STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
VIRGINIA C. BATES, D.D.S., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-4838
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF )
DENTISTRY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to written notice a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 30, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Rex D. Ware, Esquire
Fuller & Johnson, P.A.
111 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: Chester G. Senf, Esquire
Deputy General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1750
PROCEDURAL STATEMENT
The Petitioner, Dr. Virginia C. Bates, was informed by the Respondent, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry, that she failed to receive a passing grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986 dentistry examination. On or about November 7, 1986, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to contest this determination. At the formal hearing the Petitioner testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Kesha Sharp. The Petitioner also presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Raymond Webber and Dr. Wendell Morrison. Dr. Morrison was proffered as an expert based on his practice of general dentistry, his familiarity with the types of procedures that occur on the Florida Dental Board and his basis to give opinions on those types of procedures without objection. The proffer is hereby accepted. Dr. Webber is hereby accepted as an expert in endodontic dentistry.
The Petitioner also offered 6 exhibits which had been marked as "Petitioner's" exhibits 1, 3-6 and 11. All of the Petitioner's exhibits were accepted into evidence.
The Respondent presented the testimony of Lucinda Richardson and Dr. Theodore Simkin. Ms. Richardson was accepted as an expert in testing and measurement. The Respondent offered 4 exhibits which were marked as "Respondent's" exhibits and accepted into evidence.
The parties also offered one joint exhibit which consisted of models used in the clinical examination and x-rays. They have been placed in a cardboard box marked "Joint" exhibit 1 and have been accepted into evidence.
At the commencement of the formal hearing the Petitioner requested permission to amend the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to include a challenge to the scores she had received on the 1985 dental examination. This request was denied.
Proposed recommended orders were to be filed on or before August 19, 1987.
The Petitioner filed its proposed recommended order on time. The parties subsequently agreed that the Respondent could file its proposed recommended order on August 24, 1987, which the Respondent did.
A ruling on each of the proposed findings of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order or the proposed finding of fact has been accepted or rejected in the Appendix which is attached hereto.
ISSUE
Whether the Petitioner earned a passing grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986 dental examination?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner is a licensed dentist in the State of Louisiana. Her business address is 1006 Surrey Street, Lafayette, LA.
The Petitioner attended Boston University and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1973.
The Petitioner attended MaHerry Medical College and received a dental degree in 1978.
The Petitioner received post-graduate training in dentistry during a residency at Sidham Hospital and received a Post-Graduate Certificate from Sidham Hospital in 1979. The Petitioner has taken approximately 200 hours of post-graduate courses in endodontics.
From 1979 until 1982, the Petitioner practiced dentistry in the Bronx, New York.
In 1982 the Petitioner relocated her practice to Louisiana.
The Petitioner has passed the Northeast Regional Boards and the Louisiana State Board Exam. She is licensed to practice in approximately 20 states in the northeast United States and in Louisiana.
The Petitioner has been an applicant for licensure in dentistry in the State of Florida.
The Petitioner took the June, 1986 Dental Examination.
The Petitioner was notified that she had been awarded an overall score for the clinical portion of the examination of 2.88. A score of 3.00 is the minimum passing score for the clinical portion of the examination.
The Petitioner timely requested a review of her grade, filed objections and timely requested a formal administrative hearing.
The procedures tested during the examination and the Petitioner's scores for the procedures are as follows:
Amalgam Cavity Prep 2.33
Amalgam Final Restoration 2.66
Denture 2.87
Periodontal 3.66
Posterior Endodontics 2.66
Anterior Endodontics 2.00
Cast Class II Only Prep 3.00
Cast Class II Wax-Up 3.33
Pin Amalgam Prep 3.00
Pin Amalgam Final 2.00
Each procedure was graded by 3 different examiners. Each examiner graded a procedure independently.
One of the following grades was assigned to each procedure by each examiner:
- Complete failure;
- Unacceptable Dental Procedure;
- Below Minimal Acceptable Dental Procedure;
- Minimally Acceptable Dental Procedure;
- Better than Minimally Acceptable Dental Procedure;
- Outstanding Dental Procedure.
The procedures were graded in a holistic manner. A failing grade must include a "comment" justifying the grade of the examiner's grade sheets.
The three examiners' grades for a procedure were averaged to determine the score for the procedure. The procedure scores were then individually weighted and the weighted scores were added to provide an overall clinical grade. This overall clinical grade must be at least 3.00 to constitute a passing grade.
