_— . Mal 05 : MAY-@2-2085 16:88 AHCA/LEGAL MEDICAL y 2% ‘Soa aia 1989 P.@2 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, . ' OG -\W OY al | PETITIONER, Ve. CASE NUMBER. 2003-05977 ROBERT FISH, D.D.S., RESPONDENT. _ a ee ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT —— COMES NOW, Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Dentistry against the Respondent, Robert Fish, D.D,S., and in support thereof alleges: 1. Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of Dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, 2. Atall times material to this Complaint, Respondent was @ licensed dentist within the Slate of Florida, having been issued license number DN 5694. May 2 2005 15:58 a5a 414 1989 P.@3 MAY-@2-2885 16:48 AHCA/LEGAL MEDICAL 3, Respondent's last known address of record is 7737 North University Drive, Ste. 100, Tamarac, Florida 33321. 4. The Respondent provided dental care and treatment to Patient N.D. as 4 reguiar patient from March 14, 2002, to on or about February 20, 2003, 5, The Respondent had advised Patient N.D. she would need complete top dentures. Respondent informed Patient N.D. that he would be able to correctly fit her with a full upper denture. Patient N.D. agreed with this plan. 6. On or about May 14, 2002, the Respondent fitted and placed a full upper set of dentures (“set one”), Patient N.D. began to complain almost immediately that the dentures “rocked from side to side” and continually fell out when Patient N.D. moved about. 7. Upon clinical exam of Patient N.D.’s mouth it was found that tissue attachments extend onto the ridgc, decreasing non-mavable space to support a denture. Patient N.D. reported that Respondent never presented the option of pre-prosthetic surgery to remove excess tissue attachments to make denture fitting more secure. The minimum standards of dental performance require a dentist to Sa TT ET PT ee May 2 2005 15:58 MaY-g2-2085 16:41 AHCA/LEGAL MEDICAL 652 414 1989 P.84 diagnose and plan for optimal prosthetic fittings, which include this type of pre-prosthetic surgery under these conditions. 8. In May of 2002, Patient N.D. went to two subsequent. dentists and was advised by both that the denture fitted by the Respondent was improperly fitted and neefied to be replaced, Patient N.D. demanded that the Respondent redo the deficient dentures. 9. The Respondent made and fitted a second set of dentures tor Patient N.D., beginning In September 2002 (‘set two”). Patient N.D. then complained the second set of dentures were worse fitting than the first, and caused sores and pain in her mouth due to the excess movement. 410. Patient N.D. returned ta Respondent’s office on or about February 20, 2003, for the final "try on” of the second set of dentures prepared by the Respondent. Patient N.D. expressed discomfort at the fit of those dentures. At that time, Respondent then told her she would need 3 bottom teeth replaced to make the dentures fit right. Patient N.D. reported that the Respondent gave her the dentures and said, “Here put these in (and leave).” May 2 2005 15:59 MAY-G2-2885 16:41 AHCA/LEGAL MEDICAL 5a 414 1989 P.@5 43. An agency expert performed a dinical examination of Patient N.D. in which the first and second set of dentures were placed in Pationt N.D.'s mouth and examined. Denture set one was found to be deficient in that it fit improperly by rocking from side to side and fell out of place when Patient N.D. moved her cheeks. The denture also has a trough or depression In the palate area which serves no known function and contributes to a faulty design. Denture set two is. over extended, rocks from side to side and falls out of place when Patient N.D. moves her mouth. Denture set two causes pain to Patient N.D. when it ts worn and has the same faulty design as set one. 42. The Respondent did not replace the defective dentures, or offer to reimburse Paticnt N.D. the expense of the dentures 50 she could seek a subsequent prosthodontist. 13, Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2001, 2002), states that being gullty of incompetence or negligence 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 undertaking of MAY-@2-2285 16:61 AHCA/LEGAL MEDICAL May 2 2005 15:59 " diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist Is not qualified by training or experience or being guilty of dental malpractice, shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 14. The Respondent was negligent and failed to meet minimum standards of dental performance by making two deficient sets of dentures and then attempting to improperly fit those dentures in Patient N.D.’s mouth without diagnosing and performing all appropriate procedures which would have contributed to a more optimal fit of upper dentures. The Respondent prepared substandard, unacceptable dentures for Patient N.D. 15. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1Xx), Florida Statutes (2001, 2002), by being guilty of incompetence or negligence 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 undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or experience or being guilty of dental maipractice. e5@ 414 1989 P.26 May 2 2005 15:59 MAY-22-2085 16:42 AHCA/LEGAL MEDICAL 952 414 19989 P.a? WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Dentistry enter an order imposing one or marc of the following penalties: revocation or suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, corrective action, refund of fees billed or collected, remedial education and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED this dh day of feb, 2004. John O, Agwunobi, M.D., M.B.A. Secretary, Department of Hi Wayne Assistant General Counsel DOH Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar #869414 (850) 414-8126/FAX: 488-1855 Reviewed and approved by: DetAinitials) ifes | o'Y(date) pcp: 2/9/o¥ PCP Members: 44 Ww, CM DOH vs. Robert Fish, D.D.$. Case No. 2003-05977 May 2 2005 16:00 850 414 1989 P.@8 MAY-@2-2085 16:42 AHCA/LEGAL MEDICAL NOTICE OF RIGHTS Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to present evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a hearing is requested. NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS Respondent is placed on notice that petitioner has Incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant to Section 456,072(4), Florida Statutes, the Board shall assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of a disciplinary matter, which may include attorney hours and costs, on the Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed. DOH vs. Robert Fish, D.D.S., Case Wo, 2003-05977

Docket for Case No: 05-001604PL