
Paragraphs 12 and 13: Accepted.
Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting a subordinate and unnecessary conclusion that does not necessary follow from the facts.
Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting commentary and argument about the evidence, rather than a proposed finding of fact. (This rejection does not purport to pass upon the merits of the argument.)
Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20: Accepted. Findings submitted by Respondent:
Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting unnecessary and subordinate details.
Paragraph 2: Rejected as irrelevant observation about the state of the record.
Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted.
Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and irrelevant details.
Paragraph 11: Rejected. Depending on how the paragraph is interpreted, it is either irrelevant or contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 12: First sentence rejected as irrelevant. Second sentence rejected as constituting an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 13: First two sentences rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as constituting an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.
Paragraph 15: Rejected as irrelevant and/or as constituting subordinate details.
Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting argument about the state of the record, rather than a proposed finding about the condition of the teeth.
Paragraphs 17, 18, and 19: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraphs 20 and 21: Rejected as argument about the state of the record and, in any event, as constituting irrelevant details. Portions of paragraph 20 are also contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 22: Rejected as subordinate and irrelevant details.
Paragraph 23: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact.
Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 25: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 26: First sentence rejected as unnecessary reiteration of a portion of the Administrative Complaint. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance, with unnecessary subordinate details deleted.
Paragraph 27: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as consisting of an inference contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 31: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 32: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33: Accepted.
Paragraphs 34 and 35: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 36 and 37: Accepted.
Paragraph 38: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 39: First sentence is accepted. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 46: First sentence is rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a proposed finding. Second and third sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The fourth sentence is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 47: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 48: The first sentence is rejected as incomplete and, therefore, unintelligible. Second sentence is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 49: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 50: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 51: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence.
Paragraph 52: Rejected as irrelevant because there is no persuasive evidence that the patient did as suggested in this paragraph.
Paragraph 53: Rejected as irrelevant due to insufficient evidence regarding Dr. Morton's charting and treatment.
Paragraph 54: Accepted.
Paragraphs 55, 56, and 57: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 58: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 59: Rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 60: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details.
Paragraph 61: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate details; also rejected as suggesting inferences not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 62: Rejected because the opinion contained in this paragraph is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 63: Rejected as irrelevant in light of the totality of the evidence, especially the witness's other statements on this subject.
Paragraphs 64 and 65: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Phillip B. Miller, Esquire Robert D. Newell, Jr., P.A.
102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Bill Salmon, Esquire Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1095 Gainesville, Florida 32602
William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel
Dept. of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF DENTISTRY
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 86-3538
LICENSE NO. DN0007282
BRUCE LARRICK, D.D.S.,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Dentistry pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on July 23, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) in the case of Department of Professional Regulation v. Bruce Larrick, D.D.S., Case No. 86-3538. At the hearing, Petitioner was represented by Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire. Respondent was present and appeared in his own behalf.
By motion served on February 9, 1988, Respondent, through counsel Bill Salmon, requested an extension of time to file exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. With no objection by Petitioner, an extension to March 20, 1988, was granted by the Chairman of the Board on February 9, 1988. On March 18, 1988, Respondent served a motion to extend time to file exceptions and alleged that Mr. Salmon had notified him on March 16, 1988, that he was withdrawing as counsel. Respondent requested a ninety day delay of the case to
obtain new counsel. On March 21, 1988, Respondent's counsel, Bill Salmon, filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. On April 15, 1988, Mr.
Salmon served a motion to withdraw as Counsel. By letter dated April 16, 1988, Respondent notified counsel for Petitioner, Mr. Robert D. Newell, Jr., that, among other things, he was no longer represented by Mr. Salmon and that the exceptions prepared by Mr. Salmon were prepared and filed without authorization and were not in Respondent's best interest. The Board was notified of this letter by its having been copied to Board Counsel. On April 21, 1988, an oral request for continuance and other relief was made by Mr. Salmon, agreed to by Petitioner and submitted through Board Counsel to the Chairman of the Board.