Examiners are experienced Florida dentists selected by the Board of Dentistry. They must have at least 5 years of experience as a dentist.
Potential examiners attended a standardization course. The standardization course consisted of 8 to 12 hours of training, including a review of the criteria by which each procedure is required by rule to be judged.
Some of the dentists who took part in the standardization exercise were designated as examiners and some were designated as monitors. Monitors were present during the examination with the candidates. They were instructed not to assist candidates during the examination.
Subsequent to receiving notice that she had not received a passing grade on the June, 1986 examination, the Petitioner challenged the correctness of the scores she received on procedures 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10.
After receiving notice that her license application was being denied because the Petitioner did not receive a passing grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986 dental examination, the Petitioner attended a review session with Dr. Simkin on September 10, 1986. The session was scheduled to last for 30 minutes. The session actually lasted longer than that. The session was recorded with a tape recorder. At the conclusion of the session the tape recorder was turned off. The discussion continued after the tape recorder was turned off, however. In total, the session and the continued discussion lasted for approximately 45 to 50 minutes.
Procedure 1
Procedure 1 is an "Amalgam Cavity Preparation." It involves preparation of a tooth for a filling. This procedure is performed on an actual patient as opposed to a model tooth.
The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 1 awarded the Petitioner the following scores and made the following comments:
Examiner 136 | 3 | Outline form & unsupported enamel |
Examiner 129 | 2 | Unsupported enamel |
Examiner 83 | 2 | Outline form & depth prep. |
The primary problem with the tooth the Petitioner performed procedure
1 on and the reason for the failing grades of two of the graders was the failure of the Petitioner to insure that the amalgam base or floor was in dentin and not enamel. Whether the base or floor of the preparation is dentin can be determined by the color, dullness or feel of the dentin. It cannot be determined by x-rays.
If an amalgam filling rests on enamel instead of dentin, the filling may be more sensitive to the patient, the enamel can crack and/or the filling may also crack. When the cracking of the enamel or filling may occur cannot be predicted.
The Petitioner testified that the depth of the preparation was sufficient and has argued that such a finding is supported by notes which were exchanged between a monitor and the examiners. Petitioner's reliance on the notes which were passed between the monitor and examiners is misplaced. The first note was a note from the Petitioner to the examiners noting conditions she wanted the examiners to be aware of which were unrelated to whether the preparation was into the dentin. The monitor did not "approve" what the Petitioner wrote in her note; the monitor merely noted that the Petitioner had written the note. The other note was a note from one of the examiners to the Petitioner. That note indicated that the Petitioner needed to "lower pulpal floor into dentin." This note is consistent with the examiners' findings. If the note had been followed by the Petitioner and the pulpal floor had been lowered, the patient would have been protected from a potential hazard consistent with the Board's duty to protect patients being used in examinations.
When the monitor instructed the Petitioner to "proceed" the monitor was not actually telling the Petitioner what steps she should take or showing any agreement or disagreement with the examiner's note.
No regrade of procedure 1 is possible because the procedure was performed on a patient. If the grades the Petitioner received for this procedure had been improper, the Petitioner would have to take this portion of the test over.
There is not justification for allowing the Petitioner to take procedure 1 over. The grades the Petitioner received were justified by the comments of the examiners and the difference in the grades of the 3 examiners is insignificant.
Procedure 2
Procedure 2 is an "Amalgam Final Restoration." This procedure involves the filling of the tooth prepared in procedure 1 and the shaping of the surface of the filling to the natural surface of the tooth.
The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 2 awarded the following scores and made the following comments:
Examiner 138 | 2 | Functional anatomy, proximal |
contour & gingival overhang | ||
Examiner 150 | 3 | Functional anatomy |
Examiner 48 | 3 | Functional anatomy & margin |
Although gingival overhang can often be detected with x-rays, it is not always possible to detect with x-rays. In light of the score of 2 given by the examiner which noted "gingival overhang" as one of the examiner's comments, the overhang was probably very slight. It is therefore not unusual that the other two examiners did not note the existence of an overhang. Additionally, a slight gingival overhang could also be noted as "margin." Therefore, it is possible that examiner 48 noted the same problem with the tooth when the comment "margin" was marked that examiner 138 noted when examiner 138 marked the comment "gingival overhang."
This procedure was performed on a patient and therefore could not be reviewed. The comments given by the examiners, however, are sufficient to justify the grades given, especially the failing grade.
The grades the Petitioner received on procedure 2 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no discrepancy in the grades awarded sufficient to order a re-examination of this procedure. No regrade is possible or warranted.
Procedure 5
Procedure 5 is a "Posterior Endodontics." This procedure involved the preparation of a molar tooth for a root canal. The procedure is performed on a model tooth and not on the tooth of a patient.
The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 5 awarded the following scores and made the following comments:
Examiner 133 | 3 | Overextension |
Examiner 129 | 3 | Outline form & overextension |
Examiner 153 | 2 | Outline form, underextension & |
pulp horns removed |
Over extension and outline form can indicate the same problem. According to Dr. Simkin, "As soon as you have pulp horns, you have underextension and the outline form is improper ..."
It is not inconsistent for examiners to determine that a tooth has an overextension and an underextension. Both conditions can occur on the same tooth as a result of the same procedure. The tooth procedure 5 was performed on by the Petitioner did in fact have an overextension, as even Dr. Webber and Dr. Morrison, witnesses of the Petitioner, agreed.
The tooth procedure 5 was performed on by the Petitioner also had pulp horns an underextension.
The Petitioner's performance on procedure 5 was not graded according to an outdated technique. The Petitioner's testimony that she was looking for a possible fourth canal is rejected the area of over extension was too large and it was in the wrong area to be justified by a search for a fourth canal. The evidence also failed to prove that any of the examiners graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 5 according to an outdated technique or that they did not take into account the need to search for a fourth canal.
The grades the Petitioner received on procedure 5 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no significant discrepancy in the grades they awarded. Their comments and grades were supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified.
Procedure 6
Procedure 6 is an "Anterior Endodontics. " This procedure involves the preparation of an anterior, or front, tooth for a root canal. It is performed on a model tooth and not on the tooth of the patient.
The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 6 awarded the following scores and made the following comments:
Examiner | 153 | 2 | Outlining form, underextension, & |
pulp horns removed | |||
Examiner | 129 | 2 | Outline form - too far incisally |
did not remove entire roof of | |||
chamber | |||
Examiner | 133 | 2 | Outline form & gouges |
The tooth that the Petitioner performed procedure 6 on has pulp horns (underextension), is overextended (bevelling of the entrance too severely) and has gouges.
The grades the Petitioner received on procedure 6 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no discrepancy in the grades they awarded. The comments and the grades were supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified.
Procedure 9
Procedure 9 is a "Pin Amalgam Prep." This procedure involves preparation of an ivory model tooth for restoration. The tooth includes an area of damage or decay which is so extensive that a large portion of the tooth must be removed and the amalgam filling must be supported with a pin.
The examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 9 awarded the following scores and made the following comments:
Examiner 153 | 3 | Outlining form & pin placement |
Examiner 109 | 3 | Retention form & unsupported |
enamel | ||
Examiner 133 | 3 | Outline form & pin placement |
Although the Petitioner received a passing grade from all 3 examiners, she contended that she was entitled to a higher score of 4.
The grades the Petitioner received on Procedure 9 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no discrepancy in the grades they awarded. The comments and grades were Supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified.
Procedure 10
Procedure 10 is a "Pin Amalgam Final." This procedure is the final step of the procedure begun in procedure 9. A different model tooth, one already prepared, is used for this procedure.
The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 10 awarded the following scores and made the following comments:
Examiner 153 | 2 | Proximal contour & | margin |
Examiner 129 | 2 | Functional anatomy | & proximal |
contour | |||
Examiner 133 | 2 | Functional anatomy | & proximal |
contour |
Proximal contour involves the shape of the amalgam - it should follow the natural contour of the tooth. In this case, the tooth used by the Petitioner had a ledge area, where food can be trapped, and a slight overhang.
Margin is where the filling meets the tooth. It should be smooth and it was not on the Petitioner's tooth.
Functional anatomy primarily involves the occlusal portion of the tooth. The Petitioner failed to build up the lingual cusp, which was the cusp that had been removed.
The grades the Petitioner received on Procedure 9 were justified by the comments of the graders and there was no discrepancy in the grades they awarded or their comments. The comments and grades were supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.).