The oral motion was granted subject to the written motion being furnished immediately, and subject to the written motion meeting the following conditions: that the motion set forth a date certain of May 20, 1988, for filing Respondent's exceptions; that Respondent personally authorize the motion by signing it; that Respondent affirmatively waive the requirement that final orders be issued within ninety days of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order; and that Respondent affirmatively state that he understands that no further continuance would be granted. The written motion in compliance with this ruling was received on April 22, 1988, the ruling confirmed and the parties so notified. Mr. Salmon's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record was granted on April 22, 1988. The rulings so stated in this final order are hereby affirmed and adopted by the Board. On May 23, 1988, Exceptions to Recommended Order prepared by Respondent were received by Board Counsel through hand delivery.
Without objection, these exceptions and Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions were considered by the Board at hearing. Copies of Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order and Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibits B and C.
RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent's exceptions set forth in numbered paragraphs one, two and three are rejected. The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph twelve of the Recommended Order are based upon competent substantial evidence as cited in Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions, which is hereby adopted by the Board.
Respondent's exceptions four and five to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact set forth in paragraphs seven and thirty-eight of the Recommended Order are hereby rejected. The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact were supported by competent substantial evidence, specifically the testimony of Dr. Richard Chichetti as well as the record citation set forth in Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions. Further, the Hearing Office's ruling of irrelevancy regarding Dr. Larrick's contention that cleaning the six upper front teeth was necessary to determine decay, is hereby confirmed.
Respondent's exceptions numbers six, seven, eight and nine are rejected. There is competent substantial evidence upon which the Hearing Officer based his Findings of Fact as supported by record citations in Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions, which is hereby adopted by the Board.
Respondent's exception number 10 is hereby rejected. The Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact was based upon competent substantial evidence, specifically the testimony of Dr. Richard Chicetti as well as record citations
set forth in Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions, which is hereby adopted by the Board.
Respondent's exceptions numbered 11 thru 35 to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are rejected. The Hearing Officer was supported by competent substantial evidence as supported by record citations in Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions, which is hereby adopted by the Board.
Respondent's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law are hereby rejected. The Hearing Officer's conclusions of law were supported by the evidence and the law as cited in Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Second Set of Exceptions, which are hereby adopted by the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Hearing Officer's findings of fact are approved and adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
There is competent substantial evidence to support the Board's findings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this cause pursuant to Section 120.57 and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes.
The Hearing Officer's conclusions of law are approved and adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
There is competent substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusions.
The Board rejects the Hearing Officer's recommendation that Respondent's license to practice dentistry be reprimanded and that he be fined
$1,000 and placed on probation for a period of twelve months under such conditions as the Board may specify. The record reflects that Respondent failed to achieve minimum standards of practice in diagnostic techniques, the most basic of which is the use of instruments and tactile sensation to determine the presence of decay. Respondent's inability to distinguish decay in this most basic fashion, especially in light of his inability to determine the presence of decay with further diagnostic tests, establishes gross incompetence in basic diagnosis and treatment. Accordingly, protection of the public demands that Respondent undergo remedial training to assure minimum standards of practice.
WHEREFORE, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent violated Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by having bonded over decay which was present on the facial surface of patient Anglin's tooth number eleven; by failing to treat carious lesions on the lingal surfaces of patient Anglin's teeth numbers six, seven, eight, and ten while performing bonding on the facial surfaces of those teeth; and by leaving a ledge on patient Anglin's tooth number eight which was created by the bonding material on that tooth. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 and shall be suspended for a period of six months. At the end of six months suspension, Respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of two years. As a condition of probation, Respondent shall successfully complete by the end of his two years of probation, the two-year course presented by the University of Florida, College of Dentistry, entitled
"Comprehensive Program in General Dentistry," which is directed by Dr. Frank Collins. Upon Respondent's having submitted proof to the Board Office of his successful completion of this program, the Chairman of the Board is authorized to release Respondent from probation prior to the two year period having run. Respondent shall begin the required course within the first year of his probational period. Failure to successfully complete the required program within the two-year probational period shall be considered a violation of Respondent's probation. This order becomes effective upon being filed with Board Clerk.
The parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this order by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation and by filing a filing fee and one copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty days of the date this order is filed.
DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of October, 1988.
ROBERT T. FERRIS, D.D.S, PH.D.
Chairman
Board of Dentistry
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 21, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 14, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 21, 1988 | Recommended Order | Evidence establishes several violations of 466.028(1)(y). Appropriate penalty is $1000 fine and 1 year probation |