Section 466.006, Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), provides the requirements which must be met in order for a person to be licensed in the State of Florida as a dentist. In pertinent part, Section 466.006(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), requires the following:
(b) A practical or clinical examination, which shall be administered and graded by dentists licensed in this state and employed by the department for just such
purpose ....
Chapter 21G-2, Florida Administrative Code, provides the manner in which the clinical examination is to be administered and specifies the criteria which are to be applied in grading candidates.
The Petitioner had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence that the grades she received were erroneous, that she actually passed the examination and that the Respondent arbitrarily and capriciously failed to give her the grades she was entitled to. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 390 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Glaser v. Pepper, 155 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
The evidence presented in this case proved that the Respondent administered the clinical portion of the June, 1986, dental examination fairly and in accordance with the applicable statutory and rule provisions governing such an examination. The evidence also proved that the grades awarded the Petitioner were not erroneous, that she did not pass the examination and that the Respondent did not arbitrarily and capriciously fail to give her the grades she believes she is entitled to.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry issue a final order concluding that
the Petitioner's grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986, dental examination was a failing grade.
DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
Hearing Officer
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 2nd day of September, 1987.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4838
The parties have timely filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed finding of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted.
Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact
Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection
1 1-7.
4 and 7.
This proposed finding of fact is generally irrelevant. The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner successfully passed an examination. It is accepted, however, to the extent that it is relevant as to the weight which should be given to the Petitioner's testimony.
The first two sentences are accepted in 9, 11 and 12 except to the extent that the proposed findings of fact pertain to the December, 1985 examination. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant. The
time for challenging the results of the December, 1985 examination had passed at the time of this proceeding and the Petitioner did not attempt to amend its Petition until the formal hearing had commenced.
5 12 and 14.
6 13-15.
7 10.
8-9 These proposed "findings of fact" are statements of issues or argument and not findings of fact. To the extent that any finding of fact is suggested, it is not Supported by the weight of the evidence.
10 12 and 19.
This proposed finding of fact is irrelevant. See the discussion of proposed finding of fact 3, supra.
20. The Petitioner's score of 2.88 was not an "alleged" score and more than 30 minutes of the review session was recorded.
13-15 Irrelevant, unnecessary or not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence.
18-20 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Irrelevant.
The first 3 sentences are accepted in
21 and 22. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Irrelevant.
25. The monitor did not indicate agreement with the Petitioner's note.
The monitor did take the note and the patient to where an examiner looked at the patient and an examiner did give a note to the monitor. See 25. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
26 22.
Not supported by the weight of the evidence.
The first sentence is accepted in 25. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Not supported by the weight of the evidence.
30 27.
Not supported by the weight of the evidence.
The first 3 sentences are hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
29 and 30. The last sentence is irrelevant.
34-35 Not supported by the weight of the
evidence.
The first sentence is accepted in 33. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Irrelevant and too broad.
The first sentence is accepted in 34. The fourth and fifth sentences are accepted in 35. The rest of the proposed facts are not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence.
The first two sentences are accepted in 40 and 41. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
42 44.
43 The first sentence is accepted in 45. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
44 48.
45 The first sentence is accepted in 49. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
46-47 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
1 | 8-11. | |
2 | 12. | |
3 | 13 and 16-17. | |
4 | 18. | |
5-8 | Hereby accepted. | |
9 | 13-14. | |
10 | 15. | |
11 | 19. | |
12-14 | Unnecessary. Irrelevant. | Argument. |
15 | 21. | |
16 | 22. | |
17-19 | Summary Of testimony. See | 23-28. |
20 | 29. | |
21 | 30. | |
22-25 | Summary of testimony. See | 31-33. |
26 | 34. | |
27 | 35-36. | |
28-29 | 35. | |
30 | Summary of testimony. See | 36-39. |
31 | 40. | |
32 | 41. | |
33-34 | Summary of testimony. See | 42-43. |
35 | 44. |
36 45.
37 Summary Of testimony. See 46-47.
38 48.
39 49.
40 Summary of testimony. See 50-53.
41-43 Unnecessary. Argument as to the weight of the evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry
Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Building
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Van Poole, Secretary
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Joseph Sole, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Chester G. Senf, Esquire Deputy General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida. 0750
Rex D. Ware, Esquire Fuller & Johnson, P.A. Ill North Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
BOARD OF DENTISTRY
VIRGINIA C. BATES, D.D.S.,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NUMBER 86-4838
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF DENTISTRY,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Dentistry pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on November 7, 1987, in Key West, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached as exhibit A) in the case of Virginia C. Bates, D.D.S., vs. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry, Case Number 86-4838. At the Hearing, Petitioner appeared in her own behalf. Respondent was represented by Chester G. Senf, Esquire, Petitioner filed Exceptions to Recommended Order and In The Alternative Motion for Remand. The Board considered Petitioner's exceptions and makes the following rulings.
RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
Petitioner's general exception is rejection. Dr. Simkin's qualifications were admitted into evidence and no objection was made to his opinion testimony as an expert. Therefore, any objection regarding his ability to testify as an expert has been waived. Further, the examiners, who had undergone a standardization exercise to insure the validity of their grading, determined that the endodontic procedures were inadequate.
Exception number one is rejected. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, specifically Dr. Simkin's testimony appearing in the transcript on pages 152 through 159, 209 through 212, 232, 235, 237 and 239 as well as Petitioner's Exhibit 5.
Exception number two is rejected. Judgment regarding the credibility of the witnesses is solely within the purview of the Hearing Officer. There is competent substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's findings of fact from which Petitioner takes exception, specifically Dr. Simkin's testimony appearing in the transcript at pages 160 through 163 and the grading notes of the examiners for procedure number two, final amalgam restoration. That portion of the exception dealing with Dr. Simkin's status as an expert witness has been dealt with in the ruling on the general exception in paragraph one above.
Exception number three is rejected. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence through the testimony of Dr. Simkin which appears in the transcript at pages 164 through 170, 179, 220 through 221 and 232. Further support is found in the grade sheets of the examiners.
Exception number four is rejected. The Hearing Officers findings of fact are based upon competent substantial evidence, specifically Dr. Simkin's testimony which appears on page 169 of the transcript, regarding an over- extention consisting of beveling too severely at the entrance on the endodontic procedure. The Hearing Officer is also supported by the examiners' grade sheets which are closely aligned in their conclusions regarding the procedure.
Further, judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses is within the sole purview of the Hearing Officer.
Exception number five is rejected. Judgment of the credibility of the witnesses is within the sole purview of the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence, specifically the testimony of Dr. Simkin appearing in the transcript at pages
170 through 178.
Exception number six is rejected. Judgment regarding the credibility of the witnesses is within the sole purview of the Hearing Officer. There was competent substantial evidence upon which the Hearing Officer based his findings of fact, specifically Dr. Simkin's testimony appearing in the transcript on pages 175 through 176, as well as the examiners' grading sheets regarding their judgment of this procedure.
The final exception is rejected. This exception consist primarily of the summary of the general exception previously noted and consists arguments regarding credibility of the witness. Judgment regarding the credibility of the witness the sole purview of the Hearing Officer.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, exceptions filed by Petitioner and having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Board makes the following findings of fact:
The Hearing Officer's findings of fact are approved and adopted and incorporated herein by reference with the exception that paragraph 45 which refers to examiner 109 is corrected to read examiner 129 as reflected in the grading sheets of the examiner; paragraph 53 which refers to procedure number nine is amended to procedure ten. These changes are required due to apparent typographical errors in the Recommended Order,
There is competent substantial evidence to support the Board's findings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Hearing Officer's conclusions of law are approved and adopted and are incorporated herein by reference.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusions.
The Board approves and adopts the Hearing Officer's recommendation that Petitioner's grade on the clinical portion of June, 1956 dental examination was a failing grade.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that petitioner received a failing grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986 dental examination. This order becomes effective upon being filed with the 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 the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty days of the date this order is filed.
DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of January 1988.
Robert T. Ferris, D.D.S., Ph.D. Chairman
Board of Dentistry
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been forwarded by Certified United States Mail this 4th day of February, 1988, to Dr. Virginia Bates, 1006 Surrey Street, Lafayette, Louisiana 70501; Rex Ware, Esquire, Fuller and Johnson, Post Office Box 1739, Tallahassee, Florida 32302; and by hand delivery to Chester G. Senf, Esquire, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Professional Regulation, 130 North Monroe, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750.
William Buckhalt, C.P.M. Executive Director Board of Dentistry
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 (904) 488-6015
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 02, 1987 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2003). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 25, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 02, 1987 | Recommended Order | Petitioner failed to prove she earned passing grade on dental exam. |
